(Phys.org) —The quintessential feature of a black hole is its "point of no return," or what is more technically called its event horizon. When anything—a star, a particle, or wayward human—crosses this horizon, the black hole's massive gravity pulls it in with such force that it is impossible to escape. At least, this is what happens in traditional black hole models based on general relativity. In general, the existence of the event horizon is responsible for most of the strange phenomena associated with black holes.
In a new paper, physicists Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, and Barun Majunder have shown that, according to a new generalization of Einstein's theory of gravity called "gravity's rainbow," it is not possible to define the position of the event horizon with arbitrary precision. If the event horizon can't be defined, then the black hole itself effectively does not exist.
"In gravity's rainbow, space does not exist below a certain minimum length, and time does not exist below a certain minimum time interval," Ali, a physicist at the Zewail City of Science and Technology and Benha University, both in Egypt, told Phys.org. "So, all objects existing in space and occurring at a time do not exist below that length and time interval [which are associated with the Planck scale]. As the event horizon is a place in space which exists at a point in time, it also does not exist below that scale."
When Ali talks about "all objects," he literally means everything around us, including ourselves.
"We also do not exist physically below that length and time interval," he said. "However, for us, our house, our car, etc., it does not matter if we do not exist at any one point of space and time, as long as we exist beyond a certain interval. However, for the event horizon it does matter, and this causes the main difference in our calculations."
Gravity's rainbow
Gravity's rainbow arises from attempts to develop a theory that combines both the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics. To fully solve the problems related to black holes, or even the beginning of our universe, physicists require a theory of quantum gravity.
"Even though no one has been able to discover such a theory, there are various candidates," Ali said. "These include ideas like taking space and time as fundamentally discrete, or using some mathematical loops as a fundamental quantity to construct space and time, or even replacing particles by tiny strings, and many other exotic ideas.
"What many of these models have in common is that it can be inferred from them that the energy of a particle cannot get as large as possible, but that there is a maximum energy that any particle can reach. This restriction can be easily combined with Einstein's special theory of relativity, and the resultant theory is called the doubly special theory of relativity, or DSR."
As the physicists explain, it is possible to generalize DSR to include gravity, and this theory is called gravity's rainbow.
"General relativity predicts that the geometry of space and time curves in the presence of matter, and this causes gravity to exist," Ali said. "Gravity's rainbow predicts that this curvature also depends on the energy of the observer measuring it. So, in gravity's rainbow, gravity acts differently on particles with different energies. This difference is very small for objects like the Earth. However, it becomes significant for objects like black holes."
Information paradox
The point of the work is not simply to abolish one of the defining features of a black hole, but rather the results could resolve the 40-year-old black hole information paradox that began with work by Stephen Hawking back in the 1970s. At that time, Hawking proposed that black holes emit radiation as they rotate, causing them to lose mass faster than they gain mass, so that they steadily evaporate and eventually disappear altogether.
The paradox in this scenario is that Hawking radiation originates from the mass of objects that fell into the black hole, but (in theory) the radiation does not carry complete information about these objects as it radiates away from the black hole. Eventually this radiation is expected to cause the black hole to evaporate completely. So the question then arises: where does the information about the objects go?
In everyday life, shredding or burning paper documents may be common practice to destroy information, but according to quantum theory, information can never be completely destroyed. In principle, the initial state of a system can always be determined by using information about its final state. But Hawking radiation can't determine the initial state of anything.
Many proposals have been put forth to solve this paradox, including the possibility that some information slowly leaks out over time, that information is stored deep inside the black hole, and that Hawking radiation actually does contain complete information.
One of the most developed explanations of the paradox is called black hole complementarity, which is based on the idea that an observer falling into a black hole and an observer watching from a distance see two completely different things. The in-going observer sees information (in the form of himself) pass through the black hole's event horizon, but to a distant observer it appears that the in-going observer never actually reaches the event horizon due to the strange effect in general relativity of time dilation. Instead, the distant observer sees the information being reflected away from the event horizon in the form of radiation. Since the two observers cannot communicate, there is no paradox (though to many people, such a solution may sound even stranger than the paradox itself).
Planck-scale limits
In their new paper, Ali, Faizal, and Majunder show that something very different happens in black hole complementarity when there is no event horizon below a certain length and time interval, as suggested by gravity's rainbow. Instead of it appearing to the distant observer that it takes an infinite amount of time for the in-going observer to reach the event horizon, in the new theory, that time is finite. In other words, the distant observer eventually sees the in-going observer fall into the black hole.
Using this new insight gained from gravity's rainbow, Ali, Faizal, and Majumder claim that the mysteries surrounding a black hole arise from the fact that space and time are being described at a scale at which they do not exist.
