A group of Skoltech researchers led by Professor Anatoly Dymarsky studied the emergence of generalized thermal ensembles in quantum systems with additional symmetries. As a result, they found that black holes thermalize the same way ordinary matter does. The results of their study were published in *Physical Review Letters*.

The physics of black holes remains an elusive chapter of modern physics. It is the sharpest point of tension between quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity. According to quantum mechanics, black holes should behave like other ordinary quantum systems. Yet, there are many ways in which this is problematic from the point of view of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Therefore, the question of understanding black holes quantum mechanically remains a constant source of physical paradoxes. The careful resolution of such paradoxes should provide us a clue as to how quantum gravity works. That is why the physics of black holes is the subject of active research in theoretical physics.

One particularly important question is how black holes thermalize. A recent study undertaken by a group of Skoltech researchers found that in this regard black holes are not that different from ordinary matter. Namely, the emergence of equilibrium can be explained in terms of the same mechanism as in the conventional case. An analytical study of black holes became possible due to the rapidly developing theoretical tools of the so-called holographic duality. This duality maps certain types of conventional quantum systems to particular cases of quantum gravity systems. Although additional work is necessary to extend this similarity to thermalization dynamics, this work provides additional support for the paradigm that important aspects of black holes and quantum gravity, in general, can be explained in terms of the collective dynamics of conventional quantum many-body systems.

Furthermore, the work sheds new light on how conventional many-body quantum systems thermalize. It is widely accepted that isolated quantum mechanical systems can be accurately described by equilibrium statistical mechanics. The precise mathematical statement that provides such a description is called the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis. Nevertheless, a proof of this hypothesis was lacking. The authors of the paper claim to partially fill this gap. “To the best of our knowledge, our work is the very first analytic proof of the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in spatially-extended systems, with all previous works on the subject (with very few exceptions) being numerical. We believe that the conceptual and technical novelty of our paper is of broad interest,” explains Professor Anatoly Dymarsky of the Skoltech Center for Energy Science and Technology.

Reference: “Generalized Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis in 2D Conformal Field Theories” by Anatoly Dymarsky and Kirill Pavlenko, 13 September 2019, *Physical Review Letters*.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.111602

I think both quantum mechanics and Einstein’s relativity are wrong. Relativity has denied the existence of aether and quantum mechanics does not take the effects of aether into account, while aether is everywhere in the visible part of the universe, delivers all so-called “electromagnetic” forces and plays critically important roles in all physical processes in the visible part of the universe. The existence of aether is a direct conclusion from the disproof of special relativity. The fatal error of special relativity is that it equates relativistic time defined by Lorentz Transformation with physical time defined by a physical clock, which are two totally different things as shown in the following:

It is known that a physical clock is a physical process such as the rotation of the earth around the sun in which the physical time is recorded by the status change of the process. The status change of a physical process is always represented by the product of the lapse of the theoretical time and its progressing rate divided by a calibrate constant in either Newtonian mechanics or relativistic mechanics. That is, the physical time T measured by a physical clock is: T = tf/k where t is the theoretical time, f is the frequency of the clock and k is a calibration constant.

In Newtonian mechanics, since the theoretical time is absolute and thus the frequency is a frame independent constant. We can set k = f to make T = tf/k = tf/f = t, which means a physical clock measures the absolute Galilean time.

