Quantum black hole study opens bridge to another universe


October 6, 2013

Quantum black hole study finds bridge to another Universe (Image: Shutterstock)

Quantum black hole study finds bridge to another Universe (Image: Shutterstock)

Image Gallery (5 images)

Physicists have long thought that the singularities associated with gravity (like the inside of a black hole) should vanish in a quantum theory of gravity. It now appears that this may indeed be the case. Researchers in Uruguay and Louisiana have just published a description of a quantum black hole using loop quantum gravity in which the predictions of physics-ending singularities vanish, and are replaced by bridges to another universe.

Singularities, such as the infinitely strong crushing forces at the center of a black hole, in a physical theory are bad. What they tell you is that your description of the universe fails miserably to explain what happens as you approach the singularity. Tricks can sometimes resolve what appears to be singular behavior, but essential singularities are signs of a failure of the physical description itself.

Satellite orbiting Earth is guided by the spacetime curvature generated by the Earth's mass (Photo: NASA)

General relativity has been summed up by the late John Wheeler's phrase: "Spacetime tells matter how to move, matter tells spacetime how to curve." Relativity is riddled with essential singularities, because gravity is both attractive and nonlinear – curvature in the presence of mass tends to lead to more curvature, eventually leading to trouble.

The result is rather similar to a PA system on the verge of producing a feedback whistle. If you whisper into the microphone (small gravitational fields) the positive feedback isn't enough to send the PA into oscillation, but talking at a normal volume (larger gravitational fields) produces that horrible howl. Whispering is the comparable to the familiar actions of gravity that keep the planets and stars in their courses. The howl is the process that eventually leads to a singularity as the end result of gravitational collapse.

Let's follow this analogy a bit further. On a PA system, the volume of the feedback is limited by the power capacity of the amplifier, so it can't reach truly destructive levels (other than to our eardrums.) However, gravity as described by general relativity doesn't have such a limit. Since gravity is always attractive, and eventually becomes stronger than all the (known) forces that normally give volume to matter, there is nothing to keep gravitational collapse from proceeding until the curvature of the spacetime tends toward infinity – i.e. a singularity.

Remember that this is the prediction of the classical theory of gravity, general relativity. Classical physical theories contain no fundamental limitation on mass-energy density or on the size of spacetime curvature. While this may be (and probably is) incorrect, we rarely run into a problem caused by this error, so have largely ignored the problem for centuries.

Then along came gravitational collapse and black holes. First proposed by geologist John Mitchell in 1783, a black hole is a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, even light, from escaping.

Black holes are formed when large stars run out of fuel. When a star's core cools, the star shrinks. As the star's layers fall inward, they are compressed by the unbalanced force of gravity, and heat up until a new balance is established. This can only go on so long, as the star (on average) gets smaller at each step of the process of collapse. Eventually the heating driven by this gravitational collapse becomes too small to hold the star up.

At this point, the size of the star depends mostly on its mass, as the force of gravity is only balanced by the ability of the star's material to resist pressure. If a star is heavy enough (8-10 times the mass of our Sun), there is no known source of material pressure which is large enough to resist gravity. In that case, the star collapses without end, and forms a black hole, from which even light cannot escape.

Black holes really began to be understood in the late 1950s, when David Finkelstein, then a professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology, found that the odd behavior at the Schwartzchild radius was actually "... a perfect unidirectional membrane: causal influences can cross it but only in one direction." In other words, what falls into a black hole stays there.

In the spacetime diagram below, known as a causal diagram, the exterior and interior of a classical black hole are sketched. The yellow lines outside and the blue lines inside the black hole show the paths along which light travels. All particles have to follow slower paths that are sandwiched between these "light cones." The red line at the center of the black hole is a curvature singularity.

Nothing can emerge from a classical black hole, and at the center lies a curvature singularity (Image: Alexandre Van de Sande as adapted by B. Dodson)

As you approach the black hole, gravity causes light and particles to curve toward the black hole, which is seen as tipping of the light cones (middle). At points inside the black hole (top), the light cone is tilted so that all light, and hence all particles, can only travel deeper into the black hole. Past the event horizon of a classical black hole, there is no escape.

At the center of a black hole, all matter and light are forced to move inward at ever increasing speeds. This forces whatever enters a black hole into a single point of space right at the center. This point exhibits infinite curvature, making it a curvature singularity. At that point, no known combination of conventional quantum mechanics and general relativity can tell us what happens to the matter and light - the theories break down.

