On the nature of the infinite fall toward the EH

[zonde]

There is certain problem with the statement that falling clock will cross the event horizon in finite time. While proper time of the clock is invariant the concept of "event horizon" and therefore event of "crossing the event horizon" might turn out to be not so clearly defined and slightly more coordinate and assumptions dependant than proper time of the clock.

 

[PeterDonis]

Besides you jumped from single physical measurement of single clock to statement about many clocks and "measurement of time".

No, pervect didn't do that. He said that people who think SC coordinates are privileged, do that.

pervect, have you ever heard about Begging the question fallacy?

He wasn't stating an assumption, he was stating a physical prediction of GR. That prediction doesn't involve any assumptions about whether, or where, static observers exist; you find that out by solving the EFE with the appropriate constraints. Again, it's the people who think SC coordinates are privileged who are begging the question, by assuming there have to be static observers everywhere instead of actually looking at the solution of the EFE to find out.

 

[PeterDonis]

While proper time of the clock is invariant the concept of "event horizon" and therefore event of "crossing the event horizon" might turn out to be not so clearly defined and slightly more coordinate and assumptions dependant than proper time of the clock.

Whether they "might" or not, they aren't; the event horizon is an invariant, global feature of the spacetime, and so are any events where particular worldlines cross the horizon. So this "problem" is not a problem.

 

[pervect]

CertainlyThere is certain philosophical problem with your line of reasoning. If observer doesn't exist we don't care about clocks. If clocks don't exist we still care that observer exists.

Actually, I think banishing the observer is a good idea. So I'd have to disagree with that "if the observer doesn't exist, we don't care about clocks". At least not in the sense that I'm talking about "an observer". "Observer" can have several meanings, the one you see to be suggesting is not at all the one I meant. I think the meaning I meant is made as clear as I can make it in the text. I''ll try to clarify - some.

In trying to make the exposition simple, entertaining, and easy to follow, I've probably sacrificed a lot of rigor. Quite possibly, even too much rigor. On the other hand, I've seen more rigorous explanations presented, which seem to just sail over everyone's head, or get ignored totally. (For instance when I mention Caroll's lecture notes. Or when I documented the historical shift in views on the topic in http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022919909683

, the noun immediately recalls to the mind this
puzzling circumstance: during more than four decades since the discovery of the “Schwarzschild solution,” the overwhelming majority of the relativists harbored the conviction that the region within the “Schwarzschild radius” was physically meaningless, and strove to show that it could not be accessed from the outer space. During the subsequent four decades, after a seminal and nearly forgotten paper [1] that Synge wrote in 1950, an equally overwhelming majority of them
came to the conviction that the same region was physically meaningful and accessible “without a bump” along geodesics

If this doesn't convince people that the practicing view that the event horizon is "inaccessible" is outdated, I don't know what will. This quote does take the approach of "appealing to authority", though.

So - I thought I'd try something else...to see if I could explain, not just quote the literature, but to explain the logic. Furthermore, to explain in a way that didn't require math. (If people did follow the math, in my opinion we wouldn't be having this argument. It's the math, IMO, that convinced all those physicists to change their position - not the words.)

Apparently, however, the result from my experiment was not very successful - at least to date.

I will give an example in the literature about the merits of "banishing the observer" - demonstrating that the idea is possible, that it exists in the literature, and providing the rigor and dryness that I did not provide.http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9508043 "Precis of General Relativity"

A method for making sure that the relativity effects are specified correctly
(according to Einstein’s General Relativity) can be described rather briefly.
It agrees with Ashby’s approach but omits all discussion of how, historically
or logically, this viewpoint was developed. It also omits all the detailed
calculations. It is merely a statement of principles.

One first banishes the idea of an “observer”. This idea aided Einstein
in building special relativity but it is confusing and ambiguous in general
relativity. Instead one divides the theoretical landscape into two categories.
One category is the mathematical/conceptual model of whatever is happening
that merits our attention. The other category is measuring instruments
and the data tables they provide.

I would note that the author doesn't claim that the method presented is "the one true and exclusive way" to understand relativity. Their claim is more along the line of it's a way that works, and gets you to the right answers.

The second point: Misner (and I) put coordinates in the first category, the category of the mathematical model of what is going on. This is the "map" not the "territory". We put proper time in the second category, the category of measuring instruments and what they measure.

Besides you jumped from single physical measurement of single clock to statement about many clocks and "measurement of time".

It _was_ a big jump.

However, the whole notion of the "clocks and rods" thing was intended to be a quick and non-rigorous summary of the traditional classical notions of the observer and his coordinate system, drawn from memory. (I suspect one can find some discussion along similar lines by Einstein, certainaly one can in MTW).

I intended it to be familiar, not something new. Since this particular observer - and - coordinate based approach doesn't actually work in this case, I didn't and don't really want to put in a lot of effort in justifying it. I'm trying to say"I think this approach is basically what you are doing, and while the idea has a lot of classical history to it, it will always fail to explain black holes, because the fundamental approach contains some false assumptions.

pervect, have you ever heard about Begging the question fallacy?

