I Is there a theorem that we can't see objects getting behind EHs?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pony
  • Start date Start date
Pony
Messages
39
Reaction score
10
Schwarzschild black holes have the property that objects with negligible mass need infinite amount of time to pass through the Event Horizon for any observer outside of the black hole. Thus noone on the outside can be sure that an object has went through the Event Horizon (this works when we talk about lights, or causal structure).

I wonder if this holds in general in classical general relativity, that noone outside of an event horizon can have information of something passing through that event horizon.

My intuition is that it would be weird to watch an object and seeing it to disappear. We getting information of that object would be a (half) closed interval, and not an open one.

Anyone has a counterexample, a solution of GR where an outsider can observe an object falling through an EH?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pony said:
Schwarzschild black holes have the property that objects with negligible mass need infinite amount of time to pass through the Event Horizon for any observer outside of the black hole.
This isn't really correct - how long it takes depends on your choice of coordinates. The invariant fact is that the horizon crossing never enters the past lightcone of any external observer.
Pony said:
I wonder if this holds in general in classical general relativity, that noone outside of an event horizon can have information of something passing through that event horizon.
That's pretty much the definition of an event horizon - it's the boundary of the region that cannot signal outside. If that isn't the case, it's not an event horizon.
Pony said:
Anyone has a counterexample, a solution of GR where an outsider can observe an object falling through an EH?
I don't think it can be possible. If I drop a pulsing light source towards an event horizon I can, in principle, compute ##\tau(\tau')##, the proper time ##\tau## on my clock when a pulse emitted at the proper time ##\tau'## on the source's clock arrives at my location. The smoothness of the manifold guarantees that this will be a smooth function, and we know that a pulse emitted at the horizon will never reach me. Thus the arrival time must smoothly approach infinity as the source approaches the horizon crossing event.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PeroK
This figure from the Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler shows how the falling toward the EH is "seen" in the two frames:
image.jpeg.76bcf6370bd436cce88611feb28f614a.jpeg
 
Pony said:
it would be weird to watch an object and seeing it to disappear
Actually, the outside observer would see the falling object to disappear, although not as it crosses the EH, but rather as its signal gets red-shifted to a level below a finite sensitivity of the observer's instruments.
 
Hill said:
Actually, the outside observer would see the falling object to disappear, although not as it crosses the EH, but rather as its signal gets red-shifted to a level below a finite sensitivity of the observer's instruments.
Indeed. Classically, the object is in principle visible forever in the sense that the external observer can always trace a null path back to an event on the object's worldline outside the horizon. But light coming along such lines will be increasingly redshifted and dimmed as the object approaches the horizon, so it fades from view.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Hill and vanhees71
Ibix said:
Indeed. Classically, the object is in principle visible forever in the sense that the external observer can always trace a null path back to an event on the object's worldline outside the horizon. But light coming along such lines will be increasingly redshifted and dimmed as the object approaches the horizon, so it fades from view.
MTW works an exercise showing how extreme this type of redshift really is. If you take a minimally quantum picture (just temperature of a Planck radiator), then after a 'short' period of time, the expected emission time of the next photon of e.g. 1 km or less wavelength becomes longer than the age of the universe.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and Nugatory
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top