I have a question regarding the gravitational crystal proposal. My first impression was that, while it is a very nice idea, it was a bit philosophical (i.e. how would you test it?), since the gravitational crystal would be hidden behind a horizon (by definition), until the black hole evaporated; which for larger black holes is effectively never. But then I remembered primordial black holes:
- Would the gravitational crystal proposal offer an explanation for the (lack of) observation of primordial black hole "explosions" (explosions due to rapid Hawking evaporation of very light black holes), by imposing a lower limit on the black hole mass before the evaporation stopped (when the horizon met the crystal surface)?
- Could such gravitational crystal remnants of (as much as is possible, evaporated) primordial black holes be candidates for dark matter?
I did not yet run any calculations, since this is not my area of physics, but it seemed an interesting idea to me ... (One really should do some quick numerics though, to find if it is even plausible. And to check if there are any known facts that would discount such ideas immediately (like the ~spherical distribution of dark matter around elliptical galaxies, for example; probably not, though?) ...)
Just an idea. :)
P.S. Another reason why I really liked the idea that GR is just an effective theory for the "liquid" phase of the "fundamental degrees of freedom" (not of "space-time", since that is a valid name only in the context of GR) is because I've recently been reading the book by X.-G. Wen:
Wen, Xiao-Gang. "Quantum Field Theory of Many-body Systems: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons." Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2004. ISBN 019853094. 1 (2004).
where he talks about emergence of (simple, beautiful, universal) low-energy effective theories from completely different (possibly ugly, non-universal) microscopic theories, which reminded me that it is not so far stretched that GR could just be an effective theory where the space is still relatively flat, not necessarily inside black holes (where a "phase transition" (a fair name for the effect?) of the more fundamental degrees of freedom could conceivably occur, as is pointed out in the article).
The above mentioned book's introduction talks about emergence particularly in the context of recent developments in solid state physics (the last ~30 year), where it was realized, that Landau symmetry-breaking is not the only way for a system to undergo a "phase transition", but that there also exist so called "quantum orders" (with eg. topological phase transitions [in fractional quantum Hall, spin ices, spin liquids, etc.]) that break no symmetries, but nonetheless lead to different states of matter with different low-energy excitations.
In particular, it was realized that one could produce effective (collective) low-energy physics of gapless (massless) gauge bosons and gapless anti-commuting fermions from purely bosonic local degrees of freedom (something that was thought impossible in Landau's symmetry breaking picture, which could produce only scalar gapless bosons (so the book says)). The book proposes a unifying description of such emergence in terms of string-net (as opposed to particle) condensation (just another way to think of collective states of a complex system in terms of string nets; not necessarily connected to string theory, as far as I can tell(?)). As an application/manifestation of the principle the author also constructed an explicit "ugly bosonic spin model on a square lattice" that had effective low energy U(1) x SU(3) interactions with emergent "photons", "electrons", "quarks" and "gluons" a while back in the article:
Wen, Xiao-Gang. "Quantum order from string-net condensations and the origin of light and massless fermions." Physical Review D 68.6 (2003): 065003.
Anyway, it is a very inspiring book, by a very original physicist, and I would really recommend its introduction, at least. To me it was very illuminating (it discusses things with a much wider scope than is usual for such books, with implications far beyond solid state physics).
P.P.S. I mean to write a better summary of the introduction but no matter what I did I wrote just longer and longer version of the above text, still not doing the book any justice. So the above should do (it's still too long, I know). I recommend the book version nonetheless (the first chapter is a quick read), since I only skimmed the surface above.
P.P.P.S. A very non-serious comment: a "gravitational crystal inside a black hole" kind of reminds me of the plot of the movie Interstellar (if you've seen it I think you would understand). ;)