Restoration of predictability in gravitational collapse by Christian Corda

Good to see you here Dr. Corda,

I have already skimmed your paper, and I will have some comments as always. I will likely ask you to explain some things (like what are quasinormal modes?) in layman's terms, after offering possible phenomenological analogies for your review and comment. I think people would benefit from actually understanding this work, while most have only a vague notion of what you are saying. I'm afraid that when it comes to black hole models; people are like sports fans rooting for one team or another (String Theory vs Loop Quantum Gravity; firewalls or none; ...) so they never look beyond their team's offerings. Maybe that can change.

Best,

Jonathan

Since I have a little time...

In the realm of ordinary vibrations, such as plucking a string, one creates normal mode harmonic variations where the pure tone of the resonant frequency rings out due to the transverse motion or vibration of the string. When we go to a surface, such as striking a drum head, already the situation gets a little more complex, which makes it an unpitched instrument though it can be tuned. We can also talk about a ball or balloon, which makes a tone when struck, but where the surface tension draws it out so it is not a pure tone.

As I understand it; there are at least two distinct ways a mode of vibration can become quasinormal. One is by stretching or bending that which is vibrating, so by hitting the whammy bar on a guitar or pushing the pedal on a tympani drum, you are changing the tone as it resonates. But in the case of a black hole; the surface tension is so enormous it forbids up and down motion entirely (at least in the static case), so it has to be tension and density compression waves. I also know that black hole merger ringdowns feature both types of quasinormality, resulting in a boing or chirp in the gravity waves.

In your model; the quasinormal modes are seen to mimic the electron cloud of an atom, and I am assuming this appearance would place the orbits only about 10^-12 cm. over the surface. Is this correct? Do the 'electron' modes appear instead as surface plasmons? Are you talking about pseudo-electrons in the density waves at the surface, or are you talking about something in the atmosphere of the object - yet in close proximity? I was unclear after skimming, but I have encountered your theory before. With each pass I gain a deeper understanding of what you are saying.

Good luck in the contest. My entry should post soon.

Best,

Jonathan

Thank you Christian,

I am happy to see your reply. To my way of thinking; it is only when a BH is regarded as isolated, where as you say it is only Hawking radiation and individual particles being emitted or absorbed, that we can use the Schwarzschild formulation, because once a BH picks up significant spin or charge from what is ingested, that model no longer applies.

Thanks for the time taken to explain. Sorry there is so much politics in Physics. I will wait to do ratings, until I have read at least a dozen papers, to gauge the field, but I will give your paper a thoughtful review in the meanwhile, and comment where appropriate. I wish you luck of course.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thank you for the clarification...

I hope the explanations here in the forum will serve to give your readers more good reasons to like your paper.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Dear Christian

Of course, in the vicinity of BH the mass has some structure.

The problem is that it is not possible to test whether it is a Bohr like structure or another.

There are also escape velocity formulas that give values less than the speed of light near a black hole. These are also not proven formulas so far. I believe that the two approaches can be combined to produce the best result.

As I understand your essay and the formulas listed, BH does not exist. At least it does not exist as defined: "that no light can go out".

• I think you should have written that clear in the essay.

• I also think you should have mentioned those who were against the BH singularity at the very beginning of the story of BH. In order to simplify formulas your formulas lose some of the information to the reader. It's not a mistake, but I don't like it.

You are one of the few in this competition who at least tries to verify own ideas with an acceptable mathematical apparatus. That's why you deserve a high score.

Most believe that, based on their extraordinary ideas; others should get results, which would not have been able to do without those ideas. It is not without significance that your results fit into my view that matter and radiation are opposites that are constantly and eternally revolve in the universe.

Regards

Branko

Dear Christian Korda, of course, the new Cartesian generalization of modern physics is not the theory of everything. If this theory is ever created, it is obvious that it will require a neocartesian reading based on the identity of physical space and matter. It is very difficult to understand and accept that space moves because it is matter, because it is foreign to our free will, when space suddenly becomes matter that resists our movement. And it must withstand the movement of bodies in it according to Newton's second law.

In general, neocartesian thinking led me to the conclusion that the proton is a black hole, so the Bohr-like approach to quantum black hole physics (BH) is justified. For this I will give you high praise. Wish you success!

Boris Dizhechko

Dear Christian,

it might be a sign of uncertain times that most responses to this contest (that I've had the pleasure of reading so far) chose to explore how uncertainty, undecidability and intrinsic epistemic limits impact our ability to investigate the world. You, laudably, chose the other option: restore predictability where the appearance of information loss in the Hawking process seemed to threaten it.

