Relativistic Effects of a Black Hole

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relativistic effects experienced by observers near and inside a black hole, particularly focusing on the event horizon. Participants explore theoretical implications, observational perspectives, and the nature of black hole thermodynamics, including concepts like Hawking radiation and the firewall conjecture.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that an observer falling into a black hole might perceive the universe around them differently than an external observer, questioning whether they would see the universe scattered or altered in some way.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of objects crossing the event horizon, with some arguing that they pass through while others suggest they are destroyed, leading to questions about the relativistic effects observed by an infalling observer.
  • One participant mentions that infalling light gains energy, which could affect the perception of the universe for an observer falling into a black hole.
  • The concept of black hole complementarity is introduced, suggesting that different observers may have valid but conflicting accounts of events occurring at the event horizon.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the firewall conjecture, with some suggesting it is taken seriously by experts while others believe it ultimately fails.
  • There is a discussion about the relativistic effects that an observer, such as Alice, would experience as she approaches and crosses the event horizon, including potential observations of Hawking radiation.
  • Some participants emphasize that relativistic effects are only apparent when comparing different reference frames, complicating the understanding of events from a single observer's perspective.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of observations made by an infalling observer or the validity of the firewall conjecture. Multiple competing views remain regarding the relativistic effects and the fate of objects at the event horizon.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexities and unresolved aspects of black hole physics, particularly concerning the definitions and assumptions surrounding the event horizon and the nature of observations made by different observers.

m_robertson
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
So, I was thinking about this the other day. If we watch material approaching near the event horizon of a black hole get scattered all over the place, then would the opposite be seen for an observer falling into a black hole? Instead of us seeing them scattered all over the place, would they see the universe around them get scattered all over the place instead? Because if for the observer falling into the black hole they notice no significant changes in space-time, then surely according to relativity it must the the universe which changes instead?

I remember the debate that the thermodynamic properties of a black hole, such as, heat, entropy and electromagnetic radiation, do not reflect the real contents of the black hole, so if the observer was able to make measurements of the universe around them, how would it look from their perspective and what kind of measurements would they make? Would the universe appear hotter, with higher entropy and stronger electromagnetic radiation instead?
 
Space news on Phys.org
What do you mean by "scattered all over the place"?

Note - infalling light gains energy.
Don't forget time dilation etc.
 
One argument says an object passes through the event horizon, the other argument says it is destroyed at the event horizon, if both are true then there must be equal and opposite relativistic effects (assuming a person within a black hole could observe and measure the outside world), which is what I'm enquiring about.
 
See: Black Hole Complementarity

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question was designed to guide you ... what is it about the presentation in the video that suggests that things are both destroyed at the event horizon and also pass through it?
 
Hmmm no?
I think you have misunderstood what the video is about.

Recall - everything in relativity depends on the observer.
Alice approaching the event horizon passes through - presumably seeing a curtain glowing with Hawking radiation, and Bob, a long way away, sees the thermalized radiation that is sent back. Only one thing happens in each reference frame. Can you find a frame in which both things must happen, bearing in mind that no observer is omniscient?
 
Simon Bridge said:
Alice approaching the event horizon passes through - presumably seeing a curtain glowing with Hawking radiation, and Bob, a long way away, sees the thermalized radiation that is sent back.
Hmmm, what means "a curtain glowing with Hawking radiation"?
I think a freely falling observer will see the Hawking radiation blue-shifted. And besides that he will see nothing special while passing through the event horizon.
 
See link post #5.
 
  • #10
Simon Bridge said:
See link post #5.
Thanks, I wonder how serious the firewall conjecture is considered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
timmdeeg said:
Thanks, I wonder how serious the firewall conjecture is considered.
How would you go about finding out?
Have you tried doing a literature review?
 
  • #12
The firewall conjecture is interesting, even attractive at some level. But, I think it ultimately fails. Applying a naïve form of complementarity, it might appear the external universe is time accelerated and blue shifted toward infinity for an infalling observer crossing the event horizon. This is untrue. Actually the exterior universe is red shifted asymptotically towards z=2. See http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/blackholes.html#q11 for a thumbnail discussion.
 
