40 views

Uploaded by colordiamonds

interesting article

save

You are on page 1of 5

Richard P. Dolan

Abstract

In the inflaton spacetime model, spacetime singularities are not possible, either inside

black holes or anywhere else. Inside a black hole is a tiny core of super-dense matter.

Therefore, the information loss paradox that is the subject of much controversy among

physicists does not exist. There is a form of complementarity, since an observer outside a

black hole does not see the same thing as an observer inside.

Black holes are dead stars that have collapsed under the gravitational attraction of their

own mass. The matter density at the center of a black hole is extremely high. Some say it

is infinite and the center of a black hole is a singularity. The density is so high that a

horizon forms outside of the black hole where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of

light. Nothing that falls through the horizon can escape, even light. Thus, a black hole is

really black—nothing inside can be seen from outside the horizon.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking showed that the temperature of a black hole is not absolute

zero as it was previously assumed, and that black holes radiate energy like black bodies.

Eventually, a black hole will evaporate. However, the temperature is inversely

proportional to the mass of the black hole so that very large black holes have exceedingly

low temperatures, much lower than the current temperature in space, which means they

are currently absorbing energy rather than radiating it.

In 1976, Hawking concluded that the information content of whatever falls into a black

hole is irretrievably lost from the universe. The Hawking radiation, he said, is purely

thermal and contains no information other than temperature. The infalling matter goes

down the singularity along with its information content. Leonard Susskind, Gerard t’

Hooft and other physicists realized that this would violate the unitarity that is

fundamental to quantum mechanics. They insisted that there could be no loss of

information and have been trying ever since to prove that the information comes back out

in the Hawking radiation. The controversy is not yet settled.

It is generally agreed that getting rid of the singularity would solve the information loss

problem, although it does not show what happens to the information.

In the inflaton spacetime model (Physics Essays, 19, 370 and here), singularities are

impossible, so the black hole information loss problem does not exist. Spacetime consists

of quantum entities called points, which are mixtures of fermionic and bosonic points. It

is indistinguishable from a spacetime consisting of two coupled fields, one fermionic and

the other bosonic. Obeying Bose-Einstein statistics, the bosonic points seek the same

quantum state, dragging the coupled fermionic points with them. This is gravity.

However, the fermionic points obey Fermi-Dirac statistics and cannot occupy the same

state. This is degeneracy pressure. The result is a quantum lattice of fermionic points

pilled together by gravity but held apart by degeneracy pressure. Each fermionic point is

confined to a Planck-scale cell bounded by other fermionic points. The positions of these

points are subject to quantum fluctuations. There is a ground state of lowest energy

corresponding to empty space. If the energy of a point is above the ground state, a

particle exists at that point.

Black holes form when stars exhaust their fuel and are too large to be held up by the

degeneracy pressure of their electrons or neutrons. They then undergo gravitational

collapse, forming a dense core surrounded by a horizon located at the point of no return

for matter and energy falling in. The theory of General Relativity says that the core is a

singularity, a point of zero size and infinite mass density. However, General Relativity

does not apply to Planck-scale physics. In the inflaton spacetime model, the maximum

theoretical mass density, assuming that all fermionic points are stationary and in an

excited state, is the Planck density. A singularity cannot form as long as the fermionic

points are held apart by degeneracy pressure. Degeneracy pressure for points is much

stronger than for particles. Since space is undergoing an accelerating expansion, it is

possible that at some time in the far distant future space may become large enough for its

gravity to overcome its degeneracy pressure just as it does for black holes, in which case

it will collapse to a singularity. However, unless the entire universe collapses, no isolated

singularity can ever form at any point. Therefore, we can conclude that there is no

singularity in any black hole, and no information is lost.

If there is no singularity, the core of a black hole is simply a very dense amalgamation of

all of the matter that has fallen through the horizon. It just consists of particles that are

very close together. Their positions are still subject to quantum fluctuations, that is, they

have position wave functions. Naturally, these position wave functions are sharply

peaked in the region around the center of the black hole, but there is always some

nonzero probability that any given particle could be found at any finite distance from the

center, even beyond the horizon. In other words, the particles inside a black hole can

tunnel through the gravitational barrier, enormous as it is, and escape from the black hole.

Given enough time, some say 1068 years or so for a solar-mass black hole, a black hole

will evaporate. What looks like Hawking radiation from outside the horizon is quantum

tunneling to an inside observer. The larger the black hole, the smaller the tunneling

probability and the longer it takes for the black hole to evaporate. For Hawking radiation,

larger black holes have lower Hawking temperatures and therefore radiate at slower rates.

