# Solution to gravitational singularities?

## Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

It most certainly does not predict the mass of supermassive black holes we observe

GR certainly does predict the mass of supermassive BHs.
There is no upper limit on BH size/mass.
We don't yet understand the localization of large amounts of mass/energy in the early universe to account for them.
But again, that is a problem with galaxy formation; you have it backwards.

20 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

And there are more troubles with it, such as the information paradox.

Pray tell. How does your model cope with the information paradox ?
How does it preserve information once behind the event horizon ?

Why can you easily 'see' problems with BHs as defined by GR, or as defined by Ghideon in his demonstrative thought experiment, but you are totally oblivious to the problems in your conjecture ?
Take off the blinders !!

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, MigL said:

GR certainly does predict the mass of supermassive BHs.
There is no upper limit on BH size/mass.
We don't yet understand the localization of large amounts of mass/energy in the early universe to account for them.
But again, that is a problem with galaxy formation; you have it backwards.

Well, yes, there is an upper limit, because eventually a very big black hole is no longer able to gain mass by accretion.

It is not proved that it is a problem of our estimations in galaxy formation. The orders of magnitude of supermassive black holes are much bigger than what you would expect, even in the worst case, for localizations of large amounts of mass/energy in the early universe. If that observation was so simple to explain with reasonable amounts of dust/stars collapsing in the early universe, then no other alternatives (such as primordial black holes) would have be studied. Well, the problem exactly is that those supermassive black holes formed very quickly in the early universe, that is the issue.

Quote

Pray tell. How does your model cope with the information paradox ?

If you take into account another mechanism of growth that does not eventually stop, no matter how small it is (because hawking radiation is very, very small), black hole evaporation may not take place (this has to be proved, but it is trivial). With no black hole evaporation, there is no information paradox.

Quote

Why can you easily 'see' problems with BHs as defined by GR, or as defined by Ghideon in his demonstrative thought experiment, but you are totally oblivious to the problems in your conjecture ?

Show them to me, clearly. I already asked you this question and you just answered that Markus stated that the overall metric must remain continuous and differentiable everywhere at the boundary and that the new metric must itself be a valid solution to the field equations. I dont think my idea violates any, and Markus was arguing against a Schwarzschild exterior solution to my proposal, but my proposal is not Schwarzschild, because its time dependent. Joigus also pointed out that justifing that time transformations switch to negative masses in the Dirac formalism is not enough, and I should also prove that in QFT. I answered that as long as that transformation is consistent in the Lorentz group for GR, and it changes the sign of masses, that is all you need for building a model in GR. Guideon stated that different models can be proposed, which give the same prediction as mine, so that even if my model predicted supermassive black holes correctly, my model may not be correct. I pointed out that I believe my model is the only consistent one you can build without invoking the effects of an unknown quantum theory of gravity.

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

Which supporting evidence does the nowadays model have that mine doesnt?

If you are curious you can open a thread in the mainstream section and ask about supporting evidence for GR.

1 hour ago, muruep00 said:

It most certainly does not predict the mass of supermassive black holes we observe. And there are more troubles with it, such as the information paradox.

Established theories have limits. There are questions about cosmos that may not yet have a scientific answer. How does that make your idea correct?

Your idea had interesting properties, that's why I chose to enter this discussion. May I suggest we focus on how you intend to back up your claims, rather than reiterating reasons for researching black holes?

20 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

I pointed out that I believe my model is the only consistent one you can build without invoking the effects of an unknown quantum theory of gravity.

Edited by Ghideon
x-post

##### Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Well, yes, there is an upper limit, because eventually a very big black hole is no longer able to gain mass by accretion.

Not by accretion, but if you localize enough mass/energy ( by primordial BHs, dark matter, direct collapse of gas clouds, or any other mechanism ) you can create as big a BH as you want.
So the problem is not BH 'growth', but having enough initial mass/energy to collapse into a supermassive BH.
And that IS related to galaxy formation.

19 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

With no black hole evaporation, there is no information paradox.

I don't think you understand the information paradox...

"The black hole information paradox[1] is a puzzle resulting from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Calculations suggest that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a core precept of modern physics—that in principle the value of a wave function of a physical system at one point in time should determine its value at any other time.[2][3] A fundamental postulate of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function up to when the wave function collapses. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that information is conserved in the quantum sense."

Information is lost once behind an event horizon, even if there is no evaporation or Hawking radiation.
IOW, your 'conjecture is in the same boat, and needs quantum gravity to stay afloat.