  • #13
Chronos said:
The firewall conjecture is interesting, even attractive at some level. But, I think it ultimately fails. Applying a naïve form of complementarity, it might appear the external universe is time accelerated and blue shifted toward infinity for an infalling observer crossing the event horizon. This is untrue. Actually the exterior universe is red shifted asymptotically towards z=2. See http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/blackholes.html#q11 for a thumbnail discussion.
Thanks for these hints and the very interesting link. I will be in the mountains for a while and might come back to this.
 
  • #14
Black holes are not very intuitive. That explains why so many related papers are still being published.
 
  • #15
The black hole firewall argument(s) is taken very seriously by most experts, and at this time, no resolution to the paradox exists.

The general 'feeling' is that it probably is untrue, and that complementarity holds at some level, but the details are still very much a work in progress.
 
  • #16
Simon Bridge said:
Hmmm no?
I think you have misunderstood what the video is about.

Recall - everything in relativity depends on the observer.
Alice approaching the event horizon passes through - presumably seeing a curtain glowing with Hawking radiation, and Bob, a long way away, sees the thermalized radiation that is sent back. Only one thing happens in each reference frame. Can you find a frame in which both things must happen, bearing in mind that no observer is omniscient?
Sorry for the late reply. Both things don't happen in the same frame, they happen in two separate frames of reference but according to relativity both accounts are true.

The question I'm asking is, if Alice passes through the event horizon unharmed, then what relativistic effects does she, or would she hypothetically speaking, observe in the universe around her as she passes through the event horizon? If we measure the event horizon and find heat content as well as other forms of radiation (which according to most views of science we would do), then we could assume that she hit the firewall and was destroyed at the event horizon. But if Alice actually passes through the event horizon unharmed then she must observe at least some relativistic phenomenon around her as she passes through the event horizon. She appears to have hit the firewall in our frame of reference, but in her frame of reference nothing special happens, so to her would it appear as if we hit a firewall instead? Or perhaps an "icewall?"
 
Last edited:
  • #17
m_robertson said:
Sorry for the late reply. Both things don't happen in the same frame, they happen in two separate frames of reference but according to relativity both accounts are true.

The question I'm asking is, if Alice passes through the event horizon unharmed, then what relativistic effects does she, or would she hypothetically speaking, observe in the universe around her as she passes through the event horizon?
That question is explicitly answered in the video in the context of the apparent paradox.

I also gave you a link that discusses what sort of effects she will experience.
To her, the Schwarzschild radius is no different from any other spot in space as far as general travel is concerned. Presumably she will be able to detect the hawking radiation from around there as she approaches it (someone correct me). What sort of effects did you have in mind?

Relativistic effects are not normally observed directly - they become apparent only when you have to compare two reference frames. i.e. the only time the twins paradox is important is when the twins meet to compare notes. In that case, they both agree about which twin is the younger, but disagree about how this happened. If the twins never communicated, they'd go on "seeing" the other as the younger one... and the "paradox" is unresolved from the POV of a hypothetical omniscient observer who can "see" both situations "at the same time".

In this example, Alice and Bob can never meet - not even in principle.
The point the speaker in the video is trying to make is that the conflict is only apparent from the POV of someone omniscient.

This is work in progress mind you - all the vid is saying in the end is that it is a little early to abandon the picture held since the 40's (?)
 
  • #18
Simon Bridge said:
Note - infalling light gains energy.

Can you explain that for me.
 
  • #20
Simon Bridge said:
Put simply - everything that falls exchanges gravitational potential energy for kinetic energy.
Reference frame is important here - look up "gravitational blue shift".
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=14285

Thank you so much Simon.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Black hole mass coupled to expansion -- astrophysical source of dark energy?
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
High School Questions about the Eddington Limit and Super - Eddington black holes
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Undergrad Does Hawking Radiation Cause Black Holes to Evaporate?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Undergrad Brian Cox and the end of the Universe?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
Undergrad Do particles leave behind an image when crossing cosmo event horizon?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
High School Does a contracting universe destroy its black holes?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Undergrad Black Hole to Other Universe: Violation of 1st Law?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Undergrad Black Hole Diameter: Is It Finite or Infinite?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
High School What fraction of the matter in the universe is in black holes?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
High School What Happens When You Fall Into a Black Hole According to Stephen Hawking?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K