What Happens Inside a Black Hole's Event Horizon?

[ClamShell]

...because the important quantities here are ones that are independent of the choice of coordinate system. For instance, if we take a path of an object that comes out from infinity and strikes the black hole, it spends an infinite amount of proper time outside the black hole traveling towards it, but once it reaches the event horizon, it takes a finite amount of proper time to strike the singularity. That sort of behavior is about as asymmetric as you can get.

My question was:

"...is the coordinate system on
our side of the event horizon in any way symmetrical with
the coordinate system chosen for the other side of the
event horizon? I am looking for symmetries that imply
conservation of entropy, as always."

My question is now:

Then it would seem to me that the Schwarzschild metric

(a metric now means to me; a tool for modeling a system,
on some underlying manifold, containing many particles,
many motions, and many observers)

...that the Schwarzschild metric transforms infinities
into finities as the BH horizon is crossed. Would it
not be more elegant for it to conserve (cleverly), the
time and space infinities on both sides of the horizon?
IE, if the horizon was just a regular curtain, the above
object would be free to continue its journey to another
(possibly different) infinity? Or, if the BH horizon is
really very exotic, to transform the above infinities
into into an infinite trajectory on the inside of the
event horizon?

No personal theory here...I just want entropies to balance.

 

[ClamShell]

Oh lord, I've been here for too long, I'm understanding the math and thinking, "well that's just simple algebra and no matrices or operators involved!" *rubs temples*. If I forget what I need to do my job because visions of sugarplums and tensors dancing in my head, I'm blaming this site, and the books of math and physics it inspired me to read.

There is nothing threatening about the details, they are easy for
daydreamers just to down right ignore. The general principles
are enough for some of us.

 

[Chalnoth]

My question was:

"...is the coordinate system on
our side of the event horizon in any way symmetrical with
the coordinate system chosen for the other side of the
event horizon? I am looking for symmetries that imply
conservation of entropy, as always."

My question is now:

Then it would seem to me that the Schwarzschild metric

(a metric now means to me; a tool for modeling a system,
on some underlying manifold, containing many particles,
many motions, and many observers)

...that the Schwarzschild metric transforms infinities
into finities as the BH horizon is crossed. Would it
not be more elegant for it to conserve (cleverly), the
time and space infinities on both sides of the horizon?
IE, if the horizon was just a regular curtain, the above
object would be free to continue its journey to another
(possibly different) infinity? Or, if the BH horizon is
really very exotic, to transform the above infinities
into into an infinite trajectory on the inside of the
event horizon?

No personal theory here...I just want entropies to balance.

This doesn't make any sense to me. Again, as I said, when you deal with coordinate-independent quantities, the inside of the black hole is qualitatively different from the outside. No amount of fiddling with coordinates can possibly change this.

As for "getting the entropy to balance", I have no idea why you would want to do this, or what it would even mean if you did.

 

[ClamShell]

This doesn't make any sense to me. Again, as I said, when you deal with coordinate-independent quantities, the inside of the black hole is qualitatively different from the outside. No amount of fiddling with coordinates can possibly change this.

As for "getting the entropy to balance", I have no idea why you would want to do this, or what it would even mean if you did.

Party-Pooper...

 

[ClamShell]

This doesn't make any sense to me. Again, as I said, when you deal with coordinate-independent quantities, the inside of the black hole is qualitatively different from the outside. No amount of fiddling with coordinates can possibly change this.

As for "getting the entropy to balance", I have no idea why you would want to do this, or what it would even mean if you did.

Seriously (my previous post said "party-pooper"), when
I analyze electronic circuits that have amplifiers and filters
(when I'm doing it right, of course), the Shannon entropy
of the input equals the entropy of the interesting output
plus the entropy of the losses. The entropy of the
interesting output is lower (more information) than the
input entropy (hopefully). Normally, when I discuss this
stuff it's with Shannon folks(I'm a fish out-of-water here).
My trouble was that there is really only one(favored) observer
when electronics display information. I needed to assume
that all observers would see the same thing. Now I have
extended my concept to have the ability to calculate
what any of the other observers is seeing. But I can't now
see how this would change things enough to make information
not be conserved in a real universe. Information is the
negative of entropy, but cannot go below 0, since you know
everything at entropy equal to 0.

My electronic circuits are real things and their "blackhole"
is related fabrication problems.

What I suggest is that when you admit no knowledge of
what is inside the event horizon, don't be happy with
extrapolating a model into it. Put what you know
already, behind the horizon...a universe. Please do
not hit me with that justification that you're here
only to teach mainstream dogma. Your dogma has a
black hole...real dogma's only have fleas. There
I go again with the metaphores and riddles.

 

[Chalnoth]

There I go again with the metaphores and riddles.

Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

I will just add a couple of notes on black holes and entropy. First, in the real world, entropy can and does genuinely increase. Entropy is not a conserved quantity. If you have a universe with some amount of mass, the highest-entropy configuration for that universe is for all of the mass to be in a single black hole. Thus we should be completely unsurprised at the calculations which suggest that as time goes forward, eventually all of the matter in the visible universe will become black holes.

Then, if you consider a universe with a single evaporating black hole, the entropy of the universe as a whole is higher after the black hole evaporates, so that the highest-entropy configuration of a region of space-time is for that region to be completely empty. And this is, in fact, where our universe appears to be headed.

So to me, the entropy considerations with respect to a black hole make perfect sense.

 

[nismaratwork]

There is nothing threatening about the details, they are easy for
daydreamers just to down right ignore. The general principles
are enough for some of us.