Shortly after Finkelstein's work, Roger Penrose, Steven Hawking, and Robert Geroch showed that gravitational collapse is essentially always followed by formation of essential singularities, disappointing those who hoped that singularities only formed in highly symmetric geometries. As the prediction of a singularity tells you that your physics is wrong, this emphasized the need for a better theory of gravity.

Schrodinger's Cat points out the strange paradoxes of quantum theory (Image: Doug Hatfield)

Well, the other fairly comprehensive and insanely accurate description of what happens in the universe is quantum theory. Moreover, one might guess that quantum uncertanity and fuzziness might keep curvature singularities from occurring, so it seems reasonable to try to solve the limitations of general relativity by developing a quantum theory of gravity.

Easier said than done. Hawking radiation predicts that a black body radiation is emitted by black holes as a result of quantum effects taking place very near the event horizon, which immediately leads to a serious conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Roughly speaking, what happens is that a vacuum fluctuation near the event horizon produces a virtual particle-antiparticle pair. One of the pair falls into the black hole, and the other becomes real and escapes from the black hole, as the first cannot reemerge through the black hole to recombine with the first particle.

Here's the problem. When matter and light fall into a black hole, it appears that whatever information that matter and light may have carried along with them vanishes in the process. Indeed, the sum of all Hawking radiation emitted during the life of a black hole informs you of the mass, spin, and electric charge of what fell into the hole, but nothing else.

Unfortunately, one of the fundamental tenets of quantum mechanics is that information is never destroyed. It appears that the first "successful" result combining general relativity and quantum effects leads to a fundamental conflict. This difficulty is known as the black hole information paradox.

The model used to predict Hawking radiation is pretty simplistic, consisting of ordinary quantum field theory modified to work on a curved background space. The shape of this background space is fixed, so cannot change its shape in response to the movement of light and particles. This is an example of a semiclassical model. More sophisticated semiclassical models would allow small changes in spacetime geometry, but still essentially function in a fixed background geometry.

As more and more semiclassical research has been carried out in an attempt to get a handle on what a quantum theory of gravity might look like, more and more apparent paradoxes have appeared. We won't describe these, but they become increasingly unpleasant. It appears that believing the fundamental assumptions of general relativity leads almost inevitably to fundamental problems in quantum mechanics, and vice versa.

But we don't want to wait for a full quantum theory of gravity to investigate what happens at the center of a black hole. There isn't one in sight, although some version of string theory may be the best bet on the horizon. Instead, it might be reasonable to use a model, called loop quantum gravity, which treats spacetime as a fine structure woven of Planck-sized loops. In this description of physics, there is simply no concept of lengths smaller than the Planck length. While something of the sort is likely to be true in a full quantum theory of gravity, it is expected that this structure should emerge from the theory, rather than be made a basic assumption of the theory. Even though this model may not be a viable candidate for a full theory of quantum gravity, it might give some insight into what happens at the central singularity of a quantum black hole.

This brings us to the new work of Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin, recently published in Physical Review Letters. Gambini and Pullin have developed and solved the first well-behaved model of a quantum black hole, in which the central curvature singularity vanishes, and is replaced by a bridge that appears to lead into another universe. Other details of their treatment offer promise for reconciling other apparent paradoxes associated with blending general relativity and quantum mechanics. They are currently trying to extend their work to study of an evaporating quantum black hole.

Despite the limitations of this result, it is encouraging to know that the best model of a quantum black hole currently available appears consistent with what generations of physicists had hoped would be the case; that quantum effects prevent singularities.

Source: Loop quantization of the Schwarzschild black hole via ArXiv [PDF]

About the Author
Brian Dodson From an early age Brian wanted to become a scientist. He did, earning a Ph.D. in physics and embarking on an R&D career which has recently broken the 40th anniversary. What he didn't expect was that along the way he would become a patent agent, a rocket scientist, a gourmet cook, a biotech entrepreneur, an opera tenor and a science writer. All articles by Brian Dodson

You only need to get two lines into any of this author's articles to know who wrote it. I can't say that I understand all of his postings, but I love the challenge of trying, and I do at least end up more knowledgeable. Please keep up the good work!

Mel Tisdale

There already is a better explanation of gravity and it includes dark matter and dark energy, and it has been around for decades. Try Infinite Wave Theory. It also makes black holes simple. Gravity is a wave, and HUGE wave with a wave length in the neighborhood of 50 trillion light years. Just like light, the gravity wave has properties of wave and particle. The wave property accounts for the dark energy and the particle property accounts for the dark matter. It's so simple it'll make you laugh;) Dark holes are just recycling engines. The universe is a closed system in regards to conservation of energy, and it is infinitely large, it always was and always will be, there was no big bang. You can't examine a billboard with a microscope and determine what it says. back up and look at the big, I mean REALLY BIG picture.


