Inverted Stars

My modest redefintion of modern “black hole” theory

It is the stars.
The stars above us, govern our conditions.
Else one self mate and mate
could not beget such different issues.
–William Shakespeare

The most accurate definition for what is commonly known as a known “black hole” is what I would describe as a maximally dense area of space-time that, due to gravity, most efficiently stores mass-energy information in the smallest area possible. And in some sense, I like to think of a black hole a gravitational-quantum dynamic computer. However, thanks primarily to Hawking, we’ve since come to realize that a black hole is neither black nor it is a hole. Therefore, it seems fitting that we redefine this thing.

The classical view is that gravity is so strong that not even light can escape, even on a straight path. Then along comes the brilliant Stephen Hawking, who introduced quantum mechanics into the argument, and who predicted that the drastic curvature of spacetime would result in the emergence of Hawking radiation from the vacuum of space. This in turn would result in negative virtual energy reducing the mass of the black hole, while the other positive energy half should escape as radiation. What you are then left to conclude is that the black hole will evaporate.

If you then tell yourself that the black hole emits radiation, and information remains preserved, then photons do in fact eventually escape the black hole as Hawking addition. The only problem is that they would need to travel up a steep incline, while potentially interacting with other radiation information. The end result is presumed to be unimaginably scrambled. The black hole is then neither totally black because it has a temperature, nor is it a hole because information eventually gets out.

This is the basic argument and the current view of modern “black holes.” However, since the name appears to me to cause confusion as it’s neither technically perfect black nor is it a hole, I’d prefer to find a more accurate name for this new state of matter, perhaps, compact or condensed grey matter (CGM or GM), and/or an inverted/dark star?

From these assumptions we can start to try to imagine and guess what this picture implies about the nature of an “event horizon,” as well the mechanism by which information might be preserved. From the holographic arguments first proposed by Leonard Susskind and Gerald t’ Hooft, it must necessarily be the case that the event horizon and the preservation of information must be linked in some profound way.

A grey horizon

First, in the same way we’ve revised the non-eternal nature of black hole as evaporating GM, we should also properly define what we mean by event horizon. We should immediately abandon any notion of a static horizon, or a single point in spacetime.

So for now, let us just assume that our GM is a dimensionless point or singularity in spacetime with some give mass. Based on the mass, we can then calculate the event horizon at some radius from the singularity, which can be best represented as the surface of a sphere, or a 2-sphere.

This horizon then only applies to any future spacetime event located outside the horizon, from the current time as observed by an observer located outside the horizon. Meaning, this horizon bounds potential observable energy or information existing outside the horizon from some moment of observer time, were it to be traveling from the GM to the observer. This is a light cone for all potential observers located outside the horizon. Event horizon are then wholly dependent on each observer and their relative location to the GM in both space and time.

Let us now imagine that, hypothetically, a great many pair of virtual particles briefly separated across the surface area of our 2-sphere event horizon. Normally, these particles would recombine faster than can be observed (hence virtual) as part of a zero-point energy that fills the vacuum. Some call this a quantum foam. Let us now assume out of all these virtual particle pairs we focus on a single pair we’ll call Hawking radiation, and which we can assume spontaneiously assumes various virtual trajectory states.

H-A.

The H-A. trajectory is an escaping positive energy particle which is very nearly perfectly perpendicular to the tangent of the horizon. And so, it barely makes it outside the horizon while the negative in-falling particle cannot escape & falls in. This would then assume that the negative particle would be entangled with the positive. The negative particle might then be assumed to fall straight down to the singularity point, canceling with one bit of GM positive energy, on the same side as the escaping particle.

As this occurs, the escaping positive particle wave function collapses, also conserving spin. Energy and information is conserved because the mass that was inside the GM is now outside the horizon, and it’s information was correlated with the information removed from the GM as a result opposite vector information of the matter/anti-matter pair.

