Is Black hole complementarity incompatible with Block Time?

[Dmitry67]

As I understand, complementarity approach claims that there are 2 different stories, for an infalling observer and an observer @ infinity, they are different, but no observer can confirm both.

But it violates the Block Time/Eternalism, where time is a dimension, the whole world is a static solution, so all histories must be consistent (even if physically observers can't verify some aspects of it).

Also, infalling observer has some extra time inside the horizon, she or he can decide to commit suicide while being inside the black hole but before the terrible death by spagettification. For an external observer, all information is radiated from the horizon, but how it might include information about the potential suicide?

 

[Demystifier]

I agree, black hole complementarity is incompatible with block time. For block time views of black hole, see
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9705022
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0538
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1938
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2744

 

[Demystifier]

I agree, black hole complementarity is incompatible with block time. For block time views of black hole, see
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9705022
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0538
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1938
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2744

 

[Dmitry67]

Thank you.
Good to know - because without Block time we add (once again!) the "conscious observer".

 

[Dmitry67]

Additional question, after looking at your articles.
What's about Second Law of Thermodynamics in GR, specifically in curved spacetime?

I know that there are issues with Conservation of Energy in GR, mostly not because it is not conserved, but because sometimes it is impossible to define what is "to be conserved" in strongly curved spacetime. I expect the Second Law to suffer from the same problem in GR. Am I right?

 

[Demystifier]

I don't see any problem with second law of thermodynamics in GR. Why exactly do you think it's a problem? Or perhaps you meant the first law?

 

[Dmitry67]

No, I meant the Second law.
If "something is conserved" (=const) is not well defined, then "something never decreases" is also not well defined. "Never decreases" means "never decreases in time", assuming that time is smooth enough, so moments "now" and "then" are well defined. Do you agree?

For example, what's about Second law in Goedel Universe?