Effects of Warped Time in Black Holes on the Black Hole Itself

[78stonewobble]

For K^2: Yeah, there has been no concrete proof for Hawking Radiation. There have indeed been tests to find evidence of an evaporating black hole, specifically one in its final death throws, in order to find evidence for primordial black holes. However, we do know that subatomic black holes have formed in the LHC (probably/maybe), and they appear to have evaporated.

- - - Updated - - -

For Bill Phil: You are correct about the thing with entropy. Black holes would violate the laws of thermodynamics (I'm pretty sure that you people know what they are) because they appear to decrease entropy in a supposedly closed system, the universe. Thus the universe is not a closed system, or black holes radiate something.

P.S. If anything in here is incorrect, I'm sorry. I don't remember everything from all of my physics books and A Brief History of Time.

To the middle part: Could the disproval of hawking radiation then lend credence to the possibility of black holes leading to daughter universes?

[Dres]

To the middle part: Could the disproval of hawking radiation then lend credence to the possibility of black holes leading to daughter universes?

Possibly. I'll have to read back on some stuff, but it might. It might be kind of like a fridge. The entropy seems to be decreasing in a refrigerator (ie. it is getting colder, and more ordered), but a fridge is not a closed system. There is electricity that is coming from a power-plant that is increasing the entropy in the universe as a whole. Who knows, the entire universe might be a fridge

Edited January 5, 2015 by Dres

[AngelLestat]

heh, scientist guess that gravity may cross between universes, but I am not sure if that is a force that might have something to do with energy/information process.

Of course there may still other forces with a key role avoiding the information lost.

But something tell me that this way of thinking it does not help to solve this problem.

[Skyler4856]

Atomic clocks on GPS sats are designed to be slower (uh, more caesium atom transitions to count the second probably) than the standard one on Earth. This does have to do with the fact that the sats lies on a site where spacetime is less curved than on the Earth's surface (general relativity term ; else, on a shallower/higher gravitational potential by newtonian terms).

The result ? you got these things points out your location to a high accuracy !

The same then applies to other sites...

Exactly my point, to an outside observer decay occurs faster when the substance in question is under the influence of less gravity...

[YNM]

Exactly my point, to an outside observer decay occurs faster when the substance in question is under the influence of less gravity...

The point of my post is that cycles on a lower gravitational potential will occur faster ; that's why they need more cycles to match our seconds. A second to someone on the geostationary orbit might looks as only less than a second for people on the surface of the Earth. Going the extremes, the lifetime of a distant star might be equal to a lifetime of someone near a black hole (say, at minimum orbit). Hence why, while one enters a black hole he'd see how the distant universe evolve off... Or even, ends.

[Dres]

Thanks for explaining YNM! Reputation added . Anyway, I'm not that good at explaining things, so help is good!

For AngelLestat: Yeah, there have been tests in particle accelerators about this. Scientists tried to find lost energy which would represent a graviton (gravitational quanta) slipping into another universe. However, that's is indeed different than black holes transporting stuff through wormholes to other universes (universi? it's impossible to know because universe means "single verse", there's not supposed to be plural ) Some reputation to you to sir! You know stuff!

Edited January 6, 2015 by Dres

[Skyler4856]

The point of my post is that cycles on a lower gravitational potential will occur faster ; that's why they need more cycles to match our seconds. A second to someone on the geostationary orbit might looks as only less than a second for people on the surface of the Earth. Going the extremes, the lifetime of a distant star might be equal to a lifetime of someone near a black hole (say, at minimum orbit). Hence why, while one enters a black hole he'd see how the distant universe evolve off... Or even, ends.

Let me explain; you've already conceded that decay occurs at a rate that is, to some degree, contingent on gravity. Logic would follow that decay may be representative of any reactions, including those that go on in his head.

And besides physical reactions, simply imagine that you're just above the event horizon of a super massive black hole, you then see a ship fly-by at a speed of 90% of the speed of light, utilizing your logic,one would expect that you would see a ship move faster than the speed of light, which is, ofcourse, an impossibility.

[andrewas]

Let me explain; you've already conceded that decay occurs at a rate that is, to some degree, contingent on gravity. Logic would follow that decay may be representative of any reactions, including those that go on in his head.

Yes. Which means that from this guys reference frame, all normal reference frames appear to be accelerated.

And besides physical reactions, simply imagine that you're just above the event horizon of a super massive black hole, you then see a ship fly-by at a speed of 90% of the speed of light, utilizing your logic,one would expect that you would see a ship move faster than the speed of light, which is, ofcourse, an impossibility.

Time dilation is always accompanied by spatial contraction, such that c is always a constant no matter who measures it. Not only will our black hole orbiting observer see the universe as vastly accelerated, he will see it as much smaller.

[rkman]

"To a distant observer, clocks near a black hole appear to tick more slowly than those further away from the black hole.[47] Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow down as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole (actual source is Carroll, Sean M. (2004) "Spacetime and Geometry")

However, the person falling in would not see the universe end (although presumably it does in fact end):

Will you see the universe end?

If an external observer sees me slow down asymptotically as I fall, it might seem reasonable that I'd see the universe speed up asymptoticallyâ€â€that I'd see the universe end in a spectacular flash as I went through the horizon. This isn't the case, though. What an external observer sees depends on what light does after I emit it. What I see, however, depends on what light does before it gets to me. And there's no way that light from future events far away can get to me. Faraway events in the arbitrarily distant future never end up on my "past light-cone," the surface made of light rays that get to me at a given time. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html

[Skyler4856]

Yes. Which means that from this guys reference frame, all normal reference frames appear to be accelerated.

