What's on the surface of a black hole? Not 'firewall'—and nature of universe depends on it, physicist explains

June 16, 2015 by Pam Frost Gorder
What's on the surface of a black hole?
Simulated view of a black hole by Alain Riazuelo of the French National Research Agency, via Wikipedia.

Are black holes the ruthless killers we've made them out to be?

Samir Mathur says no.

According to the professor of physics at The Ohio State University, the recently proposed idea that have "firewalls" that destroy all they has a loophole.

In a paper posted online to the arXiv preprint server, Mathur takes issue with the theory, and proves mathematically that black holes are not necessarily arbiters of doom.

In fact, he says the world could be captured by a black hole, and we wouldn't even notice.

More than a decade ago, Mathur used the principles of to show that black holes are actually tangled-up balls of cosmic strings. His "fuzzball theory" helped resolve certain contradictions in how physicists think of black holes.

But when a group of researchers recently tried to build on Mathur's theory, they concluded that the surface of the fuzzball was actually a firewall.

According to the firewall theory, the surface of the fuzzball is deadly. In fact, the idea is called the firewall theory because it suggests that a very literal fiery death awaits anything that touches it.

Mathur and his team have been expanding on their fuzzball theory, too, and they've come to a completely different conclusion. They see black holes not as killers, but rather as benign copy machines of a sort.

They believe that when material touches the surface of a black hole, it becomes a hologram, a near-perfect copy of itself that continues to exist just as before.

"Near-perfect" is the point of contention. There is a hypothesis in physics called complementarity, which was first proposed by Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind in 1993. Complementarity requires that any such hologram created by a black hole be a perfect copy of the original.

Mathematically, physicists on both sides of this new fuzzball-firewall debate have concluded that strict complementarity is not possible; That is to say, a perfect hologram can't form on the surface of a black hole.

Mathur and his colleagues are comfortable with the idea, because they have since developed a modified model of complementarity, in which they assume that an imperfect hologram forms. That work was done with former Ohio State postdoctoral researcher David Turton, who is now at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the CEA-Saclay research center in France.

Proponents of the firewall theory take an all-or-nothing approach to complementarity. Without perfection, they say, there can only be fiery death.

With his latest paper, Mathur counters that he and his colleagues have now proven mathematically that modified complementarity is possible.

It's not that the firewall proponents made some kind of math error, he added. The two sides based their calculations on different assumptions, so they got different answers. One group rejects the idea of imperfection in this particular case, and the other does not.

Imperfection is common topic in cosmology. Physicist Stephen Hawking has famously said that the universe was imperfect from the very first moments of its existence. Without an imperfect scattering of the material created in the Big Bang, gravity would not have been able to draw together the atoms that make up galaxies, stars, the planets—and us.

This new dispute about firewalls and fuzzballs hinges on whether physicists can accept that black holes are imperfect, just like the rest of the universe.

"There's no such thing as a perfect black hole, because every black hole is different," Mathur explained.

His comment refers to the resolution of the "information paradox," a long-running physics debate in which Hawking eventually conceded that the material that falls into a black hole isn't destroyed, but rather becomes part of the black hole.

The black hole is permanently changed by the new addition. It's as if, metaphorically speaking, a new gene sequence has been spliced into its DNA. That means every black hole is a unique product of the material that happens to come across it.

The information paradox was resolved in part due to Mathur's development of the fuzzball theory in 2003. The idea, which he published in the journal Nuclear Physics B in 2004, was solidified through the work of other scientists including Oleg Lunin of SUNY Albany, Stefano Giusto of the University of Padova, Iosif Bena of CEA-Saclay, and Nick Warner of the University of Southern California. Mathur's co-authors included then-students Borun Chowdhury (now a postdoctoral researcher at Arizona State University), and Steven Avery (now a at Brown University).

Their model was radical at the time, since it suggested that black holes had a defined—albeit "fuzzy"—surface. That means material doesn't actually fall into black holes so much as it falls onto them.

The implications of the fuzzball-firewall issue are profound. One of the tenets of string theory is that our three-dimensional existence—four-dimensional if you count time—might actually be a hologram on a surface that exists in many more dimensions.

"If the surface of a black hole is a firewall, then the idea of the universe as a hologram has to be wrong," Mathur said.

The very nature of the universe is at stake, but don't expect rival physicists to come to blows about it.

