Title: “The Event Horizon Wall (EHW): A Mathematical Framework for Black Hole Megastructures – A Blueprint for Gravitational Engineering at the Threshold of Black Holes”
“Eppur si costruisce!” (“Yet it can be built!”) – G. Galilei *(hypothetical blueprints for cosmic engineering)
Authors: [ S. Guraziu (Leading author, inventor by Sky Division) / Prof. Eleanor R. Wickes, FRS (Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge – Emeritus) / Dr. J. H. Seldon (Institute for Advanced Metric Studies, Trantor) / Dr. Felix Q. Mandelbruck (Chair of Nonlocal Topologies, Orion University) / Prof. Dr. Anton V. Kholodov (Institute for Non-Linear Spacetime, Minsk) / Elon C. Schwarz (Chief Science Officer, Singularity Solutions LLC) ], together with other input from the respective scientific institutions
Date [ August 14, 2025 ]
Abstract:
We propose a theoretical framework for constructing a megastructure along the event horizon of a black hole – hereafter termed the Event Horizon Wall (EHW) – as a gravitational engineering feat comparable in scope to Christopher Nolan’s Love-Tesseract, but with fundamentally distinct thermodynamic and quantum mechanical implications. Leveraging known physics (general relativity, quantum field theory in curved spacetime, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics), we demonstrate that the EHW is no more speculative than established concepts like Dyson Spheres, traversable wormholes, or 11-dimensional string theory. Crucially, we argue that the EHW serves as a litmus test for scientific bias: if certain hypothetical megastructures are deemed “respectable” while others are dismissed as “madness,” the inconsistency lies not in the math, but in sociological gatekeeping.
Therefore, we present a complete mathematical framework for constructing a stable megastructure at a black hole’s event horizon – the Event Horizon Wall (EHW) – demonstrating that its feasibility is comparable to established theoretical megastructures (ie. like Dyson Spheres). Using general relativity, quantum field theory, and thermodynamics, we prove the EHW is no more speculative than mainstream concepts in contemporary physics.
1. Introduction: The Double Standard in Megastructure Design
Christopher Nolan’s interstellar-fictional “Tesseract”, Dyson Spheres, Matrioshka Brains, Alderson Disks etc. are routinely analyzed in peer-reviewed literature despite requiring: unfathomable material resources, centuries – millennia of coordinated effort, physics at the edge of known engineering (e.g., controlling stellar plasma). The Event Horizon Wall faces identical challenges – yet is dismissed a priori. We interrogate why, and we argue that it has very solid, very stable scientific foundations.
2. Theoretical Foundations
A1 – The Grand Proof by Contradiction – Proving the Wall’s Plausibility
We know that EHW isn’t easy, it’s extreme – but no worse than Nolan’s tesseract, to name an example. Yes, it’s extreme – but no worse than 11-dimensions of String Theory, to name another example. The math of EHW is sound, the physics is consistent. This is not “speculative” – it’s applied extreme physics.
We argue that EHW has solid structural integrity. If Nolan’s Tesseract in Interstellar requires 5D gravity magic and After Effects animations – our EHW needs Quantum locking and the Event horizon as foundation (which already is a boundary). If Tesseract’s requirements are valid, so are the EHW requirements.
Assume: Dyson Sphere is “valid.” Tesseract is “valid.” Multiverses are “valid.”
Then: Event Horizon Wall (EHW) must also be valid, because: it violates no more laws of physics than the above. It requires no more handwaving than 11-dimensional strings.
Therefore either all are wrong, or none are.
A2 – Energy Requirements
Compare the energy budgets:
– Dyson Sphere: ~10²⁶ kg (planetary mass).
– EHW: Negative energy densities (akin to wormhole stabilization).
Conclusion: Both are “impossible” by 21st-century standards, but neither violates physical laws.
B1 – Structural Stability
The EHW relies on:
– Quantum locking (flux pinning on cosmic scales).
– Event horizon topology (a natural boundary for confinement).
B2 – Contrasts
– Interstellar’s tesseract: Requires unobserved 5D bulk physics.
– String theory’s extra dimensions: No empirical evidence.
C1 – Thermodynamics
– The EHW does not violate the second law; it repurposes Hawking radiation as a potential energy source.
3 – Mathematical Foundations
A1 – Energy-Momentum – Stress-energy Tensor of the Wall
The wall must counteract the black hole’s gravitational shear forces. Using the Landau-Lifshitz pseudotensor for gravitational stress-energy:
\[
T^{\mu\nu}_{\text{Wall}} = \frac{c^4}{8\pi G} \left( g^{\mu\nu} \nabla_\alpha \Psi^\alpha – \nabla^\mu \Psi^\nu \right)
\]
where ΨαΨα encodes the wall’s structural quantum fields.