I was kidding Clam... I already have a decent grasp of basic algebra (which this is). I was just playing around with Chalnoth. I have to ask you... is English your first language? I don't mean that as an insult, but you seem to be speaking in a somewhat odd fashion. I'm wondering if maybe this just a language barrier issue... if so there may be someone here who speaks your first language well enough to get past it. If not, then I have to say it seems to me you're more interested in word games than physics or cosmology. If you're genuinely interested in the physics of what you're asking, then the riddles and metaphors really don't do you or anyone else any good.

For instance, you say if it was "headed there, likely it would already be there." That's genuinely nonsensical, no two ways about it. The dissipation of radiation and the life-cycles of stars, black holes, and the "evening" out of radiation in a given space takes time. The simple answer is that it is precisely where the universe is headed, but we're not at that time yet, or anywhere near it.

If language isn't the issue, then I have no idea where you're getting this. From what I gather you're a computer or electrical engineer, so frankly you should realize that it's important to understand basics before moving on to more complex issues. You can't read a bit of wikipedia and expect to be competent in a debate about the fate of the universe, the nature of black holes as they're described by GR, and might be in a unified framework of quantum gravity. Reading this thread, I could almost believe you've been possessed by the ghost of Lewis Carrol (that's a joke btw).

 

[ClamShell]

I was kidding Clam... . Reading this thread, I could almost believe you've been possessed by the ghost of Lewis Carrol (that's a joke btw).

Now I must think you are always kidding.

I must admit that your grammar is very good, and your use
of the "red herring" ploy is excellent.

 

[nismaratwork]

Now I must think you are always kidding.

I must admit that your grammar is very good, and your use
of the "red herring" ploy is excellent.

What red herring?! Other than the Lewis Carroll bit I'm completely serious, and what does my grammar have to do with anything?

 

[ClamShell]

What red herring?! Other than the Lewis Carroll bit I'm completely serious, and what does my grammar have to do with anything?

what's mine have to do with it?

 

[nismaratwork]

what's mine have to do with it?

What?! Nothing! I'm not trying to criticize your grammar; there are a number of people here for whom English isn't their first language. I'm wondering, your grammar completely aside, whether you're one such person. I'm trying to understand your behaviour, and it occurred to me that a fundamental series of miscommunications due to language could be at fault. I'm going to assume given your response that I was wrong, and you think I'm saying that you're posts are grammatically incorrect... I'm not... I'm saying the CONTENT sometimes makes no sense.

Lets put aside the language issue then, if I'm wrong... how about the REST of my post?

If not, then I have to say it seems to me you're more interested in word games than physics or cosmology. If you're genuinely interested in the physics of what you're asking, then the riddles and metaphors really don't do you or anyone else any good.

For instance, you say if it was "headed there, likely it would already be there." That's genuinely nonsensical, no two ways about it. The dissipation of radiation and the life-cycles of stars, black holes, and the "evening" out of radiation in a given space takes time. The simple answer is that it is precisely where the universe is headed, but we're not at that time yet, or anywhere near it.

If language isn't the issue, then I have no idea where you're getting this. From what I gather you're a computer or electrical engineer, so frankly you should realize that it's important to understand basics before moving on to more complex issues. You can't read a bit of wikipedia and expect to be competent in a debate about the fate of the universe, the nature of black holes as they're described by GR, and might be in a unified framework of quantum gravity.

 

[Chalnoth]

"in fact"..."appears"...there you go again, extrapolating.

If it was "headed there", likely would already be there.

?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

 

[ClamShell]

...You can't read a bit of wikipedia and expect to be competent in a debate about the fate of the universe, the nature of black holes as they're described by GR, and might be in a unified framework of quantum gravity.

Got me there...(these 3 dots mean I have paused to ponder your idea)...competent?...
Incompetent is why I'm here...wiki's(wikipedia) are all I've got. I read about metrics
and I was still unclear...a minute with Chalnoth and a glimmer appears...
(edit) it's a hiku (sp)
(you know, that Edison's bulb that appears over your head). After all, we're
BSing here...you have no idea what's over the horizon(of the black hole).
Next, I suspect, you'll be "red herring"ing my spelling errors. You know your
stuff up to just above the horizon(of the black hole)...and this gives you
the ability to predict an empty universe?...ballderdash.

 

[ClamShell]

?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

"The sky is falling" - - Chicken Little

Uncountable number of "if's" in that wiki(wikipedia)...I'll take it with
some salt please.

 

[JaredJames]

OK clamshell, this is ridiculous. I can make little sense of your posts. You tell us you come here for help and so far everything we have told you you have disagreed with and whenever we give you resources you just tell us you don't accept them. What more do you want? Any discussion here is based on the articles we provide you and so will be no different to you reading them.

You don't seem to want to listen to anything people say and have constantly argued anything that disagrees with your own viewpoint. A viewpoint I would like to add, that has changed constantly throughout this thread so it is now way off your original thoughts.

We're "BSing here"? That says all we need to know. You don't care what we say, you ask for us to discuss your opinions, but when we tell you they are wrong you're just going to ignore us and say nobody actually knows anything about black holes.

How do you 'red herring' spelling mistakes? Do you even know what a red herring is? Certainly nothing to do with how you're using it.

We know what we do, because it is based on current theories and what the maths says. You can deny it all you like, but this is not the forum for it. We deal with published and accepted mainstream science, not 'things that go on in your head', and no matter how much you may argue it, so far everything you have proposed is your own overly speculative personal theories which conform very little to mainstream science. The maths gives us the ability to predict an empty universe, and given how we have that on our side and all you have is your own speculation, how can you shoot people down and tell them they know nothing?

I've been nice so far and accommodated you, as have many others here, but now you really are taking the p*** out of what is supposed to be a place for learning and discussion.

 

[cristo]

This thread has got way out of hand, and is now verging into the realm of personal theories. I think it best for all involved to lock this thread here.