> Once they cross the event horizon, they are moving at the speed of light toward certain doom.
Can that be correct? I thought the falling man experienced no change on crossing the event horizon (other than the effects of spaghettification, which begins long before arriving at the horizon).
I thought that you'd continue accellerating toward the singularity, asymptotically approaching both the speed of light and infinite inertial mass. Am I wrong?
The "towards certain doom" part is correct. The "at the speed of light" is not. Unfortunately this kind of thing is typical for pop science articles.
> I thought the falling man experienced no change on crossing the event horizon
That's correct. The infalling person has no way of knowing, locally, that they have crossed the horizon and are now doomed to hit the singularity. But that doesn't change their doom.
> (other than the effects of spaghettification, which begins long before arriving at the horizon).*
Not for the typical black holes we observe in the universe. Tidal gravity at their horizons is too small for spaghettification; that doesn't happen until the infaller is well inside and approaching the singularity.
> I thought that you'd continue accellerating toward the singularity, asymptotically approaching both the speed of light and infinite inertial mass. Am I wrong?*
Yes. None of these things are true. Your acceleration is zero--you're in free fall. There is no well-defined notion of "speed" at all, but your worldline remains timelike. Your inertial mass is unchanged. And, finally, the singularity is not a place. It's a moment of time. You can't "accelerate towards" it any more than you can accelerate towards next week.
It's pretty clear GP was using the reference frame of a far-away observer.
It's fine to switch to the infalling observer's frame, as you're doing here, but that choice isn't objectively any more correct than GP's. For example:
> Your acceleration is zero--you're in free fall.
That's in the falling observer's frame. It's totally fine to say 'a astronaut in freefall is accelerating towards the earth', explicitly invoking Earth's reference frame.
The freedom to choose a frame is literally why it's called 'Relativity'.
> It's pretty clear GP was using the reference frame of a far-away observer.
Even in such a frame (for example, Painleve coordinates), not all of the statements are correct. In those coordinates, the infaller's coordinate acceleration is nonzero, as you say, but their coordinate speed inside the horizon is greater than the speed of light. Their inertial mass is still unchanged. And the coordinate acceleration in this frame is still not "towards" the singularity, since the singularity is still a moment of time, not a place in space.
> It's totally fine to say 'a astronaut in freefall is accelerating towards the earth', explicitly invoking Earth's reference frame.
In terms of coordinate acceleration, yes. But coordinate acceleration, precisely because it is frame-dependent, is not considered a physically meaningful quantity in relativity. Only invariants can be physically meaningful quantities. Proper acceleration--what an accelerometer attached to the infaller reads--is an invariant, and that is zero for a free-faller.
This is not correct. Someone outside will never see the infaller reach the horizon, but that doesn't mean the infaller never reaches the horizon. It just means the outside observer never sees it happen.
I think the inability of an outsider to detect an event is precisely what it means to say "from the point of view of sn outsider, this event never happens".
What happens but can never be observed, may aswell never happen from the p.o.v. of the observer. It has no consequences to say it does, or does not, happen (for if it did, those consequences would make it observable).
> I think the inability of an outsider to detect an event is precisely what it means to say "from the point of view of sn outsider, this event never happens".
No, it isn't. The fact that a particular observer cannot detect an event does not in any way justify the claim that that event never happens.
> may aswell never happen from the p.o.v. of the observer
Whether or not an event "happens" is not a matter of any particular observer's point of view. At least, not in General Relativity. In GR, an event happening means there is a point in spacetime at which it happens. That point is either there in spacetime or it isn't, independent of what any observer can or cannot detect.
You can say an event has no causal effect on a particular observer, but that's not the same as saying the event never happens.
> The infalling person has no way of knowing, locally, that they have crossed the horizon
Is there such a thing as "the" event horizon? Suppose Alice and Bob are both free falling into a block hole, but Alice is a little bit further in than Bob. Alice sends a message photon straight back out of the gravity well once per second by her pocket watch. There is a distant observer, Dana. Dana believes the event horizon to lie at a certain radius, and as Alice approaches that radius, she appears to Dana to slow down and to redshift so that Dana does not see Alice cross the horizon. However, there is a particular second, N, on Alice's pocket watch which marks the final messenger photon that can get back out to Dana; all messages > N are trapped.