22 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

Show them to me, clearly.

You simply dismiss them with "That doesn't apply to my idea."
Take some time; go back and re-read.

24 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

my proposal is not Schwarzschild

And you haven't exactly said 'WHAT' your proposal is.
Possibly to avoid 'pigeon-holing' yourself, so as to avoid the expected counter-arguments.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

If you are curious you can open a thread in the mainstream section and ask about supporting evidence for GR.

You got me wrong, I trust GR, but not inside black holes. Let me change my question: Which supporting evidence does the nowadays model for the inside of black holes have that mine doesnt?

Quote

Established theories have limits. There are questions about cosmos that may not yet have a scientific answer. How does that make your idea correct?

My idea tries to give a scientific answer to that question about supermassive black holes.

Quote

Your idea had interesting properties, that's why I chose to enter this discussion. May I suggest we focus on how you intend to back up your claims, rather than reiterating reasons for researching black holes?

Yes, I though that I wouldnt have to remind people in this post that you can build a different model for the interior of black holes using just GR that does not contradict observations, so that it is reasonable to explore the idea.

Also, any suggestion to the idea are welcomed. I dont know as much about GR as some people in this post, so somebody might want to back up my claims.

What I think is that, if my model was simulated and it accurately explained supermassive black hole evolution with actual estimations, then it would be reasonable to think that mine is correct and (lets call it Markus' model) is not, because it cant predict supermassive black holes evolution and outside black holes, both are the same. If you could built different models without relying on magical phenomena of a theory of quantum gravity (as you discussed before), and my model was the only one consistent with observations and simulable, then you would have no alternative but to use mine.

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not by accretion, but if you localize enough mass/energy ( by primordial BHs, dark matter, direct collapse of gas clouds, or any other mechanism ) you can create as big a BH as you want.
So the problem is not BH 'growth', but having enough initial mass/energy to collapse into a supermassive BH.
And that IS related to galaxy formation.

That is because usually no body considers that perhaps, there are another mechanisms of black hole growth apart from accretion and merging.

Quote

I don't think you understand the information paradox...

"The black hole information paradox[1] is a puzzle resulting from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Calculations suggest that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a core precept of modern physics—that in principle the value of a wave function of a physical system at one point in time should determine its value at any other time.[2][3] A fundamental postulate of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function up to when the wave function collapses. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that information is conserved in the quantum sense."

Information is lost once behind an event horizon, even if there is no evaporation or Hawking radiation.
IOW, your 'conjecture is in the same boat, and needs quantum gravity to stay afloat.

That is not right, you dont understand the information paradox. The problem with information in black holes is that black hole evaporation is an irreversible process. You cant tell from the final state (evapored) what was the exact inital state. There is no problem in quantum mechanics with the fact that some information is hidden behind an event horizon. This hidden information has not "disappeared", it permanently disappears when black holes evaporates through random radiation.

Just to make it even more clear, the black hole information paradox was discovered right after Hawking showed that black holes should radiate in 1973. This problem did not exist before 1973, and black holes were already been studied. Indeed, one possible solution to the information paradox is to propose a model in which black holes do not evaporate, leaving remnants.

Quote

You simply dismiss them with "That doesn't apply to my idea."
Take some time; go back and re-read.

If it doesnt it doesnt.

Quote

And you haven't exactly said 'WHAT' your proposal is.
Possibly to avoid 'pigeon-holing' yourself, so as to avoid the expected counter-arguments.

A time dependent solution where the inflation due to the exotic matter inside grows the exterior event horizon.

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

What I think is that, if my model was simulated and it accurately explained supermassive black hole evolution with actual estimations, then it would be reasonable to think that mine is correct and (lets call it Markus' model) is not, because it cant predict supermassive black holes evolution and outside black holes, both are the same. If you could built different models without relying on magical phenomena of a theory of quantum gravity (as you discussed before), and my model was the only one consistent with observations and simulable, then you would have no alternative but to use mine.

Ok, so if you have success with your simulation then we have a result based on mathematics rejected by the experts, supported by zero observations and requiring unobserved physical processes hidden from observation behind an event horizon. That leaves plenty of room to use other models that yours.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, so if you have success with your simulation then we have a result based on mathematics rejected by the experts, supported by zero observations and requiring unobserved physical processes hidden from observation behind an event horizon. That leaves plenty of room to use other models that yours.

If you were able to simulate it, its because math works out I guess..