Now let’s look at physical clocks in special relativity. If you have a clock (clock 1) with you and watch my clock (clock 2) in motion and both clocks are synchronized to show the same clock time T relative to your inertial reference frame, you will see your clock time: T1 = tf1/k1 = T and my clock time: T2 = tf2/k2 = T where t is relativistic time, f1 and f2 are the frequencies of clock 1 and clock 2 respectively observed in your inertial reference frame, k1 and k2 are calibration constants of the clocks. The two events (Clock1, T, x1, y, z, t) and (Clock2, T, x2, y, z, t) are simultaneous measured with both relativistic time t and clock time T. When these two clocks are observed by me in the moving inertial reference frame, according to special relativity, the events will become (clock1, T1′, x1′, y’, z’, t1′) and (clock2, T2′, x2′, y’, z’, t2′) which can be obtained through Lorentz Transformation, i.e., I will see T1′ = t1’f1’/k1 = (γt)(f1/γ)/k1 = tf1/k1 = T1 = T and T2′ = t2’f2’/k2 = (t/γ)(γf2)/k2 = tf2/k2 = T2 = T, where γ = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That is, no matter observed from which inertial reference frame, the two clocks are always synchronized measured with clock time T, but non-synchronized measured with t’. The change of the reference frame only makes changes of the relativistic time from t to t’ decreased by a factor γ and the frequency from f to f’ increased by the same factor γ, which cancel each other in the formula: T= tf/k and thus makes the clock time unchanged. Current mainstream physicists in the world do not realize that there are two changes (time expansion and frequency decrease) happened in any moving physical clock and wrongly interpret the slowdown of its frequency as the slowdown of clock time shown on the moving clock, missing the effect of the expansion of the relativistic time of the moving frame.

Therefore, clock time i.e. the physical time measured by the changes of the status of physical processes is absolute (i.e. invariant of Lorentz Transformation) and thus independent of the 3D physical space, totally different from relativistic time defined by Lorentz Transformation. Relativity uses the artificially defined space and time to generate artificial constant speed of light, which is irrelevant to the physical reality.

As special relativity is wrong and our physical time is absolute, there can only be one inertial reference frame relative to which the speed of light is isotropic. Since the speed of light after going through a lens can recover, unlike the speed of a bullet which will never recover after going through a wall, i.e., the speed of light only depends on the medium, light should be waves of a medium. Michelson-Morley experiment has denied the existence of a rigid medium of light called aether, and thus aether must be a fluid. The very inertial reference frame should be the frame moving with local aether similar to the frame moving with local air relative to which the speed of sound is isotropic. As light can exist everywhere in the visible part of the universe, aether should be everywhere too. All electromagnetic phenomena are just the phenomena of aether dynamics. There is no electric field and no magnetic field in nature, but only different flow of aether. So-called electric force and magnetic force are forces exerted by the flow of aether, just like the resistance and lift exerted on an airplane, where there is no resistance field and no lift field, but only air flow. As aether exists everywhere, delivers all electromagnetic forces and plays critically important roles in all physical processes, quantum mechanics, without taking the effects of aether into account, should be wrong too. As every particle is bathed in aether, any motion of the particle will disturb aether and generate waves of aether to make the particle show the particle-wave duality. Thus, there is no probability wave in nature, not to mention the existence of wave function, superposition, entanglement and Schrodinger’s cat.

There is no such thing called spacetime in nature, not to mention the existence of expansion, curvature, ripples or singularities of spacetime. Thus, general relativity and big bang theory are wrong.

You obviously know a lot more than me on the topic. How can you explain gravity without spacetime? How can you explain the atomic clock experiments performed in space? Are you a creationist as well?

Gravitation should be more fundamental than electromagnetic phenomena. It may be the result of the dynamics of another fluid medium consisting of particles much smaller than those of aether.

All the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites are influenced by both gravitation, the flow of aether and many other things. The effect of aether flow on atomic clocks is similar to that of air flow on mechanical clocks. All the influences are absolute i.e. independent of reference frames. No matter observed on which reference frame (the reference frame of the earth or each satellite or any other), the influences of the clocks are the same. Therefore, you can correct them to make them be synchronized relative to all reference frames. The universal synchronization of the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites is the most reliable experimental evidence to disprove special relativity which claims clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame because time is relative.

Do you have a blog I might read?

You may look at my facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/xhshen or published papers which are available free of charge at researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297528348_Clock_Time_Is_Absolute_and_Universal

I don’t have a degree in anything but I like physics. Anyway when I read about black holes it is always related to gravity and either mass compression or time dilatation. But what about the warping of space time? Wouldn’t the space time be stretched to the point of infinity. So that from our point of reference there would be more space inside the black hole its self and would that effect the infinities involved?