Now, if Bob is right behind Alice, falling into the black hole, isn't it possible that he can observe Alice's (N+1)st photon? That photon need not escape the black hole all the way out to Dana in order for Bob to see it, since he's falling toward it. Therefore, doesn't Bob disagree with Dana about where the event horizon is? Alice hasn't crossed it yet as of N+1 as far as Bob can see.
I guess my bigger point/question is, if you decide to fall into a black hole, won't its horizon recede before your eyes as you approach?
Yes. It's a global feature of the spacetime geometry. It's not observer dependent.
> if Bob is right behind Alice, falling into the black hole, isn't it possible that he can observe Alice's (N+1)st photon?
If he himself crosses the horizon, yes, he will see Alice's N+1st photon after he has crossed the horizon. But not until then.
> doesn't Bob disagree with Dana about where the event horizon is?
No. See above.
> if you decide to fall into a black hole, won't its horizon recede before your eyes as you approach?
There are optical effects due to light rays traveling tangentially, not radially, that (if we imagine the horizon as a light-emitting surface, which it actually isn't) could make this seem to happen, but this would be an optical illusion; you would still fall through the horizon regardless of what appearances your eyes were seeing.
For some time after Alice and Bob have both crossed, they can continue to communicate with one another, showing that they are not separated by a horizon. But since Alice is ahead, won't she and Bob get separated more and more over time? Isn't there a time after which Alice can't even get a message out to Bob? Can that not be characterized as an event horizon separating Alice and Bob, and one which is fundamentally distinct from the one separating Alice and Bob from Dana?
> For some time after Alice and Bob have both crossed, they can continue to communicate with one another
Yes.
> showing that they are not separated by a horizon.
No. They are separated by a horizon, but only for a short time--short enough that Bob crosses the horizon before seeing any light signals emitted upward by Alice after she has crossed the horizon.
> since Alice is ahead, won't she and Bob get separated more and more over time?
Yes.
> Isn't there a time after which Alice can't even get a message out to Bob?
Yes. If you draw a spacetime diagram of the hole with Alice's and Bob's worldlines on it (Kruskal coordinates work well for this), then at some point on Alice's worldline her future light cone will no longer include any portion of Bob's worldline; and once she passes that point, she can no longer send light signals to Bob (because he will hit the singularity before her signals can reach him). One can also make a similar argument for Bob.
> Can that not be characterized as an event horizon separating Alice and Bob, and one which is fundamentally distinct from the one separating Alice and Bob from Dana?
This answer is pretty terse and doesn't provide a lot of understanding. Found these helpful articles instead, explaining the difference between an absolute horizon [0], which is what you're talking about, and an apparent horizon [1], which is the idea I've been asking about without knowing the magic word for.
> This answer is pretty terse and doesn't provide a lot of understanding.
Yes, sorry, I was pressed for time. I'll try to expand on it further below.
Unfortunately, "apparent horizon" is not the idea you were asking about. I don't know if there is a standard name for the idea you were asking about, but I do know that none of the "horizon" terms we have been using ("event horizon", "absolute horizon", or "apparent horizon") are it.
"Absolute horizon" and "event horizon" mean the same thing: they are the boundary of a black hole. This boundary is a global null surface that bounds a region of spacetime that cannot send light signals to infinity.
"Apparent horizon" means a surface at which radially outgoing light rays do not move outward. In other words, if you imagine a 2-sphere emitting light rays radially outward in all directions, normally those light rays, taken all together, will form their own 2-sphere that expands with time (its radius increases). If the 2-sphere emitting those light rays is part of an apparent horizon, however, the 2-sphere formed by the light rays does not expand--it keeps the same radius, which means it stays right at the apparent horizon instead of expanding outward away from it.
What you were describing, the boundary that describes when Alice can no longer send messages to Bob, is the future light cone of some event on Alice's worldline--the first event whose future light cone does not include any events on Bob's worldline. If you look at the light rays emitted by Alice that form her future light cone, they are not just radially outgoing light rays; the future light cone consists of all light rays emitted at a given event, in all directions, not just radially outward. AFAIK such a surface is never called a "horizon" of any kind; it's a future light cone, which is a different kind of surface.
I haven't ever decided to fall into a black hole so I'm not speaking from experience, but I think Bob would only see Alice's (N+1)st photon after he himself has crossed the event horizon.
