Is Black Hole Complementarity Just a Terminology Issue?

In summary, Black Hole Complementarity is a principle that states the equivalence of two different descriptions of a black hole - one from the perspective of a freely falling observer and the other from the perspective of a locally accelerated observer. This is due to the different definitions of particles and vacuum for each observer. As for consequences, there is a lack of correlation between events inside and outside the black hole due to the existence of a horizon. This principle also relates to the debate between Hawking radiation and Unruh radiation, but ultimately they are considered to be the same thing due to the principle of equivalence.
  • #1
touqra
287
0
What is Black Hole Complementarity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think I can tell you what it is, but I cannot tell you what the consequences are. The principle is based on the fact that Hawking radiation arises from the different definitions of particles and vacuum for a freely falling observer and for a locally accelerated observer located at a constant radius from the black hole. The observer at a constant radius perceives the black hole exerting a thermal radiation (Hawking radiation) and he can consider the black hole to be at a specific temperature. He also observers matter falling into the black hole. The freely falling observer just crosses the horizon towards the singularity without measuring anything of that. Black hole complementarity means an equivalence of both descriptions. Now, regarding consequences, note that this is not just like two different descriptions from two different coordinate systems, because a horizon exists which breaks any possible correlation between events inside and outside the black hole. May be someone can tell us more about this.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
hellfire said:
I think I can tell you what it is, but I cannot tell you what the consequences are. The principle is based on the fact that Hawking radiation arises from the different definitions of particles and vacuum for a freely falling observer and for a locally accelerated observer located at a constant radius from the black hole. The observer at a constant radius perceives the black hole exerting a thermal radiation (Hawking radiation) and he can consider the black hole to be at a specific temperature. He also observers matter falling into the black hole. The freely falling observer just crosses the horizon towards the singularity without measuring anything of that. Black hole complementarity means an equivalence of both descriptions. Now, regarding consequences, note that this is not just like two different descriptions from two different coordinate systems, because a horizon exists which breaks any possible correlation between events inside and outside the black hole. May be someone can tell us more about this.

I thought that an accelerated observer would perceive Unruh radiation not Hawking, no?
If an accelerated observer as you say perceives Hawking radiation, then we on Earth would not see this Hawking radiation since we are not that observer?
 
  • #4
Unruh radiation is not a gravitational effect. An observer at a fixed position in Schwarzschild spacetime would detect Hawking radiation.
 
  • #5
hellfire said:
Unruh radiation is not a gravitational effect. An observer at a fixed position in Schwarzschild spacetime would detect Hawking radiation.

Um, aren't they really the same thing when you come right down to it? Accelerated observer in a relativistic quantum vacuum?
 
  • #6
selfAdjoint said:
Um, aren't they really the same thing when you come right down to it? Accelerated observer in a relativistic quantum vacuum?
Yes. Because of the principle of equivalence.
 
  • #7
You are right, it is only an issue about terminology for two different scenarios, as both are physically the same due to the equivalence principle.
 
Last edited:

1. What is Black Hole Complementarity?

Black Hole Complementarity is a concept in theoretical physics that suggests that seemingly contradictory descriptions of a black hole can both be true from different perspectives. It proposes that an observer outside the black hole and an observer falling into the black hole can have different descriptions of the same events, and both are equally valid.

2. How does Black Hole Complementarity relate to the information paradox?

The information paradox is the puzzle of what happens to information that falls into a black hole. Black Hole Complementarity attempts to resolve this paradox by suggesting that the information is encoded on the event horizon of the black hole and can be seen by an observer outside the black hole, while an observer falling into the black hole would not be able to see it.

3. What evidence supports the concept of Black Hole Complementarity?

There is currently no direct evidence that supports Black Hole Complementarity, as it is a theoretical concept. However, it is consistent with other established theories such as general relativity and quantum mechanics.

4. Are there any alternative theories to Black Hole Complementarity?

Yes, there are several alternative theories that attempt to explain the information paradox, such as the firewall hypothesis and the fuzzball theory. These theories have different interpretations of what happens to information that falls into a black hole.

5. How does Black Hole Complementarity impact our understanding of physics?

Black Hole Complementarity challenges our current understanding of physics by suggesting that seemingly contradictory descriptions can both be true. It also raises questions about the nature of space, time, and information. Further research and experiments are needed to fully understand the implications of this concept.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
474
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top