The article alludes to [not] waiting for a theory about "what happens at the center of a black hole." Good idea, since there can never be a theory about that. An essential attribute of a valid scientific theory is that it be falsifiable. That means it predicts some observation or experimental result, which -in principle- could be carried out. But, by definition of a black hole, no information can be carried from the "interior" to the outside. Thus observation for the proposed theory is impossible. I put the word "interior" in quote because the very existence of such a place is a mere convince in speaking; it can't even be referred to scientifically.


@ b@man. Better theories are all ready in place than infinite wave theory. You need observational evidence to strengthen a theory, the fact that it is simple is no benchmark for it to be true.

Ben Hart

It sure took a lot of background information to get to one paragraph with no details at the end of the article. Why do their calculations result in a bridge to another universe? From the title, I expected to find out.

Marcus Carr

Amazing !....keep posting

Sharath Bhargava

@Marcus Carr i totally agree with you. i was expecting something detailed, so i could begin to understand the basis of it all. IMO this article didn't do much justice to my curiosity.


The center of black hole has zero gravity, just lot of mass and energy, so it density is not infinite . If black hole will be feed with matter, it will be stable, otherwise black hole will capture lot of energy, it radius will grow and it density will decrease, until it radius will outgrew Shwartz radius, so it will bang again. It can be tested in such way: create miniature black hole from a particle, then feed this balck holed particle with antiparticle to kill gravitation — black hole should release all it energy in instant burst of energy.

Volodymyr Lisivka

"black hole should release all it energy in instant burst of energy. Volodymyr Lisivka" totally agree, and it was probably a black hole dumping its matter from an adjoining Universe that gave us our Big Bang matter, as matter can neither be created nor destroyed.


So the solution to a singularity is the elimination of the basic singularity, that being the universe. Pass the problem on by saying other universes balance the problem?


I like the theory. I didn't see anything wrong with the Calculus or their methodology. And I can almost see this as the first stepping stone to a Unified theory of energy.

Black Wolf Standing

"At the center of a black hole, all matter and light are forced to move inward at ever increasing speeds."

Light moving inward at increasing speed??? Is that possible?

And if light cannot emerge from the event horizon, everything just below the event horizon must be moving at the speed of light. Therefore, matter too cannot move "inward at ever increasing speeds."

In fact, matter cannot move inward at all, since having reached the speed of light (??), it will be seen by an outward observer as motionless.

Similarly, anything reaching the event horizon, will be seen as motionless, but rather seen as pasted on the event horizon.

Finally, what is there about gravity that allows it to ignore the event horizon and emerge from a black hole?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


영배 방

A "black-hole" is nothing more than a hole in a theory. It is an incorrect math problem which is why noone seems to be able to say exactly what happens in the singularity. Truth of the matter is, it's quite simplistic. Let's look at a black-hole's siblings, after all, a black-hole is just a massive vortex: The giant storm on Neptune or Jupiter, A hurricane/typhoon, a Tornado. --none of these things are the result of dying stars, none of which has a singularity in the middle, and all are vortices. Why does a black-hole get to be the exclusion to the rule?

Daniel Gregory

I love how these so called scientists (as it is all theory NOT Experiment behind the info) tell us they'll follow a hypothesis then find the right mechanics to fit it later on (Loop Theory etc) when Tesla (and Eric Dollard) explain in much more coherent/factual terms of what the Sun/stars/universe really is.

My personal belief is; Our sun is the exhaust of a black hole in another place/time/dimension and instead of trying to think of the singularity, think more as a transmitting vortex to our sun, which willl continue to emit particles, energy etc into this solar system until the black hole elsewhere depletes it's cycle, then our star starts this cycle again sucking in all matter and energy IT Expelled orginally into this area and depositing it elsewhere in multi billion yr cycles....I Could be wrong BUT I could be just as correct as hawking in this field.


Daniel Gregory, Light was thought to travel through a medium because all other waves do. Why should it get to be the exclusion to the rule? Because it is observably different.

Black holes are only "like" the things you listed in a metaphorical sense. When we observe black holes (we do, they radiate x-rays as detailed above, and with our telescopes able to point across at other galaxies we can see exploding stars with high enough frequency to have observed what happens in the aftermath a few times.

I think the singularity concept is an inaccurate model at best, but it is at least a model of the black hole itself, and not simply the effect of gravitational force.