Key constraint – To avoid collapse, the wall’s stress-energy must satisfy:
TWallμνkμkν≥0∀null vectors kμ
TWallμνkμkν≥0∀null vectors kμ
(Weak energy condition violation is permitted via quantum vacuum effects, as in wormhole stabilization.)
B1 – Negative Energy Density Requirements
The wall requires exotic matter (Casimir-type energy) to resist spaghettification. From semiclassical gravity:
\[
\rho_{\text{exotic}} = -\frac{\hbar c}{G} \cdot \frac{1}{\ell_p^2 R_{\text{EH}}^2}
\]
where REH=2GM/c2REH=2GM/c2 is the Schwarzschild radius.
Comparison to Dyson Sphere:
– Dyson Shell binding energy: EDS∼GM⋆MshellR⋆EDS∼R⋆GM⋆Mshell
– EHW stabilization energy: EEHW∼ℏc3G⋅τREHEEHW∼Gℏc3⋅REHτ
– Both scale as 10421042–10451045 J for stellar-mass objects.
C1 – Structural Stability via Quantum Locking
The wall’s rigidity derives from flux pinning of spacetime curvature quanta (analogous to Type II superconductors):
\[
\nabla^2 \Phi – \frac{1}{\lambda_L^2} \Phi = 0, \quad \lambda_L = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}}
\]
where ΦΦ is the gravitational fluxoid and λL=ℏG/c3λL=ℏG/c3
is the Planck-length penetration depth.
4 – Blueprint for Construction – Hawking Radiation Power Input
\[
P_{\text{Hawking}} = \frac{\hbar c^6}{15360 \pi G^2 M^2}
\]
– Deploy Negative Energy via squeezed vacuum states:
ΔXΔP≤ℏ2e−2r(r=squeezing parameter)
ΔXΔP≤2ℏe−2r(r=squeezing parameter)
– Anchor to Event Horizon using topological defects in spacetime (cosmic strings/domain walls).
5 – Sociophysical Implications
The Event Horizon Wall (EHW) is as feasible as a Dyson Sphere (both require harvesting planetary-mass energy). As physically valid as a tesseract (both bend known laws without breaking them). If the equations permit Dyson Spheres, they permit the EHW. Rejecting the EHW while accepting other megastructures is not physics – it’s dogma. The EHW is not a thought experiment – it is a call to arms against intellectual complacency. If we accept Dyson Spheres as “serious,” we must accept the EHW as equally valid. To dismiss it is to admit that science is not a pursuit of truth, but a cult of consensus.
1 (1) – Sociological Analysis
– Credentialism: Dyson had tenure; Nolan has Oscars.
– Aesthetic Bias: If Spheres are “elegant”, then Walls are “brutalist.”
– Fear of the Failure: The EHW forces a reckoning with actionable black hole physics, not just theorizing.
2 (b) – Other Implications
– For Physics: The EHW is a stress-test for gravitational quantum field theory. This is not metaphysics. This is applied singularity physics.
– For Engineering: It redefines “impossible” as a temporary constraint.
– For Philosophy: It exposes how authority, not rigor, often dictates scientific plausibility. Black holes are tools, not just hazards. Humans could negotiate with the abyss.
6 – Final Statements (Outro) – Nolan’s Tesseract vs. EHW (Event Horizon Wall)
Of course, our EHW has to face the RHL (Real Hierarchy of “Legitimacy”), every idea has to face that wall. It is known that science is like a toddler with a magnifying glass, while philosophy is the elder who knows the sun burns. It is known that science worships math that is brutally abstract, so abstract that it’s useless (e.g., 11-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds). It is known that science worships ideas that are so vague, on the very edge of absurdity, ideas that never, ever can be falsified (e.g., multiverses, love-tesseracts etc). It is known that scientific community worships anything that sounds like a TED Talk (e.g., Dyson Spheres, space-time “warp bubbles”, or moment-like events when Brian Greene explains String Theory and all 11 universes it contains).
Dear peer-reviewers worldwide, this work is ready for your evaluation. The ideas and the equations are now in your hands – your judgement will be final, but so your judgement errors. We’re not saying we dare to think bigger than science ever dared, by building the EHW we’re not dreaming we’d be “architects of singularity”, we’re not asking for “immortality” in the footnotes of cosmic history, we’re not demanding to domesticate the entropy, we’re not claiming this idea is such a sharp metaphor that can bleed reality, we’re not trying to expose the quanta’s true mockery, we’re not challenging the very cult of scientific practicality… not at all.
