Possible non-existence of black holes and its consequences

In summary: Information is not lost in a black-hole; it's just hidden from view. The rest of this is just gibberish.
  • #1
stephenwlin
9
0
Here's an idea I came up with recently, that I wanted to share:

Physics is unitary and CPT symmetric, and therefore no true black holes exist, since they imply information loss and non-reversibility. Every "apparent" event horizon is really a separation of two mostly causally disconnected "universes", where the outside universe is entangled with the inside universe. The Hubble volume is sitting inside of an expanding supermassive black hole, of another universe. However, by generalization of the uncertainty principle, this implies that the "outside universe" is "really" simultaneously in a superposition of a large but countably finite many possible universes, with the net information between the "inside" and "outside" views cancelling out to zero. Equivalently, every "classical" black hole is really in a microscopic superposition of countably finite many states, again with the net information "inside" and "outside" cancelling zero. However, it cannot converge to a singularity, because it cannot encode information forever in the same volume, therefore it must eventually leak information in the form of photons (i.e. this retrodicts Hawking radiation).

Similarly, the Hubble volume receives information one photon at a time from the "outside" in the form of cosmic background radiation, that information being about the prior state of the otherwise causally disconnected universe. (i.e. CMB and Hawking radiation are different views of the same phenomena but in different directions). Equivalence between the CMB and Hawking radiation implies that space must be "compressed" within a "black hole" in order to fit all the information that is to leak out later, i.e. length contraction. Also, since information comes out of a "black hole" more slowly than it goes in, this implies time dilation. Therefore, this theory retrodicts the qualitative features of GR.

Gravity between photons is the single fundamental force of the universe. All other sources of apparent information and causal connectivity (i.e. all other forces) are the result of the initial state of the universe at the Big Bang, the only true singularity: the other fundamental particles and forces are the result of bundles of photons taking different paths through microscopic black holes (i.e. microscopic wormholes back to the primordial universe), which exist at every point in 3+1 spacetime.

Here's some testable predictions from this theory:

1. Since no black holes truly exist, the "supermassive black hole" is really wormhole into another part of our universe which is topologically distant when considering only flat 3+1 space.

2. Entanglement and gravity are tied together, in the sense that when entangled particles move apart from each other, the net gravitational pull of the system decreases. When the entangled particles come back together, the process unwinds itself. This is a solution to the EPR paradox: i.e. it explains the mechanism for the apparent non-local transfer of information between entangled particles.

3. The source of dark energy (and possibly dark matter) is entanglement between portions of the visible universe. The fact that this dark matter and dark energy seem to cancel out with visible matter to produce an almost exactly flat local universe is NOT a coincidence: the universe is and must always be approximately flat, from a local point of view.

4. Quantum mechanics is deterministic based on non-local hidden variables (i.e. something like Bohmian mechanics, when extended relativistically, is true).

5. If we probe the observable but non-causally connected universe (i.e. the universe outside the Hubble volume) as deeply as possible, we may be able to find the primordial supermassive wormholes which correspond to the other three fundamental forces of nature.

Here's a bit longer description of what I mean:
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/c45c5706ae7cb123

What does everyone think of this idea? Please let me know if you have any questions, too.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
The double posting you have done here and in the S&GR thread is against the PF rules
 
  • #3
stephenwlin said:
Physics is unitary and CPT symmetric, and therefore no true black holes exist, since they imply information loss and non-reversibility.
This already doesn't make any sense. Black-holes do not imply information loss; lots of things are non-reversible, and unitarity + CPT symmetry doesn't directly forbid either of those things anyway.

stephenwlin said:
Every "apparent" event horizon is really a separation of two mostly causally disconnected "universes", [...] with the net information between the "inside" and "outside" views cancelling out to zero.
None of this makes any sense. This is just a stringing together of physics jargon.

Most of the rest isn't even worth noting... except:
stephenwlin said:
the other fundamental particles and forces are the result of bundles of photons taking different paths through microscopic black holes (i.e. microscopic wormholes back to the primordial universe), which exist at every point in 3+1 spacetime.
What?!
 
  • #4
zhermes said:
This already doesn't make any sense. Black-holes do not imply information loss; lots of things are non-reversible, and unitarity + CPT symmetry doesn't directly forbid either of those things anyway.

Lots of things are thermodynamically (i.e. statistically) non-reversible. Few things in modern physics (other than "wave function collapse", which is non-mathematical and which many people believe to be a fiction) are irreversible if you run the equations backwards. In fact, it's pretty much only black holes which are, as far as I know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

So are you saying that the black-hole information paradox is not a paradox? Or are you saying
you "know" the correct answer and it is not the one I am giving? From the article above, it seems like all the answers have problems. My solution is closest to "Information is stored in a baby universe that separates from our own universe", except that I do not think that the universes separate. The baby universe is actually "within" our universe in a higher topological space.

zhermes said:
None of this makes any sense. This is just a stringing together of physics jargon.

This is an application of the "Computable Universe Hypothesis" and the theory that the algorithmic information in the universe nets to almost zero. See Tegmark for a reference for this hypothesis:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9603008

The rest of my post is not nonsense, I promise you, but you have to prove some real critiques instead of "what!?"

Here's my response on another list to some questions:

http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/391c732b9377842c
 
Last edited:
  • #5
stephenwlin said:
Lots of things are thermodynamically (i.e. statistically) non-reversible. Few things in modern physics (other than "wave function collapse", which is non-mathematical and which many people believe to be a fiction) are irreversible if you run the equations backwards. In fact, it's pretty much only black holes which are, as far as I know:
The whole point of CPT is that it's not just T, i.e. time-reversal is NOT an innate symmetry, time-reversal invariance ONLY applied to classical mechanics (not even classical physics in general, i.e. thermodynamics).


stephenwlin said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
So are you saying that the black-hole information paradox is not a paradox? Or are you saying
you "know" the correct answer and it is not the one I am giving? From the article above, it seems like all the answers have problems.
I'm saying both. While the wikipedia article doesn't cite many sources, and does not include in-text citations, even a cursory reading of t'Hooft, Susskind, or most importantly Maldacena's papers proves the point quite satisfactorily. Information is preserved via Hawking Radiation.

stephenwlin said:
The rest of my post is not nonsense, I promise you, but you have to prove some real critiques instead of "what!?"
Well, its very reassuring that you 'promise me'. The whole first part of your post (and thus the premise of your argument is nonsense, and I think similarly of the rest. You're throwing out wild concepts that have zero quantitative motivation or backing, and are completely contradictory to the standard model, both of particle physics and cosmology.

stephenwlin said:
Here's my response on another list to some questions:
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/391c732b9377842c
This is not a place to advertise your metaphysical philosophies. Instead of posting about your new theory that replaces all established science, you should make a post asking 'how is the information paradox resolved?' or 'What is the current understanding of black-hole physics?'.
 
  • #6
zhermes said:
The whole point of CPT is that it's not just T, i.e. time-reversal is NOT an innate symmetry, time-reversal invariance ONLY applied to classical mechanics (not even classical physics in general, i.e. thermodynamics).

The Schrödinger wave equation, the basis of quantum mechanics and thus most of modern physics other than gravity, is unitary and time-reversible. I sense that you are probably a conservative Copenhagenist, so I guess to you the problem of how you get irreversible (and not just "statistically unlikely to reverse", but truly "irreversible") mechanics from a unitary, reversible equation may not be a problem. However, many physicists, such as Max Tegmark and David Deutsch, for instance, would disagree with your sentiment.

zhermes said:
I'm saying both. While the wikipedia article doesn't cite many sources, and does not include in-text citations, even a cursory reading of t'Hooft, Susskind, or most importantly Maldacena's papers proves the point quite satisfactorily. Information is preserved via Hawking Radiation.

So where do you believe that information is stored in the meantime? Do you think it is "encoded on or just above the event horizon."? How is it physically plausible for the information state of "all matter" that ever flowed into a black hole be stored right on its event horizon? If you can compress information that well, than what's the problem with assuming what I'm assuming, that the information is "compressed" inside as another universe entirely?

zhermes said:
This is not a place to advertise your metaphysical philosophies. Instead of posting about your new theory that replaces all established science, you should make a post asking 'how is the information paradox resolved?' or 'What is the current understanding of black-hole physics?'.

I am not throwing out modern physics. I am saying that Einstein was essentially right about everything, more than he even knew, and that topology is basically the source of all physics, including quantum mechanics.

I apologize if I am in the wrong sub-forum. But if you are suggesting that discussion of ideas, no matter how "crazy" they may seem at first, is non-conducive to scientific progress and inquiry, I would very much like to disagree with you.

Anyway, I suggest you read my reply on that other forum. It may clear up some confusion. Finally, I would like to point out that I am providing a concrete mechanism for solving the EPR paradox, other than simply "spooky action at a distance".
 
Last edited:
  • #7
stephenwlin said:
The Schrödinger wave equation, the basis of quantum mechanics and thus most of modern physics other than gravity, is unitary and time-reversible.
Yes, and it is only the basis. As soon as you move to a full quantum field theory... it doesn't apply anymore. Period.

stephenwlin said:
However, many physicists, such as Max Tegmark and David Deutsch, for instance, would disagree with your sentiment.
I don't know about Tegmark, he has some wild ideas, but Deutsch most certainly would not disagree.

stephenwlin said:
So where do you believe that information is stored in the meantime? Do you think it is "encoded on or just above the event horizon."? How is it physically plausible for the information state of "all matter" that ever flowed into a black hole be stored right on its event horizon?
Its not only plausible. Its established as the case. Holographic principle. AdS/CFT.

stephenwlin said:
If you can compress information that well, than what's the problem with assuming what I'm assuming, that the information is "compressed" inside as another universe entirely?
The problem has nothing to do with 'the compression of information', but with the idea of the other universe. What sounds more unlikely, 'compressing information' or magically creating a new universe to hide things in? In doesn't even solve your initial problems; it has zero motivation.

stephenwlin said:
I am not throwing out modern physics.
Maybe you don't realize it, but you are. Including the entire scientific method.


stephenwlin said:
But if you are suggesting that discussion of ideas, no matter how "crazy" they may seem at first, is non-conducive to scientific progress and inquiry, I would very much like to disagree with you.
Thats not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying: "This is not a place to advertise your metaphysical philosophies" in an attempt to circumvent the science which you don't understand.
 
  • #8
zhermes said:
Thats not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying: "This is not a place to advertise your metaphysical philosophies" in an attempt to circumvent the science which you don't understand.

I am not saying that any of the science is "wrong" except for two things, really: what happens at a black hole, and linkage between entanglement and gravity. Any equations in QFT, QED, QCD, etc. that are correct today are, of course, still correct, but they are a description of the local topology of space-time in our section of the universe due to the initial conditions of the Big Bang and are, in a sense, less fundamental than either GR or QM, which can both be normalized to completely unitless equations using natural Plank units. The rest of the "standard model" cannot, and my theory provides a good reason for that: they are descriptions of primordial events that happened early in our universe rather than of the universe itself. You may notice that this is not all that different than string theory (the "vibrating strings" are essentially photons traveling through microscopic closed local topologies in my picture), the current vogue in attempts to unify QM and GR.

Anyway, I don't see why you're being so uncivil about all this. For one thing, do you mind responding regarding my solution to the EPR paradox? My solution, that net entanglement between states reduces the gravitational pull of a combined system, is unique, as far as I understand. Obviously you are more familiar with the literature though, so if it is not unique, I would appreciate you pointing me in the right direction.

Also, I theorize that the source of "negative pressure" dark energy is the net decrease in gravity in the visible universe due to large-scale entanglement between stars and galaxies. Isn't that unique and testable as well? How is generating a unique and testable hypothesis going against the scientific method?
 
Last edited:
  • #9
zhermes said:
Yes, and it is only the basis. As soon as you move to a full quantum field theory... it doesn't apply anymore. Period.

Also, I'm sorry for double replying, but can you clarify if you are a Copenhagenist when it comes to QM? Just curious.
 
  • #10
Stephenwlin, as was pointed out to you when you posted the same thing in the GR forum, you need to submit this to the Independent Research forum, not to the regular forums.

-Ben
 

1. What evidence do we have for the existence of black holes?

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of black holes. We have observed the effects of their strong gravitational pull on surrounding matter, such as stars and gas clouds. We have also detected powerful bursts of X-rays and other forms of radiation coming from regions where black holes are believed to be located.

2. Is it possible that what we perceive as black holes are actually something else?

While it is always important to question and explore different theories, the evidence for the existence of black holes is very strong. The laws of physics also support the concept of black holes, and alternative explanations for the observed phenomena have not been able to fully explain all the observed effects.

3. What would be the consequences if black holes do not exist?

If black holes do not exist, it would require a significant revision of our understanding of gravity and the laws of physics. It would also mean that our current models for explaining certain astronomical phenomena, such as quasars and active galactic nuclei, would need to be re-evaluated.

4. How do we know that black holes are not just extremely dense objects, rather than having an event horizon?

The concept of an event horizon is a crucial aspect of black holes, and there is strong evidence for its existence. The event horizon is the point of no return, where the gravitational pull of the black hole becomes so strong that even light cannot escape. This has been observed in X-ray emissions from black holes, as well as in the bending of light around them.

5. Could our current technology and methods be limiting our ability to detect black holes?

While it is always possible that advances in technology and methods could lead to new discoveries and a better understanding of black holes, the evidence we have so far strongly supports their existence. Additionally, new techniques and technologies, such as gravitational wave detectors, have allowed us to directly observe the effects of black holes and further confirm their existence.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
916
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top