Hawking's Information Paradox solution

Of course, I spent long enogh working on it. I am severely critiquing the website, but not because it is for laymen and is simplistic. It is just making stuff up that bears no relation to how we view the extra dimensions.If we consider the first three dimensions as spatial, then it is reasonable to describe the fourth as time as our observable Universe is 3+1 dimensional. So apart from making a poor job of the explanations, it is ok up to there.But it then goes on to describe the higher dimensions as related to time (incorrect) and having something to do with an Everett-like quantum many-worlds picture (wacko and truly bizarre).All are valid parts of theoretical physics: string theory, extra dimensions, even extra time dimensions and many-worlds, etc; but randomly mixing up these concepts, inventing incorrect relationships between them, and then presenting this as some authoritive layman guide is why this website is a load of bollocks.Edited by cavediver, : typos

Its hypothetical and theoretical. No one knows what these dimensions, if such even exist, how they interact with one another. I don't think it was meant to be anything other having fun with possibilities. I think the general idea is based on relativity-- that distances depend on the gravitational potential which allows for us to conceive of possible new dimensions. I mean, couldn't we make notations on how gravitational force decreases with the distance which relates to the dimensionality of space? I'm wondering, though, why you feel that time would be an inconsequential or non-existent factor in the higher dimensions? In order to have a "dimension," isn't space required? And if it is required, and space is intimately connected with time, wouldn't that make time an important factor? Admittedly, I know little about astrophysics but it seemed to make a lot of sense to me. What do you surmise the higher dimensions consist of and how they relate to one another?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

That's not reason enough just to make stuff up and try and pass it off as physics! Theoretical physics is not some wishy-washy science where anything goes. Otherwise I could make up some really fun stuff involving sploorions and ultra-sploorions that are seven and two/thirds dimensional. The multi-dimensional aspects of various theories are predicted by the precise mathematics of those theories. Yes it is, but General Relativity itself does not specify the dimension of space-time. GR works in any number of dimensions. It is the deeper theories - the attempts at theories of everything - that actually specify the dimensions of existence. And these theories tell us the properties of these dimensions. And no existing theory comes close to talking about the crap on that website. Great insight Yes, theoretically this is possible in certains circumstances. And then you go and ruin it Time is one of the dimensions - the other dimensions are spatial. They don't have the properties of time, becasue they are not time, they are space! The time dimension, unsurprisingly, is the dimesnion that has properties of time... In most theories, the higher dimensions are curled up at the Planck-scale and are unobservable as yet.

I was not trying to pass off my beliefs as physics. Simply beliefs. Yes you may call it religion, but it's no more a religion than String Theory is at this point is it? I mean I can no more prove that >4 dimensions follow the guidelines on that site any more than you can prove that they follow String Theory or M-Theory.Also just because you can make up a nonsensical theory of sploorions doesn't make my statements or theories non sensical.Furthermore your assertion that String Theory is based on precise mathematics says absolutely nothing of it's validity any more than a drawing made in a CAD program. i can draw an impossible shape all based on precise mathematics but that certainly doesn't make it real now does it?I submit that not only must that site be taken as faith but the theories such as M-Theory at the forefront of physics as well. For now at least

Then why are you posting in the Science Forums? No, that site is posing as physics, and is simply wrong. If it were to put a disclaimer at the front saying "the ideas presented here are not the concensus of scientists working in this field and are purely my own ideas" I would have no complaint.And why would I ever take M-Theory or String Theory on faith??? They are mathematical theories that show some exciting relation to reality. One day they may explain much of reality... or they may not. For now they are possibilities. There is no faith involved at all.

For the same reason you and many others discuss theories or hypotheses that have yet to be proven. Actually they do have such a disclaimer somewhere on their site, perhaps you missed it. Because if you believe that they are more correct than the theories posted on that site or by me, you're either going to have to show some sort of evidence as to why you believe so, or admit your beliefs are faith based. If you have faith in the mathematics, say so but don't tell me that just because there are mathematical equations involved that it must be real. Did you understand what I meant with the CAD example? Mathematics does not prove a theory describes reality.

There is distinction between a framework which attempts to describe a larger regime of phenomena by building on the implications and physical results of Quantum Field Theory (String Theory) and a set of ideas drawing vaguely from the concept of multiple dimensions (That site).For instance SU(5) Unification was an idea which turned out to be incorrect, however it respected what we already ready knew about relativistic quantum mechanical systems and was a solid extension on the gauge principle common to such systems.
Contrast this with a random idea which incorporates nothing of what went before.A strict Popperian technicality of both ideas not having been put to the test experimentally does not mean they are to be considered on equal footing.

Sorry, we're talking science. We don't "prove" things in science. And any theory that I discuss in the positive will have solid roots in the bedrock of the Standard Model, i.e. is built upon existing science, not the whims and fancies of those who would rather pursue their own version of "science". oh no... M-theory and string theory are regarded as *possibly* representing some part of reality by the great majority of theoretical physicists. Your ideas and that site's are certainly not so regarded. I believe the onus is on you to provide some evidence However, if you would like to ask me to explain some of the aspects of those theories that lead us to believe that they *may* have something to do with reality, I would be delighted. Please quote me where I suggest this, as I cannot seem to find it at the moment... To think that as a theoretical physicist I have been working under this false assumption for so many years. Thank you for putting me straight. I owe you one... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I just have to jump in and say at least I'd love that. Although I may not understand half of it

Cool Though it probably deserves a new thread. Can you propose one? I'd do it myself but I get a bit self-conscious with "in this thread I would like to explain..." I'd rather answer questions.

Again, I am not passing my ideas off as science or as fact, unlike yourself, who continues to call string theory science and implies that somehow it is any more factual than any other set of beliefs that aren't nonsensical. I question whether it is so, or merely a set of beliefs if it cannot be proven.My question remains unanswered: Is string theory testable and therefore science, or is it untestable and therefore merely a set of ideas, a belief if you will? So is string theory really a theory in the true sense of the word, or is it really only a hypothesis? Sure I'd love to hear that as well, especially if it ties in to my previous question of whether it is testable or not. It seems as if we do need a purely string theory based thread.Edited by Calypso, : No reason given.Edited by Calypso, : typos etc.

---

"To sail on a dream on a crystal clear ocean,
to ride on the crest of a wild raging storm
To work in the service of life and living,
in search of the answers of questions unknown
To be part of the movement and part of the growing,
part of beginning to understand..." Calypso by John Denver

It would seem to me that Hawkings was purposefully complicating his answer because he knew the implications of what he was saying would be almost unnacceptable. Basically he talks of other universes, bu really means other dimensions. Objects entering a black hole are intact...though to the observer outside the hole, they appear destroyed. Thus upon information entering the hole, it is both destroyed in this universe, yet introduced into a new dimension where it is preserved. So it is not really lost, as all dimensions are connected somehow. I think it is an attempt to bring together dual realities that are impossible, yet known to exist.Could we include the prospects of dual realities or dimensions to solve a real physics paradox. this brings them into physics equations and not just as anamolies.So what he's saying is that information can be lost and not be lost at the same time, as both realiies exist with black holes.