Catchy, we gotta admit:
In 1976, Hawking suggested that, as black holes evaporate, they destroy information about what had formed them.
That idea goes against a fundamental law of quantum mechanics which states any process in physics can be mathematically reversed.
In the 1960s, physicist John Archibald Wheeler, discussing black holes’ lack of observable features beyond their total mass, spin, and charge, coined the phrase “black holes have no hair”—known as the no-hair theorem.
However, the newly discovered “quantum hair” provides a way for information to be preserved as a black hole collapses and, as such, resolves one of modern science’s most famous quandaries, experts say.
Prof Calmet said: “Black holes have long been considered the perfect laboratory to study how to merge Einstein’s theory of general relativity with quantum mechanics.
“It was generally assumed within the scientific community that resolving this paradox would require a huge paradigm shift in physics, forcing the potential reformulation of either quantum mechanics or general relativity.
“What we found—and I think is particularly exciting—is that this isn’t necessary.”
“Scientists may have solved Stephen Hawking’s black hole paradox” at Phys.org (March 18, 2022)
Here’s a puff piece for the idea:
Let’s wait and see. Our favorite line from the media release: “In the first paper, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, researchers demonstrated that black holes are more complex than originally thought and have gravitational fields that hold information about how they were formed.”
Where, oh, where have we heard the signature tune “more complex than originally thought”? Funny how the universe in general is not devolving down into a few simple “nothing” principles …
Both the Physics Letters B paper and the Physical Review Letters paper are open access.
So maybe God is a quantum barber?
Are we to conclude that DI and IDers are laying claim to the phrase “more complex than originally thought?” Perhaps DI should attempt to copyright it and see how far it gets…..
CD
No, that’s not what was meant by that comment. IDers have all heard that signature tune many times. It’s not one of ours and we don’t need or want a copyright on it. The people who thought nature would be simple are the ones who have to keep singing that line. The followers of the guy who thought a bear could turn into a whale by opening it’s mouth wider, and the followers of the guy who thought the cell was a primitive blob of protoplasm that could easily evolve new biological functions – they’re the ones who are the one-hit wonders of our day. Everything “is more complex than originally thought” la, la, la
It’s not a very good tune at all.
Chuckdarwin, as Silver Asiatic pointed out, “IDers have all heard that signature tune many times. It’s not one of ours (its yours) and we don’t need or want a copyright on it.”
For instance, “the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”
And, “a world we had never imagined.”
And, “it is like comparing different degrees of infinity.”
and etc.. etc.. etc..,
Moreover, contrary to the Darwinian belief of “biological mechanisms, (being), an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises”
instead of ‘evolutionary compromises’, we instead find that, “In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the (biological) system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.”
So ChuckyD, again, “IDers have all heard that signature tune many times. It’s not one of ours (its yours) and we don’t need or want a copyright on it.”
In short, it is the (‘beyond belief’) evidence coming from molecular biology itself, and the words that (supposedly Darwinian) researchers themselves are using to describe that (beyond belief) evidence, that is betraying your Darwinian religion, not anything in particular that ID advocates may be doing, or saying, that is betraying your Darwinian religion.
Perhaps superstring theory is almost right.
“Perhaps superstring theory is almost right.”
via the title of Peter Woit’s blog, it is ‘Not Even Wrong’
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
Of note: