Is the event horizon of a black hole physical?

In summary: Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a black hole. This was a bit like a physicist admitting that a year's salary was exactly equal to the price of a new car. It was a fact that nobody could deny...In summary, the conversation discusses the issue of whether or not the event horizon of a black hole is physical. Some argue that it is physical, while others argue that it is merely a set of coordinates. The concept of physicality is debated, with some defining it as something that can be touched or interacted with, while others include energy and matter in their definition. The idea of a "firewall" at the event horizon is also mentioned, and potential explanations for the horizon's physicality are discussed,
  • #1
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
18,732
13,474
In another thread, which I don't want to derail, the issue came up as to whether or not the event horizon of a black hole is physical.

Some contend that it is physical but I contend that it is merely a set of coordinates (most easily represented by the spherical coordinate R).

I DO recognize that any photon emitted exactly at the EH, and trying to propagate away from the singularity, is just going to stay right there at the EH, but somehow I just don't "get" that that makes the EH physical.

One argument that I found particularly unacceptable was that just because you can say whether or not a coordinate-specified point is on or off of the EH, THAT makes the EH physical. I see that as nonsense. You could equally well say that any point exactly 50,000 miles from the center of the Earth is automatically a physical point BECAUSE it is exactly 50,000 miles from the center of the Earth. Using this definition there is no such thing as a set of coordinates that do not represent a physical place, and I just can't see that.

Comments appreciated.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2


too late [LOL] did you see my last post...

irrelevent, I think, if you consider the horizon itself physical...they have physical effects...

I think you'll have to define physical to get a good answer.

a horizon is a global construct...has no local significance...but it DOES have physical effects...

One argument that I found particularly unacceptable was that just because you can say whether or not a coordinate-specified point is on or off of the EH, THAT makes the EH physical.

I agree...

Is the orbit of the Earth physical?? How about a light cone? A cosmological event horizon?
 
Last edited:
  • #3


Naty1 said:
too late [LOL] did you see my last post...

irrelevent, I think, if you consider the horizon itself physical...they have physical effects...

I think you'll have to define physical to get a good answer.

a horizon is a global construct...has no local significance...but it DOES have physical effects...



I agree...

Is the orbit of the Earth physical?? How about a light cone? A cosmological event horizon?

Yeah, the physical effects I agree with, and yeah it DOES depend on how you define "physical". I think of physical as something I can touch, but that may be a bit sloppy and naive.
 
  • #4


Look at these three expressions.

1) Physical universe
2) Virtual universe
3) Imaginary universe

the first expression would descibe something you can see and touch, the second expression you can see but not touch the third you can neither see or touch. For purpose of EH replace touch with interact with if you were close enough

Is it incorrect to describe a point in spacetime as a physical point in space-time?
 
Last edited:
  • #5


phinds said:
I think of physical as something I can touch, but that may be a bit sloppy and naive.

This is sensible. The EH is of course not a physical surface in this sense: I notice nothing out of the ordinary when I cross it (classically). Rather, it's a mathematical boundary.

I think the case is even stronger if you think that the EH knows about the entire causal future of the spacetime -- that's simply how it's defined. Any physical surface or object should be completely specifiable in terms of the past, not future, of the spacetime. So the EH in that sense is also not a physical surface.
 
  • #6


Event horizons are not 'structures' in any sense of the word, they fluctuate continuously due to mass accretion and quantum effects.
 
  • #7


Mordred said:
...
Is it incorrect to describe a point in spacetime as a physical point in space-time?

Yes, I think it is incorrect. It is a coordinate, not something physical. If there is something material AT the coordinate, then that thing is of course physical, but its location is not physical.
 
  • #8


Nabeshin said:
This is sensible. The EH is of course not a physical surface in this sense: I notice nothing out of the ordinary when I cross it (classically). Rather, it's a mathematical boundary.

I think the case is even stronger if you think that the EH knows about the entire causal future of the spacetime -- that's simply how it's defined. Any physical surface or object should be completely specifiable in terms of the past, not future, of the spacetime. So the EH in that sense is also not a physical surface.