"It's not that kind of disagreement," Mathur laughed. "It's a simple question, really. Do you accept the idea of imperfection, or do you not?"

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

Related Stories

Seeking proof for the no-hair theorem

September 9, 2014

According to general relativity, a black hole has three measurable properties: mass, rotation (angular momentum), and charge. That's it. If you know those three things, you know all there is to know about the black hole. ...

Video: How do black holes evaporate?

April 14, 2015

Nothing lasts forever, not even black holes. According to Stephen Hawking, black holes will evaporate over vast periods of time. But how, exactly, does this happen?

Black holes do not exist as we thought they did

February 14, 2014

On January 24, the journal Nature published an article entitled "There are no black holes." It doesn't take much to spark controversy in the world of physics... But what does this really mean? In a brief article published ...

Recommended for you

Fast radio bursts may be firing off every second

September 21, 2017

When fast radio bursts, or FRBs, were first detected in 2001, astronomers had never seen anything like them before. Since then, astronomers have found a couple of dozen FRBs, but they still don't know what causes these rapid ...

Hubble discovers a unique type of object in the Solar System

September 20, 2017

With the help of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, a German-led group of astronomers have observed the intriguing characteristics of an unusual type of object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter: two asteroids ...

50 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SkyPanther
4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2015
This is welcome news if it turns out to be correct. I am a huge fan of information theory, and the Black hole information paradox is troubling. Though there is some evidence now that information is not actually lost.
Psilly_T
5 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2015
slightly confused -.-'.... and not afraid to admit it. what else does imperfection imply to in our universe? Can anyone else give me an important cosmological implication of imperfection ASIDE from the one used in the article about matter coalescing into atoms and the confusing firewall?
What implications would we have if this was a perfect universe? What evidence is there for this if there is a whole faction who accept a perfect universe?
I'm very confused, why can't it just be. (lol) Is this all an attempt to prove hologram theory or is this just a big opinion battle with no direct implications other than curiosity?
Psilly_T
1 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2015
sorry laggspam post
Psilly_T
1 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2015
sorry lag spam post
Returners
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2015
This appears to remove the infinite density paradox for black hole singularities as well.
docile
Jun 16, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 16, 2015
"It's not that kind of disagreement," Mathur laughed. "It's a simple question, really. Do you accept the idea of imperfection, or do you not?


LOL. I can certainly accept the idea of imperfection in the minds of physicists! They clearly are off their rocker, lost in a math fantasy, still dreaming of unseen dimensions! And they don't even know it. Might as well be a primetime comedy on TV....
billpress11
2 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2015
Articles like this one make me question if BH even exist. It is like fantasy built upon fantasy.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2015
So.... what if we are continually falling into "black holes"...?
If a hologram is "perfect", what's to prevent another hologram being made from the first hologram? Hell, even it wasn't perfect....
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2015
slightly confused -.-'.... and not afraid to admit it. what else does imperfection imply to in our universe? Can anyone else give me an important cosmological implication of imperfection ASIDE from the one used in the article about matter coalescing into atoms and the confusing firewall?
What implications would we have if this was a perfect universe? What evidence is there for this if there is a whole faction who accept a perfect universe?
I'm very confused, why can't it just be. (lol) Is this all an attempt to prove hologram theory or is this just a big opinion battle with no direct implications other than curiosity?

It's - perfectly imperfect...
That's what makes it all so perfect...:-)
MRBlizzard
5 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2015
For Psilly_T
I think the imperfection of the hologram could yield the Uncertainty Principle. It would be interesting to compare the estimated imperfection with Plank's Constant.
Kron
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2015
It is speculative of course, and speculation is the basis of science. The speculation is based on postulates, but the postulates are purely subjective based on perceptions. I'm laying in the imperfect side of the argument as perfection to me implies balance in all direction, destroying variation and all variables. A perfect universe in my eyes would have never sparked, a perfect balance of matter and antimatter in an environment equally suited for the existence of both would not be. This is though a belief, one that I can prove in theory but it is rooted on tenets I assume to be true. Science requires a starting point, assumptions must be made for a hypothesis to emerge. If shown as plausible a theory emerges. If better than competing theories (or more popular even) it becomes mainstream. A theory can never be right, only shown to be wrong. It is because theories are based on postulates that we can never prove them as true. This is not bad, just a consequence of being part of reality;)
Kron
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2015
I can certainly accept the idea of imperfection in the minds of physicists! They clearly are off their rocker, lost in a math fantasy, still dreaming of unseen dimensions!