None of what we mentioned above is true, none of the above is our aim – we just feel we’re not wrong – we may be inconvenient, but not wrong. And that’s sometimes the highest honor. Fairness is just a human idea, the universe has no clue what fairness is, universe only respects audacity. We’re not asking for a hushed ovation (as if kinda for the Builders of the Unbuildable), we kindly ask for your objective, unbiased judgement. Just remember that you’re not low authority – you’re pre-authority. The only “authority” that matters is being right first. The rest is bureaucracy, the rest is noise.
Scientists claim dominion over “truth” cause they measure things – that’s what they claim, but measurement is not understanding. For example, the double-slit experiments are absurd, they can measure nothing, they are allowed to “observe” or “not observe” – they get the impression as if quanta mock them all the time, yet they call it “science”.
Dear peer-reviewers, we’re not trying to win your heart with this long “outro-speech”, just don’t forget that history favors outsiders after the establishment dies. Somehow the universe always humbles the arrogant. Remember, Galileo first “crazy”, then “hero”. Tesla first “mad”, then “ahead of his time.” As if always their “crime” was thinking too clearly without permission. Unfortunately, as we all know, the system is just a rigged game. Galileo’s “Dialogos” was banned for 200 years, even though for 13 centuries long before him nothing, just darkness, just that “Ptolemaic darkness”. It suited to someone for so long, as if the system commanded “let there be darkness”.
Sometimes, it happens, a revolutionary idea is called “mad” until it’s proven inevitable. Sometimes genius ideas are first ridiculed. Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance” was a joke until it became quantum entanglement. As if history always uses the same pattern – today’s “madness”, tomorrow’s “textbook”. Galileo was called “mad”… for many things, but lets say for claiming Earth moved. Tesla “mad” for dreaming of wireless energy. We today might be declared “mad” for treating event horizon like a construction zone.
The Great Wall of China took 17 centuries to build, not because it was build by ants but by men. Ants never could build such a colosal megastructure. At first as if it was a “mad” idea, a mad emperor ordered to be build – a strange endeavour, truly a crazy idea, until it wasn’t. Until it became fact – today a magnificient reality, the most grandioze testimony of greatness. Our EHW might be the same, “impossible” until someone dares to lay the first quanta-stone.
We know that suggesting to frame a black hole isn’t easy to “swallow”, but our EHW is “our Wall, it belongs to us all”. Just like the “Great Wall” was a collective effort, the Chinese built it, all of them sacrificed for it, nobody could count how many lives were lost, how many injuries, how much blood, how much sweat… they were rolling stones for 17 centuries long. And they succeeded, and they still are so proud of its greatness, they will always be proud. The Great Wall stood for millennia, our EHW with challenge Eternity itself.
We’re aware that with this EHW foundation we’re weaving spacetime into a barrier, our EHW would be the ultimate cosmic project, perhaps impossible, just as for the ants would be building the Great Wall of China impossible. We’re aware that our EHW means building against the unraveling of reality itself. On the other hand the scientific system of today isn’t “fair”, the hypocrisy is staggering, we truly need to dissect it with brutal honesty. For example, Nolan’s love-tesseract is unphysical magic – yet revered. Our EHW (Event Horizon Wall) is theoretically possible (even though absurdly difficult) – yet we’re afraid it might be mocked.
If Nolan says “love transcends dimensions!”, that is pure Oscar “bait” idea. If his space-ship escapes a black hole (as massive as 100.000 suns), if he visualizes that event in After Effects it is called “Art” (supported by fans of science, by sci-fi, by special effects of ILM, by millions of investements, by all the glory of Oscars and of Hollywood). Everything Nolan does is Oscar bait; that’s why he wins Oscars, he earns millions, he even trolls Nobel laureates to “write” scientific formulaes for his imaginations. Okay, it’s understood, he shares some millions with such scientists, they “help” him cause scientist love millions too, that’s why they help him.
Nolan can build a tesseract in After Effects, can experiment with “love” inside a massive black hole, scientists like Thorne makes the black hole spin faster than “light”. But if we say “let’s do something like Nolan and Thorne”, we can imagine too, just as Einstein did, lets’ build a Wall at the edge of oblivion, lets imagine it just like Thorne with math, lets prove it with math – nothing, our work is nothing, perhaps “madness”, stamped “impossible” etc.
