Why do light rays emitted at the event horizon stay there in a black hole?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of light rays emitted at the event horizon of a black hole and the implications for communication between observers falling into the black hole. Participants explore theoretical scenarios involving two observers at different distances from the black hole, focusing on the flow of information and the nature of light signals in the context of general relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that once the first observer passes the event horizon, they can still "see" the second observer, while the second observer cannot see anything from inside the horizon.
  • Others contend that information flow between the two observers stops when the first crosses the event horizon, and that the second observer will not receive any signals from the first unless they also cross the horizon.
  • A participant suggests that the singularity is the only barrier to communication between the two observers, indicating that light signals can be sent and received under certain conditions.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that light rays emitted at the event horizon remain stationary, and that signals sent from the event horizon can be received by observers who subsequently cross it.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the conditions under which signals can be sent and received, particularly regarding the timing and positions of the observers relative to the event horizon and singularity.
  • A later reply challenges the initial postulates and suggests that they misinterpret the implications of general relativity, recommending further study of spacetime diagrams for clarity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the behavior of light rays at the event horizon or the implications for communication between observers. Multiple competing views remain, with some asserting that signals can be sent and received while others disagree.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various coordinate systems (Schwarzschild, Eddington-Finkelstein, Kruskal) and their impact on the interpretation of light cone paths, indicating that the discussion is nuanced and dependent on specific definitions and assumptions.

ChemGuy
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
In another post someone postulated that if two observers, at different distances, fall into a black hole two things happen:

1. When the first passes the event horizon all information flow between the two stops.

2. When the second passes the event horizon information flow would resume.

I don't think I agree with the either postulate. In the first case the observer on the inside would continue to "see" the second observer. The second observer would, of course "see" nothing. In the second case I think the situation would be exactly the same. Just because the second observer is not inside the event horizon does not mean that light can go from No. 1 to No. 2. Wouldn't the photon "leave" No.1 but never reach No. 2? Or would No. 2 eventually run into the photon?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChemGuy said:
In another post someone postulated that if two observers, at different distances, fall into a black hole two things happen:

1. When the first passes the event horizon all information flow between the two stops.

2. When the second passes the event horizon information flow would resume.

I don't think I agree with the either postulate. In the first case the observer on the inside would continue to "see" the second observer. The second observer would, of course "see" nothing. In the second case I think the situation would be exactly the same. Just because the second observer is not inside the event horizon does not mean that light can go from No. 1 to No. 2. Wouldn't the photon "leave" No.1 but never reach No. 2? Or would No. 2 eventually run into the photon?

From looking at my crude attempt at a (Kruskal-Szekeres) spacetime diagram, it appears that the singualrity (not the event horizon) is the only bar to communication between 1 and 2.

Let A be the event at which 1's worldline intersects the event horizon and B be the event at which 2's worldline intersects the event horizon. At A, 1 can send a (light)signal that 2 receives at B. At B, 2 can send a light signal that, if the singularity is far enough in the future, 1 receives inside the even horizon.
 
I think I understand but after 1 passes A he can not send a signal that reaches 2. One is in side the event horizen and 2 is outside.

At B can 1 send a signal that will reach 2?

For B I agree that at some point time slowes down so much that a signal from 2 will never reach 1.
 
ChemGuy said:
I think I understand but after 1 passes A he can not send a signal that reaches 2.

Yes he can.

One is in side the event horizen and 2 is outside.

B will receive the signal after he, too, is inside the event horizon, providing the singularity is far enought in the future that it doen't intercept the signal first. Since A is inside when he sends the signal, and B receives the signal while also inside, the signal doesn't have to cross the event horizon.

At B can 1 send a signal that will reach 2?

No. B is not on 1's worldline, so 1 cannot send a signal, to 2 or otherwise, at B.

Spacetime diagrams are crucial for understanding these concepts.
 
Last edited:
ChemGuy said:
I think I understand but after 1 passes A he can not send a signal that reaches 2. One is in side the event horizen and 2 is outside.

If observer 2 stayed outside the event horizon then they would never receive the signal, but if they cross the horizon then they can. The event horizon is a barrier that defines where light cones from that point in all end up in the central singularity in the future. In fact at the exact point of the event horizon, the 'outgoing' light rays are in fact stationary i.e. they remain at a fixed spatial co-ordinate forever. Go the smallest bit closer the singularity and the 'outgoing' light rays will bend over and point towards the singularity (no escape!), go the smalled bit further away and the outgoing rays point back out to infinity (you can escape!)*. But any signal sent at precisely the event horizon will in a sense remain there for all time. As subsequent observers plunge through the event horizon they can receive the signal, regardless of where they were when it was sent.

*Note: the exact 'shape' of the light cone paths depends on the co-ordinates you are using Schwarschild, Eddington-Finkelstein, Kruskal etc but the underlying message is that same, light rays emitted at the event horizon stay there!
 
Thanks guys.
 
ChemGuy said:
In another post someone postulated that if two observers, at different distances, fall into a black hole two things happen:

1. When the first passes the event horizon all information flow between the two stops.

2. When the second passes the event horizon information flow would resume.

I don't think I agree with the either postulate.

Well, you were right to object, since both statements are quite wrong; that's not what gtr says at all. Where did you read this? Is it possible that you simply misunderstood something?

Rather than trying to explain without pictures what is wrong with these two statements (but you can try http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/history.html) , since a picture is worth a thousand words here I will simply recommend that you consult some of the fine textbooks which explain "block diagrams" (also called "conformal diagrams" or "Carter-Penrose diagrams") which are often used to exhibit the "global structure" of specific spacetime models, such as the Schwarzschild vacuum, Reissner-Nordstrom electrovacuum, or Kerr vacuum solutions of the Einstein field equation (EFE).

Wallace, you wrote "light rays emitted at the event horizon stay there", but you should have said "outwardly and radially moving laser pulses emitted by some observer as he falls past r=2m remain at r=2m" (in the Schwarzschild vacuum solution). See the execellent pictures in MTW if you don't see why I objected.

Chris Hillman
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K