What happens when you fall into a black hole?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical implications of falling into a black hole, particularly focusing on the experiences of an observer crossing the event horizon, the effects of Hawking radiation, and the nature of time as perceived by different observers. The conversation touches on concepts from general relativity and quantum mechanics, exploring both classical and semi-classical black holes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a person falling into a supermassive black hole would not experience immediate effects upon crossing the event horizon, but questions whether Hawking radiation could lead to the black hole's explosion before the person crosses it.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the perception of time slowing down is relative to an outside observer, while the person falling in would experience time normally until reaching the singularity.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of Hawking radiation on the lifespan of black holes, suggesting that an outside observer would see the black hole's evaporation before the infalling observer crosses the event horizon.
  • There is a proposal to consider two observers: one falling into the black hole and another hovering above it, discussing how each would perceive the event horizon and singularity differently based on the type of black hole.
  • One participant raises the idea of a "naked singularity" and questions whether it would expand or explode once it becomes visible to an outside observer.
  • A request for clarification on a hypothetical scenario involving an airplane approaching a black hole is made, indicating interest in the effects of extreme gravitational forces on physical objects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of Hawking radiation, the nature of time for observers falling into black holes, and the visibility of singularities. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the nature of black holes, the effects of Hawking radiation, and the interpretation of time dilation, which are not fully explored or agreed upon by participants.

jadrian
Messages
142
Reaction score
0
sorry if my understanding of high level physics is cursory, i didnt major in it at ptown even tho i always had a hard on for physics and slept through ap phys in high school because the concepts were infantile to me.

from my understanding its conventional wisdom that a person falling into a black hole will fall through the event horizon of a supermassive black hole and feel that nothing has happened to him. but seeing as the lifespan of black holes is finite approx 10^100 years and for a person falling into an enormous black hole whose tidal forces
wont kill him as he nears the event horizon(dead or alive doesn't really matter), and since he will be
infinitely old compared to the universe before he reaches the event
horizon, won't the black hole, due to hawking radiation/ black hole evaporation and eventual explosion, simply explode in his face once he gets very close to the event horizon?

this comesfrom my understanding as you near the event horizon, you near the speed of light, so if you were on the event horizon, your time will have stopped, while the rest of the universe continued forward in time, meaning the universe would have passed infinitely into the future by the time you reached the event horizon

am i missing anything?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that the slowing down aspect of the guy falling in belongs to the perception of an outside observer. It only looks like that to observer's hanging around outside and away from the black hole watching him fall in.
For the guy falling in, local time and space will appear normal... until he gets spaghettified by tidal gravity differential... and of course nothing will be "normal" when what's left of him reaches the singularity, which he will do in a finite period of time by his clock.
 
bahamagreen said:
I think that the slowing down aspect of the guy falling in belongs to the perception of an outside observer. It only looks like that to observer's hanging around outside and away from the black hole watching him fall in.
For the guy falling in, local time and space will appear normal... until he gets spaghettified by tidal gravity differential... and of course nothing will be "normal" when what's left of him reaches the singularity, which he will do in a finite period of time by his clock.

yeah but hawking radiation gives a lifespan on the largest black holes to be finite in the universe, even tho the black hole itself is not part of the universe, so to an observer outside who lived forever, he would see the black hole explode before the passenger crossed the event horizon. and since the lifespan of the black hole is finite to the observer, the passenger as well will age longer than the black holes lifespan before reaching the event horizon.
 
anyone?
 
Consider two observers, observer A that falls across the the event horizon and observer B that hovers at a finite "distance" above the event horizon, and two types of (uncharged) spherical black holes, a classical black hole that doesn't emit Hawking radiation and a semi-classical black hole that does.

For the classical black hole case, B "sees" A on the event horizon at infinite future time, and B never sees the singularity.

For the semi-classical black hole case, at some *finite* time B simultaneously "sees": A on the event horizon; the singularity. In other words, the singularity becomes naked, and A winks out of existence at some finite time in the future for B.

In both cases, A crosses the event horizon, remains inside the event horizon, and hits the singularity. In both cases, B, does not see (even at infinite future time) A inside the event horizon, as this view is blocked by the singularity.

These conclusions can be deduced from Penrose diagrams, FIGURE 5.17 and FIGURE 9.3 in Carroll's text, and Fig. 12.2 and Fig, 14.4 in Wald's text, or

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...a=X&ei=3pmdTP63FcaAlAexkYntAg&ved=0CBwQ9QEwAA.
 
George Jones said:
Consider two observers, observer A that falls across the the event horizon and observer B that hovers at a finite "distance" above the event horizon, and two types of (uncharged) spherical black holes, a classical black hole that doesn't emit Hawking radiation and a semi-classical black hole that does.

For the classical black hole case, B "sees" A on the event horizon at infinite future time, and B never sees the singularity.

For the semi-classical black hole case, at some *finite* time B simultaneously "sees": A on the event horizon; the singularity. In other words, the singularity becomes naked, and A winks out of existence at some finite time in the future for B.

In both cases, A crosses the event horizon, remains inside the event horizon, and hits the singularity. In both cases, B, does not see (even at infinite future time) A inside the event horizon, as this view is blocked by the singularity.

These conclusions can be deduced from Penrose diagrams, FIGURE 5.17 and FIGURE 9.3 in Carroll's text, and Fig. 12.2 and Fig, 14.4 in Wald's text, or

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...a=X&ei=3pmdTP63FcaAlAexkYntAg&ved=0CBwQ9QEwAA.

once the singularity is naked, it will be at the schwartchild radius and expand/explode won't it?
 
Could someone breakdown the whole airplane approaching a black hole and the propellers expand, and expand, and expand, and spin faster, and faster.
 
bump bump bump
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
9K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K