I don’t have a degree in anything but I like physics. Anyway when I read about black holes it is always related to gravity and either mass compression or time dilatation. But what about the warping of space time? Wouldn’t the space time be stretched to the point of infinity. So that from our point of reference there would be more space inside the black hole its self and would that effect the infinities involved? If the spacetime inside the black hole is much greater than the volume of the hole from our perspective on the outside. If spacetime is stretched far enough would it stop the formation of a singularity?

You can grab onto a concept like aether if you want, but I don’t think you have made your case. The concept of ambiguous ordering of events can be separated out by excluding everything unnecessary concepts leaving only topology and time delay. No other aspects have to be considered in order to establish the nature of the relativity of events or the lack thereof. Distances and time can be folded into a single dimension. The next step can then be sorted out with Feynman diagrams.

Consider two separated time lines and then consider their intercontion by the delay in time of propigation of knowledge of the events to the opposite timeline. Construct a diagram of this using Feynman diagrams.

As long as each event is “close” enough in time that the information about the events has not had time to propagate to the opposite time line then the two events can not be unambiguously ordered in time such as to say one event follows the other. In fact, there can not be any such consideration because no consequences exist connecting the two events.

You need to go no further in order to say you have established the nature of Einstein’s relativity as far as your ideas are concerned.

“Relativity has denied the existence of aether and quantum mechanics does not take the effects of aether into account.”

From the very beginning of your post I am led to believe that you may be confusing some things. Relativity has not denied the existence of an aether. Einstien himself stated, “We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

You go on to argue… “relativistic this and that…blah blah…my clock your clock… 3d this and 3d that” Then you eventually conclude that, “There is no such thing called space-time in nature, not to mention the existence of expansion, curvature, ripples or singularities of space-time. Thus, general relativity and big bang theory are wrong.” Space-time is not and never has been a force or physical property in my understanding. You are correct, in the sense that, no one can scoop up a bucket of space-time. I do not believe that Einstein suggested that it was possible to find a puddle of space-time to splash around in. My understanding is that Space-time is a way to visualize, plot and/or describe observable phenomena, results and “events” in a 4d space.

I admire that you, may very well have, solved everything from aether to particle wave duality to the creation of the entire universe in less than 2000 words and slapped it onto the end of an obscure article. It reminds me of this one patent clerk guy that once wrote a paper or two…his name slips me though. I’m just skeptical is all. I’m just a high school drop out though!! Perhaps a real smartie pants can tell me how wrong I am?!?!?

Hi Xihang,

Could recommend some great physics books where I can read more about what you say?

Thanks,

Sean

The concept of “spacetime” is not a thing. It’s the measurement of that which has a continuous variation in ratio of spacial dimension to temporal dimension.

So a black hole is a good example because the space-time changes as you get closer to it.

Interesting,,,as far as I can tell there is no such thing as gravity,,, it’s just a word,,, there isn’t anything there that is pushing or pulling,, when we speak of gravity I think we are speaking about something else,something that is not a force,,, perhaps simple energy seeking equilibrium…

Infinity = 0

Gravity = 1

π = pyramid . Singularity . Cube . Singularity . Dodecahedron . Inception . Event Horizon . Six

Eve….this answer speaks to me in a weird way. Can you elaborate on this by chance?

I agree that gravity isn’t a thing, and it isn’t pushing or pulling. And while it’s not a force, it’s not energy either. Because in the absence of an energy source, some measurable energy, there is no gravity at all. Gravity is just the shape of space-time. It looks like geometry, and it feels like acceleration…. But it is a product of mass/energy. Mass tells space-time how to bend, and gravity tells mass how to move…. Space-time itself may be intangible in that in the absence of all matter, it might not exist, but this gets weird when you consider some energy from a physical system like a binary star merger can be lost in the form of gravity waves. So… The space-time itself could have no energy, while the relative contraction of the space-time could have positive energy. Somewhere between general relativity, Dirac, and the quantum unknown, is the complete origin story of our universe. Black holes are an experiment peeking right into that intersection, and we’ll learn a great deal from them in the coming years.

