Black Holes as 2 Dimensional Objects

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vastin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black holes Holes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conceptualization of black holes, specifically the idea of representing them as two-dimensional objects rather than three-dimensional entities with singularities. Participants explore implications of this model on existing theories, particularly in relation to General Relativity and the nature of event horizons.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that black holes could be viewed as two-dimensional masses with no interior, proposing that mass is accreted onto a two-dimensional surface instead of being a singularity.
  • Another participant argues that this model conflicts with General Relativity, which predicts black holes as three-dimensional spheres, and does not align with observations of stellar orbits.
  • A further response questions the specific problems introduced by the two-dimensional model, seeking clarification on its implications.
  • One participant clarifies that they are not suggesting flatness but rather a two-dimensional sphere with curvature, emphasizing the absence of volume.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of a modified space-time graph for black holes, where the event horizon is depicted as an open ring rather than extending to infinity.
  • One participant references the "membrane paradigm," noting that while the interior of a black hole may not be observable, it does not imply that it is unphysical.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of time dilation at the event horizon and the possibility of matter never crossing it, suggesting a non-spatial void within the horizon.
  • Another participant discusses the implications of Hawking radiation and the Unruh effect, questioning how information is perceived by infalling observers versus outside observers.
  • Participants express skepticism about the formation of singularities and the concept of infinite time dilation in relation to crossing the event horizon.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus, with multiple competing views on the nature of black holes and the validity of the proposed two-dimensional model. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these differing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the nature of black holes, the definitions of dimensionality, and the implications of time dilation and singularities. These aspects remain open to interpretation and debate.

  • #31
fzero said:
I chose that as a safe example. It's clear that there is probably a more complete description of the black hole in terms of horizon degrees of freedom, going far beyond the original membrane paradigm.

The reason I said that this was a calculation trick is that there is genre of "crankish papers" that argue that black holes don't exist because time freezes at the event horizon. I didn't want an informed newbie to be led astray.

I'm a big fan of the membrane paradigm because it allows non-GR specialists to think about situations when GR is involved.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
twofish-quant said:
And it's pretty clear that the true theory of gravity is something similar to GR. One problem with assuming something weird happens at the event horizon is that the strength of the gravity isn't that high so something weird that happens at the event horizon would presumably cause something weird to happen in other situations.

The other problem is that "how does gravity know that it's in an event horizon." So we have a theory of gravity that behaves exactly like GR outside of the event horizon, but then goes nuts the moment you move inside. But gravity has no way of knowing that it's inside the event horizon or outside, and having gravity behave differently based on where you are, causes lots of problems.

Oh yes. It's cool weird stuff, but it don't have a black hole nearby that I can test things with. Conversely I can check GR because my GPS works.

Yeah, I'm really not trying to contest GR - my GPS works too. ;)

But I am trying to determine if there are domains where it is not as accurate as we would like, or possibly separate/related phenomena that prevents matter in a high density (near plank length) configuration from behaving as we expect as it attempts to pass through such a gravity field.

Basically, it's not so much the behavior of gravity I'm concerned with here - it's the behavior of matter. If, as you say, the gravity at the event horizon is non-infinite, then in theory it could be counterbalanced by another force at that point, preventing that matter from falling further. If two very powerful forces of this sort are arrayed directly against each other, you might get the sort of plank shell configuration that would help us prevent data loss - the question is, do we have any candidates for the outward pressure?

Does matter, for example, have a state of final compression beyond which it cannot be pushed, regardless of the energy applied? It it possible that rather than resisting the essentially 'infinite' pressure it would face at the singularity point, that it manages to find an incompressible equilibrium resting at the edge of the event horizon in stable orbit with its light cone resting precisely on the horizon? I presume that light cones generally narrow as the gravitational field increases, and I'm guessing that under the correct conditions that cone might be reduced to a line.
 
  • #33
twofish-quant said:
At that point you have to ask "what is information?" ***From the point of view of an outside observer*** things appear to freeze when you cross the event horizon, and you can use that to store information. The fact that in fact this is something of an optical illusion doesn't change the fact that information is stored.

I thought that the image trapped at the edge of an event horizon was red-shifted virtually out of existence and effectively invisible to any form of external detection?

Not sure what that means for the data it represents to be honest. The idea of the information being stripped 'off' of matter as it falls through the event horizon, so that 'information-less' mass is accreting into the singularity while its data is stored on the EH until such time as the mass is allowed to evaporate off, at which point it 'retrieves' its data from the EH on the way out.

That's a pretty exotic arrangement, and it doesn't even remotely protect us from the idea that something fantastic needs to happen at the EH boundary - it makes that event much weirder, as we have matter being stripped of almost all its properties except mass, with mass-less data being stored in the fabric of space-time and data-less mass falling into a singularity.

Ick.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K