Nope, you're in an inertial reference frame when in free-fall. Ignoring air resistance, if you were to take an apple out of your pocket and place it next to you in mid-air, it would be motionless relative to yourself. Put a box around you with no windows and you'll have no idea whether you're floating through space in the absence of gravity, or if you're free-falling inside a gravity well.
This is the main difference between general relativity and the newtonian notion of gravity: GR says gravity is just spacetime curvature, and by following an inertial (geodesic) path through spacetime, it appears to be acceleration to certain observers, but is in fact inertial. Newtonian mechanics says instead that gravity is a force and you're indeed accelerating, but it's a view that breaks down at high mass/speed, and GR makes correct predictions where Newtonian mechanics does not, so we generally prefer the GR interpretation.
> you're in an inertial reference frame when in free-fall.
But the falling person's frame isn't the only one available. Someone on the ground would rightfully describe the falling person as accelerating towards the ground (or them) (at least until they reach terminal velocity).
The most important lesson of relativity is that no reference frame is privileged. That means both descriptions are valid, provided you attach the reference frame to the description.
> The most important lesson of relativity is that no reference frame is privileged.
No, the most important lesson of relativity is that only invariants are physically meaningful. IIRC Einstein once commented that he wished his theory had been called the "theory of invariants" since that would have been a better description of its most important feature.
The second most important lesson of relativity is that yes, you can use whatever frame you wish, because invariants are the same no matter what frame you use to calculate them. So you will come up with the same physically meaningful quantities no matter what frame you choose.
all this talk of GR and invariants, not to confuse a mathematical singularity with a gravitational one, at which point GR itself breaks down per the need for a quantum mechanical description. the truth is we don't know what happens within a black hole, and probably never will
> GR itself breaks down per the need for a quantum mechanical description
This is the current predominant belief among physicists, yes, but that doesn't mean it's established fact.
> the truth is we don't know what happens within a black hole, and probably never will
This is way too pessimistic. The predictions of GR for this regime are precise and unequivocal. Even if you believe GR breaks down when spacetime curvatures reach the Planck scale (which is the current predominant belief, as I said above), that still leaves most of the black hole's interior within GR's domain of validity.
> that still leaves most of the black hole's interior within GR's domain of validity.
Thanks, that's what I (as a layman) supposed: that inside the event horizon isn't some space that you can't think about; it's qualitatively not distinguishable from outide.
Upthread, someone mentioned that the singularity wasn't a place in space, it was a location in time. That made me think; the mass of a BH isn't the mass of a volume of space, it's the mass of the "singularity", which (presumably?) is located at the center of the space described by the event horizon. So there must be a place where the singularity is located, and there must be a direction towards it.
Someone else suggested there are two things: a mathematical singularity and a gravitational singularity, and that they aren't the same. That hadn't crossed my mind.
> someone mentioned that the singularity wasn't a place in space, it was a location in time.
That was me.
> That made me think; the mass of a BH isn't the mass of a volume of space, it's the mass of the "singularity"
This is not correct. The mass of the hole is not somehow "concentrated" at the singularity. There is no matter anywhere inside a black hole. The "mass" of the hole is a global property of its spacetime geometry.
> "singularity", which (presumably?) is located at the center of the space described by the event horizon.
Your presumption is wrong. There is no "center" of the black hole in the ordinary sense. Its spacetime geometry simply doesn't work that way; it is not like the spacetime geometry inside an ordinary spherical object.
> So there must be a place where the singularity is located
Wrong. See above.
> and there must be a direction towards it.
There is such a spacetime direction, but it's a timelike direction--towards the future--not a spacelike direction.
> Someone else suggested there are two things: a mathematical singularity and a gravitational singularity, and that they aren't the same.
> So if I jump out of an aeroplane, I don't accelerate towards the ground?
In a very real sense (although not a useful one for a skydiver), the answer is yes. This is a key insight of the Equivalence Principle and the curved-spacetime view of gravity. You (in free-fall) are on an inertial "straight line" path through spacetime towards the center of the Earth. When you reach the ground, it pushes on you, messily accelerating you off of that path.
> if I jump out of an aeroplane, I don't accelerate towards the ground?
Not in your rest frame. In your rest frame, the ground accelerates towards you.
