Can you fall into a non-accreting back hole?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kamenjar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fall Hole
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical possibility of falling into a non-accreting black hole's event horizon. Participants explore concepts related to time dilation, black hole evaporation, and the nature of event horizons, focusing on both the physics involved and the implications of these phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that as one approaches a black hole, time dilation increases, potentially preventing them from reaching the event horizon before the black hole evaporates.
  • Others argue that while static observers experience time dilation, those falling into a black hole do not experience significant time dilation and can reach the singularity in a finite time.
  • A participant questions the feasibility of a black hole forming if no particle can be the last to accrete, suggesting that quantum effects may play a role in this process.
  • There is a contention regarding the nature of the event horizon, with some asserting that nothing special happens upon crossing it, while others reference Hawking radiation as a relevant factor.
  • One participant emphasizes that the trajectory towards the black hole affects the experience of time and the perception of the universe's aging.
  • Another participant provides mathematical insights into the proper velocity and tidal effects experienced near a black hole, suggesting that equations could clarify the scenario.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of time dilation, the nature of the event horizon, and the effects of black hole evaporation. No consensus is reached regarding whether one could fall into a black hole before it evaporates, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves complex concepts that may depend on specific conditions, such as the size of the black hole and the trajectory of the observer. The relationship between black hole evaporation and the experience of falling into one is also highlighted as a point of contention.

  • #31
kamenjar said:
I did, but I don't comprehend time dilation decreasing. I thought you increase proper speed towards something, time dilation always increases.
Right! So think about it, an observer free falling at escape velocity, is rapidly approaching the EH, faster and faster. So yes, the closer he gets to the EH, the more the gravitational field will slow down his clock compared to one at infinity. But then, he travels faster and faster, so due to relativity the clock at infinity is going...right...slower and slower. So we got: clock at infinity going faster and going slower, which one will win? Well look at the graph!

kamenjar said:
You also talk about EH radius... How do you measure a radius of a black hole? How big is something in an infinitely stretched space? How can you even measure it.
Well we already know the circumference: it is simply 2pi r and we can also calculate the area. Because spacetime is curved the proper distance between two different r values is not r2-r1. We can calculate any distance, area and volume up to the EH and passed the event horizon we can do the same from a particular r value to the EH, but not from and to r=0 which is the singularity. But we can certainly measure the distance in terms of time it takes for a free falling observer at escape velocity to reach the EH and the singularity. For instance, when an observer of about 2 meters of height measures a tidal effect between his head and feet of about 1g, he is about 0.3 seconds away from reaching the singularity.

kamenjar said:
And how do you measure distance from singularity which is not even there to begin with - there is no matter in direction of measurement, there is no time nor speed of light to measure by. It is all just much harder for me to comprehend something if I involve those terms.
Well you certainly can express it in terms of how much time it takes for something to get there. The formula is surprisingly simple. If we take an example where the event horizon is 1 (so the mass is 0.5 meters, mass in gr is defined as a distance by the way) then we have:

<br /> -2/3\,{r}^{3/2}<br />

Now that formula is not too hard right? So, say a free falling observer traveling at escape velocity is at a given moment at r=20 how many seconds on his own clock does he still have left before it is all over? Well you can type the formula in your calculator to get the answer, the answer is roughly 59.63 seconds. We can also calculate how long it takes to reach the EH, the formula is not that much harder, it is:

<br /> 2/3\,{r}^{3/2}-2/3<br />

So if we calculate for r=20 we get: 58.96

As you can see for a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of 1 the traveler has only about 0.7 seconds going from the EH to the singularity. That is not very much right?

kamenjar said:
How do you even measure distance from EH? EH is infinitely far away in my head because objects are infinitely red shifted and so faint that we can't see them with best telescopes.
Well first thing is that you got to say to yourself you are wrong. The distance between every two r values is always finite except for r=0! For instance a spacestation hovering at r=20 will measure the distance to the event horizon to be around 21.7 meters, a little more than, as you would expect, 19 (20-1). Why the difference? Answer spacetime curvature! We can even calculate the volume of space between r=20 and r=1, it is about 34755 cubic meters, more than one would expect if the spacetime where flat, in flat spacetime we would get: 33506.

