100 thoughts on “The Black Hole Information Paradox”

  1. If a black hole leaks radiation (Hawking radiation) why does it do it so slowly ? shouldn't be radiating like crazy like a star ? every square centimeter of the event horizon should be emitting like a radio antenna

  2. Wouldn't feeding black hole electric charge increase its total energy? Is there a limited amount of charge you can force feed (hurray for electric repulsion) into one to make it "unstable"? (unstable in quotes because formally nothing past event horizon can leave)

  3. How is the black hole singularity different from the big bang singularity? As fast as I understand, in both cases matter is in a highly compressed state with extremely high gravitational force. But why the bang for the big bang and no bang for black holes? What makes black holes so stable that they last for ages? Is it the size of singularity that causes this stability for black hole and not for the singularity of the big bang? 2ndly there is a lot of talk of very high gravitational forces for both the singularities but among the 4 basic forces, the gravitational force is quite negligible especially when the mass is in such a compressed state. How is this explained? Perhaps, there is a different form of matter that exists in the singularities.

  4. I'm no scientist and this is going to sound like a very layman's idea. But if black holes radiate particles later on, isn't that new information? It may not break the conservation of information if the same amount of information comes out. The information might just be changed. You can think of a black hole as a kind of distiller. Apples go in, get compressed and fermented, then alcohol comes out. That's not the best analogy since there isn't a 1:1 ratio of apples to alcohol, but you probably get what I mean. The black hole can change the information, but it's the same amount of information coming out (if my idea works).

    There's also the possibility that the conservation of information isn't true. Of course, I'm sure there's tons of flaws in my logic, based on complex systems I know nothing about.

  5. What would happen if fundamental particles are pushed together? Would they cancel each other out? Absorb each other and become a new particle and emit a photon? It sounds like fusion and fission, I know, but can fundament particles behave in a similar way?

  6. To simplify the idea of a hologram…3D stuff is made from 2d stuff. Forget 2d and 3D and imagine interacting layers. The layers are made of two parts, one is a force and the other is what we could call solid. This is no different from the idea of matter being a particle and a wave…matter is both a particle and wave and you could call it a hologram because it seems to flicker between states and this flickering “2d” stuff makes up our “3D”reality. Nassim Haramein is the guy you want to seek out if you’re really interested in the holofractographic universe theory.

    Personally I think it’s completely wrong to use 2d and 3D when describing this phenomena. People tend to think of paper and glue and kindergarten art projects… I’m just using the terms because they richly populate the comment section.

  7. So.. A holographic universe might as well be written on paper, so long as there's an observer? A perfect description or a library of Babel?

  8. Conservation of mass and energy I am down with. Information, in my tiny little mind, occurs in a context. Using Susskind's example. "King Tut had warts on his face.". Susskind contends this information can be contained in a certain number of classical bits. This is rubbish. Without the context of what a king Tut or a wart or a face or what the English language is, the whole construction is random gibberish. Somebody will point out that when the contention is asserted that QUANTUM information is the type of information that is conserved. Certain types of quantum information are clearly conserved as are all forms of classical information of which I am aware. Mt problem with the conservation of quantum information is it's reliance on virtual particle which could not care less about information conservation. I need a physicist to yell at me before shaking his head and walking away in dismay. Just another crank here. So sorry.

  9. Since nothing ever makes it all the way into a black hole, from the point of view of our frame, information is simply preserved that way. There is no need for it to imprint on Hawking radiation. Any solid object will occlude some of that radiation anyway, from our point of view, and such an object will also hide interior information from the Hawking radiation which only forms at the event horizon. Right?

  10. so basically a "black-hole" is just all the space and time the "black-hole" has "passed" which means its not actually black its just so jam packed with information that we cannot see anything, the black-hole has already "ended" but since we are observing it in our time-frame we only "see" well EVERYTHING but its so complex we can only see it as a black blob moving in space and time.

    the black hole is a window that has wittiness-ed the life age of the universe already, so if u fall in we will keep "falling" in forever but we will see the universe unfold ever faster until the black-hole evaporates and we "emerge" but by then the universe would have been very very old, or we will emerge at the last moment of its existence?!

    so black-holes dont rly break any universal laws, they are just "lag" in spacetime

  11. Does this mean that if we put a mini black hole that is controlled, into a computer system, we can use it as a trash that secure deletes it for good?

  12. This is the craziest, yet most entertaining and informative comment section I’ve ever seen for a YouTube video…. Scroll below. Wild.

