Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T17:40:22.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Role for the Fauxrizon in the Semiclassical Limit of a Fuzzball

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2023

Mike D. Schneider Open the ORCID record for Mike D. Schneider [Opens in a new window]
Mike D. Schneider*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent work on the status of astrophysical modeling in the wake of quantum gravity indicates that a “fauxrizon” (a portmanteau of faux horizon), such as is relevant to understanding astrophysical black holes according to the fuzzball proposal within string theory, might ultimately solve the familiar black hole evaporation paradox. I clarify, with general upshots for the foundations of quantum gravity research, some of what this suggestion would amount to: identification of intertheoretic constraints on global spacetime structure in (observer-relative) semiclassical models of fuzzballs.

Type
Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 91 , Issue 1 , January 2024 , pp. 225 - 242
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Belot, Gordon, Earman, John, and Ruetsche, Laura. 1999. “The Hawking Information Loss Paradox: The Anatomy of Controversy.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2):189–229.10.1093/bjps/50.2.189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benini, Marco, Dappiaggi, Claudio, and Schenkel, Alexander. 2018. “Algebraic Quantum Field Theory on Spacetimes with Timelike Boundary.” Annales Henri Poincaré 19:2401–33.10.1007/s00023-018-0687-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernal, Antonio N., and Sánchez, Miguel. 2003. “On Smooth Cauchy Hypersurfaces and Geroch’s Splitting Theorem.” Communications in Mathematical Physics 243 (3):461–70.10.1007/s00220-003-0982-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokulich, Peter. 2001. “Black Hole Remnants and Classical vs. Quantum Gravity.” Philosophy of Science 68 (S3):407–23.10.1086/392925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunetti, Romeo, Fredenhagen, Klaus, and Rejzner, Katarzyna. 2016. “Quantum Gravity from the Point of View of Locally Covariant Quantum Field Theory.” Communications in Mathematical Physics 345 (3):741–79.10.1007/s00220-016-2676-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, Karen, and De Haro, Sebastian. 2022. “Four Attitudes towards Singularities in the Search for a Theory of Quantum Gravity.” In The Foundations of Spacetime Physics, edited by Vassallo, Antonio, 223–50. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003219019-12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curiel, Erik. 2019. “Schematizing the Observer and the Epistemic Content of Theories.” arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1903.02182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, John. 1995. Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195095913.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feintzeig, Benjamin H. 2020a. “The Classical Limit as an Approximation.” Philosophy of Science 87 (4):612–39.10.1086/709731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feintzeig, Benjamin H. 2020b. “Reductive Explanation and the Construction of Quantum Theories.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73 (2):457–86.10.1093/bjps/axz051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, Samuel C. 2020. “On Representational Capacities, with an Application to General Relativity.” Foundations of Physics 50 (4):228–49.10.1007/s10701-018-0208-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, John L. 1997. “Field Theory on Spacetimes That Are Not Globally Hyperbolic.” Fields Institute Communications 15:43–57.Google Scholar
Friedman, John L. 2004. “The Cauchy Problem on Spacetimes That Are Not Globally Hyperbolic.” In The Einstein Equations and the Large Scale Behavior of Gravitational Fields, 331–46. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Geroch, Robert, and Horowitz, Gary T.. 1979. “Global Structure of Spacetimes.” In General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, 212–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawking, Stephen W., and Ellis, George Francis Rayner. 1973. The Large Scale Structure of Space-time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511524646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, Nick, and Matsubara, Keizo. 2021. “Lost Horizon? Modeling Black Holes in String Theory.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (3):1–19.10.1007/s13194-021-00376-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Daan W. 2022. “Quantum Fields on Semi-globally Hyperbolic Space-Times.” Communications in Mathematical Physics 391 (2):669–705.10.1007/s00220-022-04328-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kodama, Hideo. 1979. “Inevitability of a Naked Singularity Associated with the Black Hole Evaporation.” Progress of Theoretical Physics 62 (5):1434–35.10.1143/PTP.62.1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesourd, Martin. 2018. “Causal Structure of Evaporating Black Holes.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 36 (2):025007.10.1088/1361-6382/aaf5f8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malafarina, Daniele. 2017. “Classical Collapse to Black Holes and Quantum Bounces: A Review.” Universe 3 (2):48.10.3390/universe3020048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchak, John Byron. 2020. Global Spacetime Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108876070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manchak, John Byron, and Weatherall, James Owen. 2018. “(Information) Paradox Regained? A Brief Comment on Maudlin on Black Hole Information Loss.” Foundations of Physics 48 (6):611–27.10.1007/s10701-018-0170-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathur, Samir D. 2005. “The Fuzzball Proposal for Black Holes: An Elementary Review.” Fortschritte der Physik: Progress of Physics 53 (7–8):793–827.10.1002/prop.200410203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathur, Samir D. 2012. “Black Holes and Beyond.” Annals of Physics 327 (11):2760–93.10.1016/j.aop.2012.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, Tim. 2017. “(Information) Paradox Lost.” arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.03541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polchinski, Joseph. 2017. “The Black Hole Information Problem.” In New Frontiers in Fields and Strings: TASI 2015 Proceedings of the 2015 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, 353–397. Singapore: World Scientific.10.1142/10270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rédei, Miklós. 2014. “A Categorial Approach to Relativistic Locality.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part B 48:137–46.10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.08.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Mike D. 2020. “What’s the Problem with the Cosmological Constant?” Philosophy of Science 87 (1):1–20.10.1086/706076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smeenk, Chris. 2020. “Some Reflections on the Structure of Cosmological Knowledge.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part B 71:220–31.10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Howard. 1995. “Some Reflections on the Structure of Our Knowledge in Physics.” Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 134:633–55.10.1016/S0049-237X(06)80067-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, Robert M. 1994. Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, David. 2020. “Why Black Hole Information Loss Is Paradoxical.” In Beyond Spacetime: The Foundations of Quantum Gravity, edited by Matsubara, K., Huggett, N., and Wüthrich, C., 209–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wüthrich, Christian. 2019. “Are Black Holes about Information?” In Why Trust a Theory? Epistemology of Fundamental Physics, edited by Dardashti, Radin, Dawid, Richard, and Thébault, Karim, 202–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yurtsever, Ulvi. 1994. “Algebraic Approach to Quantum Field Theory on Non-Globally-Hyperbolic Spacetimes.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 11 (4):999.10.1088/0264-9381/11/4/016CrossRefGoogle Scholar