However, the acceleration described in both frames (yours and the Earth's) is coordinate acceleration, which is frame-dependent, and in relativity frame-dependent quantities don't have any direct physical meaning. The quantity that has physical meaning in terms of acceleration is proper acceleration--what an accelerometer strapped to you would read--and in free fall that is zero.
In some sense, the ground is accelerating towards you. By jumping out of the plane, you've stopped the plane floor from accelrating you away from the ground at the same rate the ground is accelerating towards you.
This is barely useful for humans since we are very used to 'standing still' actually involving the force of your weight, so we consider that distinct from acceleration. But physics gets much easier if you don't make that distinction.
Falling in a black hole is a different experience. It must be more like being squeezed in a narrow tube with a glowing light that was once the universe on one end of the tube and something indescribable on the other end. Perception of time will change too, as all the particles that let us perceive the time will be messed up in strange ways. Perhaps time will seem multidimensional or there will be many timelines. In other words, your perception of a fall from an aeroplane isn't true or absolute, it's mediated by particles that define, for you, space and time, and if those particles get messed up, your reality will change completely.
I think the "tube" business concerns what you see a you approach the speed of light. All the light/future events are in front of you, and you see nothing if you stand on the stern of your ship.
I'm not sure how that relates to falling into a BH, bit I don't know; there's a lot of this that I'm struggling to understand. I'm not a physicist, and not clever, just very interested.
I can't accelerate towards next week, but I can predict when next week will happen, with extreme accuracy. Is this the same for reaching the singularity? Does the person falling (for the sake of this example let's assume they maintain consciousness) experience the passing of time as they fall further "into" the black hole? If so, how long would one experiencing the falling until they reach the singularity?
> I can't accelerate towards next week, but I can predict when next week will happen, with extreme accuracy. Is this the same for reaching the singularity?
If you know the mass of the hole, yes, you can predict how much time will elapse on your clock between now and when you hit the singularity.
> Does the person falling (for the sake of this example let's assume they maintain consciousness) experience the passing of time as they fall further "into" the black hole?
Yes.
> If so, how long would one experiencing the falling until they reach the singularity?
A reasonable estimate for free-falling into a black hole is that the time to reach the singularity is the 3/2 power of the radial coordinate you are falling from, in units of the hole's Schwarzschild radius. If you are just crossing the hole's horizon, you are at the hole's Schwarzschild radius, so your time to reach the singularity from there would be that radius divided by the speed of light (to convert to time units instead of distance units). For a hole of 10 solar masses, for example, this time is about 100 microseconds (Schwarzschild radius of about 30 kilometers divided by the speed of light).
What happens to my speed as I reach (hit?) the singularity 0.1s after crossing the event horizon? Do I jolt to a halt, do I continue to accelerate? Do I keep a fixed speed, but never change position?
There is no such thing. Speed is not absolute in relativity. You can only meaningfully talk about your speed relative to some particular object or observer, and then, strictly speaking, only when you and that object or observer meet (i.e., your worldlines cross).
Similar remarks apply to all of your questions; they simply aren't meaningful.
I’d love to understand the interaction effects between 1) acceleration toward singularity (prob approaching c?), 2) gravity (prob approaching infinity?), 3) distance compression experienced by infalling observer.
My instinct is that the observer would subjectively experience it to take exactly the time predicted by classical mechanics to “hit” the singularity — basically that all the considerations above would cancel out in the local reference frame — but that to an outside observer it would take an infinite amount of time.
> I’d love to understand the interaction effects between 1) acceleration toward singularity (prob approaching c?), 2) gravity (prob approaching infinity?), 3) distance compression experienced by infalling observer.
None of these things are useful in the case under discussion. 1) is invalid--the singularity is a moment of time, not a place in space, and you aren't "accelerating towards" it. 2) is not well-defined inside the horizon (spacetime curvature is, and does increase without bound as you approach the singularity, but that's not quite the same as "gravity"). 3) is a special relativistic effect on others observing you; you yourself don't experience any "distance compression" regardless of your state of motion.
You certainly can accelerate to next week as measured by Earth calendars. Climb into your local particle accelerator and ask them to get you accelerating around the loop as close to the speed of light as possible. By accelerating, you can get to next week in just a few seconds of your own subjective time.
Also, you can accelerate towards the black hole singularity and get there faster.
Yes, and you can calculate exactly how much time it takes (it was an exam question in my final exams for undergrad iirc). The amount of time depends on the mass of the black hole but it's definitely less than a minute.
