START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Stephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All


Science & Tech  (tags: Black Hole, Black Hole Theories, Black Holes, Black Holes Stephen Hawking, Black-Hole-Event-Horizon, Hawking Black Holes, Hawking Event Horizon, No Event Horizon, Physics, Quantum Theory, Stephen Hawking, discovery, astronomy, technology, science )

Michael
- 304 days ago - huffingtonpost.com
Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that "there are no black holes" -- at least not in the sense we usually imagine -- would probably be dismissed as cranks.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Michael O. (174)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 8:27 am
But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

In its stead, Hawking’s radical new proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole.” A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that's a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”

Hawking posted his paper on the arXiv preprint server on 22 January1, and it has yet to pass peer review. He titled it, whimsically, “Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes”.

The paper is an attempt to solve the so-called black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years, after it was discovered by theoretical physicists Joe Polchinski at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, and colleagues (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the hole!').

In a thought experiment, the researchers asked what would happen to an astronaut unlucky enough to fall into a black hole. Event horizons are mathematically simple consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity that were first pointed out by German physicist Karl Schwarzschild in 1916. In that picture, physicists had long assumed, the astronaut would happily pass through the event horizon, unaware of his or her impending doom, before gradually being pulled inwards — stretched out along the way, like spaghetti — and eventually crushed at the 'singularity', the black hole’s hypothetical infinitely dense core.

But on analysing the situation in detail, Polchinski’s team came to the startling realization that the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern particles on small scales, change the situation completely. Quantum theory, they said, dictates that the event horizon must actually be a transformed into a highly energetic region, or 'firewall', that would burn the astronaut to a crisp.

This was alarming because, while the firewall obeyed quantum rules, it flouted Einstein’s general theory of relativity. According to that theory, someone in free fall should perceive the laws of physics as being identical everywhere in the Universe — whether they are falling into a black hole or floating in empty intergalactic space. As far as Einstein is concerned, the event horizon should be an unremarkable place.

Now Hawking proposes a third, tantalizingly simple, option: Quantum mechanics and general relativity remain intact. But black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause spacetime to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist.

In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can only reach as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.

Conversely, in the 1970s Hawking also showed that black holes can slowly shrink, spewing out 'Hawking radiation'. In that case, the event horizon would, in theory, become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawking’s new suggestion is that the apparent horizon is the real boundary. “The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity,” Hawking writes.

“The picture Hawking gives sounds reasonable,” says Don Page, a physicist and expert on black holes at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, who collaborated with Hawking in the 1970s. “You could say that it is radical to propose there’s no event horizon. But these are highly quantum conditions, and there’s ambiguity about what spacetime even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”

While Page accepts Hawking’s proposal that a black hole could exist without an event horizon, he questions whether that alone is enough to get past the firewall paradox. The presence of even an ephemeral apparent horizon, he cautions, could well induce the same issues an event horizon does.

Unlike the event horizon, the apparent boundary can eventually dissolve. Page notes that Hawking is opening the door to a scenario so extreme “that anything in principle can get out of a black hole”. Although Hawking does not specify in his paper exactly how an apparent horizon would disappear, Page speculates that when it has shrunk to a certain small size, where the effects of both quantum mechanics and gravity combine, it is plausible that it could vanish. At that point, whatever was once trapped within the black hole would be released (although not in good shape).

If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inwards due to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form and it would be almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.

“It would be worse than trying to reconstruct a book that you burned from its ashes,” says Page. In his paper, Hawking compares it to trying to forecast the weather ahead of time: in theory it is possible, but in practice, it’s too difficult to do with much accuracy.

Polchinski, however, is sceptical that black holes without an event horizon could exist in nature. The kind of violent fluctuations needed to erase it are too rare in the Universe, he says. “In Einstein’s gravity, the black hole horizon is not so different from any other part of space,” says Polchinski. “We never see spacetime fluctuate in our own neighborhood: it is just too rare on large scales.”

Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former student of Hawking's, says that Hawking’s latest contribution highlights how “abhorrent” physicists find the potential existence of firewalls. However he is also cautious about Hawking’s solution. “The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls,” says Bousso. “But the fact that we’re still discussing this issue 40 years after Hawking’s first work on black holes is testament to its enormous significance.”
 

David B. (38)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 8:55 am
Why don't we leave space alone? --- We have major problems on earth that need addressing right NOW! --- Hawking has his theory and I have mine. --- We don't need theories, we just want the facts or nothing at all.

I once heard a 'leading' astrologer state that we can currently see only 90% of the universe. --- What happens then? --- Do we just run into a brick wall?.--- FACTS or nothing please.
 

Lucas Kolasa (9)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 1:36 pm
Steven, I hate to say it,, but your science bores me.
 

Lucas Kolasa (9)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 1:38 pm
Sp? Stephen
 

Jav R. (0)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 2:24 pm
Gracias por publicar.
 

Roger Garin-michaud (105)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 2:25 pm
noted, thanks
 

Nimue Pendragon (270)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 4:43 pm
Thank you, Professor Hawking, you dazzle as always :)
 

DaleLovesOttawa O. (192)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 7:47 pm
Fascinating as always. In any event, an Event Horizon will be eventful..."which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form."

Any chance of holding Steven Harper prisoner in space for an extended period of time, thus releasing the imprisoned Canadian Parliament from his grasp? It is sounding more garbled all the time and needs a rest from the Hapless Harper comet with leaving a tail of political manure in the world of party politics.
 

Michael O. (174)
Sunday January 26, 2014, 8:07 pm
@ Dale O.:

Stephen Hawking continues to work on his Theory of Everything.

Stephen Harper, on the other hand, given his poor grasp of science, continues to work on his Theory of Nothing - he's doing a pretty good job on it too. ;)
 

Cynthia F. (137)
Monday January 27, 2014, 2:30 am
Noted. Thanks, Michael
 

Mike S. (86)
Monday January 27, 2014, 4:57 am
Very interesting article. Thank you Michael.
 

John B. (158)
Monday January 27, 2014, 6:39 am
Thanks Michael for the interesting and informative post. Read and noted
 

DaleLovesOttawa O. (192)
Tuesday January 28, 2014, 2:08 am
So very true, Michael O. Harper's Theory of Nothing continues unabated, meanwhile he continues to spurn science by muzzling our scientists not to mention trashing oodles of research libraries filled with data by scientists and researchers.

This guy is a walking disaster area and needs to be deposited in some alternative universe riding an asteroid to nowhere. Which is where his policies are presently leading Canada!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/capt-trevor-greene/science-cuts-canada_b_4534729.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fisheries-and-oceans-library-closings-called-loss-to-science-1.2486171

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/research-cutbacks-by-government-alarm-scientists-1.2490081
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.