What math is rejected by the experts in my idea?

You may change "supported by zero observations" to "consistent with all available observations".

I again insist that I believe no other model using just GR can be built apart from mine (if so, I think I would have also came up with different possible versions of my proposal, which I havent)

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

I again insist that I believe no other model using just GR can be built apart from mine (if so, I think I would have also came up with different possible versions of my proposal, which I havent)

Your insisting of believing is not the most convincing scientific argument. You have not yet provided any arguments or attempts at experiments or observations that makes your "GR-only" solution stand out as correct. Where is the evidence that negative matter exists? How is negative matter allowed without supporting evidence while other alternatives are rejected?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Your insisting of believing is not the most convincing scientific argument. You have not yet provided any arguments or attempts at experiments or observations that makes your "GR-only" solution stand out as correct. Where is the evidence that negative matter exists? How is negative matter allowed without supporting evidence while other alternatives are rejected?

Well, there is already evidence for energy condition violations in the Cassimir effect and quantum fluctuations. Exotic matter may seem different, but it is just a name, technically is negative energy density, which is negative because it violates energy conditions. Additionally, other models rely on negative energies, such as Hawking radiation, I quote: "A renormalised operator which was regular at the horizon would have to violate the weak energy condition by having negative energy density" "This violation must, presumably, be caused by a flux of negative energy across the event horizon which balances the positive energy flux emitted to infinity" "it is shown that any renormalization of the energymomentum tensor with suitable properties must give a negative energy flow down the black hole and consequent decrease in the area of the event horizon. This negative energy flow is non-observable locally." Hawking even states that hey! this negative energy does not solve the singularity "Therefore one would not expect the negative energy density to cause a breakdown of the classical singularity theorems until the radius of curvature of space-time became 10" 33 cm" https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Hawking Particle Creation.pdf

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MigL said:

Pray tell. How does your model cope with the information paradox ?

Good question. +1

Let's see how it goes unanswered.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, muruep00 said:

That is not right, you dont understand the information paradox. The problem with information in black holes is that black hole evaporation is an irreversible process.

My apologies. You are, of course, correct.
There was some confusion on my part, with some of the solutions to resolve the information paradox.
R Penrose's proposed conformal cyclic cosmology makes the assumption that unitarity is lost when gravitational effects are involved and information is lost in Black Holes. IIRC, there was to be some tests conducted by WMAP, and while positive results were announced, there has been some push=back as to the validity of those results.
Another is Einstein-Cartan gravity theory which adds intrinsic angular momentum ( and torsion) to GR, and separates information from our universe once inside the event horizon through an Einstein-Rosen bridge ( wormhole ? ). It avoids singularities due to spin coupling between the torsion and Dirac spinors, and consequently also allows fermions to be 'spatially extended' ( minimum size ) instead of point particles.
There are various problems with the theory, not the least of which is the fact that is much more complex than GR.

##### Share on other sites
8 hours ago, muruep00 said:

That is not right, you dont understand the information paradox. The problem with information in black holes is that black hole evaporation is an irreversible process.

It's you who doesn't understand the information paradox. It has nothing to do with disappearance of macroscopic information. It's about volume of phase space (classical mechanical picture) or, in QM, violation of unitarity. It's about disappearance of microscopic distinctions. Irreversibility is not involved.

How would macroscopic irreversibility be at odds with the physics we know if it is a universal law of physics? Don't you have a grasp of basic thermodynamics?

How can you claim to have solved a problem you clearly don't understand?

I'm back.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, muruep00 said:

I again insist that I believe no other model using just GR can be built apart from mine

Ok, GR only.

10 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Well, there is already evidence for energy condition violations in the Cassimir effect and quantum fluctuations.

I do see how a solution using just GR can use quantum effects for support, I'll probably need to read some more about Hawking radiation and Cashimir to comment on that.

I know about Hawking radiation in layman terms but I do not yet know to what degree Hawking Radiation has been confirmed. And I do not yet know what "negative energy" exactly means in the context of Hawking when compared to claims made in this thread.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm back.

Welcome back.

Edited by Ghideon

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, joigus said:

It's you who doesn't understand the information paradox. It has nothing to do with disappearance of macroscopic information. It's about volume of phase space (classical mechanical picture) or, in QM, violation of unitarity. It's about disappearance of microscopic distinctions. Irreversibility is not involved.

How would macroscopic irreversibility be at odds with the physics we know if it is a universal law of physics? Don't you have a grasp of basic thermodynamics?

