The black hole would be trying to elaborate a whole lot on top of a completely broken foundation, or trying to fix the analogy in intense detail when you should start from scratch, etc.
I just said one line about how that analogy didn't fit.
Maybe a Black Hole destroys information, or perhaps it changes information to a form that we can't (yet) recognize. Presently, both of those states would look the same to us.
It doesn't, really, I guess they were trying to say that Hawking's predictions don't give us a clue what's going on with the information – if the black hole radiates like a black body it can't really push the information out through it.
> Because we found no better analogy, we named them "holes" despite the fact that they are basically the opposite: an object with enormous mass.
Strictly speaking, the defining character is enormous density, not mass. And the black hole is arguably a name for an effect of the object, not the object itself; the object itself is (or is in the process of becoming; verb tenses get weird when time gets weird) infinitesimally small, but the “black hole” generally refers to the space bounded by the event horizon.
black holes are capturing imagination because of scale and many other reasons, but their danger just not worth to even discuss. Space is empty and time is slow.
"Hole" and "in" are pretty good metaphors for what a black hole is. It's hard to have any particularly accurate metaphors for what a black hole is because time dilation, the speed of light, curved space, etc. just aren't a part of life for any humans.
It's not quite Maxwell's demon because the event horizon is a one-way causal ticket. The information might not be destroyed but it is totally inaccessible on this side of the horizon.
reply