Posted: Aug 11, 2011 11:34 am
I am struggling to follow this part;
While we can't see into a black hole, we can measure it's gravity (I think). Surely we would be able to tell whether it's gravitational atraction has increased or not, thus exposing whether or not the elephant did fall into the BH.
If the answer proposed by relative locality is used, then surely it can't aply to everything that falls into the BH otherwise the BH would not grow. And surely because some of the stuff does actually fall in, what about it's information?
Can anyone help?
According to Smolin, relative locality saves the day. Let's say you were patient enough to wait around while a black hole evaporated, a process that could take billions of years. Once it had vanished, you could ask what happened to, say, an elephant that once succumbed to its gravitational grip. But as you look back to the time at which you thought the elephant had fallen in, you would find that locations in space-time had grown so fuzzy and uncertain that there would be no way to tell whether the elephant actually fell into the black hole or narrowly missed it. The information-loss paradox dissolves.
While we can't see into a black hole, we can measure it's gravity (I think). Surely we would be able to tell whether it's gravitational atraction has increased or not, thus exposing whether or not the elephant did fall into the BH.
If the answer proposed by relative locality is used, then surely it can't aply to everything that falls into the BH otherwise the BH would not grow. And surely because some of the stuff does actually fall in, what about it's information?
Can anyone help?