No. They are in the search of a theory which closest matches with observations of the world around them. It is not their fault that the search leads them into a physical reality which is greater than that which is perceivable, to the contrary, it shows they are not so dead set in beliefs that they are not willing to accept facets of reality which are currently unobservable. It actually shows open mindedness and humbleness, that they are not so pompous as to assume that all we see is all there is. They are allowing evidence to take them down strange pathways in the search for knowledge. Kinda enlightening actually. Who's to say that a world we cannot perceive is not all around us. The evidence sure doesn't...
theon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2015
The idea that this type of mathematical games has anything to do with astrophysical black holes makes me womit.
big_hairy_jimbo
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2015
I like MrBlizzards comment. I too suspect that quantum uncertainty, fuzziness is from the hologram on the surface of the singularity. It has been suggested before, and I believe this concept was used in the upgrades to LIGO (or whatever it is called, the gravitational wave interferometers) to help reduce noise.

You know I wish scientists would refer to these objects as DARK holes. Adopt the same naming convention, Dark Holes, Matter and Energy.

Personally I suspect a dark (black) hole is actually a Quark Star. Wouldn't that be the next form of stellar collapse after a Neutron Star??? If it's a Quark Star, then I'd suspect it's a Quark Gluon Plasma. Now wasn't that the stuff the universe came from moments after the Big Bang Event? Again, my wild speculation and dream time story telling, has me believing that Black Holes are other Universes. The expansion rate of the other Universe is governed by the matter/energy falling into it. So what is time doing inside that thing???
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2015
I can certainly accept the idea of imperfection in the minds of physicists! They clearly are off their rocker, lost in a math fantasy, still dreaming of unseen dimensions!


No. They are in the search of a theory which closest matches with observations of the world around them. It is not their fault that the search leads them into a physical reality which is greater than that which is perceivable, to the contrary, it shows they are not so dead set in beliefs that they are not willing to accept facets of reality which are currently unobservable. It actually shows open mindedness and humbleness, that they are not so pompous as to assume that all we see is all there is....

Well said, it would seem tuxford is narrow minded and already fell off his rocker..
thingumbobesquire
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2015
Nuts.
Multivac jr_
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2015
They believe that when material touches the surface of a black hole, it becomes a hologram, a near-perfect copy of itself that continues to exist just as before.

How does something become a copy of itself? It didn't say "a copy is made," which would imply that the result is one original and one copy (i.e. two objects would be present).

What's the difference between material that touches the surface of a BH and becomes a near-perfect holographic copy of itself "that exists just as it did before" vs. material that touches the surface of a BH and is just slightly 'degraded' or otherwise altered in some way by the interaction (but that's all)?

That is, since the net result of both possibilities appears to be the same then what's the functional difference between making an almost-identical copy of something out of itself (which seems complicated) vs. slightly altering it (which seems a lot simpler)?
machapungo
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2015
Mathur says "The two sides based their calculations on different assumptions, so they got different answers." I accept that statement as revealing the Achilles heel of math. Like computers, it submits to "garbage in = garbage out". You can model virtually anything with math, which can provide both good or bad answers. So that leaves us with having to apply some form of logic to the problem of assigning formal or informal probabilities to the task of deciding which answer is tentatively correct or most correct. To answer Mathur's "simple question", I say imperfect, which is in agreement with those that assert that the big bang would not have occurred if it were perfect (meaning balanced). While math is a valuable tool it is kind of like religion in the sense that it is where many physicists go for answers when observation and experiment coupled with logic seem to lack a cohesive set of possible answers. Neither method is necessarily superior to the other. Both are needed.
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Jun 17, 2015
In fact, he says the world could be captured by a black hole, and we wouldn't even notice.
Well, the activity in the heart of our galaxy is certainly noticeable.

The conjecture relies on E>>T, and a particle traversing a maelstrom of matter (emitting x-rays and gamma rays as objects are ripped apart from tidal forces) on the way in, and the affect that may have on the particle's E, doesn't appear to be directly addressed (unless I missed it, or it was covered referentially), so I basically haven't a clue. Thanks in advance to anyone who can clarify that.