Back holes clearly contain all their mass -at- the event horizon: gravity is also restricted to traveling at the speed of light, so there must be some interaction across the event horizon, which are clearly quantum and local in nature. Of course, "local" is hard to define so well in this case, but it's not like some ball in the middle contains all the mass and is protected by a shell.

Charles Bosse

A bridge to another universe?

Same hubris as the Big Bang religion... or the string theory explaining gravity with spaghettis keeping particles together... (strings are indeed better at keeping a pair of well shaped particles apart...).

There's neither a positive, nor a negative dimensional limit to space, i.e. to the macrocosm and the microcosm respectively -- hence, there cannot be anything like the smallest particle (e.g. God's particle, if you know what I mean). Why should there be any limit? Because we feel intellectually uncomfortable with infinitely small and infinitely big? Nature gives a damn for the infinite frustration of the hopelessly limited human brain.

So, if we have the intellectual magnanimity to admit the notion of both positive and negative infinity of time and space, we should be able to acknowledge that there must be an infinity of infinitely small particles moving at infinite speed within an infinitely small portion of space and causing an infinity of collisions within an infinitely short lapse of time.

Likewise, out there at an infinitely bigger scale there must be an infinitely small number of events happening within an infinitely long lapse of time -- which again should not lead us to believe that infinitely far away out there there's nothing happening at all... its just happening infinitely slowly since and for all eternity!

However, to escape the religious belief that at an infinitely small scale there's a continuum of space/time, let's not assume that at this kind of scale matter and time have no granular structure any more -- in other words, preserving the hypothesis of infinitely fine granularity (discontinuity) of time will preserve the theory of quantum mechanics, and preserving the hypothesis of infinitely fine granularity (discontinuity) of material will preserve my theory of gravity based on the above mentioned infinite number of particle collisions within an infinitely small portion of space.

Don't you think that all of this may account for dark matter, dark energy, and black holes... and indeed also for gravity?

Which may mean, BTW, that we are not "attracted" by, but pushed towards the Earth because the particle impacts on our atomic skeleton from the upper hemisphere are unhindered, whereas part of those from the lower hemisphere are impeded by collisions with the Earth's atomic skeleton, causing a deficit in total number and force of particle impacts from below, with the differential versus those from above accounting for terrestrial gravity.

Moreover, there's no such thing as attraction, traction, sucking, or aspiration -- it's just wishful thinking, as all forces are generated exclusively by summarized particle impact forces -- e.g. a spaghetti isn't sucked, but pushed into your mouth by atmospheric pressure prevailing over the lower pressure in your mouth created by pushing with the underside of your tongue against your throat, thus expanding the volume between your tongue and lips for the same number of entrapped air molecules, i.e. inducing a depression.

Likewise, in a somewhat more dynamic process a vacuum cleaner doesn't attract air molecules, but causes them to rush inwards by confronting them with less opponents than they encounter in the ambient air, i.e. through ejection of part of the inside air molecules by the turbine blades... again creating a depression.

So, please, don't dismiss my vision of reality because I compare air molecules with infinitely small particles... the comparison is perfectly pertinent and it can be experimentally shown to work at a higher scale (with air molecules compared to photons instead of infinitely small particles) through my revolutionary aerodynamic laser (which I call the TASAIR = Thrust Amplification by Surrounding Air Intake and Redirection) based on much the same principle as the optical laser and producing much the same effect, i.e. rectified airflow.

The clue to reality is its fractal structure, i.e. the infinite scalability of space/time towards the bigger/longer as well as the smaller/shorter.

Quoting Woody Allen: "Eternity is long, especially towards the end...", we should complete by saying: "... especially from the beginning and towards the end", thus pointing to the unsolvable equation of two eternities, one in the past and the other in the future...". Finally, we could apply Woody's irony to the immensity of space by saying "... it's huge/small, especially towards the outer/inner confines...".


@ PaulYak If "Our sun is the exhaust of a black hole in another place/time/dimension", then is that whole other dimension full of black holes, while we have an infinitely larger number of suns in comparison to black holes in our universe/dimension?

Guy Martin

@piperTom, once again, your weak understanding of science has you tossing out obviously incorrect statements. We've been creating artificial black holes in the laboratory for years now; they're incredibly small, but still read up on some of those experiments and you'll see how dead wrong your assumptions are.

M. Scott Veach

I wonder if this means scientists could theoretically vibrate an object fast enough so that it appears to have a copy next to it, then somehow isolate the the 'pair' of objects from one another and in essence duplicate matter by equal division and frequency... Just a thought.

Cody Curtin
Post a Comment

Login with your Gizmag account:

Related Articles
Looking for something? Search our articles