"A black hole firewall is a hypothetical phenomenon where an observer falling into a black hole encounters high-energy quanta at (or near) the event horizon. The "firewall" phenomenon was proposed in 2012 by physicists Ahmed Almheiri, Donald MarolfJoseph Polchinski, and James Sully[1] as a possible solution to an apparent inconsistency in black hole complementarity. The proposal is sometimes referred to as the AMPS firewall,[2] an acronym for the names of the authors of the 2012 paper. The use of a firewall to resolve this inconsistency remains controversial, with physicists divided as to the solution to the paradox.[3]




Ever since Stephen Hawking suggested information is lost in an evaporating black hole once it passes through the event horizon and is inevitably destroyed at the singularity, and that this can turn pure quantum states into mixed states, some physicists have wondered if a complete theory of quantum gravity might be able to conserve information with a unitary time evolution. But how can this be possible if information cannot escape the event horizon without traveling faster than light? This seems to rule out Hawking radiation as the carrier of the missing information. It also appears as if information cannot be "reflected" at the event horizon as there is nothing special about it locally.

Leonard Susskind[4] proposed a radical resolution to this problem by claiming that the information is both reflected at the event horizon and passes through the event horizon and cannot escape, with the catch being no observer can confirm both stories simultaneously. According to an external observer, the infinite time dilation at the horizon itself makes it appear as if it takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon. He also postulated a stretched horizon, which is a membrane hovering about a Planck length outside the event horizon and which is both physical and hot. According to the external observer, infalling information heats up the stretched horizon, which then reradiates it as Hawking radiation, with the entire evolution being unitary. However, according to an infalling observer, nothing special happens at the event horizon itself, and both the observer and the information will hit the singularity. This isn't to say there are two copies of the information lying about — one at or just outside the horizon, and the other inside the black hole — as that would violate the no cloning theorem. Instead, an observer can only detect the information at the horizon itself, or inside, but never both simultaneously. Complementarity is a feature of the quantum mechanics of noncommuting observables, and Susskind proposed that both stories are complementary in the quantum sense.

An infalling observer will see the point of entry of the information as being localized on the event horizon, while an external observer will notice the information being spread out uniformly over the entire stretched horizon before being re-radiated. To an infalling observer, information and entropy pass through the horizon with nothing strange happening. To an external observer, the information and entropy is absorbed into the stretched horizon which acts like a dissipative fluid with entropy, viscosity and electrical conductivity. See the membrane paradigm for more details. The stretched horizon is conducting with surface charges which rapidly spread out over the horizon.

Recently, it appears that black hole complementarity combined with the monogamy of entanglement suggests the existence of a "firewall".[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity


Alcubierre’s discussion of the horizon problem in a superluminal warp drive is essentially the same firewall problem above.


"However, an interesting aspect of the Alcubierre warp drive is that an observer on a spaceship, within the warp bubble, cannot create nor control on demand a superluminal Alcubierre bubble surrounding the ship [13]. This is due to the fact that points on the outside front edge of the bubble are always spacelike separated from the centre of the bubble.”


Jack: The conceptual error is in thinking that z’ = z - z0(t) is the correct mapping from Alice to Bob’s metrics.


Chapter 11

Warp Drive Basics


Miguel Alcubierre and Francisco S.N. Lobo


This is a mistake based on the metric



The metric field (11.1) is for Alice Oout only not for Bob Oin. 


Alice looking from the outside thinks there is an event horizons that prevents light in the passenger area Din from reaching it. This is exactly parallel to the infinite gravity redshift seen by Alice from signals coming from a space ship falling into a black hole. The passengers in Din do not see that event horizon. They have no problem controlling the UAV even in the superluminal regime.




Alexey Bobrick paper on Physical Warp Drive



Also, all the stuff written about quantum inequalities and the need for huge amounts of negative energy is also a bogus problem that has been solved by me and Keith Wanser using metamaterials with the UAP US Navy Pentagon disclosure as the smoking gun.


"Using the QI in the context of warp drive spacetimes, it was soon verified that

enormous amounts of energy are needed to sustain superluminal warp drive spacetimes

[17, 18]. However, one should note the fact that the quantum inequalitiesmight

not necessarily be fundamental, and anyway they are violated in the Casimir effect.

To reduce the enormous amounts of exotic matter needed in the superluminal warp

drive, van den Broeck proposed a slight modification of the Alcubierre metric that

considerably improves the conditions of the solution [19]. It was also shown that

using the QI, enormous quantities of negative energy densities are needed to support

the superluminal Krasnikov tube [14]. This problem was surpassed by Gravel and

Plante [20, 21], who in similar manner to the van den Broeck analysis, showed that

it is theoretically possible to lower significantly the mass of the Krasnikov tube.”