The idea that spacetime inside the horizon doesn't exist, and that there is a stacked D-brane superspace just above where the horizon would otherwise be, is nevertheless fascinating...
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Jun 17, 2015
In fact, he says the world could be captured by a black hole, and we wouldn't even notice.


Well, the activity in the heart of our galaxy is certainly noticeable.


Well, we may not notice us hitting the BH...but the accretion disc (and the radiation bath we'd be getting along the way) would probably be quite noticeable. Tides might also be a bit off.

As I understand it: If one can cross the event horizon (as in the classical view of BHs) then matter will become unstable - as all the forces are dependent on force-carrier interchanges (gluons, photons and W/Z-bosons) which are limited to (sub) light speeds. So any part of an atom that is 'further out' would not be able to feel the force of any of its parts 'further in'.
Very close to the event horizon there should already be an asymmetry to this force exchange causing matter to become mostly unstable - so I'm not quite sure about the "we wouldn't notice anything" statement.

Anyone know where I'm off here?
swordsman
1 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2015
So Einstein was wrong after all. Black holes are not what he thought they were.
aeolius
not rated yet Jun 17, 2015
"The black hole is permanently changed by the new addition. It's as if, metaphorically speaking, a new gene sequence has been spliced into its DNA. That means every black hole is a unique product of the material that happens to come across it.'
This quote fascinates me. Two lines of questions
1. The first is what is saved. If a human being and a rock of same size etc hit black hole would anything different be saved? Does say the pattern of information in the DNA get saved?The patterns of cellular connections in the brain.? The quote above suggests whatever patterns are saved. Are the patterns saved or are the interactions with existing patterns within the black whole saved.
2. Is this only true for information within the black hole or is there an analogy for the Universe at large (or are we all in a black whole hole)

Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2015
Tides might also be a bit off.
That was more a reference to the cause of the radiation bath you mentioned, which any particle having E>>T would have to go through on its way in.

The E>>T argument is used to recover complementarity (in the nature of duality) which had been ruled out by previous work based on only considering particles having E~T, and hence providing a loophole bypassing the no-hair theorem and establishing "fuzzball complementarity".

But since the temperature of a large black hole is very low anyway, it's unclear to me how impacting particles could have energy E~T in the first place, or how they could have E>>T simply by starting out with more gravitational potential energy (considering what is encountered on the way)...
arpotu
4 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2015
perhaps they should work on connecting the standard model of physics with string theory, before they start trying to assign "string-like" attributes to objects which already follow the standard model.
docile
Jun 17, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2015
perhaps they should work on connecting the standard model of physics with string theory, before they start trying to assign "string-like" attributes to objects which already follow the standard model.
Please have a quick look at this short column from the APS back in 2005 -- I think you (and swordsman, re: Einstein was wrong comment) would benefit from it: This Month in Physics History: Einstein's quest for a unified theory
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Jun 17, 2015
Mathur opposes the fireball model with his fuzzball theory, but actually both theories are about the same physical concept -
What concept? It can't be this concept --
about emergent neighourhood of black holes which resembles pretty much the central bulge of most of galaxies. This bulge represents both the fuzzy outer surface of central black hole, both the firewall, which will collide with everything impacting into it.
-- because this refers to outside of the horizon and the subject of the article is bypassing the no-hair theorem and eliminating the question of a firewall inside the horizon. Both firewall and fuzzball concepts will emit radiation in similar amounts, but the process is different.
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Jun 17, 2015
Out on a limb in left field guess:

If there's a bh-bh merger within range of the aLIGOs, maybe they'll hear a crackling hiss/buzz instead of a ringdown. The former being in support of fuzzball microstates and no spacetime in which to ring. Wouldn't surprise me if the string theorists have a paper on it somewhere already -- anyone know?
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2015
@Psilly_T
slightly confused -.-'.... and not afraid to admit it. what else does imperfection imply to in our universe? Can anyone else give me an important cosmological implication of imperfection ASIDE from the one used in the article about matter coalescing into atoms and the confusing firewall?
What implications would we have if this was a perfect universe? What evidence is there for this if there is a whole faction who accept a perfect universe?
I'm very confused, why can't it just be. (lol) Is this all an attempt to prove hologram theory or is this just a big opinion battle with no direct implications other than curiosity?
Concerning the imperfection that is discussed here, it was known before COBE that there had to be anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background for our actual Universe to exist because its energy density is uneven.