Time dilation is always accompanied by spatial contraction, such that c is always a constant no matter who measures it. Not only will our black hole orbiting observer see the universe as vastly accelerated, he will see it as much smaller.

Lorentz contractions only apply when moving relative to an observer. Your logic is still flawed...

[YNM]

Let me explain; you've already conceded that decay occurs at a rate that is, to some degree, contingent on gravity. Logic would follow that decay may be representative of any reactions, including those that go on in his head.

And besides physical reactions, simply imagine that you're just above the event horizon of a super massive black hole, you then see a ship fly-by at a speed of 90% of the speed of light, utilizing your logic,one would expect that you would see a ship move faster than the speed of light, which is, ofcourse, an impossibility.

Not really... We're in an accelerated frame all the way (both observer and object). And speed never adds up that way - it might be that we end up not seeing it, or seeing it like as if it's zapping through (ie. never see it mid-way). Think about the fact that if the universe is infinitely large (only limited by time - the fact that it have a start, and curvature is nearly zero so flat universe and a flat universe is infinitely large and have no border), it might be that we can't see some parts of it forever because from the start, the spacetime where it's located already moves faster than speed of light with respect to ours.

[Dres]

For Skylar4865: Well you are correct, in a way. Any reaction that occurs with an observer closer to a gravitational mass, or travelling at relativistic speeds, is slower than if the were floating with less velocity in a space free of gravity. However, it would only appear slower to an outside observer with less velocity and in the influence of a weaker gravity field. To the observer, they wouldn't know they were reacting more slowly, because, as you said, their thought process would run slower. So, if they looked out to a an observer with less velocity and/or weaker gravity, their reactions would appear sped up, as a consequence of their reactions running on a different time (if they can see them at all: rkman's post). Thus, near a black hole, where the effect is extreme, the entire universe could die as they fall in, as consequence of it having a different time overall. Now if you looked at a spaceship travelling at relativistic speeds, it would be interesting. Like YNM said, you likely wouldn't see it, because if it were truly travelling at or above the speed of light, it would travel infinite distances in zero time or go back in time (YAY RELATIVITY!), or you wouldn't see it because it had zero length (or less). Although, actually, probably, it would be completely valid. The only reason that it is travelling FTL is because it appears to react faster than normal to the observer. There is no problem with this, because it isn't to itself, travelling FTL.

[Dres]

Searching for lifeforms... BEEP None found. *sigh* I'll try again in a few days. This is the longest it has been without a comment.

[problemecium]

After poring over that article for a while, all I can say is that I personally don't see a need for a law of conservation of information. No observable everyday phenomena suggest a necessity for any such thing - I won't say it's impossible, but for the moment however elegant an idea is, it isn't productive to include it in our standard model until we have serious reason to believe it's needed - especially when it conflicts so violently with other theories.

I do have a minor question: the article mentions Alice and Bob comparing notes on entangled particles after Alice's dive into the black hole. How are they supposed to do that without Alice violating the standard model and leaving the black hole first? Forget the result being disastrous; the result is as silly and impossible as the old Grandfather paradox.

[Bill Phil]

So even Earth has an "event horizon"?

[Dres]

No. I should probably have been more clear. The event horizon is simply the altitude where the escape velocity of a body is more than the speed of light. Now for normal bodies, like Earth, the escape velocity is never, ever faster than the speed of light, not even close. Only for black holes does this occur. Which is why they were black holes.

[Bill Phil]

At 0.0044 meters from the point-mass of Earth the orbital velocity is ~ light speed. Of course, Earth isn't ACTUALLY a point mass...

[K^2]

Well, the thing is, they don't need to compare their results. They already know that the particles they are observing are entangled and thus acting the same (pretty much). Therefore, if Alice jiggles her particle around, Bob would see his do the same. This would allow Alice to send information from within the black hole to Bob, outside. It is "spooky action at a distance", through the event horizon. This might of course, violate some features of physics, and thus something would need to break the quantum bond between the particles; The "firewall". Also, I too don't see the need for conservation of information. Although I do have a question. Whats so special about the event horizon? Why does a quantum bond have to be broken? It is simply a point where light cannot escape a gravity field.

That's not how entanglement works. At all. More importantly, ther is an actual theorem that states that entangled states cannot be used for communication.

Event horizon is a type of coordinate singularity. What it means is that there are no time-like trajectories leading out of the black hole. There are space-like trajectories, which is the reason for Hawking Radiation. The discussion about information is really more about entropy. There are several arguments for why it's actually a bad thing. For details, see Cosmic Censor.

[Dres]

Whoops. I was really tired, because I just took like 3 planes in connecting flights. I'ma probably delete that. Anyway, thanks for fixing my mistakes!

[YourEverydayWaffle]

Curious. Since when have Black holes been known to evaporate ?

Hawking radiation. Space is not empty, as there are virtual photons splitting into electron-positron pairs and then annihilating back into the virtual photon and going away again. If this happens on the even horizon of a black hole, one beta particle will fly off into space. This is considered a loss of mass, to put it simply.

[Voyager55]

This may make no sense, but if the event horizon is the area where the gravitational acceleration is at and exceeding the speed of light, does that mean that the gravitational acceleration past it will exceed the speed of light? As in an object inside of the event horizon is traveling faster than light and thus backwards in time?

[Dres]

No, it really doesn't work that way. The gravitational acceleration never exceeds the speed of light. What happens is that the velocity needed to escape the gravity well of the body, in this case a black hole, becomes faster than the speed of light once for something once it is beyond the event horizon, and thus nothing can ever escape, because nothing can travel faster than light.

[Dres]

I think this is dead... Maybe...