The only problem is Einstein based all his theories on a UNI-verse which is incorrect we are in a MULTI-verse the Mandela effect is proof of that.

Great explanation,

http://engineering-and-science.com

As an aside… If high precision atomic clocks demonstrate that time progresses more slowly the deeper in a gravity well the clock is placed, how much does time slow down at the event horizon or indeed inside a black hole? To a standstill? The stuff falling in doesn’t seem to leave this universe or it’s gravitational pull would be reduced or eliminated – the fact that most galaxies are circling a central black hole makes them stalwart citizens of this universe..perhaps the matter falling in is converted back to energy-frozen in time but possessed of the full measure of gravitational force all that matter would have had prior to being munched and dismantled. Just a thought.

How about time = an interval that mass interacts or does not interact with gravity. Black Holes more than likely compress matter into Dark Matter regardless of the theory black holes do not equate to all the Dark Matter in the universe. At the bottom of a black hole, no more work can be done. See 2nd law of Entropy. Also time stands still at the bottom of a black hole, more than likely because at this point you are outside of space/time. Perhaps I am wrong, Clark Kent go jump in there and tell me whats going on.

Awesome breakdown Xinhang Shen!

Have you heard of TheoriaApophasis, aka (Ken Wheeler)? He’s a popular photography youtuber who also makes videos about cosmic mechanics, aether, electricity & magnetism, and generalized metaphysics. The guy is a genius and what you’ve just explained sounds nearly identical to the conclusions that he’s come to regarding the aether, quantum mechanics, and General Relativity. For example, he posits that light is merely an aether purterbation that has no speed, but instead, a rate of induction. He likens it’s electromagnetic function to that of a coaxial circuit; being a hybrid of magnetism and diaelectricity who’s polarized rotational force vectors form a unique conjugate geometry (a conjoined toros and hyperbeloid structure with a gravitational null point at it’s center) that gives rise to what we call “mass”. This unique geometry forms a dual-recipricating torsion field who’s opposing force vectors flow both centripitally and centerfugally towards and away from the the structures central null point. Very similar to your explanation regarding all electromagnetic phenomenon being a product of aether dynamics; a 2 way flow in the medium itself.

Anyway, check out his channel if you haven’t – his videos are amazing. Great post!

Xinhang Shen: “general relativity and big bang theory are wrong”… I only had to read the last line of your huge rant to see you’re a nutter. Must have a lot of time on your hands…

Gravity is actually a God not a scientific force, therefore Magnetics are a better explanation. You can make something float using magnetics. And I can explain black holes. Planets can become starts with enough magnetic force and if that gets strong enough and the density gets really high the star can become a black hole pulling everything in. The protons are the what pulls it in as opposed to electrons pushing everything out in a spiral, the black hole can start spinning outward then spin back in and create a galaxy. Therefore the universe could have started as a black hole. Also real history contradicts science and actually proves creation, so throw that in with creating the black hole. Also, Jupiter is in the process of becoming a star, the proof is it has a radiation field that destroys things to be used as fuel.

First liar around here doesn’t stand a chance.

Well said! Bravo.

Although I once read Einstein said: that there is no aether is unthinkable. Perhaps the term space time is just his words for the same thing.

I believe neither General Relativity nor Quantum loop gravity are able to define gravity, we are still missing the hidden link between macroscopic vs microscopic definition of gravity…In general relativity defining gravity an effect of change in geometry of space-time curve does not fully define gravity at subatomic particle levels whereas in Quantum loop gravity it is defined as quantized nature…In my opinion gravity has some strong link with law of Entropy and increasing nature of Entropy generate the gravity…the glass will always fall on floor as with this action it tends to increase system entropy and we call it gravitational effect. In the nutshell we are missing something more deeper inside.

Xinhang Shen,

What science books on physics do you recommend that are in line with your thinking?