
#55
Sep2410, 11:29 PM

P: 221

cook for awhile, you should get a decent answer. 



#56
Sep2410, 11:52 PM

P: 221

Dense mass with a horizon seems to be like a curtained stage with the brick wall there or not there or both or neither. IE, if we linger long enough just above the horizon, by the time we finally cross the horizon, the brick wall will have evaporated. 



#57
Sep2510, 12:33 AM

P: 2,281





#58
Sep2510, 01:14 AM

P: 221

Only fools are so confident as to think they know it all, and there are no fools here. Not even Einstein would claim to have a complete knowledge of gravity. I suspect you mean that my knowledge of Einstein is incomplete...yours is? It is accepted by previous posters, that distant observers will never see a a test mass cross the horizon. I take this to mean that when it does finally happen(relative to the test mass), the stage and its contents will have evaporated. Supposedly by Hawking radiation. And that a distant observer does not have a long enough duration to observe this. But the test mass(by its own clock) would experience nothing in particular because (after infinity by distant observers clocks), the BH will have evaporated. A no show. 



#59
Sep2510, 01:44 AM

Mentor
P: 6,038

For the classical black hole case, B "sees" A on the event horizon at infinite future time, and B never sees the singularity. For the semiclassical black hole case, at some *finite* time B simultaneously "sees": A on the event horizon; the singularity. In other words, the singularity becomes naked, and A winks out of existence at some finite time in the future for B. In both cases, A crosses the event horizon, remains inside the event horizon, and hits the singularity. In both cases, B, does not see (even at infinite future time) A inside the event horizon, as this view is blocked by the singularity. These conclusions can be deduced from Penrose diagrams, FIGURE 5.17 and FIGURE 9.3 in Carroll's text, and Fig. 12.2 and Fig, 14.4 in Wald's text, or http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h...ed=0CBwQ9QEwAA. 



#60
Sep2510, 05:13 AM

P: 221

A, in the Hawking radiation case, "pairsup" with A' (a wave), that A can wink out when A' escapes the grip of the blackhole(becomes Hawking radiation) and heads for infinity as A drops through the event horizon? Does A' come from additional infalling matter or does A' come from the blackhole? IE, does the black hole in both cases, last forever? Do modern blackholes "evaporate"? 



#61
Sep2510, 06:31 AM

P: 1,784





#62
Sep2510, 07:22 AM

P: 2,281





#63
Sep2510, 08:28 AM

P: 3,390

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole
So here's the wiki page on wormholes. Now, it describes two wormholes, one which may possibly be present by a black holes: Now, you keep pointing us to the wikis and to read them, and I have done. I have also done some digging and following links provided in the wikipedia article (the articles I believe you are reading) I found this (http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html): 



#64
Sep2510, 08:58 AM

P: 221

has a clever way of minimizing the HR by allowing the HR evaporation to reduce the BH mass and thereby reduce the horizon so the infalling test mass has an even harder time getting to the horizon and minimizing the HR for the freefalling test mass. Wait, is this a bit too circular? Nevermind, whatever makes the HR nonlethal is OK by me. 



#65
Sep2510, 09:56 AM

P: 221

them. The GR model (guess it's not quantum mechanical) has them doing suchandsuch in GR metrics. QM is bound to be a better framework, but pretty speculative...lets never mention them again...and lets never mention quantum gravity either...and the strong force, what's that all about? Don't mention it. And fringe physics and all the nuts in the basement doing it. And alpha...who cares if it's changing. etc., etc. Can you add to the list any more forbidden topics? I don't even like wormholes...I am much more interested in a BH evaporating before matter can ever fall into it. Are you going to forbid this too? Seriously, if a concept is only on somebody's personal webpage, I rather not have it jammed down my throat either. 



#66
Sep2510, 10:07 AM

P: 3,390

What are you talking about ClamShell? Seriously, I don't want to sound nasty here, but I find your posts to be full of metaphors and riddles and make little sense.
I have nothing against the concept of a wormhole, but so far everything I have read says they cannot be created when a star collapses into a black hole. So discussing it, unless I'm otherwise informed, is pointless. You don't even like wormholes? A few posts back you were explaining how they were the potential answer to conditions inside the event horizon (something regarding entropy I believe and you not liking the idea of Hawking Radiation). Stick to the black hole evaporation from now and and let's forget wormholes were ever brought into this particular topic of "What's inside the event horizon?". 



#67
Sep2510, 10:46 AM

P: 221

And let's not mention Schroedinger's Cat either; half the time when I open the box it's stiff as a board. What is it that you said about metaphores and riddles? Consider this...a way to transport yourself into an infinitely distant future, is to hover over the event horizon until the BH finishes evaporating. Imagine all the cool stuff that would just be lying around, free for the taking. And it should only take a couple of minutes. Somebody just hit on my *Wormholes?* thread...and my dyslexia started acting up...need to take a Tum; or is it dyspepsia...doesn't matter. 



#68
Sep2510, 11:03 AM

P: 3,390

Again, in reality, the gravity that causes the time dilation would cause your immediate destruction. 



#69
Sep2510, 11:58 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,721

For an astrophysical black hole, I don't think the tidal forces outside the event horizon would have been enough to destroy the ship. 



#70
Sep2510, 12:04 PM

P: 221

radiation of very low intensity inside the rocket ship. Infinity is much bigger than 300; they must have only been stuck for a picosecond. This destruction you speak of is only wishful thinking; plenty of sources disagree with this. Anyway, what's immediate mean when you are approaching the horizon? The important thing is what Alice(A) sees, not what Bob(B) sees. Bob sees Alice wink out, that doesn't mean that Alice has past. IE, Alice's past does not include the evaporation of the BH. And it's the Carl Sagan movie 'Contact', not the kids show 'Andromeda'. 



#71
Sep2510, 12:05 PM

P: 256





#72
Sep2510, 12:06 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,721




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
spaceship trapped inside event horizon  serious flaw  Special & General Relativity  5  
Acceleration inside an event horizon  Special & General Relativity  15  
Speed of a particle inside an event horizon  Special & General Relativity  7  
is time, inside an event horizon, timelike or spacelike?  Special & General Relativity  34  
The Unexistence of Singularity Inside the Event Horizon  Special & General Relativity  13 