Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jim__

(15,280 posts)
33. It looks like your friend, the physicist, knew what he was talking about.
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:23 PM
Apr 2013

An excerpt from an article in Nature:

...

According to the then-accepted account, he wouldn’t feel anything special at first, even when his fall took him through the black hole’s event horizon: the invisible boundary beyond which nothing can escape. But eventually — after hours, days or even weeks if the black hole was big enough — he would begin to notice that gravity was tugging at his feet more strongly than at his head. As his plunge carried him inexorably downwards, the difference in forces would quickly increase and rip him apart, before finally crushing his remnants into the black hole’s infinitely dense core.

But Polchinski’s calculations, carried out with two of his students — Ahmed Almheiri and James Sully — and fellow string theorist Donald Marolf at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), were telling a different story1. In their account, quantum effects would turn the event horizon into a seething maelstrom of particles. Anyone who fell into it would hit a wall of fire and be burned to a crisp in an instant.

The team’s verdict, published in July 2012, shocked the physics community. Such firewalls would violate a foundational tenet of physics that was first articulated almost a century ago by Albert Einstein, who used it as the basis of general relativity, his theory of gravity. Known as the equivalence principle, it states in part that an observer falling in a gravitational field — even the powerful one inside a black hole — will see exactly the same phenomena as an observer floating in empty space. Without this principle, Einstein’s framework crumbles.

...

The result has been a flurry of research papers about firewalls, all struggling to resolve the impasse, none succeeding to everyone’s satisfaction. Steve Giddings, a quantum physicist at the UCSB, describes the situation as “a crisis in the foundations of physics that may need a revolution to resolve”.

...


Imagine that!

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Scientific fact vrs. religious faith? [View all] Thats my opinion Apr 2013 OP
A scientist can generally tell you what facts would change their mind about a theory. trotsky Apr 2013 #1
except humility in a scientific dispute is honored as proper ChairmanAgnostic Apr 2013 #2
As long as you keep identifying religion with fundamentalism Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #4
I think that's why he says "fundie religions" EvolveOrConvolve Apr 2013 #13
Scientific Theories are models of reality... Ron Obvious Apr 2013 #3
You last major paragraph is on target. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #6
OK. Ron Obvious Apr 2013 #10
Science is NOT "simply a collection of unalterable facts." cleanhippie Apr 2013 #5
No really it is. They are all in The Big Book of Unalterable Science Facts. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #17
Few points... gcomeau Apr 2013 #7
Yours is a very helpful response. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #9
I would just point out... gcomeau Apr 2013 #11
Now why are you complaining? skepticscott Apr 2013 #14
You made it through the first paragraph ok skepticscott Apr 2013 #8
I had forgotten about that gem. trotsky Apr 2013 #12
The debate between relativity and QM is "raging" you say? dimbear Apr 2013 #15
I'm just reporting how an outstanding subatomic scientist sees it. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #18
Let me give you the best answer to another question your raise, one which may sound a little dimbear Apr 2013 #20
Ha Ha But scientists report that both are correct. nt. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #24
You really, really need to read this link that skepticscott provided: trotsky Apr 2013 #25
What are the bets? skepticscott Apr 2013 #29
No chance he reads it. trotsky Apr 2013 #30
If you're going to Ha Ha, Charles skepticscott Apr 2013 #28
I suspect you misunderstood him. gcomeau Apr 2013 #23
OMG Charles skepticscott Apr 2013 #31
Faith is commitment to a position with no evidence Lordquinton Apr 2013 #32
I think "faith" is the wrong word to use goldent Apr 2013 #16
Science seems clear Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #19
Which is why fundamental scientific theories skepticscott Apr 2013 #21
" Cosmologists were certain that Ptolemy was right. And then they were certain Copernicus was right. edhopper Apr 2013 #22
Well, I know of no raging debate between QM and relativity. longship Apr 2013 #26
Sorry, Charles...there is no "raging debate" skepticscott Apr 2013 #27
It looks like your friend, the physicist, knew what he was talking about. Jim__ Apr 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Scientific fact vrs. reli...»Reply #33