[/quote]

I just reviewed that, and I don't think I'm doing that.

[add]
Something else I should probably explain in greater detail, which is why there isn't any such thing as a stationary obserer at the event horizon. The reason is simple. The event horizion is a trapped, lightlike surface. So you can't have an "observer" there any more than you can have an "observer" sitting on a light beam.

THere's a PF Faq on why you can't have an observer ride along on a light beam. I hope this much is accepted by all, the only other thing you need to know then is that you can mark the event horizoin with a beam of light that sits there.

 

[harrylin]

FYI, concerning my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4193313&postcount=259 , PAllen insisted:

And again: I claim, along with others here, that there is no classical claim in the 2007 paper inconsistent with mathpages. This is based on understanding the math and background.[..]

I wrote to prof. Vachaspati to clarify if the classical findings in his paper are consistent with mathpages as PAllen thinks, while it is for me an obvious disagreement. His reply may be useful for some. I cited mathpages to him as follows:

"unavoidably [..] matter from the outside must reach the interior" because "an empty region around which matter "bunches up" outside an event horizon isn't viable", and "we arrive at a contradiction unless the value of m inside the horizon increases [..] in finite coordinate time." - http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm

Prof. Vachaspati comments (cited here with his permission):

Thanks for the interest. The issues you are discussing do seem to be all classical. Then, as you say, it is quite simple -- if you solve Einstein equations for the collapsing shell, it gives R=R_S only at infinite t.

I also asked him about his interpretation of t, and he answered:

It is true that t is a coordinate time but it is also the natural time coordinate for the asymptotic observer. In particular, the human life span is say ~100 years as measured in t. More to the point, however, is that the total energy of the collapsing body is emitted in some finite t, while the gravitational collapse takes infinite t.

Tanmay

 

[PAllen]

FYI, concerning my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4193313&postcount=259 , PAllen insisted:

I wrote to prof. Vachaspati to clarify if the classical findings in his paper are consistent with mathpages as PAllen thinks, while it is for me an obvious disagreement. His reply may be useful for some. I cited mathpages to him as follows:

"unavoidably [..] matter from the outside must reach the interior" because "an empty region around which matter "bunches up" outside an event horizon isn't viable", and "we arrive at a contradiction unless the value of m inside the horizon increases [..] in finite coordinate time." - http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm

Prof. Vachaspati comments (cited here with his permission):

Thanks for the interest. The issues you are discussing do seem to be all classical. Then, as you say, it is quite simple -- if you solve Einstein equations for the collapsing shell, it gives R=R_S only at infinite t.

I also asked him about his interpretation of t, and he answered:

It is true that t is a coordinate time but it is also the natural time coordinate for the asymptotic observer. In particular, the human life span is say ~100 years as measured in t. More to the point, however, is that the total energy of the collapsing body is emitted in some finite t, while the gravitational collapse takes infinite t.

Tanmay

Interesting, but it still leaves many question muddy.

Nothing he says about the classical solution is new or unusual, per se. Even, for example: "It is true that t is a coordinate time but it is also the natural time coordinate for the asymptotic observer" is also similar to statements in mathpages (see below), for example. I see no claim that the classical part is new, in result or interpretation, by itself. Then, the key point he makes to attach more fundamental meaning to the coordinate time result is: " More to the point, however, is that the total energy of the collapsing body is emitted in some finite t, while the gravitational collapse takes infinite t." . This is strictly a quantum claim - classically there is no emitted energy. This is precisely the statement that Padmnabhan disputes in the 2009 paper.

As for mathpages, I have addressed what are superficial readings of Keven Brown's sometimes complicated presentations style. For example, in addition to statements like the following (but note the point "paradox to be resolved"):

"Nevertheless, if mass accumulates near the exterior of a black hole's event horizon the gravitational radius of the combined system must eventually increase far enough to encompass the accumulated mass, leading unavoidably to the conclusion that matter from the outside must reach the interior, and it must do so in a way that is perceptible in finite coordinate time for a distant observer, which seems to directly conflict with Item 2 (and certainly seems inconsistent with the "frozen star" interpretation). To resolve this apparent paradox requires a careful examination of the definition of a black hole, and of the behavior of the Schwarzschild time coordinate near an event horizon."

You have statements like:

"We saw that the radial position of a test particle starting at radius r = 10m and t = 0 (for example) as a function of the particle’s proper time is a simple cycloid right down to r = 0, whereas if the same trajectory is described in terms of Schwarzschild coordinate time, the infalling object traverses through infinite coordinate time in order to reach the event horizon"

and: "The event horizon is in the future of every locus of constant Schwarzschild coordinate time, all the way to future infinity. In fact, the event horizon is part of future null infinity"

"Also, the Schwarzschild time coordinate is physically significant in the sense that it is the unique time coordinate in terms of which the spherically symmetrical solution is static, i.e., the metric coefficients are independent of time. In other words, the time coordinate is a Killing vector field. The existence of a singularity in a Killing vector has global significance, being a one-way causal boundary."

