Is there an inside to a Black Hole?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter stevil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole Hole
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of black holes, specifically questioning whether there is an "inside" to a black hole and the implications of time dilation near the event horizon (EH). Participants explore concepts related to the perception of objects crossing the EH, the structure of spacetime, and the relationship between external matter and the black hole itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that time appears to slow down for an outside observer as an object approaches the EH, but this does not affect the infalling object's experience of time.
  • Others argue that an outside observer would never see an infalling object cross the EH unless they waited for the black hole to evaporate, which would take an impractically long time.
  • A participant questions the possibility of there being "no inside" to a black hole, suggesting that the black hole's appearance might be a consequence of external matter rather than an internal structure.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of redshift and dimming of light from objects nearing the EH, complicating the observation of infalling objects.
  • There is a challenge regarding how black holes can grow if new material cannot be observed falling inside them, raising questions about the relationship between external matter and the black hole's mass.
  • One participant expresses a desire to understand current theories rather than propose new ones, seeking clarity on the nature of time near the EH and the conceptualization of black holes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of time near the EH and the visibility of infalling objects. There is no consensus on whether black holes have an "inside" or if they are merely a consequence of external matter. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about time dilation and the visibility of infalling objects depend on interpretations of general relativity and observational limitations. The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of black holes and the implications of their growth, which are not fully resolved.

  • #61
CelHolo said:
I think I'd be turning the thread into something else then and derail it.
Yes.

CelHolo said:
I could discuss it on another thread.
Yes, if you want to discuss these models, please open a separate thread in the Beyond the Standard Model forum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: CelHolo
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
PeroK said:
Nothing ever "experiences" time dilation. It's a purely coordinate effect. This is not semantics. What an object experiences is the passing of its own proper time. The object cannot experience how others may measure that time.
Yes, I'm not phrasing my thoughts correctly. I'm not up with the terminology.
 
  • #63
PeterDonis said:
That's not an assumption, it's a definition of spacetime. There is no such thing as a classical spacetime model where spacetime is not everywhere. The idea doesn't even make sense.
Is SpaceTime infinite in all directions?

I thought in a closed universe it's kind of like a bubble. There are no hard boundaries, no edge to the universe. But light going in a straight line doesn't always go further and further away from its source but eventually starts coming back just due to the curved shape of the universe. So there is no outside of the universe but if we were to model it on a three dimensional euclidean coordinate system (people intuitively think this way) we might point to a coordinate point and say but at this point which is outside the universe. That point doesn't exist, you can't get there, light can't get there, intuitively we think that place should exist but we can't get there.
Kinda like if there were multiple universes and if these were closed, we would have each universe in its own bubble but with no path to get from one universe to another.

Perhaps the above is just nonsense? I don't know enough about physics to know what is nonsense vs what is possible.
But I was wondering if the inside of a black hole were like that too. A space that we intuitively map out in a euclidean model and assume something must be there, but instead it just doesn't exist as there is no path for light to get there, not at any valid speeds.

The alternative is singularities
Singularities seem like nonsense to me (but I don't know enough and I'm not the right person to ask if singularities make sense or not).
 
  • #64
stevil said:
Is SpaceTime infinite in all directions?
That depends on the particular spacetime. Some are, some aren't.

stevil said:
I thought in a closed universe it's kind of like a bubble.
A closed FRW universe is spatially finite (but without boundary, as you note--topologically it's a 3-sphere), and also finite in time--it has an initial singularity, and (at least in the case of zero cosmological constant) a final singularity as well.

stevil said:
there is no outside of the universe
Yes. You can try to visualize the universe as embedded in some higher dimensional Euclidean space (as you do), but that causes more problems than it solves.

stevil said:
I was wondering if the inside of a black hole were like that too.
Like what? If you mean, like a closed FRW universe, no, it isn't. There are spacelike surfaces inside a black hole that are spatially infinite. As for trying to visualize an embedding of a black hole interior in a higher dimensional space, that's even more problematic than doing it for a closed FRW universe.

stevil said:
The alternative is singularities
Singularities aren't an "alternative" to anything. They are present in some spacetimes (such as both of the examples given above, a closed FRW universe and a black hole interior) but not in others. It just depends on the particular spacetime.

stevil said:
Singularities seem like nonsense to me
Many physicists believe that the presence of singularities in particular classical spacetime models is a sign that those models break down in those regimes, and that some new theory, such as quantum gravity, will be needed to model what actually happens in regimes where our current models have singularities. However, that is still an open area of research.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: stevil

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K