I'd always assumed that for TON 618 it would've been a few days… but I don't have a physics degree, and now I come to write this comment realise I'd been just presuming it was "Schwarzschild radius/c" and it's not necessarily going to be such an easy result.
I thought it’s after something passes the event horizon time and space flip. So one is not traveling through space at some speed say the speed of light but rather through time at the same speed (whatever that means).
Just as an aside these conversations are amazing and I’m learning a ton!
> That's correct. The infalling person has no way of knowing, locally, that they have crossed the horizon and are now doomed to hit the singularity. But that doesn't change their doom.
Spaghettification is just the extreme effect of tidal forces. IIRC, objects made of normal materials falling into a stallar-mass BH will be ripped apart lengthwise (and compressed widthwise) before they cross the event horizon. The same object falling into a supermassive (galaxy-center) BH won't be ripped apart until some time after it passes the event horizon. Or an "object" which is a loose cloud of dust will be "ripped apart" much farther away (at the Roche limit). But the tidal force increases without limit as you approach the center of the BH, so no matter what the object is, it'll eventually be ripped apart.
When I was in 7th grade we were learning about Black Holes - and the movie "Explorers" had come out where the kids are able to make a forcefield sphere surrounding an abandoned car from a carnival ride/roller coaster --- and they fly into space and meet aliens and stuff...
Welp - 7th grade me postulated that if you had one of those force spheres, and you could accelerate at the same rate or slightly faster than the speed at which matter is pulled into a black hole, could you stay ahead of the gravity wave and "surf" it safely into the black hole?
"> Once they cross the event horizon, they are moving at the speed of light toward certain doom."
I claim no expertise about the internals of black holes but that comment also drew my attention as questionable.
First point, are we talking about a physical man comprising of atoms or the aftermath of spaghettification when much of him would have turned into EM radiation? Physical matter would be subject to Relativity therefore his v < c whereas the parts of him that had turned into radiation would actually travel at c.
That said, the point about astronauts moving at c speed to their doom and the article's thrust about a second law of quantum complexity leads me to ask what is c inside a black hole and to conjecture it's likely very different to that in vacuo. c in vacuum is one of the well defined physical constants but it's also directly related to other physical constants such as vacuum permittivity, ε0, and vacuum permeability, μ0, by the relationship c=1/(ε0μ0)^½.
The inside of a black hole is vastly different to the vacuum of free space, not only is gravity vastly contorting spacetime but the permittivity and permeability would no longer have the values they do in free space. In fact, we'd have to treat them as relative permittivity and permeability and given that black holes contain 'stuff'—which is more than does a vacuum. Light therefore, would travel more slowly than in a vacuum. The value of the relative permittivity and permeability would likely be determined by the size of the black hole.
This leaves the possibility the remains of the astronauts could actually travel faster than the speed light as in the case of Cherenkov radiation. In effect, their velocity in the 'dialectic' of 'black hole volume' could exceed the phase velocity of light through that medium. (Of course, I'm just extrapolating physics as we understand it from outside a black hole, those more familiar with the subject may wish to comment.)
This article also allows one to conjecture the possibility that the values of physical constants such as c may actually arise either directly from quantum information/"complexity equilibrium" sans heat or are emergent phenomena therefrom. With ε0, μ0 and c the 'quantum vacuum' providing a minimum 'circuit complexity' thus c obtains its maximum value in this universe.
Reading about how, over time, the volume of a black hole seems to grow infinitely makes me immediately jump to an obvious connection:
The universe as a whole is ALSO a system that appears to grow infinitely.
I mean, there have been many conjectures that a black hole could contain a new universe, and that the creation of a black hole also creates a new universe. This would seem to hint at another potential connection.
That said...I'm really not a physicist, so maybe that connection is at best a hook for a science fiction story. But it surprises me that the article didn't even mention the parallel.
> over time, the volume of a black hole seems to grow infinitely
Unfortunately, the article fails to note that this is a speculative hypothesis with which not all physicists agree. It's not an established fact. It's not even an established theoretical prediction.
I'd be willing to put $100 on longbets to say our universe is inside a singularity, but I doubt anyone who remembers I existed will still be alive when we figure it out.
It is consistent to say that anyone at that point all of a sudden gets an extra "coordinate system" they can interact with, but they can never leave the point in the outer coordinate system. That would be 'every singularity contains a new universe'.