There are a number of specific statements in the mathpages description that I might take exception to as poorly worded, stretching a point, etc. But, I still see nothing either in mathpages or Vachaspati's strictly classical claims inconsistent with how I summarize the mainstream (which is also similar to how textbooks and Padmanabhan summarize it):

"Everyone agrees on infinite Schwarzschild coordinate time for black hole formation. Brown, and mainstream GR since 1960 supplements this statement with the understanding that this coordinate time has a limited meaning, and that if you ask what is predicted for the infalling matter you must conclude BH formation in finite clock time of the infalling clocks. And that there are many way besides SC coordinate time by which these events can be correlated with external events."

[Edit: consistent with the above, is that other researchers interpret the only significant content of the 2007 paper is the quantum claim that "evaporation completes before collapse". Either this is true, or there is nothing to the 2007 paper.]

 

[zonde]

Actually, I think banishing the observer is a good idea. So I'd have to disagree with that "if the observer doesn't exist, we don't care about clocks". At least not in the sense that I'm talking about "an observer". "Observer" can have several meanings, the one you see to be suggesting is not at all the one I meant. I think the meaning I meant is made as clear as I can make it in the text. I''ll try to clarify - some.

I am not sure I understand in what sense do you mean "observer". Your quote from http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9508043 "Precis of General Relativity" does not contain any explanation. It only says: 'One first banishes the idea of an “observer”.'

So let me explain in what sense I mean "observer" and why you can't banish "obsever" in the sense I mean it.
To do science we relay on scientific method. But how can we relate statements made about spacetime as a whole with scientific method? And as I see it we have to view worldline of someone who is using scientific method to build the model of the things he observes. And the question is what he can (and can't) observe according to the theory.

Besides we want worldline of an observer who is maximally similar to Earth observer so that we can compare our observations with theoretical predictions and potentially falsify the theory.

If this doesn't convince people that the practicing view that the event horizon is "inaccessible" is outdated, I don't know what will. This quote does take the approach of "appealing to authority", though.

This just demonstrates how unreliable is "appeal to authority" in this field.

It _was_ a big jump.

However, the whole notion of the "clocks and rods" thing was intended to be a quick and non-rigorous summary of the traditional classical notions of the observer and his coordinate system, drawn from memory. (I suspect one can find some discussion along similar lines by Einstein, certainaly one can in MTW).

I intended it to be familiar, not something new. Since this particular observer - and - coordinate based approach doesn't actually work in this case, I didn't and don't really want to put in a lot of effort in justifying it. I'm trying to say"I think this approach is basically what you are doing, and while the idea has a lot of classical history to it, it will always fail to explain black holes, because the fundamental approach contains some false assumptions.

Not sure that you understood me. You said:
A. The single reading on a single clock is about as simple as you get.
B. An "observer" is a much more complicated mental construct [than A].
C. B is much more demanding assumption than assuming basically that "clocks exist, and you can use them to measure time".

The way you say it it seems like you are implying that "single reading on a single clock exists" is as simple as "many clocks exist, and you can use them to measure time".

Well, NO.

I just reviewed that, and I don't think I'm doing that.

If you argue for possible existence of black hole then assuming that black hole (EH) exists is begging the question fallacy.

 

[Mike Holland]

Austin0, I gather that I did not reply to this post of yours. I have poseed this reply under the original topic, and am repeating it here.

Quote by Austin0
you say the falling observers clock is never stopped in either frame because the distant observers clock never reaches infinity.
I agree. but you seem to ignore the fact that this is only true in the region where the faller has NOT reached the singularity.
you then want to magically have the faller PASS the horizon without ever having reached it.
It appears you interpret time dilation in a way that creates alternate contradictory realities.
If your premise that reaching the horizon requires infinite coordinate time for the distant observer is correct, that means that at all points in that interval the times at the two locations will be related by the SC metric. Both observers will agree on these relative elapsed times and both observers will agree that the faller has not reached the horizon.


The answer here is that all points on the two time scales ARE related by the SC metric, all the points from 0 to infinity on the distant observer's clock are related to the points from 0 to T on the faller's clock, where T is his local time when he gets to the horizon. Obviously it is not a linear relationship, more like a tangent graph where tangent goes to infinity as angle goes to 90 degrees, and so they don't agree on relative elapsed times. Each sees the other's clock ticking at a different rate to his own, an ever increasing difference.

 

[Mike Holland]

In an invariant sense clocks do all run at the same rate. They all run at a rate of 1 second/light-second, in an invariant sense.

In order to make a statement that they run at different rates you already have to introduce a coordinate system with a simultaneity convention. Only then can you get clocks running at different rates (1/γ) proper-second/coordinate-second.

Yes, in their local proper time they all run at the same rate.

But consider the following thought experiment.

