When You Fall Into a Black Hole, How Long Have You Got?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2012 9:50 PM GMT
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/critical-opalescence/2012/12/14/when-you-fall-into-a-black-hole-how-long-have-you-got/
  • a303guy

    Posts: 829

    Dec 16, 2012 6:06 AM GMT
    And as we all know, 'in space, no one can hear you scream'.

    Which, I guess, when it comes to black holes and the presumed death you would 'experience' by being sucked into it - it might be awhile.

    or not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 6:10 AM GMT
    We talkin' about the same black holes here? icon_redface.gif
  • FredMG

    Posts: 988

    Dec 16, 2012 7:06 AM GMT
    by the time you've realized it you're done for it.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Dec 16, 2012 8:06 AM GMT
    There was another hypothesis I've seen in which, upon crossing the event horizon, one would cease to exist due to radiation interactions at the plane. It's a hypothesis that's rapidly gaining support too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 8:12 AM GMT
    As long as the black hole allows me. icon_twisted.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 8:42 AM GMT
    I don't care how long I've got, what struck me the most was the statement, "Though mangled beyond recognition, each martyr to the cause of knowledge can still be separated out and pieced back together."

    It makes me wonder if this would not allow travel at the speed of light without the excessive gain in mass that would normally occur.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 9:32 AM GMT
    waterloonicetop saidthen of course there is the question of "can electricity pass out of the event horizon"? If you have a sufficiently strong and long wire, can you put it into the event horizon and get information out?


    No, because the electromagnetic force is carried by photons, and the event horizon is where the escape velocity is the speed of light (photons).
    Also, any wire would be held together by electromagnetic forces, so no wire would be be sufficiently strong.
    According to special relativity, no information can travel (locally) faster than light, so it doesn't matter how the wire is held together, really.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 9:39 AM GMT
    Medjai saidThere was another hypothesis I've seen in which, upon crossing the event horizon, one would cease to exist due to radiation interactions at the plane. It's a hypothesis that's rapidly gaining support too.


    Yeah, that's the point of the article. What happens when someone crosses the event horizon? It's controversial, due (mostly) to the information paradox.

    Apex0111 saidI don't care how long I've got, what struck me the most was the statement, "Though mangled beyond recognition, each martyr to the cause of knowledge can still be separated out and pieced back together."

    It makes me wonder if this would not allow travel at the speed of light without the excessive gain in mass that would normally occur.

    The information (entropy) is still there, but extracting it is not feasible (this is an engineering problem, not necessarily a problem in physics). How would this let you travel at the speed of light? The gain in mass comes through special relativity and inertial rest frames in relative motion.
  • Bicuriouscool

    Posts: 233

    Dec 16, 2012 10:03 AM GMT
    waterloonicetop saidthen of course there is the question of "can electricity pass out of the event horizon"? If you have a sufficiently strong and long wire, can you put it into the event horizon and get information out?


    No for one thing the wire will be sucked into the black hole. Since they have infinite mass in infinitesimally small space (aka singularity) the gravitational pull is very very very high. It can suck material out of nearby stars so I dont think you can hold onto the wire. And the part of the wire inside of the event horizon is crushed/distorted.

    Apex0111 saidIt makes me wonder if this would not allow travel at the speed of light without the excessive gain in mass that would normally occur.

    I dont think so. Because according to some new hypothesis you are under free fall inside blackholes. And outside blackholes you can never reach the speed of light, you can only come close to it and if you supply more energy to increase speed it will add to the mass of the object(E=mc^2)



    But again this is my understanding based on some hypothesis. And blackholes are not a subject I understand well. Nobody does actually, I guess quatum-gravity(most probably) or superstring theory may be able to explain it if they are properly developed. I hope to live atleast that long...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 10:21 AM GMT
    Bicuriouscool said
    waterloonicetop saidthen of course there is the question of "can electricity pass out of the event horizon"? If you have a sufficiently strong and long wire, can you put it into the event horizon and get information out?


    No for one thing the wire will be sucked into the black hole. Since they have infinite mass in infinitesimally small space (aka singularity) the gravitational pull is very very very high. It can suck material out of nearby stars so I dont think you can hold onto the wire. And the part of the wire inside of the event horizon is crushed/distorted.

    Apex0111 saidIt makes me wonder if this would not allow travel at the speed of light without the excessive gain in mass that would normally occur.

    I dont think so. Because according to some new hypothesis you are under free fall inside blackholes. And outside blackholes you can never reach the speed of light, you can only come close to it and if you supply more energy to increase speed it will add to the mass of the object(E=mc^2)



    But again this is my understanding based on some hypothesis. And blackholes are not a subject I understand well. Nobody does actually, I guess quatum-gravity(most probably) or superstring theory may be able to explain it if they are properly developed. I hope to live atleast that long...


    The mass is not infinite.
    The density at the singularity should be infinite, but only assuming there is a singular point, which is just speculative at this time, and is just about as reasonable as a divide by 0.
  • Bicuriouscool

    Posts: 233

    Dec 16, 2012 10:33 AM GMT
    shortmuscle said
    The mass is not infinite.
    The density at the singularity should be infinite, but only assuming there is a singular point, which is just speculative at this time, and is just about as reasonable as a divide by 0.


