Previous in Forum: Christmas in july   Next in Forum: Cell phone and gas pumps dangers
Close
Close
Close
16 comments
Rating: Comments: Nested
Participant

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3

General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/03/2009 8:20 PM

Some thought experiments and questions. I would much appreciate any comments on whether my analyses below are correct.

1. I am falling feet first into a black hole. An external observer will never see me fall past the event horizon. However, in my frame of reference I will fall past it in finite time. Puzzlingly I can never see my feet fall past the event horizon either because if I could, I could relay this from my head mounted web-cam (which is not yet past the event horizon) to an external observer.

As best as I understand this peculiarity it is because the paths that light can take get bent and so light from my feet (and indeed any signal including nerve impulses) can never arrive at my head from my feet. This also includes the bits of my brain that are a little further away from the event horizon than other bits. So although I may pass through the black hole in finite time I can never experience this or make any observations or even think about my passage through the event horizon. I presume this continues once I am through the event horizon. Thus I can never observe anything about a black hole interior to the event horizon including any singularity that lurks in there.

Interestingly this occurs in large black holes where the gravity gradient at the event horizon need not be high. So I wont be ripped apart by tidal forces but I will still be separated from my feet and one part of my brain from another.

Another way of thinking about this is that as I get closer to the event horizon all light I see becomes restricted to a narrower and narrower cone above my head. Until at the moment of passage all incoming radiation is confined to a single dot directly above my head.

2. Because it takes me finite time to fall across the event horizon and to an external observer I never cross the event horizon from my perspective the entire history of the universe is played out as I look back up at the surrounding universe. Thus not only will I see all incoming light restricted to a small dot above my head it will become brighter and hotter as I fall in (think microwave background blue-shifted to gamma rays). This also includes infalling gravity radiation and matter. Seems like I will be subjected to seething cauldron of radiation, matter and gravity waves. Not much left of my body by now.

3. Assume that black holes do indeed emit Hawking radiation as predicted. Also that given enough time any black-hole will eventually evaporate from Hawking radiation. Now it seems that as I fall into the hole I will start seeing the incoming half of the Hawking radiation as infalling onto my head. And in the finite time it takes me to fall across the event horizon I will see enough of that radiation to destroy (evaporate) the black hole (including enough energy to destroy (evaporate) the mass of my body).

4. The outgoing particle of the two virtual particles in Hawking radiation must be emitted from just outside the event horizon (or otherwise it could never be seen by an external observer as Hawking radiation - this could be very tricky indeed but I will forge on with the naive interpretation of what is going on - please someone help me here). Now consider an object that has the same mass as the black hole but which is just slightly bigger than the back hole (say its surface is half way between the event horizon and where the particle was emitted). Such an object is not a black hole. But the environment where the particle was emitted is locally identical to the situation where the original Hawking radiation was emitted. This implies that Hawking radiation is emitted not just from where there is a black hole but anywhere that space-time is curved. I wonder if this analysis is correct and if it is whether such radiation (say from Earth or some other handy space-time curving object) could be detected.

PS: If this isn't an appropriate place to post this I would appreciate any tips on where to post it.

Register to Reply
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive votes to make them "good answers".
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2550
Good Answers: 103
#1

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/03/2009 10:08 PM

This one is a beauty (but again may be for the theoritical ones) and beware there are some slanging matches seen there and the moderator is not so moderate as the CR4, he may too join in it there.

http://www.physicsforums.com/

__________________
Fantastic ideas for a Fantastic World, I make the illogical logical.They put me in cars,they put me in yer tv.They put me in stereos and those little radios you stick in your ears.They even put me in watches, they have teeny gremlins for your watches
Register to Reply
Participant

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
#6
In reply to #1

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/04/2009 7:28 PM

Thanks sb I have posted it over there.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 42355
Good Answers: 1693
#2

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/03/2009 11:13 PM
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4448
Good Answers: 143
#3

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/04/2009 8:17 AM

I have only two words for you: Jorrie.

__________________
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." Elwood P. Dowd
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2550
Good Answers: 103
#4
In reply to #3

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/04/2009 8:26 AM

But that is one word where is the other ?

Physicist may be the other ?