I will make two clocks that emit light pulses every second, and then place one at the bottom of a deep hole and one at the top. For convenience, I will assume that the Earth is not rotating, and that its mass is concentrated near the centre, so that gravity is a lot stronger at the botton of the hole.

Now I observe the light pulses coming from the two clocks, and find that they are not synchronised. I get 99 pulses on the bottom clock for every 100 on my local clock. So I infer that I have 1% gravitational time dilation present. In what way is this conclusion dependent on a coordinate system? If I position myself next to the bottom clock, I will see the same difference in rates. If I position myself 100 miles above the top clock, I will again get the same result. All I have done is count light pulses. If I am moving towards the two clocks or away from them, I may see them both pulsing faster or slower, but I will still see this 1% difference - every 100 flashes of the top clock the photons from the two clocks will arrive side by side, wherever I am along the line joining the two clocks.

So where have I assumed a simultaneity convention?

 

[PAllen]

Yes, in their local proper time they all run at the same rate.

But consider the following thought experiment.

I will make two clocks that emit light pulses every second, and then place one at the bottom of a deep hole and one at the top. For convenience, I will assume that the Earth is not rotating, and that its mass is concentrated near the centre, so that gravity is a lot stronger at the botton of the hole.

Now I observe the light pulses coming from the two clocks, and find that they are not synchronised. I get 99 pulses on the bottom clock for every 100 on my local clock. So I infer that I have 1% gravitational time dilation present. In what way is this conclusion dependent on a coordinate system? If I position myself next to the bottom clock, I will see the same difference in rates. If I position myself 100 miles above the top clock, I will again get the same result. All I have done is count light pulses. If I am moving towards the two clocks or away from them, I may see them both pulsing faster or slower, but I will still see this 1% difference - every 100 flashes of the top clock the photons from the two clocks will arrive side by side, wherever I am along the line joining the two clocks.

So where have I assumed a simultaneity convention?

This is direct observation. However, now Let's ask what Einstein's 1915 equations predict about a clock in inertial free fall towards a collapsing body of sufficient mass (inertial clock), that is engaged in communication with a distant clock. As the inertial clock nears the surface:

- The signals it gets from the distant clock may show the same rate as its own clock, be moderately slower than its own clock, or be faster - all depending on where it's fall started from, and any initial radial speed it had. This remains true all the way to the singularity - there will never be infinite blue shift measured by the the free fall clock based on signals it gets from the distant clock - right up to the singularity.

- The distant clock sees the inertial clock slow down, effectively stop, and suffer infinite red shift.

There is no contradiction because the distant observer can calculate that GR says the latter is due to gravity's effect on light and all other possible signals; and GR makes a completely unambiguous prediction about what the inertial clock will measure (even if the distant clock can never access those measurements). The ability to define gravitational time dilation disappears on approach to (and past) the horizon because there are no static (hovering) observers in reference to which it can be defined and separated from Doppler.

 

[Dale]

Now I observe the light pulses coming from the two clocks, and find that they are not synchronised. I get 99 pulses on the bottom clock for every 100 on my local clock. So I infer that I have 1% gravitational time dilation present. In what way is this conclusion dependent on a coordinate system?

This is an illogical inference. The same observed facts fit with other coordinate systems where the gravitational time dilation is not 1%.

 

[PeterDonis]

If you argue for possible existence of black hole then assuming that black hole (EH) exists is begging the question fallacy.

He didn't assume the EH exists. The existence of the EH is not assumed, it's derived by solving the EFE. What pervect was doing was pointing out an assumption made by people who deny that the EH exists: they assume that there must be a static observer everywhere in the spacetime. If you actually work through the solution of the EFE for a spherically symmetric vacuum spacetime, you find that that assumption is false. But that's not *assuming* anything; it's *deriving* it.

 

[PeterDonis]

Each sees the other's clock ticking at a different rate to his own, an ever increasing difference.

I commented on this in the other thread, but I'll repeat it here: this isn't quite correct. SC coordinates can be thought of as the "natural" ones for the distant observer, but they are not the "natural" ones for the infalling observer. So it's not really correct to equate SC coordinate values to anything the infalling observer "sees".

 

[PeterDonis]

So where have I assumed a simultaneity convention?

You've implicitly adopted one, because you've specified that both clocks are at rest relative to each other. For that special case, there is a common simultaneity convention that is "natural" to both clocks, and you've defined "gravitational time dilation" as being relative to that convention.

But as soon as you have one clock moving relative to the other, you no longer have a common simultaneity convention that's "natural" to both of them, so your definition of "gravitational time dilation" no longer works.

 

[pervect]

So let me explain in what sense I mean "observer" and why you can't banish "obsever" in the sense I mean it.
To do science we relay on scientific method. But how can we relate statements made about spacetime as a whole with scientific method? And as I see it we have to view worldline of someone who is using scientific method to build the model of the things he observes. And the question is what he can (and can't) observe according to the theory.

