Ask A Genius 1630: Black Hole Information Paradox, White Holes, and Trump’s Tariff Clock
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/02/22
How do black-hole information puzzles and tariff law collide in one conversation?
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner range from black-hole physics to trade policy throughout their exchange. Jacobsen explains that, in classical general relativity, information can enter a black hole but cannot escape the event horizon, highlighting the quantum tension behind the information paradox. Rosner critiques Mohammed Fouad’s ambitious, math-heavy paper and notes that Applied Physics Reviews is an AIP journal. The conversation pivots to Donald Trump’s renewed tariff push, weighing statutory limits, lawsuits, and economic fallout. They end with a wry comparison of Mark Carney, Tim Hortons, and AI ordering at Popeyes. The tone stays skeptical, concrete, and oddly humane.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In classical general relativity, information and anything carrying it can fall into a black hole, but no signal can escape once it passes the event horizon. That picture becomes problematic if quantum mechanics is correct that information is conserved, which is the basis of the black hole information problem.
In that framing, “black hole” versus “white hole” concerns the direction of causal flow. A black hole permits entry but not exit. A white hole is the time-reverse solution—matter and radiation can exit but not enter. Whether white holes exist in physical reality remains unconfirmed.
Rick Rosner: I looked at Mohammed Fouad’s paper. It is dense with advanced mathematics and high-level concepts. It makes sweeping claims that approach a universal solution to foundational physics. That scale of claim warrants scrutiny.
There is also confusion about the journal title. Applied Physics Reviews is published by the American Institute of Physics in the United States.
He has been pursuing a PhD at Louisiana State University following a long career in chemical engineering, and he appears to possess advanced mathematical training beyond typical professional requirements.
Anyway, we should discuss tariffs. Trump has returned to imposing tariffs. There are several legal frameworks for doing so. He previously claimed that there was an international emergency requiring the United States to defend itself economically. That argument did not succeed. When discussing emergencies in the context of tariff authority, the expectation is war, near war, or a comparably severe crisis—not a large trade deficit.
The Supreme Court rejected that emergency justification. However, there is statutory authority allowing the president to impose up to a 15 percent global tariff for up to 150 days. Trump imposed a 10 percent tariff under that framework, which initiates a five-month clock.
The tariffs have had negative economic effects. They have not resolved the trade deficit, have harmed farmers, and have not demonstrably created significant new employment. The situation is not a depression, but it is economically damaging. There will likely be legal challenges, but he may be able to maintain a 10 percent global tariff for the permitted duration.
There is also the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, enacted during the Great Depression. It raised tariffs substantially and is widely considered to have worsened the global economic downturn. There are broader tariff authorities on the books that are legally complex and, in some interpretations, not fully tested. After the current 150-day window expires, he could attempt to use other statutory mechanisms.
The economic consequences are negative. The political consequences are less clear. If he had withdrawn the tariffs and attributed the decision to judicial limits, the economy might have stabilized more quickly, potentially benefiting him electorally. Instead, continued tariff escalation could weaken economic conditions and affect midterm outcomes.
Rosner: Your prime minister, Carney, appears comparatively steady.
Jacobsen: Not only steady—strategic.
Rosner: Consider yourselves fortunate.
Jacobsen: Americans often imagine Canada through familiar brands such as Tim Hortons. In Ukraine, when Americans arrive, the first recognizable brands they often see are KFC and McDonald’s. Immediately upon entering Kyiv by train from Lviv, one of the first large advertisements visible in the tunnel is for KFC. In war, states suffer, civilians suffer, and corporations often continue operating.
Rosner: I would prefer Popeyes; I consider it a stronger product. I visited a Popeyes recently and encountered an AI-driven ordering system at the drive-through. The pricing was straightforward: three tenders without sides were quoted at $10.59; five tenders were quoted at $16.59. We can discuss AI in fast-food ordering systems next time.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 