Thus, with respect to evaporation, the views of observers outside black holes are

consistent with those of inside observers. But the Hawking radiation is not devoid of

information. It contains all of the information that has ever fallen into the black hole.

Jacob Bekenstein realized that black holes must have entropy and calculated that the

entropy of a black hole is proportional to the area of the horizon, not to the volume

enclosed by the horizon. This surprised everyone because it is counterintuitive. Entropy is

a measure of information. One would expect that the amount of information contained in

a lump of stuff would be proportional to the volume of the lump. In the inflaton

spacetime model, there is no need to give up this intuitive notion. If we conjecture that

the information content of a black hole is proportional to the volume of the core, then

Bekenstein’s conclusion simply means that the volume of the core must be proportional

to the area of the horizon. This actually makes a lot of sense. Let’s look at a black hole

whose mass M is nmPl, where mPl is the Planck mass. The horizon radius is

rH = 2GM/c2 = 2nGmPl/c2.

Expressing G in terms of the Planck mass and length, we find that the horizon area is

AH = 4πrH2 = 16πn2lPl2,

where lPl is the Planck length. In other words, the horizon area is equal to a certain

number of Planck areas (the Planck length squared).

Bekenstein showed that the horizon area increases by one Planck area for each bit of

information falling into the black hole, that is, the number of bits of information equals

the number of Planck areas on the horizon. Now, what if we assume that the core

contains the same number of Planck volumes, lPl3, as the horizon contains Planck areas.

Then the entropy, or information content, of the black hole is proportional to both the

core volume and the horizon area. The core volume is

Vc = 16πn2lPl3,

ρc = mPl/16πnlPl3,

Notice that the core density decreases as the mass nmPl increases. This is consistent with

the basic definition of mass in the inflaton spacetime model: for a particle that is not a

composite of other particles, mass is the inverse of the position uncertainty of the particle.

As the mass of a black hole increases, the core volume also increases, so the position

uncertainty of any given particle increases and the average mass that any Planck volume

can represent decreases. Thus, the core volume must increase by a greater factor than the

mass.

Now let’s calculate the core size and density for a two-solar-mass black hole. The

numbers we’ll need are:

mPl = 2.1768 × 10-5 g

lPl = 1.6160 × 10-33 cm.

For a mass twice the sun’s mass, n = 1.83 × 1038 and n2 = 3.34 × 1076. Then the volume

of the core of this black hole is:

The core radius rc is about 1.2 nanometers! The core density is an enormous 2.8 × 1053

g/cm3!

Black hole complementarity was conceived by Leonard Susskind to explain the black

hole information paradox. He noted that an observer outside a black hole never sees

anything fall in. That observer can’t see anything past the horizon because nothing can

escape from the inside. Everything that falls in appears to remain at the horizon,

becoming spread out over the horizon area. The horizon appears to be a very hot

amalgamation of matter and energy that, of course, radiates energy, which cools as it

escapes from the gravitational pull of the black hole, ultimately reaching the Hawking

temperature as seen by the distant observer. On the other hand, an observer falling into

the black hole sees nothing at the horizon, only empty space. Inside the black hole, this

observer, given a powerful enough microscope, might see the tiny core slowly

evaporating by quantum tunneling. Neither observer would see any loss of information.

Susskind noted that the two observers’ views are complementary in the same way that the

particle and wave views of a photon or an electron are complementary. Both situations

satisfy Bohr’s principle of complementarity. In the case of the photon, you can only

observe it as either a particle or a wave, never both at once. Therefore there is no

contradiction between the two views. In the case of the black hole, the inside and outside

observers can never communicate with each other, so the two views never contradict each

other.

While black hole complementarity is still somewhat controversial, and while most

physicists believe that black holes contain singularities, there seems to be no way to

disprove complementarity, and it seems to me to be correct.

