Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WittyUnwittingly t1_j27biy5 wrote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the statement "gravity is so strong that nothing can escape" encapsulates a lot more physical ramifications than just a really strong "pull force" coming from the center of the black hole. Defeating gravitational stress in itself is mostly meaningless, because there are other mechanisms keeping you inside a black hole.

Spacetime becomes curved to the point where there is no path out of the black hole. You could be alive and your spacecraft be perfectly functional, any direction you choose will only take you around the inside of the event horizon, even if you could go faster than the speed of light.

Also remember, from a relativity standpoint, objects at the event horizon have stopped in time. I'm not sure this is perfectly correct, but from the perspective of an outside observer, your "pendulum tether" would only ever asymptotically approach the event horizon - there would never be an "upswing" with which you could pull anything out. So yes, if you could pull a wire out, you could have the information at the end of it, but you can't pull it out, so no universal secrets for you.

Now, the craziest part is that those last two paragraphs are two different ways of saying the same thing. Even weirder, we also already know of a mechanism by which energy can escape a black hole: quantum tunneling (see: Hawking Radiation). We just need to invent a method of information transfer via quantum tunneling, and then we could have someone transmit the information back out to us from just "inside" the event horizon. There are other problems with this, like: when would you expect to receive a return signal from an observer that has crossed the event horizon?

Current BH research suggests that you can recover all of the information about what has fallen into a black hole by looking at the "soft hair," which are the spacetime traces of the objects that have stopped in time at the event horizon - you don't even need any fancy camera on a wire.

2

Fallacy_Spotted t1_j27ddpa wrote

A couple of points. The faster you go in any direction the faster you reach the singularity. If you were able to accelerate faster than light then you would just reach the singularity that much faster. Secondly, Hawking Raditation is not caused by quantum tunneling. It is generated when a particle pair spontaneously emerges from the background quantum fields. In this case one of the two resulting particles falls into the blackhole while the other is flung away as Hawking Radiation. This particle leaches some of the energy from the black hole.

1

WittyUnwittingly t1_j27ffpk wrote

I don't claim to be an authority on relativistic physics, so I may be making some incorrect assumptions here, but being "able to reach the singularity that much faster" only applies to the perspective of the person doing the accelerating. From our perspective (outside of the black hole), all of the material that "falls in" to a black hole builds upon itself infinitely AT the event horizon. So sure, your camera could accerlate towards the singularity and reach it really fast, but that's not an outcome that you would be able to observe from any other reference frame - it would never get there. We're in agreement about what would happen from the perspective of the object doing the accelerating.

If Hawking Radiation was as simplistic as you described, how would it cause your BH to lose mass? (You use the term "leaches" - I don't think that's a real science word) As far as I know, mainstream science agrees that Hawking Radiation is a tunneling process. (Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9907001, https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5042)

2

Fallacy_Spotted t1_j27nfra wrote

It is a simplified explaination. Mass is energy and the escaping particle has the same mass as the particle that fell in plus the energy used to escape. The only place this energy can come from is the blackhole itself. It is not strictly correct in all aspects but it is close. If you want something deeper I recommend this video from PBS spacetime. They even briefly mention that paper near the end. The whole channel is golden.

2