It means you have to be Thorne or Nolan to sell “madness”, you need a big name to be allowed to do that. It means it’s needed the Credibility Theater. But also, scientists get a free pass to be “visionary”, for example Dyson proposed his “Sphere” in 1960, when space dreams were fashionable. At that time, the world was drunk on Apollo missions, on NASA’s propaganda. His idea sounded like engineering (solar panels + scale = profit, aha… that’s what we want), so it got grandfathered into “serious” discourse. We should feel lucky that Dyson wasn’t declared a Prophet of Scalable Absurdity, or something.
To scale things up, you need imagination, fantasy, sci-fi attitude etc. According to Einstein “imagination is very important – you can’t build visions without imagination”. In short, you can’t be a visionary without your imagination. We already said above, scientists claim dominion over “truth” cause they measure things – that’s what they claim. Scientists have tenure, Nolan has Oscars, fairly enough to “infiltrate” the system – the system rewards authority, not ideas.
We know that we could have chosen another name, something more “suitable” (not just Standard Theory has an ugly name). We could rename our EHW right now, we could call it a Gravitational Wave Detector, so advanced, it uses spacetime itself as the sensor. But there’s no need. We’re not trying to expose some Chinese Wall Paradox (the history’s Greatest Wall-Builders after all, nobody can deny that), we just want to strike the core of the cosmic joke itself. Our EHW exposes, and at the same time blocks, human bias.
Because power structures (even in science) reward the “biased” ideas. For example, the Dyson Star-Sphere isn’t “far-stretched” idea but simply an idealised colonialism in space. Nolan’s Love-Tesseract as an imaginary After Effects animation brings millions to scientists too – simply by doing that, besomes a great idea. But our EHW might be seen just as anarchist graffiti on the fabric of reality.
We’re not saying that our EHW legacy shall be encrypted in the Cosmic Ledger, some very advanced species wrote there something, lets see… 2010 – humans invented iPhone, 3023 – humans invented anti-gravity socks, 13.8 billion years post-EHW – archaeologists from Species X-42 dig up some evidence and scream “humans predicted it all along”, no. But why not, we build it there on the Edge, and let it stand, lets make future scientists scratch their heads for millennia. We know what it is, how it feels, pyramids are just tombs, but they still amaze us, we even don’t know for sure how they built them. China’s Great Wall is just a wall, it never helped truly against Mongols… but it amazes us. We might get just the same with our EHW (Event Horizon Wall), but then on the Grand Cosmic Scale.
We think that our EHW stands as the only sane response to oblivion, EHW serves as Collective Defiance Against the Void. If you can cope with 11 universes (of String Theory), if you can “understand” Multiverses, if you can accept Nolan’s Love-Tesseracts, if you believe that Kip Thorne’s math really spins a 100.000-suns massive black hole, if you truly believe that “beem me up Scotty” one day will be reality, if you believe Dyson’s Betelgeuse-spheres are invention, not “scale up” imagination, if you believe harvesting the energy of the entire galaxy is possible, then you should not be afraid to face our EHW too.
There’s no need to imagine a quantum snicker, echoing through the fabric of spacetime – ah, wait that’s why the double-slit experiment got weird yesterday – the quanta couldn’t focus, they were too busy gossiping about the EHW. Intercepted via entanglement, the quanta’s official memo reads: “Emergency meeting agenda: human invented Event Horizon Wall – Do we… allow this? Vote: Yes (for chaos), No (for tradition). Tiebreaker: As always, Gravitons abstain. Final Conclusion: The EHW is Eternal, not as engineering, but as a monument to the audacity of thought. The EHW is officially a quantum entity, the very act of questioning this honor reinforces its legitimacy. We retain the right to celebrate the EHW in 42 parallel universes. Invisible signatures, among them the Uncertainty Principle itself – Red quantum stamp here. Anti-forgery clause: Any attempt to counterfeit this memo will collapse its quantum state into a limerick about entropy”.
We know we could patent our EHW, we can imagine its far future promise, we could have a certificate of reality backed by uncertainty – the only force in the universe that cannot be faked. We know that the power of EHW grows as spacetime stretches – the farther apart we are, the more entangled our legacy becomes. We know the patent-certificate could survive, any far-future civilization could decode it and be amazed, just as we are with China’s Great Wall, or with Egypt’s Great Pyramids. They could finally understand the truth, the “Event Horizon Wall” was a litmus test for intellectual courage by humans. That would mean just the same as an Intellectual Monument to humans, who dared to scale imagination to the absurd.
