Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 129 posts

Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

#11

Post by ChrisSD »

chc wrote: post #2

I've seen a couple of articles about this guy recently and they both struck me as weirdly credulous given the apparently complete lack of evidence supporting his theory and the fact that approximately no other scientists seem to find it credible.

After all the big discoveries (and personalities) of the 20th century, physics has seemed to be relatively quiet lately. So people are eager for the next big and dramatic change to our understanding.

And that's what George Chapline is offering the pop sci press.

Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

#13

Post by princekolt »

PerryCox wrote: post #4

How likely is this to be the case over Black Holes?

No one knows for sure. However it's good to have alternative models to look into if the observational data you eventually get (in this case from the EHT) doesn't match precisely with the mainstream model.

Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

#14

Post by hinkley »

We have people like string theorists thinking about higher dimensions in space.

It occurred to me the other day when the dark matter article hit the front page that our equation for gravity works with three dimensions but those dimensions are uniform. I can turn an object with very little effort (literally without doing work) and it’s the same size from our perspective.

How would it work if matter has more dimensions that aren’t proportional, or if space is curved in higher dimensions and the differences are in the noise floor here on earth and in orbit?

Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

#15

Post by 0898 »

takk309 wrote: post #9
Chabs wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside observers never see the material cross the horizon, ever. That's why it's called a horizon, you'll never reach it (from the pov of an outside observer). Growth-wise, you have to keep in mind that the black hole doesn't grow when matter crosses the horizon, but when the matter gets close enough to the horizon that mass of black hole + mass of new matter creates a blackhole of a larger radius that encompasses t…

Would this be one way that information would not be destroyed, at least from the reference frame of the outside observer?

Question if you don't mind. This "information being destroyed" thing. What do they mean by information? Isn't information a human construct? How is the universe supposed to know what information is?

Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

#16

Post by Chabs »

0898 wrote: post #15
takk309 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would this be one way that information would not be destroyed, at least from the reference frame of the outside observer?

Question if you don't mind. This "information being destroyed" thing. What do they mean by information? Isn't information a human construct? How is the universe supposed to know what information is?

Long answer short: Information has to be a fundamental conserved property of the universe for the second law of thermodynamics to work under some thought experiments.

Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

#17

Post by joe-collins »

chc wrote: post #2

I've seen a couple of articles about this guy recently and they both struck me as weirdly credulous given the apparently complete lack of evidence supporting his theory and the fact that approximately no other scientists seem to find it credible.

At least at the pop-science level, his ideas connect a lot of dots. He'd neatly resolve the weirdness and mystery of black holes, their jets, their information paradox, and dark energy. It feels good.

Whether or not any of it makes a lick of sense once you start actually crunching numbers is another question. The lack of interest from other scientists leaves me skeptical (even if I'm silently enamored of the neatness myself).

Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

#18

Post by ncallaway »

takk309 wrote: post #9
Chabs wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside observers never see the material cross the horizon, ever. That's why it's called a horizon, you'll never reach it (from the pov of an outside observer). Growth-wise, you have to keep in mind that the black hole doesn't grow when matter crosses the horizon, but when the matter gets close enough to the horizon that mass of black hole + mass of new matter creates a blackhole of a larger radius that encompasses t…

Would this be one way that information would not be destroyed, at least from the reference frame of the outside observer?

By my understanding of the theory, yes (according to some unproven theories). The information can be imprinted on the surface of a black hole (and, later are dissipated by imprinting on Hawking Radiation).

This is also the principle that led to our theoretical understanding that the maximum amount of information that can be contained in a volume is bounded by the _surface area_ of the volume. This is the Holopgraphic Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle.

There's a great PBS Space Time youtube video on this concept, which explains it far better and more accurately that I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XkHBmE-N34

Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

#19

Post by diegoperini »

ChrisSD wrote: post #11
chc wrote: post #2

I've seen a couple of articles about this guy recently and they both struck me as weirdly credulous given the apparently complete lack of evidence supporting his theory and the fact that approximately no other scientists seem to find it credible.

After all the big discoveries (and personalities) of the 20th century, physics has seemed to be relatively quiet lately. So people are eager for the next big and dramatic change to our understanding. And that's what George Chapline is offering the pop sci press.

If what LIGO achieved is not loud enough for the 21st century, then we are probably doomed. It is a NEW kind of telescope that has not even been utilized for 1% of its potential.

PS: I'm not arguing with your statement, you have all the right to think that way. Maybe even people who lived during Einstein's earlier times thought the same for their previous century.

Re: Are Black Holes Actually Dark Energy Stars?

#20

Post by takk309 »

ncallaway wrote: post #18
takk309 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would this be one way that information would not be destroyed, at least from the reference frame of the outside observer?

By my understanding of the theory, yes (according to some unproven theories). The information can be imprinted on the surface of a black hole (and, later are dissipated by imprinting on Hawking Radiation). This is also the principle that led to our theoretical understanding that the maximum amount of information that can be contained in a volume is bounded by the _surface area_ of the volume. This is the Holopgraphic…

Thanks for the great reply.
Post reply on HN