What’s Inside a Black Hole?
nautil.us
nautil.us
Also if someone likes to talk about black holes it is good to remind people that it is not a hole...as the article mentions its a region, to be more precise it is a region in space-time that is cut off from ours. The whole issue is not just spacial but also temporal, that is usually the point when your brain gives up understanding the whole problem.
A good description would be: a black hole is the collection of events that do happen outside our space-time/universe. This also explains some of the paradoxes near the event horizon.
I get the idea that black holes aren't like a sink. However all that matter or light that get "trapped" into it must go somewhere, in some form .
Once you include quantum physics there are some strong indications that black holes must somehow evaporate (although this hasn't been observed directly), but that model is still incomplete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
I like this idea, but then it means that there is no universe but multiverses, yet these multiverses need to be part of a greater structure or container, right ? do we have clues that strongly suggest the multiverse theory ?
We have many theories but little evidence of any of the theories having to do with black holes.
There is a different theory not mentioned prominently on that page that in my opinion provides the most useful resolution: Black Hole Complementarity. In a sense it is not a satisfying resolution, because it basically states “the paradox is not a paradox”. It is very counter-intuitive, but that is a problem with intuition. The wave-particle duality of light, which is nowadays not really considered a paradox any more although it was ~110 years ago, is a good analogy. As always happens with questions like these, in the end the answer is “that is a nonsensical question to ask”.
May be it somehow related to Kantian view mentioned there about time as a mode of perception, being, as he said, prior to all perceptions, as a condition, but not of observable phenomena, but of sequential mode of perceptual machinery of an observer?
But, as far as I know, in Russia "Kant - lokh".
I'm sure you can twist the math upside down and get the same results defining gravity as a function of matter instead of as curved space time using some modified newtonian mechanics or such, but do you really believe that's correct?
As far as I remember, in the philosophy of science a single contradiction is enough to refute a hypothesis and is the reason to check one's premises..
Some himera made out of math and popular but unproven theories is a himera nevertheless.
Or the same reason you can't travel to yesterday - there are simply no directions in which to point yourself in order to get there.
My personal belief is gravity is directly proportional the amount of space between particles. An object with extreme particle density will correspondingly have extreme gravity and vice versa. This has been observed in neutron stars, which are tightly packed.
Extrapolating out this theory, I think black holes are so gravimetrically attractive because they feature a kernel of maximum-density matter at their core.
It goes something like this: membrane theory, universe a broke into our universe, big bang, but from a single point, causing quantum entanglement on all matter in this universe, which seeks a return of it's original state in universe a, and therefor gravity is actually a second teir effect of matter seeking to return via building up and entering a blackhole. Eg, quantum mechanics and entanglement are stronger than gravity based upon the fact it works at longer distances.
Thats my non-physicist version of the grand unifying theory, but I'm not sure how to create a falsifiable by humankind version of it. I suspect dark matter discoveries will be the key.
http://www.amazon.com/About-Time-Einsteins-Unfinished-Revolu...
Are they trying to say that if there was something that could move faster than light then it can escape? If that's is forbidden by laws of nature, then how did they determined that this is possible?
Since you can't get out of a black hole normally, the only way to get out is by reversing time. I.e., going faster than light might be an option to get out of a black hole.
Of course, doing so is nonsense, but the maths work out.
The constant speed is actually the speed of a massless object through spacetime. It just so happens to be that photons have no mass. Also, going at high speed wouldn't make your life pass in slow motion to you. It would simply look that way to an observer who was moving vastly slower than you. The dilation in time is as a result of difference in relative velocities, rather than the speed of time changing.
This is also why the part about "go faster than the speed of light" doesn't make sense in physics. Motion is a four dimensional vector, with three points giving a point position, and the forth giving velocity through spacetime. Thus you wouldn't be travelling through "time" backwards, but through spacetime backwards.
Hope that helps. For more information, you may want to read up on the geometry of Minkowski spacetime.
The important thing in causality is the concept of the light cone. For things that happen far apart enough that the light cones don't interfere with each other, causality doesn't matter. One could happen first, or the other. It's only when you consider two things where the interaction occurs that the propagation matters.
Clearing this up a little further, having just read your other comment, the causal link between events and the speed by which information propagates is as a result of c, not the cause of it.
0: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Light_cone 1: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spa...
