Undergrad Status of Adami's solution to Firewall paradox?

Click For Summary
Chris Adami's solution to the firewall paradox, proposed over two years ago, remains unresolved and has not gained widespread acceptance in the physics community. The discussion highlights uncertainty regarding the mathematical validity and overall satisfaction of this solution within the context of black hole information theory. Participants note that the firewall paradox itself is not universally recognized as a paradox but rather as one of many proposed solutions to the black hole information dilemma. There is ongoing debate about the classification of this topic within various fields of physics, including quantum physics and cosmology. The status of Adami's solution continues to be a point of contention among physicists.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,762
Reaction score
248
A bit over two years ago, Chris Adami et al. published their solution to the firewall paradox (referred to without source in http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2014/plugging-the-hole-in-hawkings-black-hole-theory-1/, perhaps referring to http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7914). But what has happened in the intervening two years? That is, before I take the trouble to try to understand this solution, I would like to know whether these results have been accepted (1) as being mathematically valid, and (2) a satisfactory solution in physics, and (3) a generally accepted solution, and if not, why not.
(Note: I am not sure whether this belongs in cosmology, in quantum physics, in general relativity, or beyond the standard model. I am opting for cosmology, but am open to moving the post.)
Thanks.

[Moderator's note: moved to Quantum Physics.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think this could be in BTSM.

As far as I know, the firewall paradox is unresolved.
 
atyy said:
I think this could be in BTSM.
Hi atyy:

Would you please be more specific about what "BTSM" is. I tried to search for it but had no luck.

Regards,
Buzz
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K