"If we restrict our description to scales at which space and time exist, then the apparent paradoxes associated with black holes seem to naturally resolve," Ali said. "For example, as the information paradox depends on the existence of the event horizon, and an event horizon like all objects does not exist below a certain length and time interval, then there is no absolute information paradox in gravity's rainbow. The absence of an effective horizon means that there is nothing absolutely stopping information from going out of the black hole."
Beyond black holes
In addition to offering a solution to the black hole information paradox, the physicists explain that the existence of minimum length and time intervals reminds us that it is important to know what questions one is allowed to ask in physics to get the correct answer. The scientists explain this idea using the analogy of a metal rod:
"We can ask, how much will a rod bend at a given force without breaking the rod? When we apply a force so great that it breaks the rod, it is meaningless to talk of bending that rod. In the same way, in gravity's rainbow, it becomes meaningless to talk of space below a certain length scale, and time below a certain interval.
"The most important lesson from this paper is that space and time exist only beyond a certain scale," Ali concluded. "There is no space and time below that scale. Hence, it is meaningless to define particles, matter, or any object, including black holes, that exist in space and time below that scale. Thus, as long as we keep ourselves confined to the scales at which both space and time exist, we get sensible physical answers. However, when we try to ask questions at length and time intervals that are below the scales at which space and time exist, we end up getting paradoxes and problems."
Explore further:
Researcher shows that black holes do not exist
More information: Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, and Barun Majumder. "Absence of an effective Horizon for black holes in Gravity's Rainbow." EPL. DOI: 1209/0295-5075/109/20001
Also at: arXiv:1406.1980 [gr-qc]

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (22) Jan 30, 2015Gigel
2.3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2015Losik
Jan 30, 2015Wullum
2 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2015In the "metal rod" example, the experiment concludes with the remnants of two (possibly more) broken rod segments, wherein the ambiguous event horizon theoretically eliminates the black hole -- with no remnants.
This comparison makes no sense to me. I understand the "meaningless" conclusion in the example, but not as it applies to the existence of a specific black hole. Perhaps, someone can offer a better analogy.
Also, at what point does the black hole cease to exist? Did it once exist and then vanish, or does it exist only because its event horizon can be defined? If it vanished, where did it go, and what did it become?
JIMBO
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2015Recall that Hawking, in a 2014 paper devoid of math, speculated that BHs do not possess an event horizon. Balderdash !, as astronomers are developing experimental techniques to actually image the event horizon of galactic BH nuclei with X-rays. Once they do, the authors' `pot of gold' at the end of this rainbow will prove to be as illusory, as the one children are told exists after a springtime shower.
KBK
2 / 5 (10) Jan 30, 2015richard miller
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2015It is old news that infinities and singularities can disappear if the concept of a point also disappears, hence string theory (and URMT) amongst others. Whilst the authors do mention this, quote
"These include ideas like taking space and time as fundamentally discrete, or using some mathematical loops as a fundamental quantity to construct space and time, or even replacing particles by tiny strings, and many other exotic ideas."
they seem to be making a rather big deal about an old concept!
Bongstar420
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2015Like its possible to exist and not exist at the same time. Balderdash!
Bongstar420
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015Observe, then describe. Here, apparently its describe then observe. Do you see the difference?
jb1516
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015richardwenzel987
3 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015adave
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015pepe2907
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015And why so? Quantum mechanics effectively says we can't define any particle - not precisely at least. Pretty much the same situation as with the EH according to that theory. Does that mean nothing exists?
Losik
Jan 30, 2015plejarenrrite
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015Wake
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015indio007
2.3 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2015It was once told as a good joke upon a mathematician that the poor man went mad and mistook his symbols for realities; as M for the moon and S for the sun.
-Oliver Heaviside
cfmill3r
5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2015Well, that caught my attention. And it immediately raised two questions in my mind.
First, did "old theory" suggest that black holes could exist where space and time do not exist?
And second (and I think much more interesting), according to this "new theory", what DOES exist where space and time don't exist?
"The most important lesson from this paper...." is that what exists, exists and what doesn't exist doesn't exist. What a breakthrough! This changes everything that it changes and changes nothing that it doesn't change! Which, coincidentally, are two identical sets.
voice
1 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015pfrenger
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015tomnorman
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015I am not a physicist nor an astronomer, but this just kind of makes sense to my simple mind.
pfrenger
4 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015TechnoCreed
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2015Yawn! ER = EPR ie: no information travel faster than light.
mysterioso
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015mysterioso
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015Osiris1
2 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015That's the photon sphere, which is a bit further out than the event horizon
...which is easy to undestand because at the photon sphere an object must travel tangentially at c, while at the event horizon an object must travel radially at c to stay at the same distance relative to the center of the black hole. The photon sphere is the lowest stable orbit you can achieve. Anything below that and you better bring some good boosters to get away.
movementiseternal
Jan 30, 2015movementiseternal
Jan 30, 2015Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015If you could do FTL & look backwards on the photons you passed up, sure, but you can't.
