Possible non-existence of black holes and consequences

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:

Mentz114

Gold Member
5,321
248
It sounds interesting, but you've broken the forum rules by posting a theory in this sub-forum. No doubt authority will be along shortly to administer a slapped wrist.
 
Oops, where should I have posted it? And can I delete my post now?
 

Mentz114

Gold Member
5,321
248
As far as I know, you can publish stuff in the independent research sub-forum. You should ask a mentor (Astronuc ?) by PM for permission to post in the IR sub-form and provide them with material for assessment.
 

DrGreg

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,233
632

bcrowell

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
6,723
420
Last edited by a moderator:

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top