- #26

- 2,081

- 104

- Thread starter Slamfu
- Start date

- #26

- 2,081

- 104

- #27

- 31,223

- 10,119

This should really be discussed in the quantum physics forum, not here; getting into it further here would indeed misdirect the thread. If you want to post this as a separate thread in the quantum physics forum, feel free to put a link here so whoever is interested can follow up.I have no wish to misdirect this thread. Howevee to me thats like saying a particle either has all or no information till examined

- #28

- 2,081

- 104

- #29

- 5,601

- 40

...The outside universe doesn't have to "see" any changes in the singularity; it "sees" the mass falling into the hole...,

Yes. For those trying to get a handle on BH descriptions, consider that our math

covers the BH except for the singularity at the center...that is where we have no description, not via relativity nor quantum mechanics....On the other hand, the horizon of a black hole, another type of singularity, a surface where causality between inside the BH to the outside is lost and where we think we understand the physics.

A BH is the ultimate 'roach motel': you can get in, but you can't get out!

So whatever model and space time space-time structure you consider, like Schwarzschild for example, or the more general Kerr [with some rotation] nobody knows just what happens when the radial component of the metric goes to infinity...that's the center singularity.

There is another 'singularity' when the temporal component of the metric goes to infinity....the horizon.....time appears to stop at the horizon for a distant outside observer....but this is a coordinate effect, not a physically real local effect... so another coordinate set, like those of a free falling observer continue smoothly thru the 'apparent singularity'....

- #30

- 5,601

- 40

Here are excerpts of a description I don't see too often in these forums:

Here is an online source describing BH recommended to me by others in these forums...some good insights..:

http://www.jimhaldenwang.com/black_hole.htm

Spacetime Geometry Inside [and around] a Black Hole

by Jim Haldenwang

written Nov. 12, 2004

revised July 30, 2012

PS; In his argument over the years with Stephen Hawking, Susskind was correct in his interpretation of BH !Black Hole Complementarity

Leonard Susskind, THE BLACK HOLE WAR (his arguments with Stephen Hawking)

In this view, all the information ever accumulated by a BH is encoded on a stretched horizon...a Planck length or so outside the event horizon and about a Planck length thick. This is a reflection of the Holographic principle: all the information on the other side of an event horizon is encoded on the surface area of that event horizon....

Of every 10,000,000,000 bits of information in the universe, all but one

are associated with the horizons of black holes. [So if you can lose information via black holes, it a really,really,really big deal.]

(p238) Today a standard concept in black hole physics is a stretched horizon which is a layer of hot microscopic degrees of freedom about one Planck length thick and a Planck length above the event horizon. Every so often a bit gets carried out in an evaporation process. This is Hawking radiation. A free falling observer sees empty space.

(p258) From an outside observer’s point of view, an in falling particle gets blasted apart….ionized….at the stretched horizon…before the particle crosses the event horizon. At maybe 100,000 degrees it has a short wavelength and any detection attempt will ionize it or not detect it!

(p270)…. eventually the [incoming] particle image is blurred as it is smeared over the stretched horizon and….and the image may (later) be recovered in long wavelength Hawking radiation.

Here is an online source describing BH recommended to me by others in these forums...some good insights..:

http://www.jimhaldenwang.com/black_hole.htm

Spacetime Geometry Inside [and around] a Black Hole

by Jim Haldenwang

written Nov. 12, 2004

revised July 30, 2012

Last edited:

- #31

- 16,430

- 6,725

- #32

- 5,601

- 40

It is a causal boundary and to me that's quite physical....but what we call it varies a lot.I wonder if it is correct to call the EH a "surface" since it is in no way physical ....

In terms of the Holographic principle, 'surface' seems especially common.

- #33

- 31,223

- 10,119

The term "surface" is pretty general; it can apply to just about any submanifold of a spacetime. The EH is the set of all points in the spacetime with r = 2m, but with no other coordinate constraints. A more precise term for it would be a "null 3-surface", meaning a submanifold with three linearly independent tangent vectors, one of which is null. (The other two are spacelike.)

As far as whether the EH is "physical", it's no less so than any other submanifold. Since it's an outgoing null surface, outgoing light rays emitted exactly at the EH stay at the EH, so there can certainly be physical things that "mark out" the EH.

- #34

Nugatory

Mentor

- 12,988

- 5,699

It's an unambiguously specified set of points in spacetime. No matter what coordinates you're using, if you present me with the coordinates of a point, I'll be able to answer the question "is that point on the EH?" and the answer will be same no matter which coordinate system you choose. That strikes me as a pretty good operational definition of something that is "physical".

- #35

- 5,601

- 40

I was just reading the other posts and remembered ALL the horizons we discuss in the forums have 'physical' attributes...like the Rindler horizon associated with Bells Spaceship paradox and Unruh effect....and Hawking radiation of black holes.I wonder if it is correct to call the EH a "surface" since it is in no way physical and really is just a spherical coordinate r.

In fact perhaps the craziest horizon of all would be that during cosmological inflation....when the original particles [primordial perturbations] from the Big Bang were widely dispersed and sparse but were repopulated by the inflationary expansion...which only happens if a horizon is present......in other words geometrical curvature horizons induce the appearance of particles!!!.

Somehow, it appears, that an accelerating space-time or even accelerating observers, which are accompanied by horizons, induces localized mass energy...particles. Geometric circumstances create particles!

Check out this discussion with links,papers, and concepts:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=590798

bapowell has an explanation with some math and says in post #17:

'perturbations' ARE particles! Without such horizons we would be in an empty universe.It's a nice exercise though to work through the evolution of a scalar field fluctuation during inflation, from its birth in the vacuum out to super horizon scales if you haven't done it. What you find once you've done this is that you end up with a spectrum of perturbations across a range of length scales.

Last edited:

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 662

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 573

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 663

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 5K

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 876

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K