The "speed of light" is not really the speed of light - it's the speed of causality.
When one measures the "speed of light", one is measuring the time taken between two events;
Event 1 : the moment a beam of light was emitted from a location.
Event 2 : the moment that beam of light was detected at some other location.
The time taken for light to traverse between its initial emission and its subsequent detection, is basically the speed of causality.
For me that was a bit of an epiphany, and makes it much easier for me to understand the concept of spacetime that previously had me befuddled.
Also, the realisation that the "speed of light" is denoted as c (causality, anyone? ;) ) made me smile :)
Travelling at c, your perception of time would have stopped. From that point, it can't become more stopped, any more than you can go faster.
ADVICE FOR BLACK HOLE EXPLORERS
The only way to get out of a black hole is to not go into it.
If you're planning to go into one, don't. You won't be able to get out.
If you do go into one, the only way out is to reverse time until before you went in, and then don't go in.
Past a certain point, the distortion of spacetime becomes so great that no speed attainable can overcome the effect of it dragging back. So even travelling at the speed of light, you couldn't go faster than the gravity treadmill speed pulling you back in.
For clarification - gravity is nothing like a treadmill. It just happens to work nicely as an analogy for this.
So these claims, you could escape a black hole if you travel faster than light speed, should be read as, if we use our Euclidean sensibilities in a Minkowski setting,... It is in some technical sense correct, but without the technical details meaningless.
After all, what does one see when looking at a light source falling into a black hole. That light source slows down as it approaches the event horizon. When it gets close you'll see it dim. That's because time is going slower for that light source. Also it becomes smaller and smaller. It will never cross the event horizon, which is the point where time would stop and it's size would be zero. Because of the amount of time it takes to actually get there, one can semi-accurately refer to it as the end of time. The weird thing is that the end of time is a spherical region of actual space, not a point in the future. Because this only happens close to the black hole it'll likely look confusing : it would fall very quickly to the event horizon, ever accelerating, then suddenly every 50% reduction in distance between it and the event horizon takes 100% more time to happen.
If you're the one falling into a (large) black hole you'll see the opposite : the rest of the universe will go faster, grow brighter, and grow bigger (since the universe is mostly empty space and you can't really tell the physical size of stars from a distance you'd mostly see the empty space being bigger and may think everything else is the same size. It's not though, you just can't tell the difference between 10e-50 degrees and 10e-48 degrees). The event horizon is a theoretical concept, there is nothing in space that corresponds to the event horizon. No obstacle, no marker, no force, no nothing. From up close, it's just empty space. Think of the path between you and the rest of the universe, that path is getting longer, and you can see and measure that. That's all that happens, nothing more. Everything you can reach is falling in as well, and you see the distance between you and other things falling in increasing just the same. If you were to go anywhere, you'd notice that the distance between you and wherever you're trying to go grows bigger with time. If that happens fast enough you can never get there, because the distance will never decrease.
The weird thing is that that is true for us here on earth as well. The distance between us and everything outside of our local galactic group (everything contained by a few galaxies who are bound by gravity. Granted, this structure is several million lightyears across, but it is finite and very tiny compared to the total universe) is getting bigger and further away. The vast, vast majority of the universe is expanding, exactly like you'd expect to see if you were falling into a (extremely huge) black hole. Furthermore the edge of the universe is suspiciously close to where those "hallways" expand at superluminal speeds (ie. the rate of distance increase between us and the faraway object > c). The distance between the furthest object ever measured and the point where distance increase speed becomes superluminal is 400 million light year. That seems suspiciously close to be coincidental.
So the answer for "big" black holes might be very simple. What's inside ? Look around you. That's what's inside. Certainly some black holes are of a size that you could conceivably throw a solar system inside, and nothing out of the ordinary would happen to it at all for a very long time, essentially for the lifetime of the black hole, which can be hundreds of billions of years.
That leaves small black holes where you'd be torn to shreds by the difference in gravity between the closest part of you to the black hole and the parts further away. It'd be like falling while having rockets accelerating your feet downwards. At some point, those rockets accelerate fast enough to rip your feet clean off. However, small black holes evaporate through Hawking radiation. They quickly convert all their mass to energy. So there'd be a massive explosion happening below you, which will likely vaporize you long before the tidal forces become an issue.