It's not a very scientific theory, since you cannot report back after attempting to test its predictions. Though the predictions can be tested empirically!
My other long bet is that 100 years from now we'll still be telling people, "I bet you're fun at parties."
And if we're going to 'well achtually', we don't know what happens inside of an event horizon. If time stops due to the infinite curvature, does the singularity ever form, or does it just collapse in on itself for eternity?
The hypothesis that we are surrounded by an event horizon? That's not a hypothesis, it's a logical conclusion. The observable universe has a boundary beyond which the expansion of space is faster than the speed of light; therefore light cannot reach us, which is the (loose) definition of an event horizon.
I like that idea, a bubble has small bubbles inside. All of them growing, but one inside it is growing more, and it "eats" the others until it consumes the bubble it is in, and then it pops and all matter starts moving from center outwards.
Now we need to find some way to prove this is real.
So just to add another note, the infinite volume of black holes is likely an artifact of the classical (not quantum) representation. Just like the ultraviolet catastrophe.
Think about volume like this: it's measured by the amount of "liquid" that fills the given shape. This liquid consists of infinitely small idealized "atoms". Volume in curved space is similar, except that the "liquid" has different "densities" at different points in space.
This breaks down in case of black holes, as the central singularity can "compress" this "liquid" infinitely.
> The inside looks very different, however. The spherical volume formula that you learned in grade school doesn’t apply. The problem is that spatial volume is defined at one moment in time. To calculate it, you have to slice up the space-time continuum into “space” and “time,” and inside a black hole there is no unique way to do that.
Susskind argued that the most natural choice is a slicing process that maximizes the spatial volume at every moment; by the logic of relativity, it amounts to the shortest distance across the hole. “It’s a natural volume analogue of the shortest-line rule,” said Adam Brown, a physicist at Stanford. And because the interior space-time is so warped, the volume by this measure grows with time forever. “The slice on which I measure this volume gets deformed more and more,” said Luca Iliesiu, a physicist also at Stanford."
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. You need to take curvature into account, and it blows up into infinity near the black hole singularity.
But I believe that this is purely an artifact of using classic mechanics for that.
The similar thing happened in classic electrodynamics with the "ultraviolet catastrophe". Basically, you measure how much radiation would be inside a box at a temperature T, and you get an infinite amount. So any closed box should become a source of unlimited power.
And for very similar reasons, there's no low limit on the wavelength, so there is an infinite number of wavelengths that can fit inside a box. And more importantly, each wavelength should still carry some power, so the total sum diverges if you try to integrate all of their contributions.
The fix was to assume that light can only exist in discrete wavelengths, thus setting the lower limit for the wavelength. The resulting total sum then converges, removing the paradox.
Braiding is equivalent to circuits, as shown by Microsoft’s idea for a topological quantum computer.
If you start a system braiding, it will build complexity because braiding appears to be non-local — and so the tangle becomes an increasingly complex circuit. The cusp of a black hole is a regime we’d expect such topological effects to accumulate.
AdS/CFT suggests that maybe there’s something deeper to the relationship between braiding in spacetime and quantum systems. Indeed, braiding is one of the few ways we know to generate quantized properties within a continuous geometric setting.
> Let's talk about braid theory. In the quantum world, particles can be thought of as strands, and their interactions as braids. The braids weave and loop around each other, creating intricate patterns, a dance of existence. Each unique pattern, or braid, represents a different state of the particle. The magic is that the braids can't get tangled.
Your comment raises important points. The non-local nature of braiding in topological quantum computing contrasts with the inherent locality of the AdS/CFT correspondence, prompting us to wonder how these paradigms might coexist.
Could braiding and entanglement entropy, both non-local quantum properties, hint at new understandings in the AdS/CFT framework? Additionally, might these braided structures help illuminate the microstate structure of black holes as theorized by string theory?
Finally, your insight into quantized properties emerging from continuous geometry recalls how quantum field theory has been linked to knot theory. Can we use these ideas to further probe the quantization of spacetime?
Your reflections beautifully intertwine quantum computing, holography, and quantum gravity, encouraging us to weave together these disparate strands in the tapestry of theoretical physics.
