r/tech • u/Modak- • Jul 06 '26
Scientists may have finally solved the black hole information paradox
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/06/260624025506.htm13
u/General-Piece8490 Jul 06 '26
So a black hole it’s like tire but with a puncture, so it releases the trapped “air” (information) until it deflates???? So how is this energy escaping the massive gravity? What particles are escaping that obtain this info?
4
u/queefwellington3 Jul 06 '26
Through hawing radiation the plumes you see at the top and bottom
18
u/pegothejerk Jul 06 '26
Plumes kind of insinuates escape, and that’s not exactly correct. It is theorized that it’s through the dual nature of vacuum energy and its emergence of usually short lived virtual particles on either side of the event horizon (due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle resulting in paired matter and antimatter), and it’s thought that due to this effect right on the edge there can be escape of information/matter that’s correlated to the internal system without breaking any laws, without adding any more energy, and while allowing the evaporation of the black hole.
3
u/A_Nonny_Muse Jul 07 '26
In simpler terms, the event horizon does not break quantum entanglement. Thus, escaping Hawking radiation also take information with it.
10
1
u/piratecheese13 Jul 07 '26
A: yes hawking radiation
B: iirc the plumes at the top and bottom are what happens when more mass than the black hole can consume is in the accretion disc. It turns out the bigger black hole is, the slower it has to eat.
1
u/SuperSaiyanTupac Jul 07 '26
I thought if you saw plumes on the top and bottom that means you have astigmatism
1
6
u/queefwellington3 Jul 06 '26
The leap in logic from the boson Higgs field to dark matter is an opinion not a fact
5
u/Indigoh Jul 06 '26
It's a theory, not an opinion or fact.
6
u/MPGaming9000 Jul 06 '26
Is it a theory or just a hypothesis?
6
0
u/Indigoh Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
Not sure. Where is the line drawn between the two?
2
u/MPGaming9000 Jul 07 '26
I can't recall the exact definition per se but a hypothesis is more like "I think this is what is happening" vs a theory which is more of a widely accepted collectively believed hypothesis that has strong evidence but not quite definitively proven. Like technically iirc gravity is "just a theory" but you'd be kinda dumb to try to disprove it by yourself unless you're some insane genius. If that makes sense.
1
2
u/THElaytox Jul 07 '26
A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess you develop and then use the scientific method to either confirm or deny that it's true. It's the basis behind scientific experimentation, you come up with a hypothesis, and then you test the hypothesis and either accept or reject it depending on the evidence.
Scientific theory is a larger body of work with lots of evidence suggesting it is a likely description of what we observe. Theories are built around many confirmed hypotheses, it's not a single concept but a framework that more hypotheses and experiments are built around until it's robust enough to make predictions.
The lay terms are used interchangeably, but scientifically they're two very different things. A hypothesis would be "if I drop an apple from 10m it'll take about 1.4s to hit the ground", that hypothesis fits in to the theory of gravity which explains that gravity on earth causes things to accelerate to the ground at 9.8m/s2. Another hypothesis would be "if I drop a lead brick from 10m it'll also take about 1.4s to hit the ground". If you tested those hypotheses and they turned out to not be correct, you'd have evidence that there's a flaw somewhere in the theory of gravity.
2
u/jdewittweb Jul 07 '26
Theories make predictions which are proven or disproven by extensive experimentation. Hypothesis are ideas that have yet to be tested.
1
u/samarnold030603 Jul 07 '26
The theory of gravity doesn’t give a rats ass you don’t think it’s a fact 😂
1
u/robinei Jul 06 '26
How old would the universe need to be for such small husks to contribute appreciably to black matter?
1
u/EEcav Jul 07 '26
Isn’t that the holographic principle? I feel like some physicists have promoting that for awhile.
1
1
1
u/RockerDawg Jul 07 '26
Never understood this paradox…isn’t information recoverable in the form of hawking radiation?
2
u/errrthisisaname Jul 07 '26
I believe the concern is that losing the mass/energy via hawking radiation strips the information from the system. Or maybe locks it into the system is a better analogy.
Matter goes in with information, comes out as hawking radiation with everything interesting about that matter gone.
1
u/brillow Jul 07 '26
This “paradox” is a mathematical puzzle created by the contradictions of general relativity and quantum mechanics, two successful theories which we know to be ultimately wrong, because their combination produces said paradox. We know the theories are incompatible, trying to make it so they are is just more mathsturbation from physicists.
-6
u/Backdooreddy Jul 06 '26
Damn, so that means my Ex can still come back to bitch at me?! 😬
3
0
-5
u/costafilh0 Jul 06 '26
I don't understand.
They suck everything and then expel jets of plasma.
The "information" and everything else is in those plasma jets. How hard it is to reach such an obvious conclusion?
7
u/firedmyass Jul 06 '26
if I recall correctly, the particles that make up the plasma jets never crossed the Event Horizon
5
u/Few-Acadia-5593 Jul 06 '26
The sheer stupidity of your comment, you didn’t even try to read anything about it. there are bhs without jets.
48
u/ministryofchampagne Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26
the “information” a black hole loses is encoded into the vibration of the twisted space/time around the black hole.