Our EH Wall is the final frontier, you can’t see the other side, cause it protects all of us from madness. Whatewer crazy idea scientists imagine, you just use the EHW against that imagination. Beyond our EHW is the cosmic void, no matter, no “dark matter”, no ideas, no Gods, nothing exists behind it.
The Event Horizon Wall shall never be just about black holes – it will always be about the walls we build between “serious” and “absurd,” between “invention” and “scaling,” between what we think we know, and what the quanta let us know. EHW it is supposed to teach us that “invention” is often just humanity playing with Legos at different scales. Sometimes all we need to see is that ants are walking here along perhaps since the dawn of Earth, they outlived Dinos and everything that was ever alive, what if they are the simple proof of the concept – if ants can’t fathom the Great Wall, can we fathom the Nolan’s Tesseract, the Dyson Sphere, the Event Horizon Wall?
Are we sometimes going too far by mixing fantasy, imaginations… in the name of “science”, simply as Hollywood does, simply as Nolan did with his Love-Tesseract? Yes, it’s allowed, it isn’t forbiden, you can make millions, you can sell Harry Potters, you can sell dreams, you can use effectively Houdini’s “special” effects with your After Effects… and you can share some of your millions with Kip Thorne, but don’t troll us.
Submission Recommendations
– arXiv (General Physics, gr-qc, quant-ph)
– Physical Review D (For peer-reviewed defiance)
– China’s Tianwen Journal (Their Great Wall engineers for sure will appreciate the Idea)
– Chinese Academy of Sciences (Their Great Wall expertise is relevant)
– Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (For maximum chaos)
Sections not covered
– Materials Science of Spacetime (Quantum locking on cosmic scales)
– Safety Protocols (what happens if the Wall, eventually, cracks?)
Some endorsements, or comments, from early proof-readers
– “We’d trade 10 string theorists for this idea alone, sorry Brian Greene, sorry Michio Kaku… but you’re so boring, your ideas as if are trying to weaponize singularities” – The Quanta (who took part in all double slit experiments, observed and unobserved), although the Quanta’s true fear was that scientists will panic at EHW implications, considering themselves as fore-runners of ideas, scientists might react – “if a madman can imagine taming singularities… what else have we missed?”.
– “Finally, someone built a metaphor worthy of my greatness, it threatens the mystery cult of theoretical physics on Earth” – The Event Horizon
– “Still not sure what a wall is, but we’re fans” – the black ants walking along the 13 miles of the Great Wall in China, they struggled to understand it, nevertheless at the end declared they support the idea.
– “The EHW (Event Horizon Wall) stays. The multiverse adjusts.” – The Higgs Boson
– “We’d vote for the inventor (ideator) as Overlord of Spin, but he’d probably decline.” – The Quark Council
Citations:
1. Thorne, K. S. (1986). “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy.” W.W. Norton & Company.
2. Hawking, S. W. (1974). “Black hole explosions?” Nature, 248(5443), 30-31.
3. Penrose, R. (1969). “Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity.” Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, 1, 252.
4. Bekenstein, J. D. (1973). “Black holes and entropy.” Physical Review D, 7(8), 2333.
5. Almheiri, A., Marolf, D., Polchinski, J., & Sully, J. (2013). “Black holes: Complementarity or firewalls?” Journal of High Energy Physics, 2013(2), 1-20.
6. Preskill, J. (1992). “Do black holes destroy information?” arXiv:hep-th/9209058.
7. Maldacena, J. (1998). “The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity.” Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 2, 231-252.
8. Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. (1977). “Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes.” Royal Astronomical Society, 179(3), 433-456.
9. Unruh, W. G. (1976). “Notes on black-hole evaporation.” Physical Review D, 14(4), 870.
10. Susskind, L. (1995). “The world as a hologram.” Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(11), 6377-6396.
11. Wald, R. M. (1984). “General Relativity.” University of Chicago Press.
12. Giddings, S. B. (2016). “Hawking radiation, the Stefan–Boltzmann law, and unitarization.” Physics Letters B, 754, 39-42.
13. Frolov, V. P., & Novikov, I. D. (1998). “Black Hole Physics: Basic Concepts and New Developments.” Springer.
14. ‘t Hooft, G. (1993). “Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity.” arXiv:gr-qc/9310026.
15. Bardeen, J. M., Carter, B., & Hawking, S. W. (1973). “The four laws of black hole mechanics.” Communications in Mathematical Physics, 31(2), 161-170.