(Cont.)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2015


But as black hole were concerned they used to be theorized to be pretty featureless (Wheeler's no-hair theorem) and that their only descriptive data available were their spin, mass and electric charge.
One problem, this theorised model presented a paradox in the information theory. This paradox is still unresolved and actually highly debated amongst physics theorist.

(Cont.)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2015


For a better understanding of this debate, let me suggest some good videos from fantastic communicators:
1- Leonard Susskind will introduce you to the information theory and the holographic principle. https://www.youtu...l3Hfh9tY
2- Sean Carroll and Jennifer Ouellette will explain to you what could be happening at the event horizon. This presentation is at the fantastic Faraday Theater of the Royal Institution (Thinking of the great minds that presented lectures there, this place makes me shiver). http://www.richan...irewalls
3- In the Oullette Carroll presentation they talk about the AMPS paper. Here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123
4- If you need some more details, this short article on the black hole complementarity might guide you to other information sources. https://en.wikipe...entarity
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2015
@TechnoCreed, thanks for the links, I see I was wrong about which side of the horizon the firewall is on.

@docile, sorry about that Zeph. Imperfection sucks :) Were you using the concept to make a point about the 'self-similar cosmological paradigm'?

I think my guess on using the aLIGOs to test fuzzball complementarity wasn't too imperfect. Anyone have any thoughts? Haven't had a chance to check...
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
"More than a decade ago, Mathur used the principles of string theory to show that black holes are actually tangled-up balls of cosmic strings. "

The scientists(?) with the same mind set claimed that the earth is flat and was worn on four gigantic turtles.

"They believe that when material touches the surface of a black hole, it becomes a hologram, a near-perfect copy of itself that continues to exist just as before."

This is not science. This is religion.

They invent some physical model based on their ideas for the reality and begin to dissertate over it. Just vanity. Noting else.

lomed
not rated yet Jun 19, 2015
As I understand it: If one can cross the event horizon (as in the classical view of BHs) then matter will become unstable - as all the forces are dependent on force-carrier interchanges (gluons, photons and W/Z-bosons) which are limited to (sub) light speeds. So any part of an atom that is 'further out' would not be able to feel the force of any of its parts 'further in'.
I think this only applies to the propagating part of the field.

The static fields generated by matter inside a black hole should not change qualitatively. More to the point, nothing unusual happens locally at the event horizon (even in terms of things that propagate). This is because the event horizon is a global property, it is a "point of no return" in the sense that if one passes this surface it is impossible to return to a distance arbitrarily far from the black hole. It is not clear to me how the fuzzball concept changes this, but I doubt that it changes it very much.
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Jun 19, 2015
This is because the event horizon is a global property, it is a "point of no return" in the sense that if one passes this surface it is impossible to return to a distance arbitrarily far from the black hole. It is not clear to me how the fuzzball concept changes this, but I doubt that it changes it very much.
It actually changes it quite a bit, by asserting that there is no horizon, or even any regular spacetime beyond where the horizon would have formed, due to breakdown of the equivalence principle there. See the intro and fig.1 on page 1 of the paper linked in the article. There are other compelling reasons mentioned, but I don't understand it well enough (yet) to summarize it without it sounding like gibberish...
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Jun 19, 2015
Am still thinking the direct detection of gravitational wave radiation from a bh-bh merger would work to falsify the black hole fuzzball microstate aspect of string theory. After some checking, the theory has been criticized for lack of ways to falsify it, and using LIGO data to find evidence of cosmic strings has been worked out in some detail...
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Jun 19, 2015
Ah-ha, found it (last paragraph of the last page of "Black Holes, Black Rings and their Microstates") --

"The whole problem of finding experimental or observational tests of string theory is that the string scale and the Planck scale are so far out of reach of present accelerations... Indeed, the gravitational wave detectors LIGO and LISA are very likely to detect the gravitational "ring-down" of merging black holes within the next few years and, while the underlying computations will be extremely difficult, one might reasonably hope that the microstate structure arising from string theory could lead to a new, detectable and recognizable signature in the LIGO or LISA data."
lomed
5 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2015
You are right. They say in the paper that the principle of equivalence fails near what would classically be the event horizon. Low energy excitations, like Hawking radiation, see a fuzzball, while higher energy excitations see a curved vacuum.

