From the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA – BERKELEY
Einstein’s equations allow a non-determinist future inside some black holes
In the real world, your past uniquely determines your future. If a physicist knows how the universe starts out, she can calculate its future for all time and all space.
But a UC Berkeley mathematician has found some types of black holes in which this law breaks down. If someone were to venture into one of these relatively benign black holes, they could survive, but their past would be obliterated and they could have an infinite number of possible futures.

Such claims have been made in the past, and physicists have invoked “strong cosmic censorship” to explain it away. That is, something catastrophic – typically a horrible death – would prevent observers from actually entering a region of spacetime where their future was not uniquely determined. This principle, first proposed 40 years ago by physicist Roger Penrose, keeps sacrosanct an idea – determinism – key to any physical theory. That is, given the past and present, the physical laws of the universe do not allow more than one possible future.
But, says UC Berkeley postdoctoral fellow Peter Hintz, mathematical calculations show that for some specific types of black holes in a universe like ours, which is expanding at an accelerating rate, it is possible to survive the passage from a deterministic world into a non-deterministic black hole.
What life would be like in a space where the future was unpredictable is unclear. But the finding does not mean that Einstein’s equations of general relativity, which so far perfectly describe the evolution of the cosmos, are wrong, said Hintz, a Clay Research Fellow.
“No physicist is going to travel into a black hole and measure it. This is a math question. But from that point of view, this makes Einstein’s equations mathematically more interesting,” he said. “This is a question one can really only study mathematically, but it has physical, almost philosophical implications, which makes it very cool.”
“This … conclusion corresponds to a severe failure of determinism in general relativity that cannot be taken lightly in view of the importance in modern cosmology” of accelerating expansion, said his colleagues at the University of Lisbon in Portugal, Vitor Cardoso, João Costa and Kyriakos Destounis, and at Utrecht University, Aron Jansen.
As quoted by Physics World, Gary Horowitz of UC Santa Barbara, who was not involved in the research, said that the study provides “the best evidence I know for a violation of strong cosmic censorship in a theory of gravity and electromagnetism.”
Hintz and his colleagues published a paper describing these unusual black holes last month in the journal Physical Review Letters.
Beyond the event horizon
Black holes are bizarre objects that get their name from the fact that nothing can escape their gravity, not even light. If you venture too close and cross the so-called event horizon, you’ll never escape.
For small black holes, you’d never survive such a close approach anyway. The tidal forces close to the event horizon are enough to spaghettify anything: that is, stretch it until it’s a string of atoms.
But for large black holes, like the supermassive objects at the cores of galaxies like the Milky Way, which weigh tens of millions if not billions of times the mass of a star, crossing the event horizon would be, well, uneventful.

Because it should be possible to survive the transition from our world to the black hole world, physicists and mathematicians have long wondered what that world would look like, and have turned to Einstein’s equations of general relativity to predict the world inside a black hole. These equations work well until an observer reaches the center or singularity, where in theoretical calculations the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite.
Even before reaching the center, however, a black hole explorer – who would never be able to communicate what she found to the outside world – could encounter some weird and deadly milestones. Hintz studies a specific type of black hole – a standard, non-rotating black hole with an electrical charge – and such an object has a so-called Cauchy horizon within the event horizon.
The Cauchy horizon is the spot where determinism breaks down, where the past no longer determines the future. Physicists, including Penrose, have argued that no observer could ever pass through the Cauchy horizon point because they would be annihilated.
As the argument goes, as an observer approaches the horizon, time slows down, since clocks tick slower in a strong gravitational field. As light, gravitational waves and anything else encountering the black hole fall inevitably toward the Cauchy horizon, an observer also falling inward would eventually see all this energy barreling in at the same time. In effect, all the energy the black hole sees over the lifetime of the universe hits the Cauchy horizon at the same time, blasting into oblivion any observer who gets that far.
You can’t see forever in an expanding universe
Hintz realized, however, that this may not apply in an expanding universe that is accelerating, such as our own. Because spacetime is being increasingly pulled apart, much of the distant universe will not affect the black hole at all, since that energy can’t travel faster than the speed of light.
In fact, the energy available to fall into the black hole is only that contained within the observable horizon: the volume of the universe that the black hole can expect to see over the course of its existence. For us, for example, the observable horizon is bigger than the 13.8 billion light years we can see into the past, because it includes everything that we will see forever into the future. The accelerating expansion of the universe will prevent us from seeing beyond a horizon of about 46.5 billion light years.
