Curtains down for the black hole firewall paradox: Making gravity safe for Einstein again

Mar 06, 2013

Research by scientists at the University of York has revealed new insights into the life and death of black holes.

Their findings dispel the so-called firewall paradox which shocked the physics community when it was announced in 2012 since its predictions about large contradicted Einstein's crowning achievement – the . Those results suggested that anyone falling into a black hole would be burned up as they crossed its edge – the so-called event horizon.

Now Professor Sam Braunstein and Dr Stefano Pirandola have extinguished the fire. In a paper published in , they invoke , a modern branch of quantum mechanics that treats light and atoms as carriers of information. The key insight from quantum mechanics is the existence of `spooky' quantum entanglement across a black hole's event horizon.

Professor Braunstein says: "Quantum mechanics shows that entanglement can exist across the , between particles inside and outside the black hole. But should this entanglement ever vanish, a barrier of energetic particles would be created: an energetic curtain (or firewall) would descend around the horizon of the black hole.

"We are the first to show the necessity of entanglement across all black hole event horizons and to consider what happens as black holes age. The greater the entanglement, the later the curtain descends. But if the entanglement is maximal, the firewall never occurs. Indeed, entanglement has long been believed to exist for some types of black holes, taking on exactly this maximum value. Our work confirms and generalizes this claim."

Stephen Hawking was the first to consider in black holes, arguing that aging black holes must hoard information about everything they swallow. Professor Braunstein adds: "When , and in particular entanglement, are included in the story, Hawking's prediction holds for the longest time possible. Our results not only back up Einstein's theory of gravity, but also point to quantum information theory as a powerful tool for disentangling the deep mysteries of the Universe."

Professor Braunstein and Dr Pirandola, of the Department of Computer Science at York, collaborated with Professor Życzkowski, of the Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.

Explore further: Highly charged ions: Multiply-ionized atoms for clocks, qubits, and constants

More information: Samuel L. Braunstein, Stefano Pirandola, Karol Życzkowski, Better Late than Never: Information Retrieval from Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 101301 (2013), DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.101301

Related Stories

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity

Jan 03, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative ...

The Edge of a Black Hole

Aug 18, 2009

The existence of black holes is one of the most amazing and bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity. Despite his original misgivings about their reality, massive black hole holes are today believed ...

Recommended for you

New study refines biological evolution model

17 hours ago

Models for the evolution of life are now being developed to try and clarify the long term dynamics of an evolving system of species. Specifically, a recent model proposed by Petri Kärenlampi from the University ...

Production phase for LSST camera sensors nears

18 hours ago

(Phys.org) —A single sensor for the world's largest digital camera detected light making its way through wind, air turbulence, and Earth's atmosphere, successfully converting the light into a glimpse of ...

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hemitite
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2013
The link to this article didn't work for me, but I found it here:
http://prl.aps.or.../e101301
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (18) Mar 06, 2013
Now Professor Sam Braunstein and Dr Stefano Pirandola have extinguished the fire. In a paper published in Physical Review Letters, they invoke quantum information theory, a modern branch of quantum mechanics that treats light and atoms as carriers of information. The key insight from quantum mechanics is the existence of `spooky' quantum entanglement across a black hole's event horizon….

It is interesting to note that Einstein do not believe both in the black hole and 'spooky action at the distance'. Please see both papers.
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2013
This is how the event horizon of black hole appears in AWT. The quantum mechanics indeed violates the general relativity in many levels, so that the firewall paradox is the least one. For example in general relativity all objects should collapse in singularity whereas in quantum mechanics they should expand into infinity. Why to bother some information paradox after then?
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
What would happen if I tried to fly into a black hole at a speed greater then c ?
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (18) Mar 06, 2013
This is how the http://www.aether...part.gif appears in AWT.


So they will show up on photographs if I use an AWT camera? It is a pretty picture, but I'm fond of the regular relative reality astrographs. (Though the electron ducks don't show up as well when viewed longitudinally.)
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2013
What would happen if I tried to fly into a black hole at a speed greater then c ?


