Would this revised view of black holes mean that they could no longer be considered as portals to other universes, or to different parts of our Universe?
You would have to as Mr Hawking because you are now hitting on a big part of the problem because you have to tie this back into more solid physics that is beyond the scope of black hole speculation, so lets follow the logic and what we know.
Observation: A star collapses.
We have a number of observations of this happening. The last I am aware of was in 2009 (but you might do some background reading if interested).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323092717.htmObservation: CMBR results (say QM was there at birth of universe) and recent no destruction tests on QM information says QM information can not be destroyed. I have given you details on this before.
Problem: What we have in that collapse is two theory domains GR/SR versus QM colliding.
The older accepted view is GR/SR dominates and what you get is a flat smooth event horizon and QM operates near the event horizon and you get Hawking radiation.
What Hawking has done in the paper is made QM dominate and thus your event horizon is now a messy quantum turbulent event horizon.
So initially the argument seems fine but now your gravity theory covered by GR/SR HAS TO BE QUANTUM. You can't get this to work without a quantum gravity theory under it.
All the beat up in the media seems to overlook the statement he says that
Hawking told the journal Nature: 'There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory. [But quantum theory] enables energy and information to escape from a black hole'.
A full explanation of the process, Hawking admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature.
So sure if you want to concede that gravity is a quantum process knock yourself out. As for whether you can still jump thru portals to other universes etc well you follow whatever quantum theory you put under the above answer an it will tell you
This is one of those papers that you see in cosmology and astronomy that I am almost always annoyed by. The fact it gets any media attention is a detriment to science.
Go back and look at the "flying pig" example I gave you and tell me what is different between "Hawking's quantum gravity" and the "flying pig" as far as we know they both don't exist.
If it would get me in trouble I would re-publish Hawking paper changed to relying on the existence of flying pigs to see if the media made the connection.
I like my science logical and built on solid understanding but hey that is just me and I am not a cosmologist where you can assume anything