Moreover, you bring a fresh perspective to this problem---it's often said that the black hole is the hydrogen atom of quantum gravity, so what better way to handle it than with an approach that mirrors that of Bohr!

I have to say I haven't yet digested everything you bring to the table here---length constraints and the technical nature of the subject no doubt playing their part there---, but the fact that you can get a pure state as the endpoint of evaporation already seems very promising.

Out of curiosity, do you get any quantitative predictions from your approach---say, the evaporation time of the black hole, or the Hawking temperature? You mention that you get the BH entropy out, what degrees of freedom are counted by the entropy? The modes of the horizon oscillations?

Anyway, I'll have to spend some time mulling your essay over. I wish you the best of luck in this contest!

I ended up writing an essay. This topic has been a source of questions for me over years. I also finally got some time to actually read some essays.

I think that your W operator is a form of density matrix for the black hole. This process is I think an entanglement of the normal mode or states with a quantum state, or approximation thereof, for the black hole. It is in this way that you have a pure state, or at least a close approximation to one. If the вџЁП†_j|W(t)|П†_iвџ© were summed over in a Fermi-golden rule this would then be вџЁП†_j|W(t)|П†_iвџ© ~ e^{-E_{ij}/kT} and would give the thermal Hawking radiation.

Take a look at my essay and see what you think.

Cheers LC

Dear Dr. Korda,

You say: "This wave function results entangled with the wave function of the particle with positive energy which propagates towards innity in the mechanism of particle creation by BHs. Now, we show that this key point solves the entanglement problem connected with the information paradox. In fact, the entanglement problem of the BH information paradox concerns the entanglement structure of the wave function associated to the particle pair creation [3, 5, 28]. In other terms, in order to solve the paradox, one needs to know the part of the wave function in the interior of the horizon [3, 5, 28], i.e. the part of the wave function associated to the particle having negative energy (interior, infalling modes)".

The first thing to say: the introduction of "negative energy" in your article is false. The energy of a given particle you cannot give a negative mathematical sign. It makes no sense. This is not physics, this is mathematical philosophy.

The second thing to say: Ince you know what is time, there is no paradox in entanglement. You can read my article attached.

Yours AmritAttachment #1: Searching_for_an_adequate_relation_betwen_time_and_entanglement.pdf

Dear Korda,

how much you understand the foundations of physics is showing your comment. The fact is "negative energy" is not physics, this is pure philosophy. You do not have any data supporting negative energy. Your article is a school example of what is not physics. Read my books and learn about BIJECVTIVITY in physics.

I'm not inventing physics as you do, my physics models are related to physical reality with bijective function. You for sure will not teach me physics.

Best, AmritAttachment #1: 4_-_Einstein_Vision_of_Time_and_Infinite_Universe_without_Singularities_-_The_End_of_Big_Bang_Cosmology.pdf

Hello, it is a good extrapolation but you don t solve the quantum gravitation. If it was the case, it d be the nobel prize, the BHs are not for me the auantum bricks of this quantum gravitation. The problem is that you have forgotten to insiert several parameters, you have analysed these informations but they don t answer even in developing some maths in correlations with the works of Hawking. There are too much assumptions not proved, but it is a good attenpt that said. This quantum weakest force , I have reached it , needs to insert a different logic than our actual photonic relativistic electromagnetic reasoning. I have reached it in encoding particles of cold dark matter weaker than our electromagntic forces, I consider a gravitational coded aether made of finite series of spheres. I have considered series of quantum BHs farer than our nuclear forces too and that implies a fith force, we see easily that this standard model is encircled, The problems with the different attemps are numerous , like connes and his non commutativity, he has not reach it , like verlinde and his entropical gravity, or Lisi and his E8, or the twistors of Penrose or the loops or the strings, the main problems are that they consider that ewe have onnly photons like main essence or that we have strings at tghis planck scale giving the properties of matters, the geometries, the topologies, the emergent space time. Like the geometrodynamics it is the same problem with the points and the fields. Because our main origin philosophical is not a 1D main field, biut in logic coded particles.

I don t want to be too much rude but sometimes the generality is essential, if not the persons try to be relevant but no, they are false, and I don t want that they are considered like crackpot. You can do better I beleive in all humility and with respect. Think beyond the box and forget your electromagnetic relativistic photonic chains..... :) don t be irritated, try to go deeper simply, you can do it.Regards