Can String Theory Explain What Lies Beyond a Black Hole's Event Horizon?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the potential of string theory to explain phenomena occurring beyond a black hole's event horizon, particularly in relation to the nature of singularities and the role of quantum gravity. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, including general relativity (GR) and quantum gravity, and their implications for understanding black holes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that string theory could offer insights into what happens beyond the event horizon, while others question its sufficiency as a theory of everything (TOE).
  • One participant argues that standard general relativity is adequate for describing regions beyond the event horizon, provided one is not too close to the central singularity, where quantum gravity may be necessary.
  • Concerns are raised about the inability to test predictions of GR in the vicinity of a black hole's singularity, as any probe would not be able to communicate findings back to the outside world.
  • Participants reference a paper by Ashtekar and Bojowald discussing quantum geometry and the Schwarzschild singularity, suggesting that black hole evaporation might eventually reveal insights about the interior structure.
  • There is a belief among some that string theory could at least partially describe conditions inside a black hole, even if it does not fully qualify as a TOE.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of developing a non-perturbative quantum theory of gravity to better understand the singularity and the processes occurring within black holes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of views, with some agreeing on the potential of string theory and quantum gravity to address questions about black holes, while others maintain that GR remains a valid framework for certain aspects. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the sufficiency of string theory or the nature of singularities.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the applicability of GR and string theory, particularly in the context of rotating black holes and the complexities involved in their internal structure. The discussion highlights unresolved mathematical and conceptual challenges related to black hole physics.

cybernomad
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Does string theory touted as TOE offer a possible explanation of what happens beyond the event horizon?


If not what may?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Standard GR is probably good enough to describe what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole if one is not too close to the central singularity. The solution for non-rotating black holes is believe to be a particular sort of singularity, called a BKL singularity.

Unfortunately, the predictions of GR cannot be tested in this realm except by a person willing to jump into a black hole. At that point, the person or probe that jumps into the black hole will have the answers, but they won't have any way of communicating them to the rest of us. (Unless we decide to follow the probe and jump into the black hole ourselves).

Quantum gravity is probably needed when one is very close to the singularity. (this is where string theory or some other TOE / theory of quantum gravity would be needed).

Non-rotating black holes are probably reasonably well understood by GR, but there are still some unanswered questions about the internal structure of rotating black holes. These questions are separate from the quantum gravity questions that arise when one is close to the central singularity. They arise in regions where GR is still expected to be valid, however the computations of exactly what happens inside a rotating black hole involve complex cacluations that are still a subject of some debate.

For more reading, I would recommend

Thorne, K. S. Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy. New York: W. W. Norton, 1994.
 
beyond the horizon

I would like to add the ref

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0509075

'Quantum geometry and the Schwarzschild singularity'
Abhay Ashtekar, Martin Bojowald

which is a very useful discussion about the singularity inside the horizon and the evolution of the spactime. It seems to me that even though the inside of the black hole is hidden by the horizon, the evaporation should eventually reveal what is going on inside - if we understand its process fully. It seems plausible to me that string theory should at least describe part of this - even if it is not the TOE.
 
hossi said:
I would like to add the ref
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0509075
'Quantum geometry and the Schwarzschild singularity'
Abhay Ashtekar, Martin Bojowald
which is a very useful discussion about the singularity inside the horizon and the evolution of the spactime. It seems to me that even though the inside of the black hole is hidden by the horizon, the evaporation should eventually reveal what is going on inside - if we understand its process fully. It seems plausible to me that string theory should at least describe part of this - even if it is not the TOE.
I agree that this is a key paper. It seems to "make it official" that the classical BH singularity can be replaced with a quantum gravity model of what goes on at the pit of a black hole. And the process of constructing the new picture is far from over.

It seems like a huge gap in people's understanding----there is something down there which can be analysed, it is not just a glitch where the classical theory blows up and about which nothing can be said. If string theory or any other theory develops into a successful non-perturbative quantum theory of gravity then I agree with hossi that whether or not it is a TOE it should be able to describe conditions down there where the classical singularity used to be. Exciting challenge for today's QG physicists.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
15K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
6K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
10K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K