kamenjar said:
So you can't just throw some formula and calculate something and assume that EH is there even to begin with. We see distant objects, but by the time we get to them, they may not be even there. That's why I resort to logic and not just bare formulas because by logic you have to establish a state for the formula.
Well we can throw a formula at it. That is the beauty of science! Thanks to Karl Schwarzschild we can indeed throw a bunch of formulas and get results!

kamenjar said:
I really appreciate your attempts to teach me, but I can't understand the basic concepts that you take from granted because you know them, and you draw conclusions based on them. I have to understand those concepts before I can draw the conclusions the same way you do.
Well actually it is not that hard, the hard part I think is for you to let go of some of those convictions that you have then you can learn. It is like the Chinese proverb about the teacup being full, you first have to empty it to get new tea!

Most important one at this stage for you I think is to realize that the distance between any two r values is finite, except for r=0. So everything is easily calculable all the way up to the value r=0.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Passionflower said:
... clock at infinity is going...right...slower and slower. So we got: clock at infinity going faster and going slower, which one will win? Well look at the graph!
Pleas explain what is "clock at infinity". And what do you mean by clock "winning"?
Passionflower said:
...a free falling observer traveling at escape velocity is at a given moment at r=20 how ...
Even more confused by now.. "Traveling at escape velocity". You mean "in steady orbit"?
Passionflower said:
<br /> 2/3\,{r}^{3/2}-2/3<br />

So if we calculate for r=20 we get: 58.96
How big was the black hole 0.5m? That black hole evaporates pretty much instantly, so the subject never reaches it.

Passionflower said:
As you can see for a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of 1 the traveler has only about 0.7 seconds going from the EH to the singularity. That is not very much right?
For a 0.5m black hole, you still don't reach it. It evaporates very very fast.
Passionflower said:
Well we can throw a formula at it. That is the beauty of science! Thanks to Karl Schwarzschild we can indeed throw a bunch of formulas and get results!
I like the attitude :) I wish I knew more of those to be able to "throw" them around. Though some the greatest inventors didn't use formulas as much. They drew, thought and visualized. Take Tesla for example. I consider him the greatest inventor of all time. Formulas can lead to incorrect conclusions because we take assumptions for granted.

Passionflower said:
Well actually it is not that hard, the hard part I think is for you to let go of some of those convictions that you have then you can learn. It is like the Chinese proverb about the teacup being full, you first have to empty it to get new tea!
Working on emptying (consuming) :)
Passionflower said:
Most important one at this stage for you I think is to realize that the distance between any two r values is finite, except for r=0. So everything is easily calculable all the way up to the value r=0.

Most of your formulas "think" in proper time. However unscientific in it may sound, as I explained in response to DaveC, I think that proper time is not as relevant as let's say "earth time". Maybe if you took my 1AU example and helped with a solution of "how much time from Earth would pass to fall into a 1solar mass black hole from 1AU away". I think that we have things closer now. R is measurable, I guess, so maybe it's easy to calculate.
 
  • #33
Kamenjar, I think I tried my best in explaining things to you but I really think it is all wasted on you. Perhaps someone else can help you, I give up.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Passionflower said:
Since you are interested in the Doppler factor for a radially falling observer at escape velocity and an inertial observer at infinity I give you that formula as well (if I am not mistaken, which I sometimes are, others who know please verify it as well)

This is what I get as well; see

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=861282#post861282

and the correct in post #7.
Passionflower said:
Aside:
Today my second son was born, on Schwarzschild's birthday (it's already 10/9 in China), his first name will be Nicolas but his middle name will be Karl.

I didn't see this. Congratulations!
 
  • #35
George Jones said:
This is what I get as well; see

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=861282#post861282

and the correct in post #7.
Yes, the formulas are equivalent to the one I use. I used the one that splits the components into a gravitational and kinematical part.

George Jones said:
I didn't see this. Congratulations!
Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K