__________________
Fantastic ideas for a Fantastic World, I make the illogical logical.They put me in cars,they put me in yer tv.They put me in stereos and those little radios you stick in your ears.They even put me in watches, they have teeny gremlins for your watches
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4448
Good Answers: 143
#5
In reply to #4

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/04/2009 8:43 AM

Yeah, he would. I'm looking for the other one...

__________________
"Well, I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." Elwood P. Dowd
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing -

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Burnt Ranch, State of Jefferson
Posts: 688
Good Answers: 20
#7

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/05/2009 12:52 AM

Perhaps I have too many beers in me right now to give this a proper response, but what could possibly be used to keep tidal shredding from occurring? Perhaps there is nothing that can keep tidal shredding from happening, and, therefore, we can't experience falling into a black hole. Anthropomorphological existence and all........

__________________
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” -Mark Twain
Register to Reply
4
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#8

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/05/2009 5:45 AM

Hi John and welcome to the CR4 forum!

You wrote: "Puzzlingly I can never see my feet fall past the event horizon either because if I could, I could relay this from my head mounted web-cam (which is not yet past the event horizon) to an external observer."

No, you will continuously 'see your feet' as you fall through the event horizon. According to "Free-fall coordinates", at the event horizon space itself 'falls' into the black hole at c (and faster than c inside it). Since you're in free fall, you are static in this space and photons can move from your feet to your head with no problems at all times (until you get too close to the central singularity, that is). In fact if the black hole is extremely large, that space around you at the event horizon will be virtually flat and Lorentz geometry will apply locally! If the event horizon was an entity, you would have witnessed it to fly past you at the normal speed of light (c).

The trick is that once your feet enter the event horizon, you will only see them once your eyes also enter, because the photons will not 'rise' to your eyes, you need to 'fall' to them. Hence, you cannot transmit pictures of your feet (inside the event horizon) to a distant observer.

Once you are inside, you can continue to observe your feet until you are close to the central singularity, where the tidal gravity will be so strong that your feet will eventually part from you at the speed of light, so you won't see them (even before they are crushed). You will be stretched apart long before that, I guess!

I think the rest of your thoughts are right, so please tell me if you can follow and agree with my points above. (I'm sometimes too cryptic to make any sense!)

-J

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Participant

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
#9
In reply to #8

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/05/2009 8:17 AM

Thank you, yes that is very clear.

So you agree with the other thoughts about blue shifted incoming radiation and hawking radiation? This seems very different from the consensus view and the incoming hawking radiation I think means that it is effectively impossible to get in past the event horizon before you are annihilated?

Register to Reply
4
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#10
In reply to #9

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/05/2009 11:43 AM

Hi again John, I do broadly agree with what you wrote about the blue shifted (and Hawking) radiation, but there are a few issues that you should take note of. I should have taken a closer look at what you wrote, but I was in a bit of a hurry - sorry!

The blue shift is actually only true for a static (or near static) observer just outside the event horizon. Observers falling towards a black hole at local escape velocity do not experience blue shift of distant objects, because loosely speaking, time dilation (redshift) due to velocity cancels out the gravitational blue shift of the distant stars, or:

dΤ/dt ~ √[1-V2/c2] / √[1-2GM/(rc2)],

where V = √[2GM/r], the locally measured velocity of particle falling from rest at 'infinity', so dΤ/dt ~ 1. This means that the local in-falling observer will not see the distant clocks speed up (blue shifting). So, in a way, that may save your bacon.

Since Hawking radiation is very local, it will probably be redshifted by your velocity (once you have gone into the hole), but I'm not sure of that. What I can say is that your falling into a very large black hole will be all over in a very short time compared to the evaporation time of the hole - which may take virtually forever. It is only micro black holes (if they exist) that is thought to evaporate in the present age of the universe.

On things like neutron stars emitting Hawking radiation- nah, don't think so! Further, I do not think you can have something 'just a little' larger than its theoretical event horizon radius without it collapsing into a black hole anyway. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence everywhere, but I think you need to be very close to the event horizon of a black hole in order to separate them coherently and generate Hawking radiation. But then, I'm not very well versed in Hawking radiation!

-J

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Power-User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Posts: 313
Good Answers: 7
#14
In reply to #8

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/07/2009 11:18 AM

"Hence, you cannot transmit pictures of your feet (inside the event horizon) to a distant observer."

Stated more generally: "You can not transmit information from inside the event horizon of a black hole."

However- is it theoretically possible to probe inside the event horizon using entangled particles (sending one into the black hole while measuring the properties of the other)?

__________________
Bill Morrow
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#15
In reply to #14

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/07/2009 2:17 PM

Hi BM, you wrote: "... is it theoretically possible to probe inside the event horizon using entangled particles (sending one into the black hole while measuring the properties of the other)?"

AFAIK, no useful information can be sent via entangled particles, since it violates causality (faster than light information transfer). The two particle's quantum states may be correlated at measurement, but you have no idea what it means when you measure one of the two. You do 'instantaneously know' what the other particle's quantum state is, but it is random and contains no information.

-J

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Cosmology - Let's keep knowledge expanding Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - Hobbies - HAM Radio - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North America, Earth
Posts: 4528
Good Answers: 106
#11

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/05/2009 12:55 PM

Hi John,

Welcome to CR4. I and others have posted similar topics here, so it's the right place. You must have done some reading, so probably know more about it than I. You have already received posts form the "Guru × 5" (Jorrie), so I may not be able to add much.

"Thus not only will I see all incoming light restricted to a small dot above my head it will become brighter and hotter as I fall in (think microwave background blue-shifted to gamma rays). This also includes infalling gravity radiation and matter. Seems like I will be subjected to seething cauldron of radiation, matter and gravity waves."

I don't recall hearing anything like this, so I have my doubts. It will be interesting to see what the physics forum folks have to say. Seems like if you are moving at close to the speed of light, the "outer" radiation couldn't get to you (at least not with much energy).

"Now consider an object that has the same mass as the black hole but which is just slightly bigger than the back hole (say its surface is half way between the event horizon and where the particle was emitted). Such an object is not a black hole."

I was going to say that you couldn't have a mass greater than a black hole without it also being a black hole, but Jorrie beat me to it.

Regards,

-S

__________________
“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” - Richard Feynman
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Aerospace Engineering - Retired South Africa - Member - The Rainbow-nation Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Relativity & Cosmology Popular Science - Cosmology - The Big Picture!

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 3804
Good Answers: 69
#12
In reply to #11

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/05/2009 10:04 PM

Hi S, you asked John about his:

"Thus not only will I see all incoming light restricted to a small dot above my head it will become brighter and hotter as I fall in (think microwave background blue-shifted to gamma rays)."

As I wrote above, the blue shift part is not correct for an in-falling observer, but the restriction of light rays to a small region directly 'above' the BH's event horizon is correct. Light and matter tend towards falling precisely radial as they near the event horizon of a non-rotating (Schwarzschild) BH.[1] This is caused by the intense gravitational field there. Along the equator of a rotating (Kerr) black hole, the dragging of inertial frames causes this 'spot' to shift towards the 'horizontal' in the plane of rotation.

-J

[1] I describe this more fully on pages 99 - 101 (section 6.3.2) of Relativity 4 Engineers. Prof. Kip Thorne describes it qualitatively in the preamble to his Black holes and Time Warps.

__________________
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge." -- Kahlil Gibran
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Mechanical Engineering - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 767
Good Answers: 58
#13

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

07/06/2009 5:18 AM

John,

I stand in awe at both your questions and Jorrie's answers.

Now I need to go to the other site and see what those guys have to say (if I can understand it).

__________________
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (A.E.)
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 440
Good Answers: 2
#16

Re: General Relativity Hawking Radiation

08/05/2009 4:33 PM

I love this stuff. I can just feel my brain becoming more massive as these ideas land in it!

Register to Reply
Register to Reply 16 comments

Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive votes to make them "good answers".
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

AstroNut (1); bmorrow492 (1); John.G.Cleary (2); Jorrie (4); lighthasmass (1); lyn (1); sb (2); StandardsGuy (1); The Prof (1); TVP45 (2)

Previous in Forum: Christmas in july   Next in Forum: Cell phone and gas pumps dangers

Advertisement