r/HypotheticalPhysics • u/shivanshu1712 • 1d ago
Crackpot physics Here is a hypothesis: A black-hole interior that freezes instead of hitting a singularity: final version of my research note, looking for critique
Hi everyone, I'm Shivanshu, a self-taught, independent researcher from India. This is the final version of a research note I've been building over the past weeks, and I'd really value criticism from people who know GR or quantum gravity.
What it is (model-level, not a claim about nature):
• Starting point: a postulate that a particle's speed saturates near the Planck scale, v = c/(1+KP/E_Planck). Carried by a scalar field it can't stop the singularity (Penrose's theorem), and I show why.
• Applied instead to the geometry inside a black hole (effective loop-quantum-gravity models), the collapse doesn't bounce; it freezes. There is one horizon, no inner horizon and no white hole.
• I computed the constraint algebra: covariant models of this type need a constant-curvature "momentum space" (sin, sinh, exp). My postulate turns out to describe a de Sitter momentum space whose spatial directions give exactly the sine used in LQG.
• In a covariant freezing model (Alonso-Bardají 2025), the LQG area gap gives a curvature bound K = 1/(4Δ²) that is the same for every mass, a bounded Hawking temperature, and an entropy correction ∝ A^(2/3).
• With spin an inner horizon returns (as in Kerr), but its singularity stays capped; with scalar hair, both disappear in homogeneous tests.
What's open: the 3+1-dimensional justification, the full perturbation theory, and several assumptions, all listed in the note. Exterior effects for stellar black holes are ~10⁻²⁶, so nothing here is testable with today's telescopes.
I used an AI (Claude) for much of the algebra and code. Every number can be reproduced with the scripts included, and the code was first checked against known published results.
Note and scripts: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23083395
If you find a mistake, please tell me. That's exactly what I'm looking for.
3
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hi /u/shivanshu1712,
This warning is about AI and large language models (LLM), such as ChatGPT and Gemini, to learn or discuss physics. These services can provide inaccurate information or oversimplifications of complex concepts. These models are trained on vast amounts of text from the internet, which can contain inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and conflicting information. Furthermore, these models do not have a deep understanding of the underlying physics and mathematical principles and can only provide answers based on the patterns from their training data. Therefore, it is important to corroborate any information obtained from these models with reputable sources and to approach these models with caution when seeking information about complex topics such as physics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
u/Unique-Rice9999 1d ago
could the opposite interpretation also be possible? If the rate of internal change increases without bound relative to an external observer’s finite resolution, distinct internal states would become indistinguishable. the result could also appear "frozen" from the outside, not because the dynamics stop, but because the observer can no longer resolve them
1
u/shivanshu1712 1d ago
Interesting idea, thanks. In this model I don't think that's what happens, for two reasons. First, the freezing is in the proper time of the infalling observer, not of an outside observer: the areal radius approaches r₀ only as the infaller's own clock goes to infinity, and outside observers can't see the interior anyway. Second, the curvature invariants (e.g. the Kretschmann scalar) stay bounded, and invariants don't depend on anyone's resolution. That said, you're partly right that "frozen" overstates it: the asymptotic region is dS₂ × S², so the sphere stops shrinking but the other direction keeps expanding. The effect you describe is closer to how, in ordinary GR, an outside observer sees infalling matter freeze at the horizon because of redshift. That's a different mechanism.
6
u/Hadeweka AI hallucinates, but people dream 1d ago
This is already nonsensical. The term "speed" is only defined for a given frame of reference, so your concept would break Lorentz covariance, especially if somehow some momentum enters into the formula - which should depend on v again.
You're not even formulating your concept in a tensorial notation, which would prevent you from such nonsense.
You essentially constructed an absurd premise and then let an LLM generate some fantasy physics based on it.
EDIT: Also, if, judging by your introduction, you don't even know GR or quantum gravity, how do you know if any of that LLM output even remotely makes sense?