My guess is that ya would get there before it formed.
LarryD
4.2 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
When going into a BH I thought my feet would be so far away from my brain that the info wouldn't get to my brain in time to tell me that the info wouldn't get to my brain in time to tell me that the info wouldn't get to my brain in time to tell me...that is if I had a brain.
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2013
Who needs this when LIGO does the job. Direct measurements fail. They announce it should be measured within 50 years, followed by an announcement of sensitivity upgrade to 20 years, then to 10 years and they fell silent in 2007 to finally get a Nature pub in 2011. OH no, no direct measurement but we'll stick with the theory as fact and use faith to drive physics.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Mar 07, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Mar 07, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2013
It is interesting to note that Einstein do not believe both in the black hole and 'spooky action at the distance'

So? Belief doesn't matter. Experiment trumps belief any time.
That Einstein said something or believed something doesn't automatically make it true.
Only when he SHOWED his work and it agreed with experiment then that was an indication of whether his ideas were good or not.

They announce it should be measured within 50 years, followed by an announcement of sensitivity upgrade to 20 years, then to 10 years and they fell silent in 2007

I think you should read up on the state of the LIGO experiment. Your info is a bit out of date.

alfie_null
4.6 / 5 (12) Mar 07, 2013
So many fringe theories, so little time.
Symplectic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
Great job! This is a major breakthrough. I give 5 stars.
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (17) Mar 07, 2013
It sounds really well, until we realize, that the mainstream physicists managed to ignore cold fusion

Well, no - since there is no one with a workeable cold fusion appartus (willing to let it be tested by independent people) the argument stands: Experiment trumps belief.
You belive that cold fusion works but cannot show it. So your belief is - until you manage to do so - not merited.

Same for the magnetic motor. No experiment, no workeable theory - no dice.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2013
It is an interesting theory, that the entanglement can be concealed and all the physics requirements (as I know them) met without inconsistency. What are the odds this will be looked at? The computer scientists, doing good physics, have been able to get a physicist to coauthor. Perhaps then.

BTW, the crackpots pushing their own invalid ideas (non-testable due to lack of description, even rejected generically as regards "aether") instead of discussing the article (vm, ValeriaT, mohammadshafiq_khan_1, natello - the usual loons) reminds me of today's article on the Nullarbor cave slime. Feeding of the ammonia of shit, instead of the energy from enlightened science.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 07, 2013
At first, the experiments in physics aren't replicated on the basis of "working apparatus", but by publications, which are describing it.

As you say yourself: Experiment trumps theory. That something is published doesn't necessarily make it true.

For example just prof. Hagelstein

He's not a prof.
He shows something - but whether it's cold fusion isn't clear at all. There's no radiation in his experiments and no fusion products and he just claims that 'smoehow' neutrons are slowed down (which he is unable to observe at any scale)
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
Here is the antidote to such lunatic masturbatory gobbledegook: http://thingumbob...-of.html
Dr_toad
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
The link to this article didn't work for me, but I found it here:
http://prl.aps.or.../e101301


Thanks very much.
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2013
What would happen if I tried to fly into a black hole at a speed greater then c ?


My guess is that ya would get there before it formed.


Mmmm, how so if it's already formed ?

DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2013
I think you should read up on the state of the LIGO experiment. Your info is a bit out of date.


Oh? SO they actually measured it? Or do you count them not measuring it as proof?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
SO they actually measured it?

No, but there are (long standing) calculations what kind of sensitivity you need to detect a gravity wave. And the last LIGO experiment didn't have that (Advanced LIGO will, though...and then we'll find out whether gravity waves are real or not)
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2013
whereas gravitational waves are superluminal

That's what they're trying to find out. Just claiming that they're superluminal doesn't necssarily make it so. We need to measure them. That's what LIGO is set up to do.
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (11) Mar 08, 2013
SO they actually measured it?

No, but there are (long standing) calculations what kind of sensitivity you need to detect a gravity wave. And the last LIGO experiment didn't have that (Advanced LIGO will, though...and then we'll find out whether gravity waves are real or not)

LOL... Faith is for religion.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2013
What does that have to do with faith? The current model predicts a certain effect at a certain speed. Advanced LIGO is geared towards being able to detect such an effect.

If it doesn't (or if the effect turns out to look differntly in speed or amplitude) then that, too, will be an invaluable finding.

We do experiments BECAUSE we don't rely on faith. I think you fail to understand this simple concept.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
LIGO will never detect anything. LIGO is searching for harmonic signal, whereas gravitational waves are superluminal, so they manifest itself with CMBR noise in dense aether model


Its to do with the quasi-superluminal quantum duck ripple-field in the dense after Fermi-Bohr dot matrix water wave. The transform brane aether reestablishing itself through the quantum duck particle fluctuation releasing dark matter neutrino oscilations that distribute themselves bi-valvually clearly establishes that the particle physicist model is corrupt.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 08, 2013
What would happen if I tried to fly into a black hole at a speed greater then c ?