My understanding is that the non-locality is a feature of AdS/CFT:
The map from the interior to exterior sends information that may be “local” on the interior across the surface (eg, crossing of a knot). That information isn’t lost… but it can get smeared across the surface.
You can even imagine a situation where the surface as a whole contains the crossing information, but the projected shadow is locally a pseudoknot which doesn’t contain that locally for any “interaction”. Hence a local theory on the surface would need to not only be quantized (eg, a theory of crossing numbers), but statistically so (eg, a distribution of pseudoknot resolutions).
You've captured a fascinating aspect of AdS/CFT: how information in the interior, while local, can manifest non-locally on the surface, akin to a tug on a knot rippling through its structure.
The pseudoknot example underscores the need for a statistical approach in our understanding of quantum gravity. It brings to mind the question: could there be dynamics in quantum gravity analogous to decoherence in quantum mechanics that can account for this statistical nature?
I don't understand how this is obvious -- non-locality does not inherently imply that iteration increases complexity. For a concrete not-entirely-trivial counterexample, von Neumann's middle-square method also appears "non-local" (in that every output bit is a function of a majority of the input bits including well-separated ones) but famously tends to converge to short orbits if not a single constant value.
> If you start a system braiding, it will build complexity because braiding appears to be non-local — and so the tangle becomes an increasingly complex circuit. The cusp of a black hole is a regime we’d expect such topological effects to accumulate.
Would you please expand on the connections between the first and second sentence here? What does braiding 'look' like in topological spacetime?
Braiding is easier in a restricted topology. That’s why research on anyons uses restricted topologies which cross world lines rather than trying to construct 2-knots in a 3+1D spacetime.
As you approach a singularity, “around” becomes much shorter than “across”, effectively restricting the space you’re in. Around being shorter than across is why black holes form Einstein rings: the light is taking the shortest path!
So if paths cross while going around the singularity, they can’t untangle by moving across the singularity. Hence you have an easier time building topological modes, akin to the restricted topologies for anyons. (Or so my conjecture goes.)
Maybe black holes were torn in spacetime by advanced civilizations in previous iterations of the Universe in an effort to escape their own Universe's heat death
May someone who does not understand any of this ask a question?
Years ago scientists made small black holes here in Earth, and, while I was screaming in protest, they assured me they would not fall to the center of the Earth and slowly eat us all. They assured us those black holes would evaporate.
Scientists have not made black holes here on earth. The energy required to do this is insanely higher than anything we are currently capable of. Even at the LHC we aren’t even hitting the energy levels of cosmic rays hitting out own atmosphere. These aren’t the most reputable sources, but you’ll get the basic idea…
In addition to what the other reply points out (that the LHC and such are not sufficient to produce a black hole),
another calculation I've seen shows that, even if it had produced a black hole with mass given by the energy of these collisions, and even if these black holes had started at rest with respect to the earth, and like, fallen into the earth (and started oscillating around the center), and if they did not evaporate (say, if Hawking radiation wasn't actually a thing), then the amount of time needed for them to swallow any appreciable amount of matter at all, would be very very long, and so would not actually cause any problem for the forseeable future.
(not that any were created. The detectors would have noticed. But even if they had been created, it wouldn't have been a problem, even if we are wrong in thinking that they would immediately evaporate.)
The thing is, if the black hole is made from something of a given mass, then, well, it only has the amount of gravitational attraction associated with that quantity of mass. And, that is a very small amount unless the-thing-to-be-attracted is very very very very close to it, and, a point particle falling through the earth wouldn't be likely to get that close to many atoms.
There was controversy about the LHC possibly creating small black holes with disastrous consequences. However
* The LHC probably doesn't have the energy density to do that,
* If it did, such a tiny black hole would be so small, and presumably so hot, that it would have a hard time actually taking in any matter as it careens through the earth,
* There are cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere that are far more energetic than anything the LHC can do, so if there were some disaster waiting here, it would already have happened long long ago.
(You might also have run across headlines breathlessly talking about laboratory black holes in metamaterials or whatever — those are not black holes in the gravitational sense, but are metaphorically similar because of the way they can trap light/sound/whatever.)
Can that be correct? I thought the falling man experienced no change on crossing the event horizon (other than the effects of spaghettification, which begins long before arriving at the horizon).
I thought that you'd continue accellerating toward the singularity, asymptotically approaching both the speed of light and infinite inertial mass. Am I wrong?