Besides we want worldline of an observer who is maximally similar to Earth observer so that we can compare our observations with theoretical predictions and potentially falsify the theory.

I would call the things one can measure along a single worldline "measurements". An example of what I am calling a measurement would be something similar to this. "At a proper time of xx.xxx by my clock, a signal of frequency yyy was recorded , identified as being from object zzz. The signal was decoded as having a timestamp (from object zzz) of uu.uuu.

Without going completely into the definition of an observer, I'll relate one quantity of interest that's relevant to the discussion that is not in the form of such a measurement.

This is "Event P is simultaneous with event Q".

Making such a statement requires more than just a "measurement" as I have described it. One could say that one received a signal (as above) from P and a signal from Q at the same time, but it's easy to see that this does not imply that P and Q are simultaneous - for instance P might be further away from you than Q, in which case the simultaneous receipt of signals would show that Q occurred before P.

I'm saying that making such a statement requires more structure than a "measurement" does. I was going a bit into the detail of what sort of extra structure was required - I'll repeat myself on this point a bit later.

This just demonstrates how unreliable is "appeal to authority" in this field.

It certainly doesn't demonstrate that to me! I'm not quite sure what you are thinking here. I will try to resist the obvious interpretation of "I don't like it when you bring up things that are contrary with my position."

Not sure that you understood me. You said:
A. The single reading on a single clock is about as simple as you get.
B. An "observer" is a much more complicated mental construct [than A].
C. B is much more demanding assumption than assuming basically that "clocks exist, and you can use them to measure time".

Yes. I hope the example I've given above explains the specific point in mind. I'll take the opportunity to describe in detail the set of measurements and the extra structure needed to say that "event P is simultaneous with event Q" beyond specifying the worldline of a single observer.

The particular suggestion I made (which is more or less the standard way of defining simultaneity) was that one had a chain of observers, all synchronizing their clocks by exchanging signals and using the Einstein Convention. This process of synchronzing also in general requires rate-adjusting in GR. When, according to this chain of observers , the adjusted reading for the observer in the chain co-located with P is the same as the adjusted reading for the observer in the chain colocated with Q is the same, the events are simultaneous.

The sub-point is that this statement is NOT in general independent of what chain of observers you use between P and Q. So one way of defining this extra structure, needed to talk about simultaneity, is to define this chain of observers. Which requires more than specifying the worldline of a single observer.

The way you say it it seems like you are implying that "single reading on a single clock exists" is as simple as "many clocks exist, and you can use them to measure time".

Well, NO.If you argue for possible existence of black hole then assuming that black hole (EH) exists is begging the question fallacy.

I don't feel like I should or have to argue for the "possible existence of black holes". Black holes are a part of the understanding of physics of GR. If you think that's what I am, or should be doing, that I'm "debating the existence of black holes", it may be time for me to abandon the thread.

 

[Austin0]

While you're asking Vachaspati to make clarifications, since it appears he might be the rare person you might actually listen to (I'm sorry, but I don't think you've actually listened to any of the 3-4 SA's on this thread), you might ask him if he agrees that the proper time it takes for a free-falling observer starting at rest at a large (but finite) distance away from a black hole to reach the event horizon is finite.

You might also ask him if said proper time can be observed, not directly, but as a limit, by an external observer.

True or false:
The integrated proper time of an unbounded accelerating system to the limit as velocity approaches c is a finite Δ\tau?

 

[Austin0]

This is an illogical inference. The same observed facts fit with other coordinate systems where the gravitational time dilation is not 1%.

Could you give an example of other systems with the same observations but different conclusions??

 

[Austin0]

Quote by Mike Holland

Yes, in their local proper time they all run at the same rate.

But consider the following thought experiment.

I will make two clocks that emit light pulses every second, and then place one at the bottom of a deep hole and one at the top. For convenience, I will assume that the Earth is not rotating, and that its mass is concentrated near the centre, so that gravity is a lot stronger at the botton of the hole.

Now I observe the light pulses coming from the two clocks, and find that they are not synchronised. I get 99 pulses on the bottom clock for every 100 on my local clock. So I infer that I have 1% gravitational time dilation present. In what way is this conclusion dependent on a coordinate system? If I position myself next to the bottom clock, I will see the same difference in rates. If I position myself 100 miles above the top clock, I will again get the same result. All I have done is count light pulses. If I am moving towards the two clocks or away from them, I may see them both pulsing faster or slower, but I will still see this 1% difference - every 100 flashes of the top clock the photons from the two clocks will arrive side by side, wherever I am along the line joining the two clocks.

So where have I assumed a simultaneity convention?

This is direct observation. However, now Let's ask what Einstein's 1915 equations predict about a clock in inertial free fall towards a collapsing body of sufficient mass (inertial clock), that is engaged in communication with a distant clock. As the inertial clock nears the surface:

- The signals it gets from the distant clock may show the same rate as its own clock, be moderately slower than its own clock, or be faster - all depending on where it's fall started from, and any initial radial speed it had. This remains true all the way to the singularity - there will never be infinite blue shift measured by the the free fall clock based on signals it gets from the distant clock - right up to the singularity.