The distances between everything in the universe would "appear to shrink" & at Light speed everything coalesces into a dot.
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2015A much clearer, logical, and confirmable paradigm fits the recent observations being made. See the Electric Universe Conference 2014 for the latest information.
The success of the plasma physicists to describe
Bill Gaede
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015.
Motion consists of locations of an object like a film consists of frames. A frame is a photograph, a static image, a statue. However, the bright mathemagicians are now arguing that a still image has a minimum interval of time (i.e., at least two frames). It just goes to show how much rubbish relativists have invented to cover their appalling ignorance.
bbbbwindows
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015The future of astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology lies in electromagnetism, not gravity.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015So, integration of gravitational forces over distance will overcome the effects of shorter distance electric fields.
While gravity & electric forces are subject to the inverse square law, the effects of gravity never dissipates to zero, in fact it is additive as proven by gravitational lensing. Can you demonstrate some similar effects by electric fields?
mikecandance
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015There are also many theories that involve physics below the Planck length.
I believe that a Black Hole destroys information so completely that there is nothing to recover. Anything passing an event horizon effectively leaves this universe. That at least suggests the known laws of physics are no longer at work in a Black Hole.
If the standard model is no longer at work, don't expect it to give correct answers that apply to the universe at large, much less a laboratory.
deanbrown3d
3 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015jamesblair3
2 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015htoknow
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2015GoodElf
3 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has just one general solutions unlike all other theories in Physics. One special case of this symmetric solution is the Black Hole with a singularity and due to theory limitations is way 'over-studied'. In nature the quantum theory subsumes GR and hence overrules it.
Hui Zhang
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2015jerry bushman
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 30, 2015Porgie
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015RobertKarlStonjek
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015This implies that time dilation is a trick of the light, that light slows (it can't) and/or loses energy (it does) and/or that light can't escape for some other reason. But the implication is that time does not actually freeze relative to the space based observer.
This naive view can easily be disproved if we consider the observer at the event horizon. This observer sees the space based observer speed up. At the point where the space based observer sees the event horizon observer freeze, the event horizon sees an infinite amount of time pass at the space based observer.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015The only possible solution to this paradox is that time dilation between the frames actually exists and that time actually freezes relative to the space based observer.
Thus the Black Hole can not gain any mass after its formation in the proper time of the space based observer. The black hole is frozen in time. Any Hawking radiation is impossible in a finite interval of any observer at any distance from the event horizon.
vickster339
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2015Rotoscience
5 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2015ichisan
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2015burningpostage
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015Perhaps "it's" actually hidden in the genesis of your username..? ;)
burningpostage
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015burningpostage
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015What is..? The event horizon? Because if that's what you mean, it actually isn't, which is why there are two different terms.
AZWarrior
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015narayansalvi_vikas
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015kochevnik
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015movementiseternal
Jan 31, 2015Job001
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015The issue is, does pretend zero time and zero space exist? Na, zero does NOT exist, it is a convenient handy accounting pretend, 0=1-1=0. Mathematically valid, but zero does not "EXIST".
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015TimLong2001
3 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015swordsman
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2015Nor does anything else.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015pepe2907
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2015viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015You are right. Thus defend the dogmas of cosmology. Not much different as in medieval Europe. The same immature way of thinking, centering on strong feelings and desires. Scientists who defend ideas different from the politically correct theories, not receive funding and access to relevant key information. Modern times and darwinian moral standarts.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015jimbo92107
not rated yet Jan 31, 2015I know what you mean. The rod example is a matter of changing a definition (you still have a rod, in pieces), where the black hole concept is existential. What they do share is the idea of rules of the game. They're saying that below certain size levels, the time and space rules of the universe no longer apply, so at that point you should stop your calculations.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2015TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015@ viko
Do you realize that TimLong2001 is discrediting Georges Lemaître only on the basis that he was a catholic priest?
Losik
Jan 31, 2015cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2015For good reason, he was justifying his religious POV;
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory [Big Bang]. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven
4D4Life
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2015dumpsta101
4 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015its alittle old so im not sure if evidence has come up to disprove it since then but id like to hear peoples ideas on this subject :D
movementiseternal
Feb 01, 2015movementiseternal
Feb 01, 2015Rickey
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015Rickey
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015viko_mx
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015" viko
Do you realize that TimLong2001 is discrediting Georges Lemaître only on the basis that he was a catholic priest?"