    Well I guess that's what I read, that there's a LOT of mass in very small (to loosely quote "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, more than million times smaller than an atom) so density obviously is very high. Some layman books say a huge number per spoon-full volume.
    Division by zero is quite reasonable according to mathematicians, its only that you can't relate that to some physical thing/phenomena/quantity/whatever.
    And to be frank most of the things about blackholes are only speculated/theoretically derived. Singularity at least is also mentioned in Big Bang Theory, which is most widely supported theory for creation of the universe
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 10:54 AM GMT
    Bicuriouscool said
    shortmuscle said
    The mass is not infinite.
    The density at the singularity should be infinite, but only assuming there is a singular point, which is just speculative at this time, and is just about as reasonable as a divide by 0.


    Well I guess that's what I read, that there's a LOT of mass in very small (to loosely quote "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, more than million times smaller than an atom) so density obviously is very high. Some layman books say a huge number per spoon-full volume.
    Division by zero is quite reasonable according to mathematicians, its only that you can't relate that to some physical thing/phenomena/quantity/whatever.
    And to be frank most of the things about blackholes are only speculated/theoretically derived. Singularity at least is also mentioned in Big Bang Theory, which is most widely supported theory for creation of the universe


    Oh, I'm just putting it out there for you.
    A division by zero is a singular point.
    Anything in mathematics is reasonable as long as it's consistent.
    Whether a mathematical model is relatable to what occurs in the universe is another matter.
    There are other theories that don't have singular points.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 11:03 AM GMT
    Quite sure your atoms would be shredded before you fall in icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 11:12 AM GMT
    Until its about to Time.

    Hawking-radiation.jpg


    Fascinating shape fascinating diagram, with that article I don't see any differences with our black hole.
  • Bicuriouscool

    Posts: 233

    Dec 16, 2012 11:18 AM GMT
    shortmuscle said
    Bicuriouscool said
    shortmuscle said
    The mass is not infinite.
    The density at the singularity should be infinite, but only assuming there is a singular point, which is just speculative at this time, and is just about as reasonable as a divide by 0.


    Well I guess that's what I read, that there's a LOT of mass in very small (to loosely quote "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, more than million times smaller than an atom) so density obviously is very high. Some layman books say a huge number per spoon-full volume.
    Division by zero is quite reasonable according to mathematicians, its only that you can't relate that to some physical thing/phenomena/quantity/whatever.
    And to be frank most of the things about blackholes are only speculated/theoretically derived. Singularity at least is also mentioned in Big Bang Theory, which is most widely supported theory for creation of the universe


    Oh, I'm just putting it out there for you.
    A division by zero is a singular point.
    Anything in mathematics is reasonable as long as it's consistent.
    Whether a mathematical mode is relatable to what occurs in the universe is another matter.
    There are other theories that don't have singular points.


    1st point-I agree, it does make sense to me.

    2nd point- Most probably true but I feel its too generalised.

    3rd pt- I said about division by zero because you seemed to be ridiculing it. "The density at the singularity should be infinite, but only assuming there is a singular point, which is just speculative at this time, and is just about as reasonable as a divide by 0."

    4rth point- That's because other theories don't have anything to do with singularity except for th
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 11:37 AM GMT
    Bicuriouscool said
    shortmuscle said
    Bicuriouscool said
    shortmuscle said
    The mass is not infinite.
    The density at the singularity should be infinite, but only assuming there is a singular point, which is just speculative at this time, and is just about as reasonable as a divide by 0.


    Well I guess that's what I read, that there's a LOT of mass in very small (to loosely quote "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson, more than million times smaller than an atom) so density obviously is very high. Some layman books say a huge number per spoon-full volume.
    Division by zero is quite reasonable according to mathematicians, its only that you can't relate that to some physical thing/phenomena/quantity/whatever.
    And to be frank most of the things about blackholes are only speculated/theoretically derived. Singularity at least is also mentioned in Big Bang Theory, which is most widely supported theory for creation of the universe


    Oh, I'm just putting it out there for you.
    A division by zero is a singular point.
    Anything in mathematics is reasonable as long as it's consistent.
    Whether a mathematical mode is relatable to what occurs in the universe is another matter.
    There are other theories that don't have singular points.


    1st point-I agree, it does make sense to me.

    2nd point- Most probably true but I feel its too generalised.

    3rd pt- I said about division by zero because you seemed to be ridiculing it. "The density at the singularity should be infinite, but only assuming there is a singular point, which is just speculative at this time, and is just about as reasonable as a divide by 0."

    4rth point- That's because other theories don't have anything to do with singularity except for th


    But that's what a singular point is.
    If you can't accept a division by zero in a physical theory, you can't accept a singular point.
    That's all I mean.
    There is no infinite density with finite mass, unless the volume is zero.

    The Planck length is the smallest reasonable length allowed by quantum mechanics. This is a very small length, but finite. However, no one has been able to make quantum mechanics compatible with general relativity (and so, black holes).

    There are other theories/hypotheses that deal with the information paradox where information never crosses the event horizon.
  • metta

    Posts: 39161

    Sep 29, 2013 2:46 AM GMT
    Falling into a Black Hole