- The distant clock sees the inertial clock slow down, effectively stop, and suffer infinite red shift.

There is no contradiction because the distant observer can calculate that GR says the latter is due to gravity's effect on light and all other possible signals; and GR makes a completely unambiguous prediction about what the inertial clock will measure (even if the distant clock can never access those measurements). The ability to define gravitational time dilation disappears on approach to (and past) the horizon because there are no static (hovering) observers in reference to which it can be defined and separated from Doppler.

Isn't it actually only AT the horizon where there are no possible hypothetical static observers to use as a basis for an evaluation of relative dilation?

You in other threads have stated that the infaller's clock in the vicinity of the horizon would be ticking at roughly the same rate as the infinity observer's and that signals received from the distant observer would not be blue shifted , in fact would be roughly equivalent or slightly red shifted .
Could you explain the basis for this evaluation?

 

[Dale]

Could you give an example of other systems with the same observations but different conclusions??

Sure. Gullstrand Painleve coordinates. The shell observers are moving in GP coordinates, so some of the 1% change in frequency will be attributed to velocity time dilation rather than gravitational.

 

[PeterDonis]

The shell observers are moving in GP coordinates

No, they're not. The curves of constant r, theta, phi in SC coordinates are also curves of constant r, theta, phi in GP coordinates. This is also true of Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. Shell observers would be "moving" in Kruskal coordinates.

 

[PAllen]

Quote by Mike Holland


Isn't it actually only AT the horizon where there are no possible hypothetical static observers to use as a basis for an evaluation of relative dilation?

No. There are no timelike world lines that can maintain a fixed radial position anywhere inside, or at, the horizon. This is trivially verifiable from the metric.

You in other threads have stated that the infaller's clock in the vicinity of the horizon would be ticking at roughly the same rate as the infinity observer's and that signals received from the distant observer would not be blue shifted , in fact would be roughly equivalent or slightly red shifted .
Could you explain the basis for this evaluation?

The redshift observed looking out as you cross the horizon basically depends on where you started free fall from (assuming you start with no initial radial velocity). If you free fall from 'infinity', then you see redshift from the distance as you cross the horizon. If free fall starting from a static position near the horizon, you see blueshift as you cross. One thing you never see is infinite blueshift.

 

[Austin0]

Austin0, I gather that I did not reply to this post of yours. I have poseed this reply under the original topic, and am repeating it here.

Quote by Austin0
you say the falling observers clock is never stopped in either frame because the distant observers clock never reaches infinity.
I agree. but you seem to ignore the fact that this is only true in the region where the faller has NOT reached the singularity.
you then want to magically have the faller PASS the horizon without ever having reached it.
It appears you interpret time dilation in a way that creates alternate contradictory realities.
If your premise that reaching the horizon requires infinite coordinate time for the distant observer is correct, that means that at all points in that interval the times at the two locations will be related by the SC metric. Both observers will agree on these relative elapsed times and both observers will agree that the faller has not reached the horizon.


The answer here is that all points on the two time scales ARE related by the SC metric, all the points from 0 to infinity on the distant observer's clock are related to the points from 0 to T on the faller's clock, where T is his local time when he gets to the horizon. Obviously it is not a linear relationship, more like a tangent graph where tangent goes to infinity as angle goes to 90 degrees, and so they don't agree on relative elapsed times. Each sees the other's clock ticking at a different rate to his own, an ever increasing difference.

This is NOT an answer of any kind.
It is simply an agreement and restatement of exactly what I said which is not in controversy.
But you stopped short of the actual point.
I.e. " Both observers will agree on these relative elapsed times and both observers will agree that the faller has not reached the horizon."

SO in principle there is a finite point, short of the horizon, where both observers will agree that the distant clock reads 10¹²years and the inertial clock reads some relatively short time (in related threads approx. 1 day has been mentioned for freefall proper time to EH) correct?
This is a rational application of the metric as it pertains to and in both frames, agreed?

And of course there is in principle yet another point even closer to the horizon etc., etc.

SO again what is the significance of the 1 day elapsed time on the falling clock??

How do you manage to turn this into an idea that the free faller reaches the horizon in some relatively short time in the real world. I.e. the majority of the universe which is outside the EH and relatively static.

 

[PAllen]

This is NOT an answer of any kind.
It is simply an agreement and restatement of exactly what I said which is not in controversy.
But you stopped short of the actual point.
I.e. " Both observers will agree on these relative elapsed times and both observers will agree that the faller has not reached the horizon."

SO in principle there is a finite point, short of the horizon, where both observers will agree that the distant clock reads 10¹²years and the inertial clock reads some relatively short time (in related threads approx. 1 day has been mentioned for freefall proper time to EH) correct?
This is a rational application of the metric as it pertains to and in both frames, agreed?