How can you claim to have solved a problem you clearly don't understand?

I'm back.

Welcome back. I quote MigL regarding my explanation of black hole information paradox:

6 hours ago, MigL said:

My apologies. You are, of course, correct.

I just copied the explanation of the information paradox from Sabine Hossenfelder, you can check it here:

Now, following with my idea again, and answering joigus, it is clear that if you propose a new mechanism of growth for black holes, no matter how slow it is after plenty of time (as long as I does not stop), evaporation does not take place, thus, solving black hole information paradox.

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites

My understanding is that the unitary condition is what determines information loss.
If we assume that a Black Hole devolves many physical states into a single state, then the 'classic' BH, by definition, doesn't just capture information, but destroys it.
I believe it was J Bekenstein ( along with S Hawking ? ) who proposed that the information is encoded in domains on the Event Horizon surface, which led to entropy of BHs, and the Bekenstein bound. This proposal then implies that states are preserved in a BH ( but still destroyed once Hawking radiation leads to evaporation ).

The implication is then, that if you're of the opinion that BH entropy , and therefore Hawking radiation/evaporation does not exist, then BHs violate unitarity, and destroy information. If you assume BH entropy, and resultant Hawking radiation/evaporation are a real effect, then BHs don't violate unitarity and destroy information until they start evaporating.

Either way, your proposal has some explaining to do.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, muruep00 said:

Welcome back. I quote MigL regarding my explanation of black hole information paradox: [...]

Thank you very much, although you cut short @MigL's answer only to show what you want (he telling you that you're right about something). And now I quote Wikipedia:

Quote

In 1973–75, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein showed that black holes should slowly radiate away energy, which poses a problem. From the no-hair theorem, one would expect the Hawking radiation to be completely independent of the material entering the black hole. Nevertheless, if the material entering the black hole were a pure quantum state, the transformation of that state into the mixed state of Hawking radiation would destroy information about the original quantum state. This violates Liouville's theorem and presents a physical paradox.[citation needed]

I would have to go in more detail into what  @MigL was trying to tell you. Maybe he misunderstood you. I may have also misunderstood you, as it's very difficult to be sure what you're talking about (you never seem to get around to defining mathematically what you're saying). But further below he told you:

12 hours ago, MigL said:

[...] unitarity is lost when gravitational effects are involved and information is lost in Black Holes

Anyway... The information paradox has nothing to do with macroscopic entropy, which is the item you seemed to be referring to. It has to do with microscopic entropy, which is just volume of phase space. There are two versions for it; one classical (Liouville's theorem), and another quantum mechanical (unitarity, although I don't like that term; it's clearer if you say "pure states into strict mixtures").

Microscopic entropy (phase space volume) is strictly conserved in physics.

Volume in phase space has two parts: One you can see by coarse graining (macroscopic) and another you can't see (total minus coarse-grained). The total is the one that concerns the paradox.

Of course BHs create lots of macroscopic entropy, but that's not the problem, nor is it a paradox. It's actually the common pattern in Nature.

What is a paradox is that BHs seem to require the violation of conservation of phase-space volume, which Leonard Susskind, e.g., calls "distinctions", because he is very careful about the concepts. Violation of the number of distinctions is not the same as irreversibility. Hossenfelder is also very careful to distinguish between what she calls "irreversibility" (it's actually non-conservation of distinctions) and violation of time-translation invariance.

I think Hossenfelder (in what clearly is a popular video, not a lecture) does a very good job of explaining a difficult concept, but unfortunately she uses the word "irreversibility" which has a long tradition in thermodynamics, and is to do with macroscopic entropy. Nevertheless, she superimposes a movie explaining what she means, and it becomes very clear she means conservation of distinctions: Liouville's theorem. This "irreversibility" (it should never be called that way, and I stick to Susskind's term "conservation of distinctions") is what seems to be violated in Hawking's argument.

If that's what your theory solves, well congratulations. I haven't seen a single formula yet proving that your "model" transforms pure states into pure states. Your insistence on time reversal only suggests to me that you keep confusing both (different) concepts, as explained by Hossenfelder.

In the classical version, this would imply that two different initial states:

$q_{1},p_{1}$

$q_{2},p_{2}$

merging into the same outgoing state:

$q,p$

Or the opposite (one trajectory splitting into two). That would also result in violation of Liouville's theorem. So "irreversibility" is an outstanding misnomer. It would be non-injective character in the evolution mapping, in either direction. I don't think that name will stick though.

