In March 2012, Joseph Polchinski began to contemplate suicide — at least in mathematical form. A string theorist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, Polchinski was pondering what would happen to an astronaut who dived into a black hole. Obviously, he would die. But how?
Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?Authors: Ahmed Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joseph Polchinski, James Sully
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123
The team’s verdict, published in July 2012, shocked the physics community. Such firewalls would violate a foundational tenet of physics that was first articulated almost a century ago by Albert Einstein, who used it as the basis of general relativity, his theory of gravity. Known as the equivalence principle, it states in part that an observer falling in a gravitational field — even the powerful one inside a black hole — will see exactly the same phenomena as an observer floating in empty space. Without this principle, Einstein’s framework crumbles.
http://www.nature.com/news/astrophysics-fire-in-the-hole-1.12726
I think that presently nobody believe in firewall as a solution to the information paradox (in their paper they suggested it as a solution...) but as a reincarnation of the the same long-standing paradox, i.e. there is something of very wrong in our present understanding of quantum gravity even at semiclassical level E
As far as I know, there hasn't been any conclusive solution accepted yet. Though I have reservations the way equivalence principle is stated in the link "observer falling in a gravitational field — even the powerful one inside a black hole — will see exactly the same phenomena as an observer floating in empty space."
I wonder, isn't the observer falling to a black hole accelerating though he might "experience" weightlessness as well. So, how can that situation be compared with another observer floating in empty space.
On my opinion the blunder in radiation calculations (as Unruh effect) for radiation which the accelerated observer will see. In this case the equivalence principle isn't violated.
The main problem is that they all ignore the transplanckian problem: Hawking radiation, as a prediction of the theory, is nicely justified during the collapse. But already a few second after the collapse it depends on the correctness of the theory for distances many magnitudes smaller than the Planck length. Thus, Hawking radiation should be simply rejected as the result of a completely unjustified calculation.
The most reasonable hypothesis is that Hawking radiation simply stops a very short time after the collapse.
Fact is that the firewall scenario is just an other way of trying to get round the infinities that surround black holes in GTR.
These along with other paradoxes can be lifted by reformulating the maths
Einstein did not predict the existence of black holes, in fact he denied their existence in a paper published in 1936, Simply because that would imply the existence of singularities, with infinite density and zero time passage at the event horizon.
The force of gravity in General relativity (GTR) is thought to come form the curvature of space-time.
Unfortunately the maths of GTR implies infinite curvature and zero time passage at the black hole event horizon and the black hole becomes a singularity- and yet the black hole has a radius.
The Misner Wheeler Thorne interpretation partially resolved this in that the singularity rests inside the event horizon.
But yet another paradox arises if time stops at the event horizon (frozen star) no matter would fall in hence black hole could not accumulate matter, and all the in-falling matter would be situated at or near the event horizon, hence the firewall.
The solution is to alter the maths of GR.
Additionally GR falls down in a number of areas, so any new maths should also resolve these problems
Yes GR works in the weak fields of the the solar system, and Intermediate
fields of neutron stars.
1). It produces infinite density singularities in the very strong fields
such as in black holes.
2).It does not necessarily explain dark matter in galaxy cores where we
know super-massive black holes exist and the galactic dark matter
therein,
3). It does not explain dark mater present in galactic halo's,and galactic
clusters such as the bullet cluster,
4).It does not explain the presence of cosmological dark matter as a whole.
5). It has not yet been fully corroborated by the studies of neutron stars
and in black holes.
6). It does not easily explain the presence of dark energy and cannot be
translated in quantum gravity.
7). It predicts that time stops at the event horizon
Here I enclose a number of publications which explain all of these
phenomena, whilst agreeing with the results of GR where it has been
thoroughly tested.
1).First to obviate the infinite density singularities.
1a)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity?ev=prf_pub
1b)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689554_The_formulation_of_Dynamic_Newtonian_advanced_gravity_DNAg?ev=prf_pub
2).Secondly we explain the presence of dark matter at the centre of the
galaxy.
2a)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228858219_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_and_Cold_Dark_Matter_Modelling._The_Gravity_of_Dark_Matter
3) Thirdly it is possible to explain the presence of dark matter in the
galactic halo.
3a)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689929_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Physics_and_Dark_Matter_Modelling_of_the_Galactic_Halo?ev=prf_pub
4). It is able to explain the presence of cosmological dark matter
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity
5). It is corroborated in neutron stars (including Data from radiation
damping ) and is corroborated by black hole studies.
5a)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32888463_An_advanced_modification_of_dynamicgravitation
5b).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269667939_Corroboration_of_Dynamic_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_from_Observations_of_Cygnus_X-1
6) it explains dark energy and translates into quantum gravity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32899306_String_quintessence_and_the_formulation_of_advanced_quantum_gravity
7). It does not offer infinite time dilation at the event horizon
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287213872_Finite_Gravitational_Time_Dilation_In_Black_Holes_Using_Dynamic_Newtonian_Advanced_Gravity_DNAg
Article An advanced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian equations of gravity
Article The formulation of Dynamic Newtonian advanced gravity, DNAg
Article Advances in Black Hole Gravitational Physics and Cold Dark M...
Article Advances in Black Hole Physics and Dark Matter Modelling of ...
Article An advanced modification of dynamic gravitation
Article Corroboration of Dynamic Black Hole Gravitational Physics fr...
Article String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity
Article Finite Gravitational Time Dilation In Black Holes Using Dyna...
Ilja Schmelzer wrote: Thus, Hawking radiation should be simply rejected as the result of a completely unjustified calculation.
It agree.
Given the non infinite boundary, then Hawking radiation may be right
Andrew Worsley wrote
>Fact is that the firewall scenario is just an other way of trying to get round the infinities that surround black holes in GTR.