And of course there is in principle yet another point even closer to the horizon etc., etc.

SO again what is the significance of the 1 day elapsed time on the falling clock??

How do you manage to turn this into an idea that the free faller reaches the horizon in some relatively short time in the real world. I.e. the majority of the universe which is outside the EH and relatively static.

I'm not sure the context, but a free fall observer will never see something like 10^12 years on distant clock. As I've explained, if they start free fall from relatively far away, they will see the distant clock fall behind theirs (but not by a lot).

 

[stevendaryl]

Could you give an example of other systems with the same observations but different conclusions??

Sure.

Near the surface of the Earth, the metric can be described approximately using the line element ds^2 = (1+gX)^2 dT^2 - dX^2 where X is the height above the surface, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

In these coordinates, we can compute the "rate" \dfrac{d \tau}{dT} for a clock at rest at height X:

\dfrac{d \tau}{dT} = (1+gX)

So higher clocks (larger X) have a higher rate. In particular, if an observer at sea level sends a signal once per millisecond (according to his clock) toward an observer on top of a mountain, the arrival times for the signals will be slower than one per second, according to the clock at the top of the mountain.

Now, transform coordinates to free-fall coordinates x,t defined by:

x = (1/g + X) cosh(gT) - 1/g
t = (1/g + X) sinh(gT)

In terms of these coordinates, the metric looks like:

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2

This is the metric of Special Relativity. In these coordinates, there is no "gravitational time dilation". The locations of clocks have no effect on their rates. In particular, a clock at sea level will have the same rate as a clock on top of a mountain. Initially.

So, how, in terms of these coordinates, does one explain the fact that signals sent once per millisecond from an observer at sea level arrive on top of a mountain at a rate lower than that? Well, in the free-falling coordinate system, the two observers are accelerating upward. Each signal sent by the observer at sea level must travel farther than the last to reach the observer on the mountain. So the free-falling coordinate system attributes the difference in send rates and receive rates purely to Doppler shift, not to time dilation. (At least initially.)

 

[Mike Holland]

No, they're not. The curves of constant r, theta, phi in SC coordinates are also curves of constant r, theta, phi in GP coordinates. This is also true of Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates. Shell observers would be "moving" in Kruskal coordinates.

Now I am confused. Moving relative to what? Are you saying they would be moving relative to each other in Kruskal coordinates? I know exactly how far my clocks are from each other, and that is not changing.

I can see how one could "make" them move. One could place an elastic ruler between them, and then stretch it. Is this what Kruskal coordinates do?

Wouldn't observers in other frames also see the 1% difference in signal frequencies, and come to the same conclusion about relative dilation between the clocks, even though both clocks might be running fast or slow for them?

 

[PeterDonis]

Now I am confused. Moving relative to what?

Relative to the coordinate chart. I put "moving" in quotes because in the sense in which I was using that word (which was the sense in which I believe DaleSpam was using it) "moving" just means "has spatial coordinates that change with time". "Shell observers" have the same spatial coordinates for all time in the SC, GP, and EF (Eddington-Finkelstein) charts, but not in the Kruskal chart. However, this is obviously a coordinate-dependent notion and doesn't say anything in itself about the physics.

I can see how one could "make" them move. One could place an elastic ruler between them, and then stretch it. Is this what Kruskal coordinates do?

No. Kruskal coordinates are designed to make the causal structure of radial motion in the spacetime clear, by making light rays look like 45 degree lines. They also make the worldlines of shell observers, who stay at the same Schwarzschild r coordinate for all time, look like hyperbolas, similar to the way the worldlines of Rindler observers look in Minkowski coordinates. But the Kruskal spatial coordinate itself doesn't really have an easy interpretation in terms of "rulers", at least not globally. Locally, any small patch of the Kruskal chart looks like a small patch of a Minkowski chart, but the scaling of the time and radial coordinates in a small patch varies in the Kruskal chart, where it does not in the Minkowski chart.

Wouldn't observers in other frames also see the 1% difference in signal frequencies, and come to the same conclusion about relative dilation between the clocks, even though both clocks might be running fast or slow for them?

Observers at rest relative to both clocks would see the same signal difference. Observers moving relative to the clocks would not, because there would be a Doppler shift due to the relative motion in addition to the gravitational redshift/blueshift (at least, that's the interpretation that shell observers would put on the observations). Here "moving" means moving in an invariant sense; the simplest way to test for relative motion in this sense is to see if the round-trip travel time of a light beam sent between the observer and either one of the clocks changes with time.

 

[PeterDonis]

SO again what is the significance of the 1 day elapsed time on the falling clock??

Um, that it's a direct observable? This has been answered before.

How do you manage to turn this into an idea that the free faller reaches the horizon in some relatively short time in the real world.

I.e. the majority of the universe which is outside the EH and relatively static.

How do you justify your claim that this is all that "the real world" consists of?

 

[Mike Holland]

OK, I wasn't serious about the elastic ruler.