Before we consider an alternate B. trajectory, I want you to imagine that we’re clumping all these potential virtual particles that might otherwise appear at any point on the event horizon 2-sphere, into only six pairs of virtual particles (12) along three axis. Each pair is composed of virtual positive/negative zero point energy. Let’s label these pairs +X/X-, +Y/Y-, and +Z/Z-. Now let’s assume each virtual pair represents 1/6th the total energy of the GM.

Still using the A. trajectory, hypothetically assume that the +X pair simultaneously emerged from the vacuum on the event horizon, just as before. All the other pairs took on tangential virtual vectors allowing them to recombine back into zero point vacuum energy. We are then left with a 1/6th GM mass-energy positive particle and an opposite entangled negative energy particle pair.

Now the 1/6th negative energy entangled particle cancels out 1/6th of the GM positive mass on the same side as the escaping 1/6th positive Hawking radiation, conserving energy, mass, momentum, and spin. As the GM mass is reduced by 1/6th, the event horizon must then necessarily reduce in size corresponding to it’s new 5/6th mass. As this occurs, spacetime for the single escaping Hawking radiation should flattened, making it easier for the Hawking radiation photon to escape while red-shifting slightly.

By now, the main point I am trying to stress is that as soon as the single hypothetical Hawking radiation photon escapes and the negative energy particle cancels with the GM mass, spacetime must bend accordingly to the relocation of positive mass from the singularity to the horizon. The result is a new smaller future event horizon corresponding to the mass-energy & information (temperature) loss. The lost curvature must then necessarily travel with the escaping Hawking radiation/particle as if this particle is a 1/6th GM mass-energy particle.

Therefore, from the perspective of two different hypothetical observers at different distances to the GM, they may perceive different relative apparent horizons as Hawking radiation escapes taking mass away from the GM.

Start with a lensed photon passing around the GM to the closer observer just prior to the escaping H-A. The closer observer will observe the photon lens according to the curvature corresponding to mass of the GM.

Now send the H-A. radiation out of the GM, causing it to evaporate 1/6th of it’s mass. Let’s send this radiation to the closer observer. Right after H-A. is radiated from the GM to the closer observer, a second passing photon bends around the now 5/6th mass GM headed toward the further observer.

The closer observer will observe what it thinks is a larger mass GM than the further observer whose observation occurs at future relative delayed point in spacetime. Each observer has an apparent horizon for the GM which depends on their relative distances to the evaporating GM. Thus, however small the evaporation, or no matter the relative distance from the GM, there is no universal event horizon for all observers across a dynamical system with a finite number of observers equal to the total number of resulting Hawking radiation particles.

H-B.

Next, I want you to imagine that, for the sake of argument, the total mass-energy of the GM singularity is instead distributed across the entire 2-sphere surface area of it’s corresponding event horizon. This means we are assuming no singularity. Just beyond the horizon you get to take your pick. This is either a hollow void of either zero point vacuum energy, or it may be a true void of nothingness, no space, no time.

Picture that this 2-sphere of mass-energy, along with all the information encoded on it’s surface, is spread out, scrambled across the many virtual particles coating the surface area of the event horizon. To an outside observer, it wouldn’t matter what on average configuration the mass-energy was beyond the horizon, as any outside observer would only observe the center of gravity for the whole.

I would hope that by this point, the obviousness, of what would otherwise be similar subsequent arguments, might now be somewhat apparent to the reader. Were we to revisit the escaping Hawking radiation, carrying away GM mass & information this time directly from the surface, it seems entirely more intuitive to be the case that each succesive apparent horizon would emerge directly off an evolving horizon surface area, as it appropriately reduces in size equal to it’s remaining total mass-energy.

My God, it’s filled with stars

Now imagine the aforementioned GM losing nearly all it’s mass down near full evaporation, to some minimum virtual mass. Then, duplicate this near massless remenant to fill every point in space such that every bit of Hawking radiation that escapes one virtual-GM feeds another.