- Tilman Hartwig, Statistical predictions for the first black holesUploaded byVasillis Mamos
- RelatividadUploaded byEvangelina Carricondo
- Henry Krabbendam - Sovereignty and ResponsibilityUploaded byiosifell
- Black Hole WarUploaded byandrews paul
- CUHP_abhiUploaded byNaresh Adhikari
- Explanation TextUploaded byFransiska Siska
- Hiroko Koyama and Sean A. Hayward- Construction and enlargement of traversable wormholes from Schwarzschild black holesUploaded byKunma050
- Very good document on Schwarzchild geometryUploaded bysid_senadheera
- Special relativity.pdfUploaded byelement1000
- Paranormal Phenomena, Physics and Dirac EnergyUploaded byOdessa File
- Part Two: Reassessing Lorentz’s theory for the electrodynamics of moving bodiesUploaded byJuiomSDF
- A No-Go Theorem about Rotation in Relativity Theory.pdfUploaded byhammoudeh13
- One ModelUploaded byA. Campbell
- A Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning String Theory as a HologramUploaded byIJSTR Research Publication
- Bearden - Gravitational and Em Energy From Curved Space-timeUploaded byizoldo
- PhysicsUploaded bychrysteluy

- The Radio Chemistry of Rhodium(Rh).US AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- A Textbook of Physics.J H Poynting 1914Uploaded bycolordiamonds
- A Space Physics Paradox.nrc 1994Uploaded bycolordiamonds
- A Space Physics Paradox.nrc 1994Uploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radio Chemistry of Trans Curium Elements.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radio Chemistry of Antimony.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- Applied Evolutionary Economics and Economic GeographyUploaded byalibarth
- the radiochemistry of astatine.US AECUploaded byxingjiabo
- The Radio Chemistry of Americium and Curium.us AECUploaded bywhiterubies
- The Radio Chemistry of Fluorine, Chlorine, Bromine and Iodine.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- Acoustics and Architecture.paul E Saul 1932Uploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radiochemistry of Tungsten.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- A Treatise on Hydrostatics.jagjit SinghUploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radio Chemistry of Trans Curium Elements.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radio Chemistry of Trans Curium Elements.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radiochemistry of Carbon,Nitrogen and Oxygen.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- the radiochemistry of astatine.US AECUploaded byxingjiabo
- The Radio Chemistry of Americium and Curium.us AECUploaded bywhiterubies
- The Radio Chemistry of Americium and Curium.us AECUploaded bywhiterubies
- The Radio Chemistry of Fluorine, Chlorine, Bromine and Iodine.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radio Chemistry of Silicon.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radio Chemistry of Cobalt.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radio Chemistry of Francium.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds
- The Radio Chemistry of Neptunium(Np).US AECUploaded bylondonbluetopaz
- The Radio Chemistry of Copper.us AECUploaded bycolordiamonds

- Ex HypothesistestUploaded byYana Covar
- Econometrics finalUploaded byDanikaLi
- lec-07Uploaded byMichał Mandrysz
- Fusey12_arxiv - On the Reality of the Quantum StateUploaded bybraulio.dantas-1
- 76197355 Ken Black QA 5th Chapter15 SolutionUploaded byManish Khandelwal
- Nolan Ch09Uploaded byAnonymous Pt7NHkat9
- Prism 6 Statistics GuideUploaded byoschlep
- StatUploaded byAdriancisneros Pel
- Chapter 01 ECO 303Uploaded bymattmonte
- Economics Online Classes - Law of Diminishing Marginal UtilityUploaded byTakshila learning
- 17Uploaded byAndresAmaya
- Module 25 - Statistics 2Uploaded byapi-3827096
- Data PreparationUploaded byGarvit Dhingra
- Estadística Inferencial bUploaded byIvan Alvaro Torres Robles
- MO_lecture_course-2.pdfUploaded byaneeshssa
- Pure Mixed and Entangled StatesUploaded bydcde2004
- SkriptQFT2Uploaded byanthalya
- u-testUploaded byBetty Bup
- PRIMER_GUIA_DE_ECONOMETRIA.docUploaded byMarcusZambrano
- Ecuaciones de DiracUploaded bycar50
- Activite5-Paradoxe Des JumeauxUploaded byXeher Rox
- MinitabPruebaHip_tesisRes.docUploaded byAdrian Mejias
- Metodos de Los Minimos CuadradosUploaded byOscar Alzamora
- Física de PartículasUploaded byAlejandro Guerrero
- PC Chapter 39Uploaded byultimu
- Marx, K. the Working Day. in the Capital.Uploaded byHippias
- sociological theory 2Uploaded byapi-215323944
- Tests for NormalityUploaded byMarvel Grace Maukar
- Lagrange EquationsUploaded byBlueOneGauss
- EconomicsUploaded byMahesh Viswanathan