Evidence of inexistence in black holes?

[Pragz]

Is there any hard evidence that the inside of a black hole is simply an empty oblivion of nothingness? I've been mulling over some thoughts on time, and this has been grinding progress.

I'm currently trying to find if the possibility of its center being a negative index of timespace is indeed possible.

 

[zhermes]

There is no, and can be no observational evidence from inside the event horizon. But theoretically, the interior does not seem to qualify as what you describe. On that note, what exactly is 'an empty oblivion of nothingness' ?
Also, what is a 'negative index of timespace[sic]'?

 

[Nabeshin]

Note that locally there is nothing at all funny about the inside of an event horizon. That is, if you were inside the event horizon falling -- and confined to a small box, you wouldn't notice anything strange at all. Indeed, one can imagine a very large black hole such that you could live your entire life inside the event horizon and not notice anything strange.

And I echo zhermes' concern, what do you mean by 'negative index of timespace' (spacetime?)

 

[JaredJames]

"negative index of timespace" sounds like an analogy for a white hole.

"negative index" in this case meaning time running backwards.

It sounds like the OP is proposing the whole 'black holes lead to white holes' idea.

 

[Pragz]

Yes, timespace should have been spacetime. My bad.

By negative index, I was essentially referring to what has already been stated: time running backwards. Not necessarily a white hole, but a reverse in time outside relative to yourself. And I'm only just realizing that testing this would be impossible:

Assuming that the inside does essentially work backwards, all light would be stopped at the event horizon. Light passing through would achieve higher speeds (it has negative distance and time to pass through, relative to our universe) and reach the "other side" faster than instantly, but would be instantly slowed to our current speed of light and thus unable to escape the horizon.

Please tell me if I'm completely wrong on these assumptions. I've still only taken high school Physics classes, so I'm no where near able to know if there are facts backing me. >.<

 

[zhermes]

Let me start out by praising your interest in physics, and your desire to keep exploring it.

That said, there's basically nothing correct about what you've said :) sorry.

By negative index, I was essentially referring to what has already been stated: time running backwards. Not necessarily a white hole, but a reverse in time outside relative to yourself. And I'm only just realizing that testing this would be impossible:

What you've written here doesn't really make literal sense, but trying to read between the lines... like Nabeshin says, it fundamental to the nature of general relativity (which predicts black holes in the first place) that an observer inside the event horizon doesn't locally experience anything differently than on the outside. Also, if time was reversed (somehow) on the inside (which there is really *no* reason to believe is the case), there would be all sorts of causality issues and discontinuities at the event horizon.

Assuming that the inside does essentially work backwards, all light would be stopped at the event horizon. Light passing through would achieve higher speeds (it has negative distance and time to pass through, relative to our universe) and reach the "other side" faster than instantly, but would be instantly slowed to our current speed of light and thus unable to escape the horizon.

This part makes even less sense (I don't mean to be rude or derisive, just being blunt).
You're saying both that light can't cross the horizon, and that light speeds up across is---doesn't make sense. Also, negative distance and time doesn't really mean anything either---in the context that would be effectively the same.

Also, 'faster than instantly' doesn't make any sense. Its not only contrary both special and general relativity and classical physics, but also just logic itself.

Please tell me if I'm completely wrong on these assumptions. I've still only taken high school Physics classes, so I'm no where near able to know if there are facts backing me. >.<

You are completely wrong :)
And that's the first step in learning.

It sounds like you have a true interest in the material, and like you're a sharp person---you should pick up a physics book and try to learn the material. People like stephen hawking, leonard susskind, etc etc have spent their entire lives doing little but study these subjects, and only then are they able to postulate new possibilities etc. There's a lot of background you need before you can dive into black holes.

Good luck!

 

[Chronos]

Since it impossible to recover information from inside the event horizon, the answer is - UNKNOWABLE. I hope that helps.

 

[phinds]

Zhermes, I am completely new to this forum ... just saw it 1/2 hr ago, joined immediately and have been mostly just browsing ever since. I am VERY pleased to have read your reply 2 boxes above because of the way it combines politeness with bluntness, along with your having started off encouraging knowledge. If the rest of the forum comes close to your standards, I'm sure I'll love it here.

 

[Hurkyl]

Since it impossible to recover information from inside the event horizon, the answer is - UNKNOWABLE. I hope that helps.

You can see what's on the other side of the event horizon if you cross it yourself...

 

[JaredJames]

You can see what's on the other side of the event horizon if you cross it yourself...

But would you still be considered "yourself" on crossing it?

A bit like saying you can see the future 'yourself' if someone digs you out of your wooden sleeping box in a thousand years. A sound idea with only one drawback - it kinda ignores the nice little bit in between called death.