In the QM version of such violation, a pure incoming state:

$\rho_{\textrm{in}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left|\psi_{1}\right\rangle +\left|\psi_{2}\right\rangle \right)\left(\left\langle \psi_{1}\right|+\left\langle \psi_{2}\right|\right)=\left|\varphi\right\rangle \left\langle \varphi\right|$

comes out as a strict mixture:

$\rho_{\textrm{out}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\left|\psi_{1}\right\rangle \left\langle \psi_{1}\right|+\left|\psi_{2}\right\rangle \left\langle \psi_{2}\right|\right)$

Now, it's not a matter of thermality, really. Thermality is not the crux of the matter. It can be added to the picture, it's probably there, but it only confuses things. It's rather a matter of one trajectory splitting into two, as Leonard Susskind very clearly explains in several lectures, available online.

That's probably why Hossenfelder doesn't like to characterize it in terms of information. "Information" seems to imply an observer. In this case it's Nature itself that's erasing its distinctions. You see? Susskind's word "distinctions" is what conceptually cuts it. And even better is using some maths, they leave little or no doubt about what you mean.

Edit: x-posted with MigL

Edited by joigus

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, joigus said:

Thank you very much, although you cut short @MigL's answer only to show what you want (he telling you that you're right about something). And now I quote Wikipedia:

I would have to go in more detail into what  @MigL was trying to tell you. Maybe he misunderstood you. I may have also misunderstood you, as it's very difficult to be sure what you're talking about (you never seem to get around to defining mathematically what you're saying). But further below he told you:

Anyway... The information paradox has nothing to do with macroscopic entropy, which is the item you seemed to be referring to. It has to do with microscopic entropy, which is just volume of phase space. There are two versions for it; one classical (Liouville's theorem), and another quantum mechanical (unitarity, although I don't like that term; it's clearer if you say "pure states into strict mixtures").

Microscopic entropy (phase space volume) is strictly conserved in physics.

Volume in phase space has two parts: One you can see by coarse graining (macroscopic) and another you can't see (total minus coarse-grained). The total is the one that concerns the paradox.

Of course BHs create lots of macroscopic entropy, but that's not the problem, nor is it a paradox. It's actually the common pattern in Nature.

What is a paradox is that BHs seem to require the violation of conservation of phase-space volume, which Leonard Susskind, e.g., calls "distinctions", because he is very careful about the concepts. Violation of the number of distinctions is not the same as irreversibility. Hossenfelder is also very careful to distinguish between what she calls "irreversibility" (it's actually non-conservation of distinctions) and violation of time-translation invariance.

I think Hossenfelder (in what clearly is a popular video, not a lecture) does a very good job of explaining a difficult concept, but unfortunately she uses the word "irreversibility" which has a long tradition in thermodynamics, and is to do with macroscopic entropy. Nevertheless, she superimposes a movie explaining what she means, and it becomes very clear she means conservation of distinctions: Liouville's theorem. This "irreversibility" (it should never be called that way, and I stick to Susskind's term "conservation of distinctions") is what seems to be violated in Hawking's argument.

If that's what your theory solves, well congratulations. I haven't seen a single formula yet proving that your "model" transforms pure states into pure states. Your insistence on time reversal only suggests to me that you keep confusing both (different) concepts, as explained by Hossenfelder.

In the classical version, this would imply that two different initial states:

q1,p1

q2,p2

merging into the same outgoing state:

q,p

Or the opposite (one trajectory splitting into two). That would also result in violation of Liouville's theorem. So "irreversibility" is an outstanding misnomer. It would be non-injective character in the evolution mapping, in either direction. I don't think that name will stick though.

In the QM version of such violation, a pure incoming state:

ρin=12(|ψ1+|ψ2)(ψ1|+ψ2|)=|φφ|

comes out as a strict mixture:

ρout=12(|ψ1ψ1|+|ψ2ψ2|)

Now, it's not a matter of thermality, really. Thermality is not the crux of the matter. It can be added to the picture, it's probably there, but it only confuses things. It's rather a matter of one trajectory splitting into two, as Leonard Susskind very clearly explains in several lectures, available online.

That's probably why Hossenfelder doesn't like to characterize it in terms of information. "Information" seems to imply an observer. In this case it's Nature itself that's erasing its distinctions. You see? Susskind's word "distinctions" is what conceptually cuts it. And even better is using some maths, they leave little or no doubt about what you mean.