In that scenario, the expansion of the universe counteracts the amplification caused by time dilation inside the black hole, and for certain situations, cancels it entirely. In those cases – specifically, smooth, non-rotating black holes with a large electrical charge, so-called Reissner-Nordström-de Sitter black holes – an observer could survive passing through the Cauchy horizon and into a non-deterministic world.
“There are some exact solutions of Einstein’s equations that are perfectly smooth, with no kinks, no tidal forces going to infinity, where everything is perfectly well behaved up to this Cauchy horizon and beyond,” he said, noting that the passage through the horizon would be painful but brief. “After that, all bets are off; in some cases, such as a Reissner-Nordström-de Sitter black hole, one can avoid the central singularity altogether and live forever in a universe unknown.”
Admittedly, he said, charged black holes are unlikely to exist, since they’d attract oppositely charged matter until they became neutral. However, the mathematical solutions for charged black holes are used as proxies for what would happen inside rotating black holes, which are probably the norm. Hintz argues that smooth, rotating black holes, called Kerr-Newman-de Sitter black holes, would behave the same way.
“That is upsetting, the idea that you could set out with an electrically charged star that undergoes collapse to a black hole, and then Alice travels inside this black hole and if the black hole parameters are sufficiently extremal, it could be that she can just cross the Cauchy horizon, survives that and reaches a region of the universe where knowing the complete initial state of the star, she will not be able to say what is going to happen,” Hintz said. “It is no longer uniquely determined by full knowledge of the initial conditions. That is why it’s very troublesome.”
He discovered these types of black holes by teaming up with Cardoso and his colleagues, who calculated how a black hole rings when struck by gravitational waves, and which of its tones and overtones lasted the longest. In some cases, even the longest surviving frequency decayed fast enough to prevent the amplification from turning the Cauchy horizon into a dead zone.
Hintz’s paper has already sparked other papers, one of which purports to show that most well-behaved black holes will not violate determinism. But Hintz insists that one instance of violation is one too many.
“People had been complacent for some 20 years, since the mid ’90s, that strong cosmological censorship is always verified,” he said. “We challenge that point of view.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Funny, I saw another article about black holes today, except the other one was discussing the findings which suggested ultramassive blackholes were more numerous than previously thought.
See here: https://newatlas.com/ultramassive-black-holes/53493/
Of course, my first thought upon seeing the title, “”Ultramassive” black holes may be the biggest ever found – and they’re growing fast,” was that we’ve found yet another thing to blame CO2 for. Sadly (for my humor circuit), no mention of CO2 was found in the article.
rip
Thanks to quantum effects, the future is already “non deterministic”.
THIS statement, “but their past would be obliterated”, is the clincher. It shows there are still some undiscovered laws of physics preventing this from happening.
I wouldn’t mind erasing some portions of my past. Not all of my past, of course. Just some I’d rather forget, but my friends keep reminding me. 😉
This is not correct:
This is old science, global warming scientists discovered this phenomena years ago and use it to modify the instrumental temperature record, erase the Medieval Warm Period and cause the Little Ice Age to become a minor and local weather artifact.
Error in formatting above, should be
This is not correct:
To be able to determine the future based on the past requires that the physicist knows the position and momentum of each particle with absolute precision, but that is not possible.
In the real world we have the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle which
states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.
/Jan
Hm, wonder why the lost raw data at CRU came to mind …
That’s simply not true. It’s impossible to know the initial conditions with sufficient precision and the necessary computer would be bigger than the universe.
For similar reasons, we can’t even calculate the weather a week out.
That statement (“If a physicist…”) was believed to be true under Newtonian physics. Quantum physics destroyed it. Newtonian physics is still useful, but one has to be careful of the context it is used in.
I can’t remember who said it – Terry Pratchett? Douglas Adams? – but it bears repeating:
“The main problem of theoretical physics is that we are still attempting to describe the Universe in language developed by one monkey to tell another monkey where the best banana tree was”
Ors similar..
