Black hole firewall paradox? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn

Image based on NASA image, credit ESA/NASA/SOHO

As someone who writes about physics and cosmology I occasionally get asked my opinion on something like the black hole firewall paradox. If I'm brutally honest (which I rarely am, because I'm far too polite) I will reply: 'I don't know. I don't care. It bores me stiff.'

In case you aren't sure what the paradox is, it emerges from a combination of quantum theory and general relativity (which don't go together, but hey), and relies on piling about four levels of mathematical supposition on top of each other to come to the conclusion that the information that could be considered to exist on the event horizon of a black hole can't (as it was hypothesised it did) represent all the information in the 3D interior with gravity included, and 'therefore' something passing through the event horizon would burn up. Simples.

This topic involves theorising about a phenomenon that almost certainly doesn't exist in the real universe, using physics that almost certainly doesn't apply. Now, medieval theologians are often maligned by suggesting they wasted their careers arguing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. They didn't - it's a myth. But physicists really have spent a reasonable amount of time and effort on this modern day equivalent.

Personally I'm much more interested in science that helps us understand phenomena we know exist than I am in mathematically driven flights of fantasy. Show me some observational or experimental evidence for a firewall and I will get excited. But stare at your navel and make it up and I really don't care.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that theoreticians should be prevented from playing around with these ideas, just as mathematicians shouldn't be stopped from thinking about mathematical structures that have no relevance to the real world. But I do think us science writers give far too much exposure to this kind of thing.

So, how many angels do you reckon could dance on the head of a pin?

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog