Space-time theory may reconcile black hole conundrum

February 9, 2015 by Vanessa Janek, Universe Today
An artist’s impression of a supermassive black hole. Black holes are rife with paradoxes, but a new theory suggests that they can all be resolved by agreeing that space and time break down at very small scales. Credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser

We've come a long way in 13.8 billion years; but despite our impressively extensive understanding of the Universe, there are still a few strings left untied. For one, there is the oft-cited disconnect between general relativity, the physics of the very large, and quantum mechanics, the physics of the very small. Then there is problematic fate of a particle's intrinsic information after it falls into a black hole. Now, a new interpretation of fundamental physics attempts to solve both of these conundrums by making a daring claim: at certain scales, space and time simply do not exist.

Let's start with something that is not in question. Thanks to Einstein's theory of special relativity, we can all agree that the speed of light is constant for all observers. We can also agree that, if you're not a photon, approaching light speed comes with some pretty funky rules – namely, anyone watching you will see your length compress and your watch slow down.

But the slowing of also occurs near gravitationally potent objects, which are described by . So if you happen to be sight-seeing in the center of the Milky Way and you make the regrettable decision to get too close to our 's (more sinisterly known as its point-of-no-return), anyone observing you will also see your watch slow down. In fact, he or she will witness your motion toward the event horizon slow dramatically over an infinite amount of time; that is, from your now-traumatized friend's perspective, you never actually cross the event horizon. You, however, will feel no difference in the progression of time as you fall past this invisible barrier, soon to be spaghettified by the black hole's immense gravity.

So, who is "correct"? Relativity dictates that each observer's point of view is equally valid; but in this situation, you can't both be right. Do you face your demise in the heart of a black hole, or don't you? (Note: This isn't strictly a paradox, but intuitively, it feels a little sticky.)

And there is an additional, bigger problem. A black hole's event horizon is thought to give rise to Hawking radiation, a kind of escaping energy that will eventually lead to both the evaporation of the black hole and the destruction of all of the matter and energy that was once held inside of it. This concept has black hole physicists scratching their heads. Because according to the laws of physics, all of the intrinsic information about a particle or system (namely, the quantum wavefunction) must be conserved. It cannot just disappear.

Why all of these bizarre paradoxes? Because black holes exist in the nebulous space where a singularity meets general relativity – fertile, yet untapped ground for the elusive theory of everything.

Enter two interesting, yet controversial concepts: doubly special relativity and gravity's rainbow.

Dr. Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University alongside illustrations of a black hole and an event horizon with Hawking Radiation. He continues to engage his grey matter to uncover the secrets of the Universe while others attempt to confirm his existing theories. Credit: Photo: BBC, Illus.: T.Reyes

Just as the speed of light is a universally agreed-upon constant in special relativity, so is the Planck energy in doubly (DSR). In DSR, this value (1.22 x 1019 GeV) is the maximum energy (and thus, the maximum mass) that a particle can have in our Universe.

Two important consequences of DSR's maximum energy value are minimum units of time and space. That is, regardless of whether you are moving or stationary, in empty space or near a black hole, you will agree that classical space breaks down at distances shorter than the Planck length (1.6 x 10-35 m) and classical time breaks down at moments briefer than the Planck time (5.4 x 10-44 sec).

In other words, spacetime is discrete. It exists in indivisible (albeit vanishingly small) units. Quantum below, classical above. Add general relativity into the picture, and you get the theory of gravity's rainbow.

Physicists Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, and Barun Majumder believe that these theories can be used to explain away the aforementioned black hole conundrums – both your controversial spaghettification and the information paradox. How? According to DSR and gravity's rainbow, in regions smaller than 1.6 x 10-35 m and at times shorter than 5.4 x 10-44 sec… the Universe as we know it simply 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," explained Ali, who, along with Faizal and Majumder, authored a paper on this topic that was published last month. "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]."

Luckily for us, every particle we know of, and thus every particle we are made of, is much larger than the Planck length and endures for much longer than the Planck time. So – phew! – you and I and everything we see and know can go on existing. (Just don't probe too deeply.)

The event horizon of a black hole, however, is a different story. After all, the event horizon isn't made of particles. It is pure spacetime. And according to Ali and his colleagues, if you could observe it on extremely short time or distance scales, it would cease to have meaning. It wouldn't be a point-of-no-return at all. In their view, the paradox only arises when you treat spacetime as continuous – without minimum units of length and time.

"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," concluded Ali.

No absolute event horizon, no information paradox.

And what of your spaghettification within the black hole? Again, it depends on the scale at which you choose to analyze your situation. In gravity's rainbow, spacetime is discrete; therefore, the mathematics reveal that both you (the doomed in-faller) and your observer will witness your demise within a finite length of time. But in the current formulation of general relativity, where spacetime is described as continuous, the paradox arises. The in-faller, well, falls in; meanwhile, the observer never sees the in-faller pass the event horizon.

"The most important lesson from this paper is that space and time exist only beyond a certain scale," said Ali. "There is no space and time below that scale. Hence, it is meaningless to define particles, matter, or any object, including , 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."

To recap: if spacetime continues on arbitrarily small scales, the paradoxes remain. If, however, gravity's rainbow is correct and the Planck length and the Planck time are the smallest unit of and time that fundamentally exist, we're in the clear… at least, mathematically speaking. Unfortunately, the Planck scales are far too tiny for our measly modern particle colliders to probe. So, at least for now, this work provides yet another purely theoretical result.

The paper was published in the January 23 issue of Europhysics Letters.

Explore further: Black holes do not exist where space and time do not exist, says new theory

More information: "Absence of an Effective Horizon for Black Holes in Gravity's Rainbow." Europhys.Lett. 109 (2015) 20001. DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/109/20001

Related Stories

Researcher shows that black holes do not exist

September 24, 2014

Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not ...

What would it be like to fall into a black hole?

September 8, 2014

Let's say you decided to ignore some of my previous advice. You've just purchased yourself a space dragon from the Market on the Centauri Ringworld, strapped on your favorite chainmail codpiece and sonic sword and now you're ...

Recommended for you

Terahertz laser pulses amplify optical phonons in solids

November 15, 2018

A study led by scientists of the Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter (MPSD) at the Center for Free-Electron Laser Science in Hamburg/Germany presents evidence of the amplification of optical phonons ...

Bursting bubbles launch bacteria from water to air

November 15, 2018

Wherever there's water, there's bound to be bubbles floating at the surface. From standing puddles, lakes, and streams, to swimming pools, hot tubs, public fountains, and toilets, bubbles are ubiquitous, indoors and out.

Designer emulsions

November 15, 2018

ETH material researchers are developing a method with which they can coat droplets with controlled interfacial composition and coverage on demand in an emulsion in order to stabilise them. In doing so they are fulfilling ...

Quantum science turns social

November 15, 2018

Researchers in a lab at Aarhus University have developed a versatile remote gaming interface that allowed external experts as well as hundreds of citizen scientists all over the world to optimize a quantum gas experiment ...

41 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015
A big conundrum could be solved when it is realized that BH are not real, they are merely mathematical constructs of fanciful metaphysicists. Once all these loons, especially "Dr" Hawking, grasp this fact we can get back to real physics and get past this era of fictional nonsense.
Neros Fiddle
3 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2015
Just as 90 db and 44.1kHz is to the analog music recorded onto a CD. Quantum Reality anyone?
Gigel
5 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
A big conundrum could be solved when it is realized that BH are not real, they are merely mathematical constructs of fanciful metaphysicists. Once all these loons, especially "Dr" Hawking, grasp this fact we can get back to real physics and get past this era of fictional nonsense.

BHs as limit cases for a collapsed object can exist. I think that from our perspective ideal BHs do not exist (unless we all fell into one). But BHs that are just forming may well exist and I see no problem in working with the mathematical concept of a black hole.

It is just as saying that current disappears when you unplug a device and short its terminals; in reality current just decreases exponentially forever. After a while it doesn't matter that you still have some electricity there, it is practically zero.
movementiseternal
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gigel
5 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2015
movement, just build an experiment that clearly separates between your theory and general relativity, run said experiment or at least propose it and after that you can call it science. Until then you are just repeating yourself.
alextheaboveaverage
not rated yet Feb 09, 2015
"But in the current formulation of general relativity, where spacetime is described as continuous, the paradox arises. The in-faller, well, falls in; meanwhile, the observer never sees the in-faller pass the event horizon."

I don't understand why the observer couldn't just no longer be able to observe the in-faller. The concept, and please correct me if I am wrong, of a black hole is that its gravity is so strong, not even light can escape? And that this would occur within a certain distance of the singularity, thus where the term "event horizon" originates.
If the "in-faller" crosses this threshold, discrete or not, would they not just seem to "disappear" to the observer? I may just be too lay to understand the paradox. Could someone help me with that?
Moebius
not rated yet Feb 09, 2015
"anyone observing you will also see your watch slow down. In fact, he or she will witness your motion toward the event horizon slow dramatically over an infinite amount of time; that is, from your now-traumatized friend's perspective, you never actually cross the event horizon."

If objects slow down near an event horizon, nothing would ever fall in. Is there any observational evidence that nothing is falling into black holes? I thought there was all kinds of evidence stuff is falling in them all the time.
seannelson1969
not rated yet Feb 09, 2015
Zeno's Paradox (to wit: dichotomy one ) anyone?
kamcoautomotive
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
treddie
1 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2015
"Now, a new interpretation of fundamental physics attempts to solve both of these conundrums by making a daring claim: at certain scales, space and time simply do not exist."

Well like...DUHH! I thought the whole point with the Planck length was that below its value, space and time make no sense and simply do not exist at "smaller" scales. ("smaller" in quotes because there IS no "smaller" below the Planck length). Correct me if I am wrong, but that is news from over 60 years ago?!
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Losik
Feb 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jerry_bushman_7
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015
Okay here goes, I'm going to say it, General Relativity is wrong. Einstein used gravitational lensing to prove gravity warps space, yet it doesn't. The only thing being warped by gravity is visible light. When we use it to view distant and obscured galaxies we are not view a warp in space, it is just bent light. Space is just space. Everything that exists is in space and space is constant, It is not thicker in one place or thinner in another.

Now for black holes. First they are not holes. Second physics does not break down near or in them. Black holes are only super dense and massive objects with gravity so great that light cannot escape. Also there is no point of no return. A black hole the mass of 100 suns approaches the SMBH at the center of our galaxy. This smaller black hole would be going very fast, even approaching light speed as it seems to enter into a tight orbit around the SMBH. When the SMBH begins to rip apart the smaller one, matter then leaves the weaker.
RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet Feb 09, 2015
Spaghettification is a myth.

Consider a rod with accelerometers front, centre & rear. The rod is accelerating. Will the front and rear accelerometers read the same? The answer is no, the front will read lower and the rear will read higher than the centre accelerometers.

A light beam coming from the front to the centre will be blue shifted & from the rear will be red shifted.

Same rod, stationary above a massive body, front at the lower altitude. The centre notices that the front accelerometer reads higher and the rear lower, light from the front is red shifted and from the rear is blue shifted.

Now the rod free falls. Acceleration causes front accelerometer to be lower, gravity causes it to be higher, acceleration causes light from the front to be blue shifted, gravity causes it to be red shifted.

In other words, they cancel out completely. All three accelerometers read the same, no blue/red shift, no forces, no spaghettification. Einstein: free fall=floating in space
bbbbwindows
1.4 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2015
When will all this nonsense stop. One failed theory on top of another and none of them make any sense. To believe this "black hole conundrum" all one needs to accept is that the laws of physics must be abandoned. That probably means the theory is wrong so let's try another!! It's not a coincidence that black holes, neutron stars and dark matter have NEVER been observed or experimentally verified. Time for a NEW VANTAGE POINT.
Current radio telescope data ( Planck) is validating the concept that electromagnetism, not gravity, may be the driving force in cosmology today. Massive electric currents have been identified coursing through the galaxy as well as their galactic sized magnetic fields. This is what the electric universe models have been predicting for 30 years. Maybe some attention should be paid to this new data instead of all the hand wringing about failed concepts such as black holes. In all likelihood they are dense plasma bodies, from which the galaxy has formed.
movementiseternal
Feb 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
movementiseternal
Feb 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
alextheaboveaverage
3 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2015

As was explained to me, and I'm no expert but your right light loses energy once it crosses the EH. You would be in the future light cone of the person that falls in and cannot see him fall in because that's already in his past light cone at the time of the event (him falling in). But the future light cone is stuck at before the person went in because there is no more light and since time is slowed way down there, it looks as if he is stuck.


Thanks for the explanation. I've spent some time trekking down the "Light Cone" rabbit-hole, and have to admit that I am still confused a bit. The concept itself makes sense; however, now I am a bit confused about the "speed of light is locally constant" concept, but that's another conversation, perhaps.
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
The only reason anyone believes gravity warps space is because Einstein proposed it and then proved it with gravitational lensing. Gravity is bending light, light is not following warped space. NASA is so good at using the gravity of a planet to speed up and alter the course of probes because they are using gravity, not warped space. There is no proof gravity has an effect on space but it does affect matter and light. Don't be fooled to think it is anything else.
alextheaboveaverage
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
There is no proof gravity has an effect on space but it does affect matter and light.


The thing I think you are missing is that space is not "just space," as you argue earlier. In relativity, the three spatial dimensions we experience are counted with a fourth, which is time. Space and time are often coupled, and referred to as space-time. Gravity (according to the theories I've spent my morning becoming more familiar with) creates warps in space-time, not just space.

In your arguments, you reject relativity without providing any evidence or data to support your case. Is there any science to support what you are saying?
royrporterjr
1 / 5 (3) Feb 10, 2015
There may already be solution! The newest ideas are leading in the direction I took many years ago, One of these Ideas was seen in "Interstellar" in which you can Time travel by simply hanging around a black hole and then leaving. The solution, and even a possible new definition of gravity, rely on the immense "potential" difference between two very different "Rate of Time" zones. I already published one book, poorly written, on this subject and am re-writing and renaming it to "Time Factor". ultimate-theory-of-everything dot com. Soon to be renamed also to Time Factor or similar website. Possible late Spring 2015 re-release.
jerry_bushman_7
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
Any proof space isn't just space? Any proof space and time are linked? I see no proof they are linked. I see no proof time is the fourth dimension. This whole nonsense about mass warping space is a bunch of hooey. Einstein proved his theory of general relativity by witnessing gravitational lensing. The funny thing is all he did was prove lensing. Gravity affects all matter and light. Gravity bends light, that is proven and can be demonstrated. Calling it something else just give you cause to warp your brain. Physics is not as complicated as one would make it out to be. There is space with matter in it, that matters is moving. There are stars, of many types, planets, moons, asteroids and comets, gas clouds and galaxies, black holes and smbhs, but time is not an object or a way to measure space. It is just that, time. It is a way to log when you did it or when you plan to do it or to know when you are right now. The reason we call space, space, is because that is what it is, space.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Feb 11, 2015
Any proof space and time are linked? I see no proof they are linked.

Do you have a GPS (car navigation system or on your phone)? Do you know that it would be WILDLY inaccurate if relativistic spacetime effects weren't accounted for? (GPS is accurate to within 5-10 meters. Without accounting for relativistic spacetime effects the positioning would be off by 10km for EVERY DAY of its operation.)

Another thing that you may have observed is the color of gold. Gold SHOULD look like silver, but due to relativistic effects it does not.

You are using the theory of relativity and spacetime distortion every day. I don't know how you can still ask for proof. This isn't even some "in the lab observed" stuff. This is stuff you have at home staring you in the face.
jerry_bushman_7
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2015
13.....Einstein theorized gravity would warp space and he proved it with gravitational lensing. All he proved was gravity bends light. If he had theorized that gravity will bend light, he would have proved that and he never would have thought about it warping space. You can go on and on about warping space but it would be wrong. You are only preaching what you were taught. Think for yourself. There is no proof that space is warped for all we see is gravity bending light. Space is nothing. You can't warp nothing. You can affect what is in space, but not space. Nothing has an effect on nothing.

Antialias.....Yes GPS would be off if we didn't account for the bending of light. Everything you say about warping space and or time is explained by gravity effecting light and the time piece.

For the past 4 years I have been putting it out there that there was no big bang and now some physicists are backing me up. Water did not make the lake, it merely filled it
alextheaboveaverage
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
Water did not make the lake, it merely filled it


Doesn't mean water could not have created the lake.

http://en.wikiped...bow_lake

Your arguments sound a lot like the conservapedia article on relativity...:

http://www.conser...lativity

...which is, by the way, hilarious. No evidence, no citations, just refuting established science because "it's wrong."
jerry_bushman_7
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
13.....I don't have to prove my point, Einstein already did. Gravity bends light. All of our NASA missions have been able to use gravity to increase speed and alter course. Just because you say space is bent and I say light is bent, does not change the math. Light is something and it can be bent. Space is nothing and nothing can not be bent for it is nothing. Now before you say space is not nothing for it has stuff in it, I never said the stuff in it is not affected by gravity. The stuff is affected just not the emptiness. In order for gravity to affect something it has to be something, you know like matter or say.....hmmmmm....light. Everything I am saying, you agree with. Light is bent and matter can be pulled or pushed. Einstein was very smart, he proved light can be bent, only he said it was space, not light......which he proved by looking at bent light.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2015
A bodies movement through space is what makes time.
- who?

