3 ms·
I'm not rejecting the theory, I'm embracing it. It says that information cannot escape and I'm saying "OK". The leap that I'm raising an eyebrow at is the ass
by __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
I'm not rejecting the theory, I'm embracing it. It says that information cannot escape and I'm saying "OK".
The leap that I'm raising an eyebrow at is the assumption that GR is applicable "inside" of a black hole. It's a very nice theory: it knows its boundaries. It's a little strange that we're trying to apply it on both sides of those boundaries, given that they are also our boundaries.
I wouldn't go so far as saying that applying GR inside a black hole is like applying GR in a critique of Star Wars, but I do think that that's the sort of distinction we're talking about here. Assuming the consistency of the laws of physics across separate universes might be kid of cool, but it's never going to be as justified as assuming their consistency within the same universe. And that's what the inside of a black hole is, supposing it exists: a separate universe, a place that will never be in our light cone.
(Or, GR is wrong, and we actually can get information from there, which would be interesting too, but I'm assuming for the present that GR will continue to make good predictions.)
- philipov 3y agoWe only know that information can't escape a black hole by applying GR inside the boundary of the black hole, and by doing so, we find out there's a boundary. If you can't apply GR inside the boundary, you can't generate the proposition that there is a boundary in the first place. It's the logical equivalent of sawing off the side of the board you're standing on, Wile E. Coyote style; it's a load-bearing part of the theory. I think you'd need to find some other way of generating the conclusions of GR (a different board to stand on) if you want to eject the interior of black holes from consideration. EDIT: Oh, and there are people trying to do that, I think, but it's not that easy.