  13. Maybe this information paradox is a clue for the matter-antimatter broken symetry. Eat all the antimatter and shoot it in something else.

  14. I'm not convinced that all these theories aren't just elaborate puzzles of the mind, rather than any concrete association with Reality. Akin to the philosophies of the Enlightenment. Nearly all the theories proposed in this context are purely speculative, as there is no physical nor observational evidence, as one complex mathematical puzzle gives birth a dozen more, none of them being remotely provable, nor even based upon anything proven. We can't see, observe a black hole, let alone have any way to 'know' the structure of its interior, if it has an interior. At the rate the 'this changes everything we thought we knew about the Universe' phrase is used, it convinces me that we really don't know anything definite about it in the first place. Not that these ideas are without some value, but people tend to place too much 'faith' in ideas that can't be proven and are based on other ideas that can't be proven. I wonder if it isn't time to return to a more Newtonian approach to the Science of the Universe where things must have proof before it's accepted as 'fact', and there is more effort in establishing facts, rather than mathematical parlor tricks and illusions based on mathematical parlor tricks and illusions. I'm sure I'll be unpopular for saying this, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one thinking it. Great video, and the narrator is wonderful, clear and convincing. Well done in that regard.

  15. All this theorizing is fallacious. The closest Black hole is 3460 light years from us we have no method of quantifying even local phenomenons. These physicist and mathematicians speculations are no different from the religious clerics of antiquity.

  16. Possible Solution (Probably something very fundamentally incorrect):

    Black holes, according to the paradox, swallow matter, and in turn erase the quantum information of such. My proposal is that if you were to remain from a fixed inertial frame of reference in respect to the blackhole (hovering outside), then drop matter into the black hole, it would never reach the event horizon. As objects approach the massive gravitational influence of a black hole, the time dilation increases exponentially, eventually increasing the speed of the time of the object falling to infinity. From an observer standpoint the matter never enters the event horizon, and simply begins to slow its decent as the relativistic effects begin to overpower the speed in which the object is falling. From the standpoint of an observer nothing ever falls into the event horizon, only getting closer, and progressively slower the closer it gets. Because of this the quantum information of whatever matter hovers on the surface of the black hole, as it never actually gets enveloped within the event horizon. This would mean that the black hole is in fact not destroying quantum information, and instead holds the information on the surface of the black hole.

    Is there anything wrong with this solution?

  17. If black holes grow in size as they consume – some form of the matter must be being remembered otherwise why would the black hole get bigger?

  18. We won't find out unless we commit a human trial, if human soul is an information it can enter the black hole and added up to the other information which can survive the black hole but with no guarantee it will come back to earth to tell.

  19. 99.8% of the volume of atoms is empty space we are insignificant on the large scale and but we are that far away from the smallest scale too

  20. What really bugs me is a question that I can`t seem to find a answer to / consider for a moment the fact that a particle can be interlocked ( quantum entanglement ) . Basically speaking , what would happen if you have two particles quantum locked and then drop one inside a black hole / would the information be lost ? . It makes one wonder

  21. A question about ethics: if we discover that there is another universe formed within a black hole, would it be ethical for us to use a black hole as a power source?

  22. It always seemed to me that the detail that "from our point of view" no mass ever crosses the event horizon suggests that the inside of a black hole never comes into existence or at least that mass never gets there and I always found it confusing that you talk as if it does. I ask "when" and you say "not on our timeline". What's wrong with saying that ours is the only timeline?

    Let me put it another way. You say that from the point of view of an object falling into a black hole, it falls right in. Does it? It seems to me that what happens is it starts to fall in, time stops for it, then it radiates away as hawking radiation while time-stopped, because the black hole doesn't last forever and it would have to last a literal eternity for the object to pass the horizon. Or maybe it's more accurate to say it would have to last longer than a literal eternity, and longer than eternity doesn't exist.

    I guess the wrinkle in that description is how do you describe the formation of a black hole when you reach some critical density in an area where it's cut off from the outside timeline with matter already inside of it. Not all of the material in a black hole fell into it.






  24. So information is like ice ,frozen and black holes makes it to water -particals everywhere anywhere -Is it logic or Im dumb ?

  25. Awesome – now I have another tool for when class is ending and not enough temporal unit's exist to explain the answer: "Ran Out of Time-Dilation"!

  26. so to get the accurate measurements from the singularity we must form an artificial one, where we decide the the composiotion of the singularity

  27. The easy/simple solution is usually the right one: Occam's razor.

    Black/white holes are Einstein-Rosen Bridges. They suck stuff in, shred it, accelerate it and spit it out.

