Quantum computing/black hole physics...

Ali Cat

So I was thinking about this new big news about black holes releasing information--previously thought to be lost after passing the event horizan--in some highly proccessed form and it got me thinking about black hole physics, again , and I was wondering where information would be stored in a black hole in each of the different models. So I thought it would be interesting if people posted which their pefered model of black holes is and supported this with an argument coming from the information proccessing angle....

paddyc

you measure the bending of the light i a black hole and that will give you all the information.

either that or go to Cullybackey out side Ballymean and get info off people there ... its a black hole as well

planck2

Ali Cat wrote:

So I was thinking about this new big news about black holes releasing information--previously thought to be lost after passing the event horizan--in some highly proccessed form and it got me thinking about black hole physics, again , and I was wondering where information would be stored in a black hole in each of the different models. So I thought it would be interesting if people posted which their pefered model of black holes is and supported this with an argument coming from the information proccessing angle....

To start with, you raise quite an interesting idea. However this thread is unlikely to go any where. the majority of posters in this section would know little of the detailed mathemathics to understand black holes to start with, black holes are tricky things to visualise and play with mentally and last off all the idea that black holes act like quantum computers is quite young and I'm not sure how much has been written on the subject. black holes are vast processors of information of that there is no doubt, but it is doubtful that humans would be able to build computers with the ability to process that amount of information and at that speed. Then in regard to black holes you've to deal with event horizons and reference frames etc. And by the how can someone have a favourite black hole. all are equally worthy of further study

paddyc

your name just out of interest wouldnt be tom ??

Ali Cat

planck2 wrote:

To start with, you raise quite an interesting idea. However this thread is unlikely to go any where. the majority of posters in this section would know little of the detailed mathemathics to understand black holes to start with, black holes are tricky things to visualise and play with mentally and last off all the idea that black holes act like quantum computers is quite young and I'm not sure how much has been written on the subject. black holes are vast processors of information of that there is no doubt, but it is doubtful that humans would be able to build computers with the ability to process that amount of information and at that speed. Then in regard to black holes you've to deal with event horizons and reference frames etc. And by the how can someone have a favourite black hole. all are equally worthy of further study

Though I am glad that someone has made an informed post on this thread I would like to address a number of your points...Firstly, I don't expect everyone to grasp black hole physics right down to the last equation, my post does not require such. Also it is precisely because this theory is new and exciting that there is quite a bit being written about it at the moment. I wasn't suggesting that we might ever be capable of building a black-hole like quantum computer, I was more talking about the way that everything 'computes' by processing information during the course of its existence. Finally I was not suggesting that anyone chose a favourite black hole but rather black hole theory....Perhaps you ought to have read my original post a little more closely...

John

I didn't even know there were enough theories to pick a favourite

planck2

There isn't that many black hole theories out there. I can name a few, Schwarzchild, Kerr, Kruskal Extension, Hawking Radiation. To the public a black hole is something which happens when a really massive star dies, they won't know too much about the individual theories after that. Im sorry for being a grouch, but unless we can talk about black ho;le physics there is no point in having this thread

Ali Cat

well then perhaps we should talk about black hole physics, since you seem to be the only one responding anyway and sound reasonably well informed...

planck2

yes, perhaps we should. do you think the information contained in the Hawking radiation is lost forever when black holes begin to evaporate?

Ali Cat

Well that's just what this new theory--well not actually new, but only having had information to back it up recently I call it such-- is about, isn't it? the idea that rather than just being expelled randomly the enery is actually a highly processed form of what fell in. I think the major problem is decoding it, if you will.

Son Goku

I don't know.
We still don't know how much can be done with this "information" that escapes from the hole.
All we know now is that Hawking Radiation is indicative of what fell into the hole, i.e. by analysing the Hawking Radiation we might deduce what the angular momentum, for instance, was of a particle that fell in.

Ali Cat

I don't think it's all that important what we can deduce from the imformation expelled, just that it's there which means that (so far) we're on the right track with preservation of information theories...

Son Goku

But we don't know if we are on the right track with this theory unless we can study the Hawking Radiation from the Hole.
Anthoer thing is that this conclusion follows from the interpretation of Black Holes as "String Stars" and we don't even know if String theory is the right track.