Comments on black holes I: the possibility of complementarity
By Samir D. Mathur, David Turton. 2012
171 citations recorded by the source corpus.
A bstractWe comment on a recent paper of Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski and Sully who argue against black hole complementarity based on the claim that an infalling observer ‘burns’ as he attempts to cross the horizon. We show that measurements made by an infalling observer outside the horizon are statistically identical for the cases of vacuum at the horizon and radiation emerging from a stretched horizon. This forces us to follow the dynamics all the way to the horizon, where we need to know the details of Planck-scale physics. We note that in string theory the fuzzball structure of microstates does not give any place to ‘continue through’ this Planck regime. AMPS argue that interactions near the horizon preclude traditional complementarity. But the conjecture of ‘fuzzball complementarity’ works in the opposite way: the infalling quantum is absorbed by the fuzzball surface, and it is the resulting dynamics that is conjectured to admit a complementary description.
Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/275b6bcd0d6b8ac7bf7f76f469c5acbbc9985911
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Astronomy and Astrophysics
In Nuclear and High Energy Physics
In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics
Citations in the corpus
- Complementarity is not enough (2012, background): “If she wants to measure B while in free fall, then the modes in question are comparable in wavelength to the time she has left before crossing the horizon [20, 21].”
- An apologia for firewalls (2013, background): “31 However, we emphasize that the arguments above and in [1] limit the extent to which any ‘fuzzball complementary’ proposal along the lines of [102] can apply to physics inside the horizon.”
- Jerusalem Lectures on Black Holes and Quantum Information (2014, background): “the horizon, there have been some attempts to argue that an infalling observer nonetheless experiences a smooth horizon [187, 188], but this certainly is not what the fuzzball geometries naively tell us [189] so if it is true it will require some new idea.”
- Black Hole Remnants and the Information Loss Paradox (2014, background): “According to the fuzzball complementarity [180,181], as long as the free-falling observer has sufficiently large energy E > T where T is the Hawking temperature, then the observer will experience just the usual free fall as in general relativity.”
- Black holes: complementarity or firewalls? (2012, background): “[27] has reiterated this complementarity conjecture, but does not address our arguments directly.”
- Transcending the ensemble: baby universes, spacetime wormholes, and the order and disorder of black hole information (2020, background): “black hole.26 Furthermore, just as there is a particular gauge (or class of gauges) realizing ER=EPR-like scenarios, it seems likely that one can also nd gauges realizing fuzzball scenarios (see e.g. [17,19,24,29,125{129], the non-violent non-locality proposal27 [20,22,30]), proposals emphasizing th”
- Habemus superstratum! A constructive proof of the existence of superstrata (2015, background): “See [30–45] for some developments in that area.”
- Lessons from the information paradox (2020, background): “The idea of “fuzzball complementarity” [45, 46] suggests that nevertheless, for an infalling observer, the geometry might look like the conventional black hole geometry.”
- Tests for the existence of black holes through gravitational wave echoes (2017, background): “In certain models, only low-frequency waves are reflected, whereas higher-frequency waves probe the internal structure of the specific object [27, 28].”
- Time Dependence of Hawking Radiation Entropy (2013, background): “” This paper has elicited a large number of responses, some of which support the firewall idea [162, 163, 164, 165, 166], others seem rather agnostic [167, 168, 169], and yet others of which raise skepticism about it [170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 154, 175, 157, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183].”