In reply to Eric Walker's message of Fri, 2 Feb 2018 09:22:54 -0700: Hi, [snip]
This thread is beginning to resemble "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?". :) E.g. It makes no difference whether or not there is drama at the event horizon, we won't detect it either way. 1) It wouldn't happen till infinitely far in our future. 2) Any resultant energy would be red shifted back to nothing leaving the gravity well anyway. (Thus also reducing the information transport rate to zero in the process.) >On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:02 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > >It's worse than that - nothing ever even gets to cross the event horizon >> from >> our point of view (because time slows to the point where the universe >> comes to >> an end before anything actually gets to the event horizon.) >> (Which BTW is what originally led me to the notion that there is nothing >> in a >> black hole.) >> > >You might be right about there being drama at the event horizon, but there >are other possibilities [1]: > >The paradox [of an inconsistency mentioned earlier in the article] itself >> arises due to Hawking radiation, which demonstrates that matter can be >> emitted from a black hole, but initially it appeared that no information >> about the matter that once fell into the black hole is carried away. In >> 2012, a group of physicists studying this paradox found that three basic >> assumptions involved in this paradox cannot all be consistent. > > >Namely, principles of unitarity and local quantum field theory contradicted >> the assumption of "no-drama"meaning that nothing unusual should happen >> when an object falls through the event horizon. Instead, they proposed that >> the most conservative solution to this contradiction is that there would >> indeed be "drama" at the surface of the black hole in the form of a >> "firewall" that would destroy an infalling object. This seems rather >> surprising, because the curvature is negligibly small at the event horizon >> of a sufficiently large black hole, where general relativity should hold >> and one would expect nothing special when crossing the horizon. > > >The conservative proposal mentioned by these theorists that there might be >drama at the surface (event horizon?) of the black hole is in >contradistinction to a "no drama" view in which objects merely cross over >the point of no return, but otherwise nothing particularly interesting >happens. I.e., it is not certain that there is drama at the event >horizon. But even if there is a firewall that destroys everything >approaching it, it might need to lie *beyond* event horizon in order not to >have observable effects: > >"If a firewall exists, not only would an infalling object be destroyed by >> it, but the destruction could be visible, even from the outside," says >> Misao Sasaki, a contributor from Kyoto University. > > >So your counterargument against the possibility of the electron and >positron annihilating on the other side of the event horizon is merely >suggestive but not conclusive. > >Eric > > >[1] https://phys.org/news/2016-04-hot-problem-black-hole-firewalls.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
