Dearest Luffly Black Holeologists,

I was watching Horizon last week (also mentioned in another post here )..and some klevur bloke used an analogy that the event horizon was like the edge of waterfall where a swimmer would previously have been able to swim faster than the flow of water but as he/she/it approaches the edge.... the water would be flowing too fast and thus there would be no escape against the flow of water !..not true...

I threw my neighbour in the Victoria falls at 3am this morning (cos I'm a firm believer in empirical study) and with a rope attached to him I proved that I could pull him against the flow of water...I was so happy..I gave a high ten to a passer-by !!...hmmm...I erhm..well..let go of the rope for that !!

So, say I had like a mega strong piece of vine **could one end be anchored to spacey ship while the end attached to my neighbour and chucked towards the event horizon and then once passed the event horizon, I could just pull him back yes ?**..easy peasy lemon squeezy !!

Neil

Black Hole Inquirer

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It's complicated

First of all, the Event horizon is the idea of a place where from a photon won't be able to bounce back, once passing that 'place' all light will have only one way to go, inwards. Of course the same will hold true for all other thingies we know of too, inside our arrow of time that is, like 'matter'.

What it won't hold true for is Hawking radiation.

" Hawking predicted that energy fluctuations from the vacuum causes the generation of particle-antiparticle pairs near the event horizon of the black hole. One of the particles falls into the black hole while the other escapes, before they have an opportunity to annihilate each other. The net result is that, to someone viewing the black hole, it would appear that a particle had been emitted.

Since the particle that is emitted has positive energy, the particle that gets absorbed by the black hole has a negative energy relative to the outside universe. This results in the black hole losing energy, and thus mass (because E = mc2).

Smaller primordial black holes can actually emit more energy than they absorb, which results in them losing net mass. Larger black holes, such as those that are one solar mass, absorb more cosmic radiation than they emit through Hawking radiation. "

The idea here revolves around an entanglement as I understands it, happening faster than Planck time it will allow the entanglement to work at all places, including inside that black hole, or most probably inside, as that place should be a virtual whirlpool of 'virtual particles' popping in and out due to gravity/energy, but the virtual particles 'net energy' inside will then still be a zero creating no loss of mass. When/if it happens at the EV though, there exist this weird possibility of the pair splitting up creating the effect above.

What one should notice though is that as long as it still is a black hole, you can't really say that there is any form of 'communication' involved. There is no way we can prove that the entanglement isn't destroyed instantly by their split, also one have to remember that this entanglement then would come from something outside our 'arrow of time' as it is under Planck time and therefore won't hold any 'information' about SpaceTime, that is, if we define SpaceTime as a system following the arrow we observe macroscopically.

If we don't define SpaceTime as such I don't see how we can have a closed SpaceTime and if we can't have that I fail to see how we can prove the idea of 'energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed.' At a QM level time becomes indeterminate and expresses itself through its 'events' or 'process chains' as in Feynman diagrams. And as virtual particles then both will communicate with singularities as well as suddenly 'transform' into energy inside our arrow of time then a Black Hole can't be defined as a singularity any more but have be a integrated part of our SpaceTime too? Also we then will have to include those processes under Plank time as being SpaceTime? Which then fail to make sense to me :)if we still believe SpaceTime to be a infinite but closed process/system.

Never the less, if there is a event horizon it seems to act very strangely.

---Quote---

A misconception concerning event horizons, especially black hole event horizons, is that they represent an immutable surface that destroys objects that approach them. In practice, all event horizons appear to be some distance away from any observer, and objects sent towards an event horizon never appear to cross it from the sending observer's point of view (as the horizon-crossing event's light cone never intersects the observer's world line). Attempting to make an object approaching the horizon remain stationary with respect to an observer requires applying a force whose magnitude becomes unbounded (becoming infinite) the closer it gets.

For the case of an horizon perceived by a uniformly accelerating observer in empty space, the horizon seems to remain a fixed distance from the observer no matter how its surroundings move. Varying the observer's acceleration may cause the horizon to appear to move over time, or may prevent an event horizon from existing, depending on the acceleration function chosen. The observer never touches the horizon, and never passes a location where it appeared to be.

For the case of an horizon perceived by an occupant of a De Sitter Universe, the horizon always appears to be a fixed distance away for a non-accelerating observer. It is never contacted, even by an accelerating observer.

For the case of the horizon around a black hole, observers stationary with respect to a distant object will all agree on where the horizon is. While this seems to allow an observer lowered towards the hole on a rope to contact the horizon, in practice this cannot be done. If the observer is lowered very slowly, then, in the observer's frame of reference, the horizon appears to be very far away, and ever more rope needs to be paid out to reach the horizon. If the observer is quickly lowered by another observer, then indeed the first observer, and some of the rope can touch and even cross the (second observer's) event horizon. If the rope is pulled taut to fish the first observer back out, then the forces along the rope increase without bound as they approach the event horizon, and at some point the rope must break. Furthermore, the break must occur not at the event horizon, but at a point where the second observer can observe it.

Attempting to stick a rigid rod through the hole's horizon cannot be done: if the rod is lowered extremely slowly, then it is always too short to touch the event horizon, as the coordinate frames near the tip of the rod are extremely compressed. From the point of view of an observer at the end of the rod, the event horizon remains hopelessly out of reach. If the rod is lowered quickly, then the same problems as with the rope are encountered: the rod must break and the broken-off pieces inevitably fall in.

These peculiarities only occur because of the supposition that the observers be stationary with respect to some other distant observer. Observers who fall into the hole are moving with respect to the distant observer, and so perceive the horizon as being in a different location, seeming to recede in front of them so that they never contact it. Increasing tidal forces (and eventual impact with the hole's gravitational singularity) are the only locally noticeable effects. While this seems to allow an in-falling observer to relay information from objects outside their perceived horizon but inside the distant observer's perceived horizon, in practice the horizon recedes by an amount small enough that by the time the in-falling observer receives any signal from farther into the hole, they've already crossed what the distant observer perceived to be the horizon, and this reception event (and any retransmission) can't be seen by the distant observer.

---End of quote----

From

Event horizon And

conservation_of_energy So according to those scenarios you won't be able to be saved Neil, if you don't decide to eat it up of course

, in which case you could save some for us too perhaps

==

Ah, I see, your neighbor was it?

Irritating chap, what?