Are black holes the ruthless killers we’ve made them out to be? Samir Mathur says no. According to the professor of physics at Ohio State University, the recently-proposed idea that black holes have “firewalls” that destroy all they touch has a loophole.
In a paper posted online to the arXiv preprint server, Mathur takes issue with the firewall theory, and proves mathematically that black holes are not necessarily arbiters of doom. In fact, he says the world could be captured by a black hole, and we wouldn’t even notice.
More than a decade ago, Mathur used the principles of string theory to show that black holes are actually tangled-up balls of cosmic strings. His “fuzzball theory” helped resolve certain contradictions in how physicists think of black holes.
But when a group of researchers recently tried to build on Mathur’s theory, they concluded that the surface of the fuzzball was actually a firewall.
According to the firewall theory, the surface of the fuzzball is deadly. In fact, the idea is called the firewall theory because it suggests that a very literal fiery death awaits anything that touches it.
Mathur and his team have been expanding on their fuzzball theory, too, and they’ve come to a completely different conclusion. They see black holes not as killers, but rather as benign copy machines of a sort.
https://news.osu.edu/news/2015/06/16/fuzzyhologram/
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 18 2015, @02:32PM
While you indeed won't notice passing the horizon (at least as far as general relativity is concerned; what happens if you add quantum mechanics in the mix is exactly what's the point of the firewall debate), it is not true that your blood will flow back up beyond the horizon. Rather you'll fall through the horizon quickly enough that even a photon starting at your foot that somehow remains unaffected by all the matter of your body would not reach your head before the head also passed through the horizon.
(Score: 4, Informative) by pTamok on Thursday June 18 2015, @04:13PM
I don't know if you are right, but having discussed this with a wandering astrophysicist, my simple explanation above is wrong, starting with my overly simplistic definition of the event horizon. I am sorry for having mislead people. Please moderate my previous posting down, so people are not misinformed.
There are some seriously weird physics around black holes, so my description didn't take into account relativistic complications that frankly, I don't understand.
Once you are below the event horizon, there is no trajectory that takes anything that has mass, or zero mass back above the event horizon, even temporarily.