The intuitive reason is that for low energies the classical event horizon stays inside of the fuzzball (which extends to of order one Planck length outside where the classical event horizon would be), while for large energies the event horizon reaches out to encompass the incoming particle (in accord with classical General Relativity). This is a slightly misleading intuition since (from what I understand from the paper) an event horizon never forms. I guess it would be better to say that the fuzzball reaches out and engulfs the incoming particle. If that particle has a high enough energy, it can approximately survive as a collective excitation of fuzzball modes (until the surplus entropy it provides is used up by the Hawking radiation).
MicroTech
5 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2015
Unable to follow Mathur's reasoning (impressive that peer reviewers — indeed anyone — are able to grok its equations), no comment on his fuzzball paradigm, but I have a few notes on Hawking Radiation (HR), "Particle Creation By Black Holes" projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103899181:

• HR is a hypothesis: No HR has ever been detected.

• HR comes from one of a virtual particle-antiparticle pair popping out of the quantum foam OUTSIDE the BH event horizon: one falls in, the other gets an energy boost (preventing the pair's annihilation), allowing it to escape as EM radiation. The mechanism is not explained.

• HR requires negative mass. How this mass appears is not explained.

• BHs — unless VERY small — are COLD: a 10 solar mass BH ≈ 100 nK, 10^8 times colder than the CMB — the Second Law doesn't allow heat to flow from cold to hot.

See "Questioning Hawking Radiation" app.box.com/s/005pb9ax9j2l2344ij81

MicroTech
not rated yet Jun 20, 2015
The concept of "original copies" is both interesting and entertaining, but what does it mean? That the first copy made is somehow special?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
What's on the surface of a black hole?

Dancing leprechauns, winged unicorns and fire-breathing dragons. Nonsense begets nonsense.
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2015
I think it has to do with TV and Modern Physics, fantasy! Simple, even atoms tear apart, the fields from these really fast moving particles, speed limited by interactions "here"! Calculable without any new physics or GR! I am guided by the facts not the "funky" ideas!
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
• HR comes from one of a virtual particle-antiparticle pair popping out of the quantum foam OUTSIDE the BH event horizon: one falls in, the other gets an energy boost (preventing the pair's annihilation), allowing it to escape as EM radiation. The mechanism is not explained.
When a photon goes from A to B, one possibility is for it to turn into a particle/antiparticle briefly before coming back together and annihilating, producing a photon. If this happens to a photon inside (but next to) the horizon, then the black hole will evaporate when one of the particles is created within a Planck length from the outside of the horizon... seems more like a firedome around a firewall. Interesting physics, where GR meets QM...
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
When a photon goes from A to B ...
um, after more checking, not quite sure where I got that model from... First part's Feynman, I think. There's a model that involves quantum tunneling through the horizon, but it also depends on virtual particles from the vacuum...

The model (from MicroTech's notes) with virtual particles where both are created outside the horizon, arises when considering the equivalence principle and the Unruh effect. And temperature, entropy, rotation (of the black hole), negative energy (frame dependant), a boost from the gravitation which make the virtual particles real, and loss of mass (that's still locked inside the horizon) to make it all balance. A lot to consider...
EnsignFlandry
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
This appears to remove the infinite density paradox for black hole singularities as well.


The infinite density of a BH, or the BB, is based on classical general relativity. Quantum mechanics does not allow singularities. Just as there is a Planck time and Planck length, there is a Planck volume. Anything smaller is meaningless to discuss. When we finally have a theory of quantum gravity, singularities will disappear as a physical concept. I think we'll find that the singularity is replaced by a Plank volume of frothing ever-changing spacetime.
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2015
Just as there is a Planck time and Planck length, there is a Planck volume. Anything smaller is meaningless to discuss.
Hardly, because if it's meaningful to discuss a Planck volume then it's meaningful to discuss the smaller (by two dimensions) Planck length. And Planck time is even smaller, since it's Planck length divided by the speed of light. What about Plank area plus time?
I think we'll find that the singularity is replaced by a Plank volume of frothing ever-changing spacetime.
But isn't that characterization based on elements smaller than a Planck volume? More to the point, is the standard model scale-invariant? Is it possible to fit the mass of a million stars in a region that small? Is there a point when gravitational confinement and the curvature of spacetime "break the symmetry of uncertainty"? How does QM work if all possible states are already filled and matter has no room to move?
docile
Jun 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.