On the nature of the infinite fall toward the EH

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rjbeery
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fall Infinite Nature
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the theoretical scenario of rescuing an observer (Alice) who has entered free fall toward the event horizon (EH) of a black hole, while another observer (Bob) attempts to reach her after a delay. The conversation delves into the implications of relativity, light signals, and the nature of event horizons in the context of general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if Bob can survive any g-force, he might reach Alice before she crosses the EH, but there may be a critical point beyond which rescue is impossible, depending on the time T_b and initial position R0.
  • Others argue that there exists a "last flash" of light emitted by Bob that Alice can see before crossing the horizon, suggesting that for times greater than this, Bob cannot send signals to Alice.
  • A later reply questions the existence of a calculable "last flash," suggesting that if such a flash exists, it would allow Bob to definitively know when Alice crosses the EH, which contradicts some understandings of black hole physics.
  • Some participants assert that Alice does receive a last signal from Bob upon crossing the horizon, which is part of her past light cone, while Bob cannot receive signals from Alice once she crosses the horizon.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that if a photon cannot reach Alice before she crosses the EH, then neither can Bob, emphasizing the limitations of light signals in this scenario.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of Hawking radiation, with some participants asserting that it does not apply to the Schwarzschild geometry and that classical general relativity should be distinguished from theories that include quantum corrections.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the impact of Hawking radiation on the scenario, with references to differing opinions on whether it prevents matter from crossing the horizon.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the possibility of rescuing Alice and the implications of light signals. There is no consensus on whether a "last flash" exists or on the role of Hawking radiation in this context.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of event horizons, the assumptions regarding the nature of light signals, and the unresolved implications of quantum effects in the context of classical general relativity.

  • #541
.Scott said:
So when material is said to fall into the singularity, it's not a movement through space but though time?

Correct. Whether or not the object moves through "space" as well depends on what coordinates you adopt; most common coordinate charts have the infalling object moving through space as well as it falls. The key point is that the reason the singularity is unavoidable once

.Scott said:
But is it possible to reach this singularity without also reaching an r=0 position? I suspect the answer is yes.

You suspect incorrectly. The answer is "mu": the question itself is not well-defined, because r = 0 is not a "position"; it's an instant of time. It's true that there are many possible spatial positions that you could be in when you reach this instant of time, just as there are many possible spatial positions you could be in when you reach next Tuesday at precisely noon GMT. But *all* of the spatial positions you could be in when you reach the singularity are labeled with r = 0, just as all of the spatial positions you could be in when you reach next Tuesday at precisely noon GMT are labeled as "noon GMT". The label "r = 0" labels an instant of time, not a place in space.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #542
.Scott said:
If Alice is pointing her flashlight outward, Bob can catch up to some of this light after he falls through the event horizon.

Correct. But when he catches up to it, he (and it) will be at a *smaller* value of ##r## then Alice was when she emitted the light. So the light does fall inward towards the singularity; it just falls slower than Alice does, so Bob can catch up to it.
 
  • #543
PeterDonis said:
Correct. Whether or not the object moves through "space" as well depends on what coordinates you adopt; most common coordinate charts have the infalling object moving through space as well as it falls. The key point is that the reason the singularity is unavoidable once
If the object is traveling through time to reach the singularity, should it take a shorter or longer period of time to reach it depending on when the object starts it journey?

PeterDonis said:
You suspect incorrectly. The answer is "mu": the question itself is not well-defined, because r = 0 is not a "position"; it's an instant of time. It's true that there are many possible spatial positions that you could be in when you reach this instant of time, just as there are many possible spatial positions you could be in when you reach next Tuesday at precisely noon GMT. But *all* of the spatial positions you could be in when you reach the singularity are labeled with r = 0, just as all of the spatial positions you could be in when you reach next Tuesday at precisely noon GMT are labeled as "noon GMT". The label "r = 0" labels an instant of time, not a place in space.
Excellent. Then why is extreme spaghettification presumed?
 
  • #544
.Scott said:
If the object is traveling through time to reach the singularity

It's only traveling through time in the same sense that everything "travels through time"; the infaller's "travel through time" to the singularity is no different from your "travel through time" to tomorrow.

.Scott said:
should it take a shorter or longer period of time to reach it depending on when the object starts it journey?

Not depending on when it starts, no. The time to fall depends on how far above the hole's horizon the object starts.

.Scott said:
Then why is extreme spaghettification presumed?

It's not presumed, it's derived by solving the Einstein Field Equation. The solution that applies to a black hole shows that tidal gravity increases without bound as the singularity is approached.
 
  • #545
.Scott said:
This just in: Stephen Hawking has completely remodeled black holes, eliminating the event horizon and spaghettification and replacing it with a "wall of fire".

He just replaced a true horizon with an apparent horizon, which makes virtually no difference to discussions on this thread. His paper rejects the firewall hypothesis. It would help to actually read the paper.
 
  • #546
PAllen said:
He just replaced a true horizon with an apparent horizon, which makes virtually no difference to discussions on this thread. His paper rejects the firewall hypothesis. It would help to actually read the paper.
When I first posted, I couldn't find a link to the original paper. But now, here it is:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf
I'm not sure whether it makes a difference or not. He's saying that below this apparent horizon is a chaotic layer with the ability to so scramble energy that, in effect, information is lost. That doesn't sound like a healthy place to be.
 
  • #547
.Scott said:
When I first posted, I couldn't find a link to the original paper. But now, here it is:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf
I'm not sure whether it makes a difference or not. He's saying that below this apparent horizon is a chaotic layer with the ability to so scramble energy that, in effect, information is lost. That doesn't sound like a healthy place to be.

It may not be healthy, but it is just a result of noting that the classical no hair theorems say nothing about interior of apparent horizon (they describe exterior observations), and real collapses can't have perfect symmetries, so the interior will chaotically contain information about the details. Note, he claims information is not lost, only effectively inaccessible in the same sense as a chaotic classical system. My point is that macroscopically, his new picture is indistinguishable from a classical BH externally. Fall through the horizon is macroscopically the same as well. The difference is that the idea of an extended smooth interior fall until close to the singularity for an old, isolated, supermassive BH is no longer expected.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
6K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K