The Doctor: People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey... stuff.
alextheaboveaverage
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
Light is something and it can be bent. Space is nothing and nothing can not be bent for it is nothing.


Interesting argument. Again, no citations. It really wouldn't be too hard to find science to support your argument if it had any such basis.

You seem to be arguing for a Newtonian definition of gravity, where F = G*(m_1*m_2)/(r^2). Photons are the particles that make up light. If space itself is not warped by the mass of an object, whereby do you suppose gravity can bend light? Gravitational force, as you seem to be claiming is acting on the light and altering it's course, can not act on the mass of photons because they have no mass.
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2015



Gravitational force, as you seem to be claiming is acting on the light and altering it's course, can not act on the mass of photons because they have no mass.

If can not be bent because photons have no mass then how is that the gravity of a black hole can prevent light from escaping? You see, gravity can control light
alextheaboveaverage
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
If can not be bent because photons have no mass then how is that the gravity of a black hole can prevent light from escaping? You see, gravity can control light


Asking me a question that I just asked you is not an answer. Tell me, how does gravity cause light to "bend."
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2015
Gravity can bend light just like gravity can stop light. I put it to you....how does gravity stop light? I am not answering you with a question. I am pointing out you don't understand what you are asking.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2015
Gravity can bend light just like gravity can stop light. I put it to you....how does gravity stop light? I am not answering you with a question. I am pointing out you don't understand what you are asking.


jerry,

I think what you are missing here is that the BH isn't gravitationally drawing the light in, it is
--as I understand it-- bending/warping SpaceTime(the medium through which light propagates) into itself.

This is really difficult to conceptualise, but if you take the time to read up on the subject, things start to make sense. Especially important is not to confuse the event horizon with the accretion disk.

Even more stunning to contemplate is that the event horizon itself is a discrete record of everything that has ever fallen into the gravity well of a BH. A giant cd.

Or, more properly, a giant uncertainty/probability-distribution disc, since the Uncertainty Principle dictates that no particle's speed, position, and momentum can be known simultaneously.
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2015
Caliban.....I am not missing anything. It is my position that space itself is not warped. It is merely light that is being bent. The event horizon is only the limit line that an object can be in orbit around a black hole at the speed of light. Beyond that is gets crushed and joins the black hole, or as it really is, a black dense mass of matter. Black holes are not holes. If you had been keeping up, Einstein's theory of GR has already come in to question. Your comment has already been covered and you did not address my comment
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2015
Caliban.....I am not missing anything. It is my position that space itself is not warped. It is merely light that is being bent. The event horizon is only the limit line that an object can be in orbit around a black hole at the speed [...] Black holes are not holes. If you had been keeping up, Einstein's theory of GR has already come in to question. Your comment has already been covered and you did not address my comment


OK, jerry-

That's what I get for trying, then.

If you won't try to see that your understanding of gravitational lensing is flawed,and how this misunderstanding creates further misunderstanding of BHs -and much else besides- then there is little help for you in any case.

This is a science news site, so I'll not bother with further attempts in that regard. If you wish to expose yourself to the inevitable ridicule of your I-know-better postings, then knock yourself out.
jerry_bushman_7
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2015
Caliban......Note the time and date. This was when you refused to understand that you have it wrong. Einstein set out to prove gravity bends space. He used gravitational lensing to prove it. Had he set out to prove gravity bends light he would have proved it with the same test. I can not talk with him but I can argue that flaw here. The question he posed is flawed. Photons have no mass so they can not be affected by gravity. Isn't it odd the photons can't be affected yet the absolute nothingness of space can be. There is absolutely no proof that what I am saying is inaccurate. Everything that says he was right, says I am right. All of the math fits my argument.
Nik_2213
4.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2015
"...can not act on the mass of photons because they have no mass."

{cough} They may not have a *rest* mass, but they have a mass-energy equivalent due motion.
nswanberg
not rated yet Feb 16, 2015
Hollow black holes solve all.
Lesea
1 / 5 (1) Feb 16, 2015
This just initiates the problem instead, as the hollow holes cannot be black.
SHREEKANT
1 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2015
"Now, a new interpretation …. space and time simply do not exist."

2ND OPINION: Please refer my comment [dated 24th,Jan'2015] on "space – time"

"it is imaginary thing for mathematical approach & application. The basic thing is DE & its derivatives from which the universe is made. They form an structure called …… from which whole universe is made up of."

for 2ND OPINION: please visit

http://swarajgrou...ely.html

http://swarajgrou...sis.html

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.