The language developed such that one monkey could appear to be telling another monkey where the best bananas are. In reality, the first monkey could send the second monkey off in the wrong direction and preserve the best bananas for himself. When the second monkey later complains, the first monkey could point out that the second monkey had misunderstood his clear-as-day instructions. How was it the first monkey’s fault if the second monkey couldn’t understand plain English? etc. etc. link
If from my reference frame time stops for you then what does time mean to you from your reference frame looking back at me? For you looking back at me the universe in my reference frame has ended from your point of view. It’s like asking what is outside of the space/time we inhabit? Simple, eternity. As someone above said, just divide by zero.
From either reference frame “time”/”universe” ends at the same time. It is a matter of how each reference frames sees the end. From one reference frame the time outside their frame is moving faster and faster, from the other reference frame the time outside their is moving slower and slower.
Tom,
I thought that is what I said. From the refernce frame outside the bh the time inside the bh has slowed while from inside the bh time outside the bh has gone so fast that the universe has “died” its entropy death, assuming no big crunch or rebounding universe. Thinking about inside the bh is not so different from thinking about outside of the space/tkme we inhabit. And if Hawking radiation exists why can’t it leak outside of our space/time as well. Though, to me the only real variable that exists is time, deterministic or not, it may be the key reality in the quantum world even though it varies with velocity and gravity. Or is gravity the key variable? If we ever figure out what gravity is we may have some answers. One thing for sure is that the present generally accepted model of our universe has some big holes in it, pun intended.
Begging 4 oblivion…
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fllqgFicLO4&w=640&h=390]
Aben, have you watched Symbols of an Alien Sky, and then the revised series Discourses on an Alien Sky?
How can we know something before we know it? Death? We could do math until hell freezes over and still not know the truth. This reminds me of (no disrespect intended) of Rabbis arguing over how many angels can be on the tip of a needle? If you cannot prove it (like statistics because of an opinion.? We have real world problems that need answers.
Science fiction.
In what department of Nordström can I buy such a black hole?
OT: There were 3 pro-CO2, AGW sceptic boothes at C-PAC today, and 2 AGW believer boothes proposing solutions.
Hintz realized, however, that this may not apply in an expanding universe that is accelerating, such as our own. Because spacetime is being increasingly pulled apart, much of the distant universe will not affect the black hole at all, since that energy can’t travel faster than the speed of light.
So, how do you explain entangled particles. Is this not instantanious action across vast distances?
Do physicist not grok Zeno’s Paradox? As far as the black hole is concerned, you are just a speck of mass. Nothing more.
Evidence is mounting that black holes are real. But the title of this article ‘Some black holes erase your past’ make it sound like these ‘special case’ black holes may be the ultimate ‘confessional’.
“All your past sins are erased, my son. Go…. and sin no more!”
The reason none of this makes sense is because of multideminsionality of our universe. Hyper-space exists.
The M-M double slit interferometer photon/wave duality experiment… it’s simply the result of multiple dimensions peeking through into our 4D space-time.
Same this with entangled pairs of quaantum particles. Einstein’s spooky action at a distance. Hyper dimensionality of our universe. Gravity acts an attractive force (gravitons) in our 4D (x,y, z, and +t) existence, but has a repulsive element on other dimensions. Manifold string theory is a gordian knot. But in a bout 100 years some really bright person will be the next Einstein.
And then we’ll have FTL travel. But really it will just be folding of our space-time, such that travel to the past still will not be possible.
The real question is why are we using taxpayer dollars to support this sort of mathematical onanism?
“No physicist is going to travel into a black hole and measure it. This is a math question. But from that point of view, this makes Einstein’s equations mathematically more interesting,”
Ah yes a math problem. There are other more interesting math problems like: Can hyperintelligent pandimensional beings that look like mice live in a 42-dimensional universe?
They look like this
BTW general relativity breaks down at the singularity so it cannot really properly describe black holes. Quantum effects cannot be ignored. We need a quantum gravity theory. This is non-existent and an active area of research. I have a quantum theory of black hole based on my non-singularity theorem. Since Hawking and Penrose formulated the singularity theorems, it send my draft to Penrose for his review and rebuttal.
And you thought Dr. Sheldon Cooper (The big bang theory) was a nutcase ?
At least Bill Parsons isn’t hiding he is a comedian !
You just need to get a sense of perspective is all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UBCURMdZzo
James Bull
And your future and… oh well, just forget it!
Bell’s simple equation made all the above academic, many years ago!
All space-time is a singularity, the only thing that gives black holes some distinction, is their “mass” 😉
“How can I tell that the past isn’t a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind?”