Bolded point is very interesting and I had not thought of it that way. Thanks.
 
  • #9


Chronos said:
Event horizons are not 'structures' in any sense of the word, they fluctuate continuously due to mass accretion and quantum effects.

Good point. Thanks.
 
  • #10


So, basically, what I think I'm getting is that you have to have a pretty contorted defintion of "physical" to in any way think of the event horizon as physical.
 
  • #11


As you pointed out earlier it depends on how you describe physical.

Physical as defined in my webster copy

a) Of or relating to the body as distinquished from the mind or spirit.

b) Involving or characterized ny vigorous bodily activity.

c) Of or relating to matter or energy.

The event horizon is definitely about energy and matter. If were close enough we can interact with it.

The event horizon can also be descibes by its influences on the physical.

If you think about it even virtual particles are also physical however short lived as they involve energy
 
Last edited:
  • #13


phinds:

Here is a description of a horizon from THE BLACK HOLE WAR by Leonard Susskind...
he is describing here work begun by T'Hooft and extended by himself

[described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle] [Broken]

...The picture of a black hole horizon that was emerging was a tangle of string flattended out onto the horizon by gravity...quantum fluctuations would cause...parts of the string to stick out..and these bits would be the mysterious horizon atoms,,

and at a talk Susskind gave at Princeton and Rutgers Universities: "where you could not get away with half baked claims"...
...Witten's response was to accept...the proposition that a black hole horizon is composed of bitsofstring. He even worked out how strings evaporate in a manner similar to black hole evaporation.

edit: this happened in 1993.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14


Mordred said:
The event horizon is definitely about energy and matter. If were close enough we can interact with it.

I disagree. The EH is simply the point where spacetime curvature reaches a certain amount. That in itself would not be a physical effect to me. And you cannot interact with the EH as far as I know. What could you do to it? You can't touch it, see it, etc. An infalling observer would never know when they passed it.

The event horizon can also be descibes by its influences on the physical.

I'd say that it's not the event horizon that's doing anything, its the mass behind it.

If you think about it even virtual particles are also physical however short lived as they involve energy

I think this goes beyond the usual meaning of physical.
 
  • #15


I'd say that it's not the event horizon that's doing anything, its the mass behind it.

There is no 'mass behind it'...
the horizon is a causal boundary.
it's the ultimate 'roach motel' "You can get in but you can't get out."
 
  • #16


Drakkith said:
The EH is simply the point where spacetime curvature reaches a certain amount.

Not true.
 
  • #17


Naty1 said:
There is no 'mass behind it'...
the horizon is a causal boundary.
it's the ultimate 'roach motel' "You can get in but you can't get out."

What?
 
  • #18


Naty1 said:
There is no 'mass behind it'...
the horizon is a causal boundary.
it's the ultimate 'roach motel' "You can get in but you can't get out."

I agree w/ all that, but feel that none of that makes it physical in any sense.

I am familiar w/ the holographic principle and have banged my head against it a couple of times coming away with the thought that while I don't believe in such a thing at the event horizon of a black hole, I certainly can't refute it, BUT ... when you apply it to the cosomological horizon, which CERTAINLY is not physical in any way, it just falls to pieces for me and I just see it as nonsense.
 
  • #19


Drakkith said:
What?

I think the "no mass behind it" mean DIRECTLY behind it, not that there isn't mass at the singularity.
 
  • #20


bcrowell said:
Not true.

Elaborate please.
 
  • #21


Naty1 said:
...
irrelevent, I think, if you consider the horizon itself physical...they have physical effects...

Just because there is a physical effect on something does not make the Eh physical.

Just as if you was to float in space and fall (drawn) into the sun. at some point the heat will ignite you, burn you, roast, crispy critter. That does NOT make the point of which you became a marshmallow a physical part of the sun.
just the point the affect causing the effect.
 
  • #22


No its not a physical point of the sun. It is a real point in space. Not an imaginary, spiritual or virtual point. Hence it is a physical point.