Thank you for that extensive explanation.

I see what you wanted to point out, but I dont think MigL was referring to that.

My question is, if black holes do not evaporate, does the material entering a black hole (pure state) have to be transformed into the mixed state of hawking radiation, if this last one exists? Because my idea implies that a "remnant" always remains, probably with all the information, and that is one solution to the information paradox.

btw: my time transformation idea at the event horizon has nothing to do with this time reversal

##### Share on other sites

Problem with 'remnants' ...

Planck-sized remnant[
"
To contain the information from any evaporated black hole, the remnants would need to have an infinite number of internal states. It has been argued that it would be possible to produce an infinite amount of pairs of these remnants since they are small and indistinguishable from the perspective of the low-energy effective theory."

Large macroscopic remnant
"Hawking radiation must stop before the black hole reaches the Planck size, which requires a violation of semi-classical gravity at a macroscopic scale."

from the link I previously provided.

Both "remnant' solutions necessarily involve Hawking radiation/evaporation.
I thought your proposal assumes BH growth only. How would a BH shrink to a 'remnant' by getting larger ?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

While scanning for more information I found a paper with several similarities to your opening post and the concepts introduced. Emphasis mine:

Quote

In this paper, we introduce the study of a new solution to gravitational singularities by violating the energy conditions of the Penrose Hawking singularity theorems. We consider that a shift to negative energies and masses takes place at the event horizon of black holes, justified by the original, singular and exact Schwarzschild solution. These negative energies are supported by relativistic particle physics considering the negative energy solutions of the Dirac equation, by which time transformations shift to negative energy states. In either general relativity or Newtonian mechanics, these negative masses are predicted to be repulsive. It is explained that the model fits actual observations, and could possibly clarify the size of observed and unexplained supermassive black holes when considering the inflation that would take place inside them, where antigravity interactions would take place. An approximated solution of the model could be simulated in order to compare it with these unexplained observations.

It has been showed that a new model for the interior of black holes can be developed by considering that a time transformation takes place at the event horizon, which by the Feynman Stueckelberg interpretation considering the T operator unitary, switches to negative energies and masses, violating energy conditions. These negative masses are predicted to be repulsive, leading to an inflation period inside, slowed down by time dilation for a distant observer, that could be noticed from outside the black hole as another mechanism of growth. This new mechanism of growth is a candidate for solving the mystery of supermassive black holes regarding their size and apparent mass that could be simulated and compared to observations and estimations of stars and black holes in the early universe. The central singularity would be solved by the model.
It would be interesting to carry out a further study of the second law of thermodynamics at the interior in the model due to its well-known relation with the arrow of time, in relation to black hole thermodynamics and entropy, and the possibilities of solutions to the information paradox.

Sourcehttp://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2020/astp1-4-2020/p/uruenaASTP1-4-2020.pdf *  (On Energy Condition Violation for Shifting Negative Mass Black Holes)

On 8/16/2020 at 1:15 PM, muruep00 said:

This proposal has never been published

To me at least, it looks like something very similar has been published?

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I do see how a solution using just GR can use quantum effects for support

Spotted an error, meant to say: I do not see how a solution using just GR can use quantum effects for support.

*) I have no opinion regarding the reputation of the publisher or the quality of the paper or if any peer review was performed.

Edited by Ghideon
minor grammar & format & clarifications

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

While scanning for more information I found a paper with several similarities to your opening post and the concepts introduced. Emphasis mine:

To me at least, it looks like something very similar has been published?

Spotted an error, meant to say: I do not see how a solution using just GR can use quantum effects for support.

*) I have no opinion regarding the reputation of the publisher or the quality of the paper.

Hi Ghideo,

First, Im happy that you are willing to do some research related to my idea. References of that paper are also interesting, if you want to go further.

Second, it is not difficult to guess that its my paper, since my username is my email address in it . I wrote that this idea was not published because I did not want to post my paper here, and I just wanted to comment on the ideas in a conceptual way.

The quality of the paper is bad, and I have been re-writting it this summer, I think there are some things which demand a correction, and others can be better explained and further mathematically justified, that is why before sharing my idea here as a preprint, I want to finish it first. At the end (and now that my identity has been revealed), Im just a recent and young graduate in engineering, and my knowledge in modern physics is very limited (I study independently GR). As you pointed out, the publisher is not as good as one may want it to be, its a q4 journal, and I would like to publish in a better journal (just because I think my idea is worth it, I do not want to become a researcher).