    No information paradox.
    (Mic drop.)

  28. I don’t see the issue if someone could help. Isn’t the information radiated as photons? Photons that have energy and therefore a mass equivalency? If we knew all the locations of every single quark and bison and the energy of every field possible could we not trace it backwards?

  29. If the entire universe is a hologram and we are all existing in a 2D space – then the flat Earthers are kind of right.

  30. Did you guys do the episode on the charged black hole weirdness question yet? Can't find it. Would love to see the episode about that.

  31. The holograpic universe. Very well demonstrated by Stephen Davis on his website https://www.holographicuniverseworkshops.com

  32. Why should virtualparticals evaporate blackholes? Is the energy really taken from the blackhole or is half the energy swallowed and the other half only radiation from unanilated virtual particals?

    I am just an idiot so sorry for being one ?

  33. Quantum information conservation takes a bit of believing.. Nuclear bombs. Total chaos..
    And we have entropy.. Statistical dynamics definition.. Tendency to greater disorder would lead to information being muddied

  34. If two coins, one mad of Metter and the other one made of antimatter collide and transforms they in energy their information will be lost?

  35. Of cos information can be destroyed!!! The Consevation Law is not universal, and applies only to majority situation!

  36. I swear if I hear one more person misquote Stephen Hawking. And the function of Hawking radiation. How do so many people get it wrong. For real it's not that complicated. Along comes 2 particles. One of them antimatter. The other one of ordinary matter. The antimatter goes into a black hole reducing the black holes Mass. The matter particle shoots off as radiation. Never having gotten any energy or Mass from the black hole. What is so difficult about that.!?!?!?

  37. One problem with the halogram analogy: halograms, like every other physical thing, are 3 dimensional. The theory is basically the same as saying "a 3d thing that looks nearly 2d can interact with other 3d things to produce different 3d things." OK…

  38. Yeah I don't believe in "conservation of information". Do you want me to prove that information INCREASES in the forward direction of time, at least? It's real simple. Imagine a 1 meter diameter black hole merges with another 1 meter diameter black hole. After losing let's say 10% of their mass to gravitational radiation, the result will have only 1.8 times the mass as the original ones, and thus a 1.8 meter black hole diameter. Well what are the surface areas? 2*pi was the surface area before…… and 3.24*pi is the surface area after. Well the surface area is supposed to be the measure of the information contained in a black hole, correct? Guess what, it increased, by a lot. A LOT of new information has been created out of nowhere from this interaction. So you see, information is not conserved, it can be created in the forward time direction. And since it's supposed to be time reversal invariant, that means that what you think about information is broken, when general relativity and quantum mechanics combine. Quantum mechanics and its claims about information are broken, if it claims information is conserved. Thus I don't believe in conservation of information. I believe in conservation of mass, angular momentum and electron charge. There's no law of conservation of information.

  39. This may be stupid I don’t know but has it ever been theorizes that the way to solve the problem of black holes and the disappearance of information is that black holes distort time and therefore supply all the information needed for the Big Bang in a sort of information feedback loop? Basically is every black hole feeding the one white hole that begot the Big Bang

  40. If we could make a black hole simulation… could we find a ‘code’ for a universe? Or earth? Based on the information stored on the surface of the black hole? Kinda like a recipe? or? My mind is blown lmao

  41. Information stored in the Black Hole could be “Teleported” to the entangled quantized Hawking radiation outside the hole's event horizon as it's entangled partner falls through the black hole's event horizon and interacts with the particles (or Information) previously frozen on the black hole's surface.

  42. they say information can't be lost but why not? Physicists too busy trying to uncover their idealized universe instead of following the evidence. Information gets lost, deal with it snowflakes. You can get your theory of everythign and you still won't know the half of it… again, deal with it!

  43. What happens if you get a collision from the LHC and run it backwards in time? All those particles end up as a couple of hydrogen ions and a lot of energy. How can a black hole not do something similar; collect all of the matter and re-organise it as something simpler, plus a whole lot of energy? Wouldn't confined energy produce the equivalent gravitational effect as the original mass that fell in?

  44. I wonder, why Hawking radiation results in a loss of mass of the black hole. Energy conservation suggest that, but only to say "that the energy must come from somewhere" isn't sufficient. Given, that there is no "negative mass", the virtual particle-wave going towards the BH should also increase its Energy.

  45. Please can you give us the theory of black holes from basic principles. Your video assumes that they exist. I don't think that they do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *