A fascinating solution of the black-hole information problems?

  • Thread starter Demystifier
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Information
In summary, this paper presents a self-consistent solution to the semi-classical Einstein equation which avoids the horizon and singularity. It also finds that the energy-momentum tensor is consistent with the equation. Finally, it demonstrates that all matter inside the black hole eventually comes back to infinity.
  • #1
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
14,139
6,625
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1203.5719

Abstract:
We study a self-consistent solution of the semi-classical Einstein equation including the back reaction from the Hawking radiation. Our geometry is constructed by connecting flat space and the outgoing Vaidya metric at the locus of the shock wave. In order to prove that this is the self-consistent solution, we first show that the Weyl anomaly is canceled if we take the effects of the fluctuations of the metric into account. We further demonstrate that the Hawking radiation occurs even if the geometry has no horizon. Then, the energy-momentum tensor is found to be consistent with the semi-classical Einstein equation. Since our geometry has neither horizon nor singularity, all matters inside the black hole finally come back to infinity. Therefore, no information is lost by the black hole evaporation. Furthermore, we take into account the gray-body factor. We construct a stationary solution for a black hole in the heat bath and estimate the entropy. The entropy-area law is reproduced by the volume integration of the entropy density over the inside of the horizon, and the black hole can be treated as an ordinary thermodynamic object.

If it does not contain serious errors or unjustified approximations (which in a first reading I was not able to identify), it sounds really fascinating. What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
all matters inside the black hole finally come back FROM infinity?...Fixed? :/
 
  • #3
It would be interesting to compare this to fuzzball GR solutions which also avoid horizon and singularity (you only get something that looks like a horizon macroscopically).

[edit: I guess the biggest difference is that, at least in the fuzzball paper I checked, extra dimensions are required. This paper achieves its result without extra dimensions. This paper is really 'hot off the press'. I am, indeed, fascinated. Will try to read it more.]
 
Last edited:
  • #4
In how far is there actually anything left to explain? I mean, in Wilczek and Parik's tunneling formalism, it's been known for a while that (non-classical) correlations exist between the black hole and the outgoing radiation, accounting for the unitarity of black hole evaporation, right? (Here's a paper brought up by quick googling, though I'm not sure it's the one I had in mind.) Assuming this holds, is there anything beyond that in need of explanation?
 
  • #5
What do you think?

Boffo introductory explanation and claims: WOW!

cool diagrams!

I find the following confusing...not impossible, just confusing...but then I am frequently confused! I got 'stuck' right here:

Page 2: THE EVAPORATION MODEL

...The basic idea is as follows. We start with the viewpoint of an observer staying outside the black hole. The objects which fall into the black hole stick to the horizon for infinitely long time because of the redshift. We then assume that the black hole evaporates in finite time. Now, the “horizon” vanishes before the objects get inside, and there is no longer a horizon in rigorous sense. So we can describe the spacetime consistently from the viewpoint of an observer at infinity.

ok let's assume objects 'stick' to the horizon...why would the horizon vanish faster than the stuck information? Does the emitted radiation/information depart before the collapse
Is that the description used so far with black hole horizons...or is this an 'exotic' extrapolation? Is it even important? Is the observer 'at infinity' linked to the ideal Schwarzschild metric currently used in explanations?

Reflection by Gravitationa potential..//pg 12

This doesn't sound like radiation getting out faster than the horizon collapse:
"The radiation leaves the shock wave surface and goes outward for a while. Then a part of it tunnels through the potential with the probability P. The other part is scattered by the gravitational potential with the probability 1−P and comes back. This is nothing but the effect of the gray-body factor.2 The black hole is not a perfect black body, and a part of the Hawking radiation comes back to the hole again..."

Conclusions ...
Paradigm changing if accurate: [Bekenstein-Hawking entropy
"..It is rather striking that the volume integral over the
inside leads to the area law, which may indicate that microstates that contribute to the entropy live not on the surface but inside..." Leonard Susskind may go NUTS!

"..This leads to the very high local temperature. [I don't get that. local not large scale??] ...
However, these values are finite, and a similar problem has been known as the trans-Planckian problem since the Hawking radiation was discovered [31, 32]. In addition, the behavior at r = 0 and the final stage of the evaporation has not been studied in our analysis. These problems might be resolved only by an ultraviolet complete theory such as string theory.

Where is Susskind and his strings?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
at least in the fuzzball paper I checked, extra dimensions are required...

And in Susskind's string studies...This is the first instance I've seen of particle pair production
without an event horizon...I posted a related question with horizons just today:

Does Born rigidity describe particle creation?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3843198#post3843198
 
Last edited:
  • #7
S.Daedalus said:
In how far is there actually anything left to explain? I mean, in Wilczek and Parik's tunneling formalism, it's been known for a while that (non-classical) correlations exist between the black hole and the outgoing radiation, accounting for the unitarity of black hole evaporation, right? (Here's a paper brought up by quick googling, though I'm not sure it's the one I had in mind.) Assuming this holds, is there anything beyond that in need of explanation?
I think the main problem with tunneling approaches to black-hole evaporation is the fact that such approaches assume that escaping from a black hole through a horizon is just an example of escaping through a classical barrier. But it is not. In ordinary quantum mechanics, a classical particle with too-small energy cannot transit the potential barrier, but the wave with same energy satisfying the wave equation can. That's why quantum particle can escape from a classical barrier. But the horizon is different, because even the relativistic wave satisfying the wave equation in a black-hole background cannot transit through the horizon. (If it could, then the group velocity of the wave would be faster than light, which is not the case.)

The calculation of tunneling by Parikh, Wilczek and others is not based on actual calculation of the wave function traveling through the horizon (because it would not lead to a desired result), but is based on the WKB approximation. Hence, the WKB approximation seems highly unjustified in that case.
 
  • #8
PAllen said:
It would be interesting to compare this to fuzzball GR solutions which also avoid horizon and singularity (you only get something that looks like a horizon macroscopically).

[edit: I guess the biggest difference is that, at least in the fuzzball paper I checked, extra dimensions are required. This paper achieves its result without extra dimensions. This paper is really 'hot off the press'. I am, indeed, fascinated. Will try to read it more.]
I think the biggest difference is that the present approach is based on SEMICLASSICAL gravity, so does not depend on details of quantum gravity, whatever the final theory of which eventually might turn out to be (strings or something else). This includes extra dimensions, branes, quantum hairs, weak/strong duality, AdS/CFT, and other exotic stuff that string theory brings, none of which playing any role in the present approach.
 
  • #9
Demystifier said:
I think the biggest difference is that the present approach is based on SEMICLASSICAL gravity, so does not depend on details of quantum gravity, whatever the final theory of which eventually might turn out to be (strings or something else). This includes extra dimensions, branes, quantum hairs, weak/strong duality, AdS/CFT, and other exotic stuff that string theory brings, none of which playing any role in the present approach.

Actually, the fuzzball treatment can start with classical solution of GR with extra dimensions. You arrive at purely classical solutions with no horizon or singularity - but they need the extra dimensions.

[Edit: some doubt about the above; I may be misreading some of these results. I do note the following:

"A primitive form of the complaint is the following: “Your fuzzball solutions are classical
metrics. A state of a black hole must be a quantum state. So how can fuzzballs have anything
to do with microstates of black holes?”."

from section 10 of: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1108.0302

]
 
Last edited:
  • #10
PAllen said:
Actually, the fuzzball treatment can start with classical solution of GR with extra dimensions. You arrive at purely classical solutions with no horizon or singularity - but they need the extra dimensions.
Are these solutions static? If yes, what a static solution without horizon has to do with black holes?
 

1. What is the black-hole information problem?

The black-hole information problem is a long-standing puzzle in theoretical physics that arises from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It refers to the question of what happens to the information contained in matter that falls into a black hole, as according to classical physics, it should be destroyed and lost forever.

2. What is the proposed solution to the black-hole information problem?

The proposed solution is known as the "fuzzball" model, which suggests that instead of a singularity at the center of a black hole, there is actually a fuzzy, ball-like structure made up of strings and branes. This allows for the preservation of information, as it is stored in the fuzzball rather than being destroyed by the singularity.

3. How does the fuzzball model address the paradox of black hole evaporation?

The fuzzball model resolves the paradox of black hole evaporation by proposing that Hawking radiation is not truly random, but rather carries information about the matter that fell into the black hole. This information is encoded in the outgoing radiation, which means that the black hole does not truly disappear but rather transforms into a fuzzball.

4. What evidence supports the fuzzball model?

While the fuzzball model is still a theoretical concept and has not been directly observed, there are several pieces of evidence that support its validity. For example, the model is consistent with the holographic principle, which states that all information about a three-dimensional object can be encoded on its two-dimensional surface. Additionally, the fuzzball model also resolves several inconsistencies and paradoxes in the traditional black hole model.

5. What are the implications of the fuzzball model for our understanding of the universe?

The fuzzball model has significant implications for our understanding of the universe, as it suggests that black holes are not truly black and are instead complex structures that can preserve information. This challenges our current understanding of space and time and could potentially lead to new insights into the nature of gravity and the ultimate fate of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
29
Views
11K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
703
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
919
Replies
4
Views
465
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
146
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
779
Back
Top