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

I thought your proposal assumes BH growth only. How would a BH shrink to a 'remnant' by getting larger ?

This is something I don't understand either. +1

Neither do I understand how a growing BH implies the non-existence of Hawking radiation. Why couldn't it grow and evaporate?

And we're not even getting a diagram, a simple equation. It's all blah blah. I haven't even seen the mysterious time transformation in terms of the metric and the coordinates. Something like t goes to i times t, g00 goes to minus g00 and such. Am I asking that much?

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Welcome back.

Thank you.

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I know about Hawking radiation in layman terms but I do not yet know to what degree Hawking Radiation has been confirmed. And I do not yet know what "negative energy" exactly means in the context of Hawking when compared to claims made in this thread.

I share your confusion about negative energies. For all I know Hawking radiation has not been confirmed as yet.

I don't think negative energies are necessarily prohibited, as far as one provides a mechanism to explain why they're not observed in the universe. I don't see that either in the "proposal".

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

While scanning for more information I found a paper with several similarities to your opening post and the concepts introduced. Emphasis mine:

Thank you. +1

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, joigus said:

This is something I don't understand either. +1

Neither do I understand how a growing BH implies the non-existence of Hawking radiation. Why couldn't it grow and evaporate?

Hawking radiation is an shrinking mechanism, a very VERY slow one. If you propose a non-ending mechanism of growth (accretion and merging eventually end), this one would counteract hawking radiation. It not a remnant as described in the remnant solution to information paradox, but in my model, black holes do not evaporate, because they never stop growing, and at the end, there is always what you might call a remnant.

But really I havent worked out in my model whether the information paradox is solved. As you are saying below, we dont even know if hawking radiation actually occurs. This is something secondary for me.

Quote

I don't think negative energies are necessarily prohibited, as far as one provides a mechanism to explain why they're not observed in the universe. I don't see that either in the "proposal".

Oh yes, in my model, negative energies only appear under a time transformation, and time transformations only can occur at event horizons, because no body as ever seen a time transformation (the time transformation of the Lorentz group). Moreover, having negative energies in the same causal spacetime as positive ones, result in paradoxes, in which you could build perpetual motion machines. That is solved when you divide for negative and positive energy spacetimes by an event horizon, which switches from positive to negative.

Edited by muruep00

##### Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

If you propose a non-ending mechanism of growth (accretion and merging eventually end), this you counteract hawking radiation. It not a remnant as described in the remnant solution to information paradox, but in my model, black holes do not evaporate, because they never stop growing, and at the end, there is always what you might call a remnant.

Have you considered the possibility of, e.g., a BH that is ejected into an intergalactic void, and therefore experiments no accretion? What would happen to that BH? It must be a consistent object. Accretion is accidental; Hawking radiation is a function of BH's parameters.

18 minutes ago, muruep00 said:

time transformations only can occur at event horizons,

Do you realise that time transformations in QM or QFT are always represented by anti-unitary operators? You propose a unitary T operator, which is inconsistent with how the quantum states represent time inversions:

Or Weinberg's Quantum Field Theory, vol. 1, p. 128, eq. 3.3.44, which you cite in your pre-print.

Do you realise that one-particle states in QFT must have both "positive" and "negative" energies* if you want to preserve microcausality? The Dirac spinors that you obtain in the energy representation of the Dirac equation with either sign in,

$e^{\pm i\left(Et-\boldsymbol{p}\cdot\boldsymbol{x}\right)}$

are not one-particle states. The closest to the physical representation is the chiral one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_(chiral)_basis

You seem to want to deal with these time inversions as some kind of active transformation (something you actually do to a particle) rather than a passive transformation (a simple re-labelling of parameters). How does one interpret this flip in the particle's time? Why does the particle not experience its own past when it falls into the horizon? Does the particle's energy get inverted? If so, is energy not conserved at the horizon for the in-falling particles, going from E to -E and thus energy conservation being violated by an amount 2E?

Be aware that the fact that something has been published is no guarantee that the scientific community at large considers it correct, or even worth discussing.

*The quotation marks are there because the E's in the Dirac equation are not to be taken at face value as the particle's energy, but just as energy parameters that the particles "read differently" depending on whether they're particle or antiparticle.

Bibliography:

##### Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, joigus said:

Have you considered the possibility of, e.g., a BH that is ejected into an intergalactic void, and therefore experiments no accretion?