Observers at rest relative to both clocks would see the same signal difference. Observers moving relative to the clocks would not, because there would be a Doppler shift due to the relative motion in addition to the gravitational redshift/blueshift (at least, that's the interpretation that shell observers would put on the observations). Here "moving" means moving in an invariant sense; the simplest way to test for relative motion in this sense is to see if the round-trip travel time of a light beam sent between the observer and either one of the clocks changes with time.

That's what I meant about the clocks being red or blue shifted for other observers. They might be affected by local gravitational fields or the lack thereof, or by relatrive velocity. But these effects would apply to observations of the light pulses from the two clocks equally, and they would still see the 1% difference in clock rates, and come to the same conclusion about the relative time dilation between the two clocks.

 

[Austin0]

Quote by Austin0

But are you not attributing equal physical meaning to the subjective time of the infaller??

No, we are attributing physical meaning to the directly observable proper time on the infaller's clock. That is not "subjective", except in the trivial sense that it's that particular observer who directly observes it. But that directly observable number is an invariant; anyone can calculate it using any coordinate chart they like that covers the appropriate portion of the infaller's worldline, and they will get the same answer..

"we are attributing physical meaning to the directly observable proper time on the infaller's clock." But this is exactly what I said. And this is exactly the meaning i attributed to the word subjective. I.e. Pertaining to and relevant only to that frame.
I was not suggesting that it was not invariant although I have question regarding the mathematical application of the limit in this case , which by the way I mentioned in another post to you, to which you did not respond.

Furthermore, the proper time on the infaller's clock is only being used to make assertions about what happens along the infaller's worldline, i.e., along the worldline where that proper time is directly observable. The coordinate time is being used, by those who make assertions about what it "means", to make assertions about what happens *elsewhere* than on the worldline of an observer "at infinity", for whom coordinate time = proper time. It's the fact that something that can only be observed on one particular worldline (and on an idealized one at that, since it's the worldline of the observer "at infinity") is being used to make assertions about the entire spacetime, that creates the problem.

But this is clearly not the case. You, et al. are not asserting that the infaller's clock will read some relatively short elapsed
proper time at some impossibly distant future time in the real world ( the static world outside the EH) to which I would have no logical problem.
On the contrary you all are asserting that the proper time of the infaller, per se, has physical meaning in the world at large. I.e. That it reaches the horizon in some short finite time.

Quote by Austin0 View Post

Time dilation is inherently a relative evaluation. What difference does it make what the elapsed time on the falling clock is.

The assertion that's being made is not about "time dilation". It's not relative. It's an assertion that the infaller's worldline continues all the way down to the singularity, because the infaller's proper time is finite and the spacetime curvature in the infaller's vicinity is finite all the way down to the singularity. Those are physical invariants--direct observations that the infaller can make. For the claim not to be true, physics along the infaller's worldline would suddenly have to start working differently at the horizon, for no apparent reason. That's why it makes a difference what the elapsed time on the falling clock is.

But of course the physics along the infaller's worldline does suddenly start working differently at the horizon. Light cannot escape outward from inside this point. The radial speed of light is zero at this point. On what do you base an assumption that this geometry has no effect on the motion of the infaller?
On what do you base an assumption that even if the falling clock reaches this point that it would in fact continue ticking at all? Is this something that is explicitly derived directly from the EFE?

Regarding the fundamental black hole formed from supercondenced mass , is it not somewhat controverisial whether or not a final singularity would form at r=0 as infered from the EFE?

Quote by Austin0 View Post

Would you disagree with this?

The relationship between the elapsed time on the infaller's clock and the coordinate time is fine for the portion of the infaller's trajectory that is above the horizon. And yes, both observers will agree that the infaller has not yet reached the horizon, *on that portion of his trajectory*.

But when the infaller reaches the horizon, he "disappears" from the distant observer's coordinates, and from his "line of sight", since light rays emitted at or inside the horizon can't get back out to the distant observer. The problem arises when people try to translate "the infaller disappears from the distant observer's sight at the horizon" into "the infaller never reaches the horizon, period". That's not a valid translation.

So you agree that the metric does apply and have meaning above the horizon.

So virtually any time, however distant in the future, we may choose, you would agree that according to the metric the infaller has not reached the horizon even though there is a vanishingly small difference between the elapsed time at this point and the hypothetical delta time at the horizon? Both frames would agree on this.. yes?:??
SO how do you arrive at a conclusion that the infaller reaches the horizon in a relatively short time as far as we are concerned if in fact it is already determined and agreed that at exceedingly distant future times the faller has NOT YET reached the horizon?

 

[Austin0]

I'm not sure the context, but a free fall observer will never see something like 10^12 years on distant clock. As I've explained, if they start free fall from relatively far away, they will see the distant clock fall behind theirs (but not by a lot).

\tau= t(1-2M/r)^1/2(1-v²/c²)^1/2

Do you think that this is not a valid equation relating distant static time t to infalling proper time?