3 ms·

I don't understand what's new about these theories. Both the holographic principle and Hawking radiation have been known for years, decades even. If there's som

I don't understand what's new about these theories. Both the holographic principle and Hawking radiation have been known for years, decades even. If there's something about those theories the article doesn't explain what it is exactly.

keehun 11y ago
"Nobel laureate Gerard t'Hooft, who was present for the discussion, has been thinking about information loss in a similar way, and he cited several papers he has published on the subject. It will take more discussion — and much comparing of math equations — to establish what's new about Hawking's theories in relation to t'Hooft's, and whether Hawking has overcome some of the issues associated with earlier iterations of the idea."
- nilkn 11y ago
  So is Hawking even claiming it's new or was he simply discussing the existing theory but the article misconstrued that?
  - espadrine 11y ago
    As I understand it, he is redefining what is called the event horizon, because it is a relativistic concept that doesn't work well with quantum mechanics. One consequence of that redefinition is that humans could theoretically survive crossing it, contrary to the firewall hypothesis (well, if they were in a sustainable capsule with a large gene pool, and the hole was rotating just right), by waiting long enough on top of it until the hole evaporates (from the capsule's point of view). Time would indefinitely slow down for them, so they would see the rest of the universe speed up until the hole dies.
- JoelSutherland 11y ago
  And here are the two discussing it today: https://twitter.com/ChancellorFolt/status/636306368861966341 https://twitter.com/ChancellorFolt/status/636306368861966341
T-A 11y ago
An account of the event from an eye witness, with some additional hints: http://backreaction.blogspot.se/2015/08/hawking-proposes-new-idea-for-how.html http://backreaction.blogspot.se/2015/08/hawking-proposes-new...
- scythe 11y ago
  It appears to be mostly a clarification of his previous argument that information is retained in the [incomprehensibly small fluctuations of the] geometry of the event horizon. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761.pdf I'm guessing people are taking it seriously, but as it's not a complete theory of the dynamics it's hard to say "solved" in reference to this development.
  - zamalek 11y ago
    > his previous argument AFAIK that wasn't originally his argument, but he conceded and agreed that it was likely a better hypothesis than Hawking Radiation. This talk seems to be a brilliant attempt at reconciling, what were previously, two competing hypothesis.
crusso 11y ago
I'm somewhat glad to see so many people in this thread having the same "Didn't we already know this?" reaction to the article.

keehun 11y ago

"Nobel laureate Gerard t'Hooft, who was present for the discussion, has been thinking about information loss in a similar way, and he cited several papers he has published on the subject. It will take more discussion — and much comparing of math equations — to establish what's new about Hawking's theories in relation to t'Hooft's, and whether Hawking has overcome some of the issues associated with earlier iterations of the idea."

nilkn 11y ago
So is Hawking even claiming it's new or was he simply discussing the existing theory but the article misconstrued that?
- espadrine 11y ago
  As I understand it, he is redefining what is called the event horizon, because it is a relativistic concept that doesn't work well with quantum mechanics. One consequence of that redefinition is that humans could theoretically survive crossing it, contrary to the firewall hypothesis (well, if they were in a sustainable capsule with a large gene pool, and the hole was rotating just right), by waiting long enough on top of it until the hole evaporates (from the capsule's point of view). Time would indefinitely slow down for them, so they would see the rest of the universe speed up until the hole dies.
JoelSutherland 11y ago
And here are the two discussing it today: https://twitter.com/ChancellorFolt/status/636306368861966341 https://twitter.com/ChancellorFolt/status/636306368861966341

T-A 11y ago

An account of the event from an eye witness, with some additional hints: http://backreaction.blogspot.se/2015/08/hawking-proposes-new-idea-for-how.html http://backreaction.blogspot.se/2015/08/hawking-proposes-new...

scythe 11y ago
It appears to be mostly a clarification of his previous argument that information is retained in the [incomprehensibly small fluctuations of the] geometry of the event horizon. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761.pdf I'm guessing people are taking it seriously, but as it's not a complete theory of the dynamics it's hard to say "solved" in reference to this development.
- zamalek 11y ago
  > his previous argument AFAIK that wasn't originally his argument, but he conceded and agreed that it was likely a better hypothesis than Hawking Radiation. This talk seems to be a brilliant attempt at reconciling, what were previously, two competing hypothesis.

crusso 11y ago

I'm somewhat glad to see so many people in this thread having the same "Didn't we already know this?" reaction to the article.