Hi joigus,

I dont understand what do you mean with BHs ejected into intergalactic void. I guess they exist, or they could exist. Sure there wont be accretion in that case. But my model of inflation at the inside does not need accretion, a black hole always has matter inside, the matter belonging to the original star that collapses (I assume Schwarzschild black holes, either macroscopic vacuum black holes or eternal black holes do not exist). So inflation would always take place, whether if it happens only because of the mass inside from the original star, or that one plus accretion plus black hole merging.

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

I never said that they didnt. Im just saying that any eternal growth mechanism for black hole, even if it slows down in time, counteracts hawking radiation, because this one is very very small. I guess Hawking radiation occurs, although we are not 100% sure since we havent observe it.

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

Do you realise that time transformations in QM or QFT are always represented by anti-unitary operators? You propose a unitary T operator, which is inconsistent with how the quantum states represent time inversions:

Yes, in other words, im redifyning what a time transformation is. Just like somebody did for the Dirac equation as I showed in other paper. The question is, ¿how do we know time transformations are anti-unitary? ¿Has somebody ever observe one? I believe not, you may have observed irreversible processes like: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.1742.pdf  which may break time process symmetry, but no time transformations where times goes backwards.

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

Or Weinberg's Quantum Field Theory, vol. 1, p. 128, eq. 3.3.44, which you cite in your pre-print.

Do you realise that one-particle states in QFT must have both "positive" and "negative" energies* if you want to preserve microcausality? The Dirac spinors that you obtain in the energy representation of the Dirac equation with either sign in,

e±i(Etpx)

are not one-particle states. The closest to the physical representation is the chiral one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Weyl_(chiral)_basis

I dont know about QFT. I only know what Weinberg stated, that the only reason time was defined anti-unitary, is because if unitary, "for any state  of energy  there would be another state  of energy with negative energy".

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

You seem to want to deal with these time inversions as some kind of active transformation (something you actually do to a particle) rather than a passive transformation (a simple re-labelling of parameters). How does one interpret this flip in the particle's time?

The only consequence this unitary time inversion has in the Dirac equation is that negative energies imply negative masses. If you agree the prediction of negative masses being repulsive between each other of GR, then the only physical change that a unitary time transformation does in a particle is that it changes to behave antigravitationally for other particles with negative energy and mass. (I might make a point here, which is that the time transformation in my model may also occur together with a parity transformation, because when you redefine time as unitary, Tp(T^-1)=p , so it also changes the usual parity transformation that a time transformation is linked to).

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

Why does the particle not experience its own past when it falls into the horizon?

Because that is not what time in GR is about. You may use time to reverse processes in particle physics, but time in GR is a dimension. As I said, in my model, a time transformation only switches to antigravitational interactions. A particle that has fallen into a black hole, cannot trace its own particles` past, because that would mean escape the black hole from inside, which is not possible, so that proposal in your question is inconsistent.

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

Does the particle's energy get inverted? If so, is energy not conserved at the horizon for the in-falling particles, going from E to -E and thus energy conservation being violated by an amount 2E?

You can easily check that what is conserved is the absolute value of energy. I believe that is what GR accounts for, absolute values of energy. I guess since exotic matter and negative energy densities have been studied in many fields of GR, even in models where they interact with positive energies, that jump does not violate energy conservation. QFT might be different, but since particles of E and -E never interact between each other in my model, the notion of E being twice -E is not relevant. There is no first I have E energy, then Zero energy, and finally -E energy, it has to be an instant switch.

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

Be aware that the fact that something has been published is no guarantee that the scientific community at large considers it correct, or even worth discussing.

I agree.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't think negative energies are necessarily prohibited, as far as one provides a mechanism to explain why they're not observed in the universe.

I agree!
I just have some (personal) problems when the mechanism in an explanation, be it negative energy or some other concept, is hidden in such a way that it is impossible to observe or detect even in principle. For instance hiding behind an event horizon but resulting in a black hole that from the outside will look the same as if modelled/predicted by an accepted theory. Such explanations gets too close to being unscientific for my taste, kind of like "God Did It", "God of the gaps" or "last thursdayism".

Does the idea presented in this thread belongs in that category? More answers and explanations about experiments / observations are needed.

2 hours ago, muruep00 said:

I wrote that this idea was not published because I did not want to post my paper here, and I just wanted to comment on the ideas in a conceptual way.

The quality of the paper is bad

Thanks for sharing the background.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×