3 ms·

Most of us physicists would probably prefer a theory without a mathematical singularity in the middle of it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

• PaulHoule 3y ago
  It is the theory telling you it is wrong and it is gentle in doing so because it seems those singularities are always on the other side of an apparent (as opposed to event) horizon. The following paradox is never taken seriously: if I watch an object fall into a classical black hole I will never see it actually cross the horizon. That makes sense for a classical black hole because it lasts forever, but a semi classical black hole does not last forever so the viewer on the outside probably sees the object that fell in get destroyed when the black hole explodes at end, not to mention destroyed by the extreme tidal forces that will exist around the hole at the end of its life. If the classical picture of what falling in looks like from the outside makes no sense than I think the idea that you fall through the horizon in a finite proper time and then hit the singularity in the future of that really makes no sense. I think the outside observer who sees you torn apart by tidal forces near the apparent horizon and turned into radiation is probably right. That to me is a much more important “paradox” than the silly bet about information loss because if you throw out unitarity you throw out quantum mechanics. That people can pooh-pooh firewalls but believe in the no-unitarity fairy is just beyond me. (e.g. my PhD thesis was about an alternate way to compute quantum mechanical density of states and unitarity turned out to be the most important guiding principle in that)