I do not think there is a sign of equality between a catholic priest and a true christian. Does any church officer is a minister of God? There are many esoterics in the ranks of the clergy.
Rickey
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2015Luke 19:27 - "Everyone who does not agree that I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, bring them here and kill them in front of me."
The truth is that there is ONE eternity before this moment in time, and there is ANOTHER eternity after this moment in time, so 2 x eternity = the cube root of infinity, squared, squared.
It's in the bible - idiots.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015The bible is a codex, written in parable/metaphor style. Those two "eternities" you speak of are actual physical states that we are sandwiched in the middle of. We're a "boundary" layer.
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015You are right. Thus defend the dogmas of cosmology. Not much different as in medieval Europe. The same immature way of thinking, centering on strong feelings and desires. Scientists who defend ideas different from the politically correct theories, not receive funding and access to relevant key information. Modern times and darwinian moral standart
@ viko
Do you realize that TimLong2001 is discrediting Georges Lemaître only on the basis that he was a catholic priest?
That is totally ridiculous! It is on the basis of being a simplistic interpretation of the cause of the background red shift. The obscurantist aspect is also prevalent relating to Humason and should be researched.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015@TimLong2001
Where have you heard that story and who is Humason ? reference please... links
TechnoCreed
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015Georges Lemaître was a Jesuit; same society has today's Pope Francis. The Jesuit society demands four vows of its members: poverty, chastity, obedience to Christ, and obedience to the Pope. The purpose of the Jesuits is the propagation of the Catholic faith.
In 1960 he was named Prelate by Pope John XXIII and this is why he is referred to as Monsignor Lemaître. So in the church he had the same ranking has a Bishop. The same year he also became president of the Pontifical Academy.
So if you are a man of faith and science Lemaître should be one of your models.
http://theor.jinr...bio.html
Losik
Feb 01, 2015viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2015"So if you are a man of faith and science Lemaître should be one of your models."
For me he is an ordinary person like everyone else. I do not see logic and reason to accept his ideas.which are not biblical. If one christian questioned creation described in the first book of the Bible - Genesis, as did this priest, and express such ideas about the creation of the being, he in fact is esoteric, but not a true christian.
GoodElf
not rated yet Feb 01, 2015rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015TechnoCreed
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015Have you any interests in the physical nature of the world? Why are you here if not to discuss the different aspects of what is observed and measured in nature and in laboratories?
Cont
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2015Are you telling me that you are here commenting but you are not relating in any way to what is being said? What would be the point of having discussions with people that you cannot relate to? Those are only questions to satisfy my curiosity. I need to understand your motivations. I have to tell you that I am agnostic but do not see your faith as a flaw; I do not have any prejudgement on that. But if you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, you bet that I will put you on ignore. If you are just a curious about the opinion of others that is more interesting.
t_d_lowe
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2015But it is not possible to define it with arbitrary precision *currently*, the horizon varies depending on your velocity, and your velocity is subject to quantum uncertainty.
"...If the event horizon can't be defined, then the black hole itself effectively does not exist."
That is not a logical consequence.
"an event horizon like all objects does not exist below a certain length and time interval"
But the event horizon is not an object, it is just an imaginary surface in space.
dumpsta101
not rated yet Feb 02, 2015thanks for the comment. I've got some research to do! :D
jazzy_j_man
not rated yet Feb 02, 2015viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2015""Have you any interests in the physical nature of the world? Why are you here if not to discuss the different aspects of what is observed and measured in nature and in laboratories?"
Yes, thats why I'm here with timid hope to read a realistic article about the world in which we live. It seems that department technology is most interesting and realistic, and this is understandable due to competition in the technology sector. But departments for the fundamental sciences, physics and cosmology for example are in permanent stupor the last few decades unfortunately. There is not even small step forward. Who fleeing from the truth can not progress. I still hope to have a movement in forward direction.
When I argue always declare a clear position. You just do not read my comments enough to understand my point of view and motivation but this is not my problem.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2015Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2015=-=-=
Cool, how 'bout coasting over to 67P and tell us where Philae is...
=-=-=
Not at all—it's extremely helpful in allowing us to more quickly recognize what we'll be observing. The need for the observations you mention is a very good point.
=-=-=
As for the article, an easy and extremely fascinating example to the contrary is Sgr A* – it certainly seems to exist and calling it something other than a black hole doesn't change that fact. And below the Planck scale, {Doesn't Exist} + {Doesn't Exist} + ... =/= {Does Exist}
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2015You must not have heard about the accelerating expansion of the universe and other interesting advances.