One of the problems with the word physical is that people tend to think it means materialistic.
Thats incorrect. When you describe a real energy state by definition your describing a physical state.
Actually in several dictionary they take the trrm one step further. Several dictionaries will state that anything physics study is the study of the physical
One example I mentioned before on virtual particles. Virtal particles from what I understand is used to describe extremely short lived quantum disturbances. Even if that particle is not materialistic its still a description of an energy state. If that description is strictly mathematical then its not physical. However if its a description of real disturbances then it is.
 
Last edited:
  • #23


Mordred said:
No its not a physical point of the sun. It is a real point in space. Not an imaginary, spiritual or virtual point. Hence it is a physical point.
l

I'd call that a coordinate, not a physical point.

You make a good point about materialistic v.s. physical and looking at it that way, I'm definitely saying it's not a material(istic) point, but I think splitting materialistic from physical is splitting hairs. Still, as someone said earlier, it DOES depend on how you define "physical".
 
  • #24


Coordinates can be tricky. I wouldn't call a coordinate on a map or math model as physical. Those I would call imaginary or virtual. But a coordinate itself (not the numbers used to describe that point) that is located in spacetime. That point does have physical properties whether its only an energy state is physical in nature.
I think it would lead to confusion trying to separate real coordinates from the realm of physical descriptions.
Personally I prefer the descriptions the way they are.
virtual coordinate, mathematical or imaginary coordinate or physical coordinate. Saves time in descriptions.
 
  • #25


Actually calling a real location a coordinate is contradictory. The term coordinate is a term used to describe a physical. Virtual or imaginary location. To call a physical point a coordinate moves it from a real location to merely a representation of that real location in a sense. Not to imply there is anything wrong to referring it as a coordinate.
 
Last edited:
  • #26


Drakkith said:
Elaborate please.
The space-time curvature at the event horizon depends upon the mass of the black hole. Smaller-mass black holes have more curvature than larger-mass black holes at the horizon.
 
  • #27


Chalnoth said:
The space-time curvature at the event horizon depends upon the mass of the black hole. Smaller-mass black holes have more curvature than larger-mass black holes at the horizon.

Also, curvature is a tensor, not a scalar, and the curvature is not necessarily constant throughout the event horizon for a non-Schwarzschild black hole. The more relevant quantity would be the potential, not the curvature.
 
  • #28


bcrowell said:
Also, curvature is a tensor, not a scalar, and the curvature is not necessarily constant throughout the event horizon for a non-Schwarzschild black hole. The more relevant quantity would be the potential, not the curvature.
The Ricci curvature scalar is, however, a scalar. But regardless, if we want to be pedantic, the actually relevant term here is the surface gravity [itex]\kappa[/itex], which is higher for small-mass black holes at the horizon.
 
  • #29


phinds:
BUT ... when you apply it to the cosomological horizon, which CERTAINLY is not physical in any way, it just falls to pieces for me and I just see it as nonsense.

and yet the cosmological horizon is essential for particle production during the inflationary epic of the universe.

So once again, it HAS physical effects...which does not necessarily make it 'physical'...however, I'm still unsure what 'physical' means...

.
 
  • #30


From a prior thread...an actual description of an event horizon...more fodder!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=631987&page=3...

..The event horizon of a black hole is actually lightlike. This follows from it being a null surface, and you can even think of the event horizon as being "trapped light". “the EH is a null surface--more precisely, it has two spacelike and one null dimension.”
PAllen & PeterDonis…… the event horizon is a 3-surface whose tangent space at each point can be given a basis that has two spacelike basis vectors and one null basis vector…the EH is not a "thing". It's just a boundary between two regions of the spacetime.,,,,

My notes suggest PAllen and PeterDonis actually agreed on this explanation!??
 
  • #31


Naty1 said:
phinds:


and yet the cosmological horizon is essential for particle production during the inflationary epic of the universe.

