Possible non-existence of black holes and consequences

In summary, the theory suggests that all forces in the universe are the result of the initial state of the universe at the big bang, and that gravity is the only force between photons. It also suggests that space is "compressed" within a "black hole" to fit all the information that will leak out later.
  • #1
stephenwlin
9
0
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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
Oops, where should I have posted it? And can I delete my post now?
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
stephenwlin said:
Oops, where should I have posted it?
Go to the Independent Research forum and read the detailed rules for submission in the "sticky" at the top of the page.
 
  • #7

FAQ: Possible non-existence of black holes and consequences

What evidence suggests that black holes may not exist?

There are a few pieces of evidence that have led scientists to question the existence of black holes. One is the "black hole information paradox," which suggests that information entering a black hole is lost forever, violating the law of conservation of information. Another is the fact that black holes have never been directly observed, and the evidence for their existence is based on theoretical models and indirect observations.

How would the non-existence of black holes affect our understanding of the universe?

The non-existence of black holes would require a major revision of our current understanding of the universe. Black holes are integral to many theories and explanations in astrophysics, so their absence would force scientists to reevaluate and potentially revise these theories.

What would be the consequences if black holes were proven to not exist?

If black holes were proven to not exist, it would have significant implications for our understanding of gravity, the formation and evolution of galaxies, and the fate of stars. It could also impact our understanding of the early universe and the role of black holes in its development.

Are there any alternative explanations for the phenomena typically attributed to black holes?

There are some alternative theories that attempt to explain the observations typically attributed to black holes, such as modified theories of gravity. However, these theories have not been widely accepted by the scientific community, and more evidence is needed to support them.

How are scientists currently investigating the possible non-existence of black holes?

Scientists are using a variety of methods to investigate the possible non-existence of black holes. This includes studying the behavior of matter near the centers of galaxies, analyzing gravitational wave data, and using computer simulations to test alternative theories. However, more research and evidence are needed before any definitive conclusions can be made.

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
63
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
45
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top