---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 " 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. "

And

conservation_of_energy (The last one I just let follow because I have read too many saying that black holes 'communicate'. I don't agree to that view myself as it would mean that it no longer would be a singularity. And i like the explanation, it makes perfect sense to me, and as far I can see does not involve any communication, if you don't see the particle-pairs as entangled and then also assume that it is the one destroyed that somehow will imprint the information on its entangled surviving twin.) And that's why I find conservation of energy interesting too.