So once again, it HAS physical effects...which does not necessarily make it 'physical'...however, I'm still unsure what 'physical' means...

.

You lost me on that one. I thought the cosmological horizon was simple the radius from wherever you happen to be standing out to the place where light emitted from particles can no longer reach you. What does that have to do with particle production in the early universe ?
 
  • #32


I guess in both cases if its merely a description dependant upon set conditions.
Much like a border. Then even though the region is physical. The descriptive is not.

In the cosmological horizon that horizon is veiw point dependant. So saying it and of itself as physical is kind of stretching the term physical. The exact location definitely is but one cosmological horizon is not the same for someone in another galaxy for example. I suppose the same could be said if the event horizon.

Lol just goes to show the trickiness of terminology.
 
Last edited:
  • #33


phinds said:
You lost me on that one. I thought the cosmological horizon was simple the radius from wherever you happen to be standing out to the place where light emitted from particles can no longer reach you. What does that have to do with particle production in the early universe ?
In an accelerating universe, you get Hawking radiation at this horizon for the exact same reason that you get Hawking radiation from the horizon of a black hole (and again, it's proportional to the area of the horizon).
 
  • #34


I've never heard of that, could you provide a reference. I' d definitely interested in reading it
 
  • #35


Chalnoth said:
In an accelerating universe, you get Hawking radiation at this horizon for the exact same reason that you get Hawking radiation from the horizon of a black hole (and again, it's proportional to the area of the horizon).

But no matter WHERE a virtual particle pair is created, it is on such a horizon from some point, therefore according that logic, no virtual particles should EVER recombine, which is clearly nonsense. What am I missing?
 
<h2>1. What exactly is the event horizon of a black hole?</h2><p>The event horizon of a black hole is the boundary surrounding the black hole from which nothing, including light, can escape. It is the point of no return for anything that gets too close to the black hole.</p><h2>2. How is the event horizon of a black hole determined?</h2><p>The event horizon of a black hole is determined by its mass. The more massive the black hole, the larger its event horizon will be. For a non-rotating black hole, the event horizon is directly proportional to its mass.</p><h2>3. Is the event horizon of a black hole a physical object?</h2><p>No, the event horizon of a black hole is not a physical object. It is simply a boundary in space where the gravitational pull of the black hole becomes so strong that nothing can escape from it.</p><h2>4. Can the event horizon of a black hole change in size?</h2><p>Yes, the event horizon of a black hole can change in size. If the black hole gains or loses mass, its event horizon will also change accordingly. Additionally, the event horizon can also change due to the effects of nearby objects or gravitational waves.</p><h2>5. Can anything pass through the event horizon of a black hole?</h2><p>No, nothing can pass through the event horizon of a black hole. Once an object crosses the event horizon, it is pulled into the black hole and cannot escape. This is due to the extreme gravitational pull and intense curvature of space-time near the event horizon.</p>

1. What exactly is the event horizon of a black hole?

The event horizon of a black hole is the boundary surrounding the black hole from which nothing, including light, can escape. It is the point of no return for anything that gets too close to the black hole.

2. How is the event horizon of a black hole determined?

The event horizon of a black hole is determined by its mass. The more massive the black hole, the larger its event horizon will be. For a non-rotating black hole, the event horizon is directly proportional to its mass.

3. Is the event horizon of a black hole a physical object?

No, the event horizon of a black hole is not a physical object. It is simply a boundary in space where the gravitational pull of the black hole becomes so strong that nothing can escape from it.

4. Can the event horizon of a black hole change in size?

Yes, the event horizon of a black hole can change in size. If the black hole gains or loses mass, its event horizon will also change accordingly. Additionally, the event horizon can also change due to the effects of nearby objects or gravitational waves.

5. Can anything pass through the event horizon of a black hole?

No, nothing can pass through the event horizon of a black hole. Once an object crosses the event horizon, it is pulled into the black hole and cannot escape. This is due to the extreme gravitational pull and intense curvature of space-time near the event horizon.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
879
Replies
7
Views
730
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
776
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top