It agree. However note that such infinities one can avoid by using LOOP quantum gravity approach.
LQG fails too. They try to be background-free, how they would circumvent http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1408 is unknown.
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:LQG fails too.
However it is possible to use LQG as an rough approach
Hm, what means as a rough approach? I see no way to recover, in some limit, the simple prediction of Newtonian quantum gravity without a background, or something else which identifies which event on one solution is the same as one on another solution. But in LQG you have no background by construction.
>Hm, what means as a rough approach?
By using quantum spacetime as formal regularization of the classical singularities
Milky Way's Monster Black Hole Unleashes Record-Breaking X-ray Flare - See more at: http://www.space.com/28193-monster-black-hole-largest-flare-ever.html#sthash.S3zyGhfG.dpuf
http://www.space.com/28193-monster-black-hole-largest-flare-ever.html
Jaykov, you can of course regularize some singularities away, but the problem described in http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1408 is not a singularity. It is a quantum variant of the hole argument.
C. Y. Lo wrote :· "Yes， we saw X-Ray Flare. However, nobody have proved this is due to black holes."
However Joseph Polchinsky claimed that he has proved that it probably or even it's possible.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/black-hole-firewalls-could-change-physics-forever/
C. Y. Lo Wrote :Yes， we saw X-Ray Flare. However, nobody have proved this is due to black holes.
Ok. Lima has explained such X-Ray Flare using an model without black holes.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3421
http://arxiv.org/ct?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10%252E1103%2FPhysRevLett%252E104%252E161102&v=b6edf747
Singularities never exist in nature. Singularity indicates a flaw in the underlying theory , namely a deficiency in the mathematical model describing the theory. The actual spacetime of the universe is hyperbolic as we did prove mathematically [S. A. Mabkhout, Phys. Essays 25, 112. 2012]. We prove mathematically that singularity never exists.
Article Information Loss Paradox Resolved by Nonsingular Hyperbolic Spacetime
Salah, you cannot prove, even in principle, that something exists or does not exist. Out of principle. What can be proven mathematically are mathematical theorems, not facts about reality. Of course, if a theory has singularities, this is a strong argument that the theory is wrong. But the principle that no singularities exist in Nature is a principle, a very reasonable one, not nothing provable mathematically.
Ilja Schmelzer, I did`t say I did prove " singularities never exist in nature " which is a principle. Our believe in a principle guide us to try to find a mathematical model. I did prove mathematically singularity neither exists at the big bang nor at the center of a black hole. See : Advances in general relativity research . ch 11. Salah A. Mabkhout
Book Advances in General Relativity Research
So, you have proven a theorem that nor at the big bang, nor in a black hole there will be singularities in GR? In contradiction with the well-known theorems proven by Hawking and Penrose that these singularities are unavoidable in GR given more or less reasonable properties of matter? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems In this case, do you see a conflict and how is it solved?
IlJa Schmeizer, The conflict and how is it solved ? Simply, Hawking and Penrose singularity pre-assumed a flat spacetime which is an oversimplification. The spacetime is locally flat (e.g. the spacetime of solar system) where Newton laws valid. Globally the spacetime is hyperbolic, where Newton laws failed. The hyperbolic structure of the spacetime prevents singularity to be formed. This done mathematically. Hawking and Penrose singularity is well done in the flat spacetime,unfortunately the spacetime globally is not flat. If you are interesting in mathematics, see attached File and the previous attached Book.
Article The hyperbolic geometry of the universe and the wedding of g...
Article The Big Bang hyperbolic universe neither needs inflation nor...
Working Paper The General Relativity Theory Possesses Nonsingular Big Bang...
Salah, you write "To seek completeness, it remains to develop an equation describes the speed up motion in the hyperbolic space-time and predicts the flat curve."
No. Even in the curved Friedman solution, the geodetic equation describes how point particles move. You have to compute it, not to guess a new one.
And you should know that the curvature parameter has always been part of the Friedman models. It is known to lead to observable effects, and this has allowed to measure the global curvature. It appeared to be flat, with high accuracy. And certainly so flat that the curvature has no influence on the galactic rotation curves.
I am not a physicist so you may call me stupid if you like. But if a firewall exists (which I doubt), I fail to see why this threatens general relativity. I mean e.g. if an accelerating car were stopped short because it hit a brick wall, this would not violate Newton's second law of motion. How is a firewall different from a brick wall in this context?
In any case, I fail to see why information loss violates quantum theory. Unless you invoke the many worlds interpretation, quantum collapse or decoherence means that information is being lost all the time. Feynman said that the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics means that "the future cannot be predicted." Likewise, the past cannot be reconstructed from the present. Decoherence is supposedly irreversible, so giving the quantum arrow of time. The "law of conservation of information" requires that everything is reversible, hence no arrow of time. Leonard Susskind tells me that there is no consensus on the source of time's arrow. There are many unanswered questions...
Physics is the study of the movement of bodies in space. Most scientists think this means the movement of dead bodies propelled by meaningless forces (I quote from Ravi Ravindra, emeritus professor of physics and comparative religion at Dalhousie University). It is surely self-evident that consciousness cannot be reduced to the movement of dead bodies in dead space. Ergo: physics does not study the most fundamental level of reality.
Stephen Hawking confessed that he felt uncomfortable whenever anyone mentioned consciousness. Leonard Mlodinow, his co-author on "The Grand Design", remarked at a consciousness conference in Stockholm in 2011, that he thought that consciousness may never be explained. So the subtitle to their book - "New Answers to the Ultimate Questions of Life" - is something of an over-claim. 'Nuff for now.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Theoretical Physics