My guess is that ya would get there before it formed.


Mmmm, how so if it's already formed ?



Because if ya are traveling at greater than c time would be running backwards. Have not been keeping up with latest AWT work being done? It's cutting edge ya know.
DarkWingDuck
1.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2013
What does that have to do with faith? The current model predicts a certain effect at a certain speed. Advanced LIGO is geared towards being able to detect such an effect.

If it doesn't (or if the effect turns out to look differntly in speed or amplitude) then that, too, will be an invaluable finding.

We do experiments BECAUSE we don't rely on faith. I think you fail to understand this simple concept.


Wake me up when they directly measure it. DIRECTLY.
DarkWingDuck
1.4 / 5 (12) Mar 08, 2013
We do experiments BECAUSE we don't rely on faith. I think you fail to understand this simple concept.

This is why it's faith. When the experiment that is intended to directly measure the concept continuously produces negative data, it's promptly discounted and you hang on to long held beliefs that have been invalidated by more than a decade of data.

I very much appreciate experiments but I don't ignore the data.
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2013
When the experiment that is intended to directly measure the concept continuously produces negative data, it's promptly discounted

No it is not. Tests sometimes do find a negative where a positive would be expected by current theories. That's the only way to refine theories - and we refine theories all the times.
E.g this just off the front page:
http://phys.org/n...and.html
And you may remember a lot of experiments at colliders prior to the LHC discovery of tghe Higgs-like particle.
All these negative results help establish what something is not. This gives oyu upper and lower bounds where to search next.

And if you've searched everywhere the theory potentially predicts stuff then you need to alter - or even dump - the theory.

I very much appreciate experiments but I don't ignore the data.

You ignore that "no finding" in a conducted experiment IS data.
DarkWingDuck
1.3 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
No it is not. Tests sometimes do find a negative where a positive would be expected by current theories. That's the only way to refine theories - and we refine theories all the times.

And you may remember a lot of experiments at colliders prior to the LHC discovery of tghe Higgs-like particle.
All these negative results help establish what something is not. This gives oyu upper and lower bounds where to search next.

And if you've searched everywhere the theory potentially predicts stuff then you need to alter - or even dump - the theory.

First, you have to prove your system is valid by making a measurment before no measurment can be accapted the way you suggest. LIGO has never measured anything to validate the instrument in that way.

Second, it's not confirmed as the Higgs. They've not eliminated spin 2.

Third, they had a significant range of energy to search for the Higgs.

Forth, the instrument has been proven to work.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2013
whereas gravitational waves are superluminal - that's what they're trying to find out.
Nope, they aren't because they're completely confused and mislead by their beliefs. What the LIGO researchers are doing is, they do separate the noise from data and they looking for harmonic signal in sound frequency spectrum range. If they would check, whether the gravitational waves are superluminal, they would throw-out the harmonics and analyze the noise at the first line instead. Because the concept of superluminal waves implies, they would behave like the noise. So that what these guys are doing with their search for gravitational waves in exactly the opposite way, in which AWT predicts - so they're predestined to find anything.

This is particularly because the gravitational waves aren't some mysteriously weak signal - they were detected in 1964 already as so-called CMBR noise. They just weren't recognized so, because of fringe theory based on linearization of Einstein's pseudotenzor.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
In physics you can always find some new, if you will be thorough and careful enough in patient seeking for subtle weak effects. But at the moment, when you're throwing out carefully just the signal, which you're supposed to analyze, then no patience and thoroughness will actually help you in finding the correct solution: the more carefully you will separate the noise from expected data, the farther you'll get from the real target. And because the physicists don't read the AWT related blogs and discussion threads, they will never realize it. If they would realize it, they would be forced to realize a dozens of another consequences of AWT as well and whole the grant system of mainstream physics would collapse. So our realities are separated each other with psychosocial barrier.
Maggnus
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
Hahaha there ya go duckwing, even Zephyr doesn't agree with you!
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2013
Hahaha there ya go duckwing, even Zephyr doesn't agree with you!

Any scientist that thinks a lack of measurment is significant when an instrument has never measured anything is a quack.