The information inside the volume of black hole is proportional to its surface.
However, what if information does not cross the horizon, rather it is constrained to stay on the horizon's surface, progressively increasing the black hole radius? What if the black hole is empty, and its force comes just from a spacetime distorption inside it? Reversing Einstein, what if the black hole's attraction is not caused by its mass, but just by the spacetime deformation inside it? This would explain the paradoxes of the holographic principle...
Thanks
Clues: material isn’t doomed to be sucked into the hole. Only a small amount of it falls in, while some of it is ejected back out into space.
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-famous-black-hole-jet-cosmic.html
https://www.universetoday.com/144520/m87s-black-hole-is-firing-out-jets-that-travel-99-the-speed-of-light/
My Dear Arturo, There is no Black Hole, it is all postulation of couple of icon scientists. Black hole is fiction, and so far it never been detected by anyone, but we have thousands of theories on it.
PS: the picture that revealed 2019, was a computerized by few scientists, or it was not for real, so speak. For detail, you can read some of my articles in RG, or academia.edu best
As far as we are concerned nothing has ever gone into a black hole. Because the escape velocity from the black hole is the speed of light, light and information from something entering a black hole at the beginning of time hasn't reached us yet. We can see it (hugely delayed and red-shifted) as it approaches the black hole, but not at the boundary. In this case, because it is the distortion of space-time that is causing it, not being able to see it means that it hasn't happened yet.
The statement doesn't make sense, because the black hole horizon isn't a space-like surface, it's a coordinate artifact. The observer at infinity doesn't detect it, nor does any other observer.
The observable feature of a black hole is it's singularity, that affects certain observers (e.g. the freely falling observer) but not others (the observer at infinity, that doesn't detect it either).
Hi Stam Nicolis
Based on your understanding, could you tell me how long it takes light from the horizon to reach us? Presumably, at some distance into a black hole, that time goes up to infinity. I was assuming that that place was the horizon.
Once more: The horizon isn't somewhere in particular, so it doesn't make sense to ask the question.
The surface of a star that has collapsed is somewhere-where the star is-and that surface is, unfortunately, called the event horizon, too. The surface of the collapsed star is where the star is. That the light from that star, after its collapse, no longer reaches us, is due to the fact that the star no longer emits light, however.
Dear Stam, the black hole horizon acquires a physical meaning wheh Beckenstein and Hawking state that the entropy of the black hole is proportional to its surface. Therefore, such surface is NOT a coordinate artifact.
Once more: That the entropy of a black hole takes a finite value, that can be associated to an area, doesn't mean that a light-like surface, that's a coordinate artifact, either isn't a coordinate artifact, or that it becomes space-like.
The horizon remains a coordinate artifact; the entropy of a black hole isn't.
They're distinct notions, since the entropy of the black hole in fact, counts the states of the quantum field theory that's in equilibrium in such a spacetime.
"The Schwarzschild radius is a physical parameter that shows up in the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equations, corresponding to the radius defining the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole".
Call it horizon, call it entropy as you desire, my question is the same: could it be that information from outside the black hole reaches just this external radius, accumulating on this surface, rather than entering INSIDE the radius? If inside the radius there is no information, it explains why the entropy of the black hole is proportional to the area of the entropy (as you call it), and not to the volume.
On the other side, dear Stam, if you check the formula of the Beckenstein-Hawking entropy, the value A on the right side of the equation stands for the area of the EVENT HORIZON.
Gotcha. I found an answer by myself. Somebody already had to my idea, and he's not a crank:
https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mathur.16/faq2.pdf
It perfectly fits with a total annhilation of the holographic principle, and requires to fully rethink the concept of black hole.
See also:
https://www.nature.com/news/astrophysics-fire-in-the-hole-1.12726
That the black hole entropy scales like an area-which is its remarkable property-doesn't imply that the event horizon isn't a coordinate artifact. Indeed it's a standard exercise, whose solution is presented in all textbooks on general relativity, to show that the black hole metric can be written in such a way that its only singularity is the so-called black hole singularity.
The event horizon of a black hole spacetime is a light-like surface, so nothing ``stops'' on it; it's not possible. That's why asking whether anything can doesn't make sense, even leaving aside the fact that the event horizon can be eliminated by a coordinate transformation. The horizon is as much a singularity as the origin is a singularity of the spherical coordinate system; it suffices to use cartesian coordinates to eliminate the singularity of the spherical coordinate system; it suffices to use Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates to eliminate the event horizon as a singular surface for the coordinate system describing a black hole. The metric in general relativity isn't an observable quantity.
The fuzzball proposal doesn't have anything to do with these statements, since it attempts to describe how the spacetime geometry, whose classical limit would be a black hole, changes, when probed by quantum matter.
... "That the black hole entropy scales like an area..."
an area of WHAT?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Force