0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I saw this query on a YouTube video comments section and thought it had some validity:"If a graviton exists, and all force-carrier particles move at the speed of light, and a black hole is massive enough to bend space-time to a point where a particle must move faster than c to convey its force to an outside observer... then how can a graviton escape the event horizon to convey the gravity of that black hole to objects outside the event horizon? Does this not break causality and entropy?"
Recall that near the event horizon of a black hole there are virtual particle pairs being created. One goes inside the event horizon and the other one escapes. The ones that escape become real and the ones that are swallowed by the black hole contribute negative energy to the mass so that the mass decreases.
Write this up with a lot of complex mathematics and I can see a Nobel prize looming
Quote from: HellsMascot on 23/04/2013 04:37:51I saw this query on a YouTube video comments section and thought it had some validity:"If a graviton exists, and all force-carrier particles move at the speed of light, and a black hole is massive enough to bend space-time to a point where a particle must move faster than c to convey its force to an outside observer... then how can a graviton escape the event horizon to convey the gravity of that black hole to objects outside the event horizon? Does this not break causality and entropy?"There is no need of gravitons escaping the horizont event: there already is warped spacetime outside of it.
The idea behind gravitons is that its they which cause objects near the source to accelerate and in some sense do the "warping."
Therefore its wrong to say that they aren't needed.
However one can look at a black hole as a collapsed star whose matter never makes it into the event horizon because it gets frozen just at or outside the event horizon, as the link I providewd above suggests.
I'm still wondering about this one lean bean. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN .Not sure how close a analogue it is, but if it are we might be able to 'probe' a black holes configuration from it. This is a thing I hope JP to give us a better answer on. ==The best thing would be if we could find a way to 'bend light' by itself. But that doesn't seem to be possible? Although we have the 'invincibility cloak' created from light, at a small scale that is? I don't know, but I find it very interesting
It wasn't mass to warp spacetime?
As JP says, gravitons should (if I have understood it) act for the grav field as photons act for the EM field...
.. it's charges who generate the fields, not photons.
But even if they are needed, what I wrote is not that "they aren't needed", but that "there is no need that they come out of the BH".Do you agree?
If[/b] we are allowed to say the collapsed star never makes it to the event horizon, then for the same reason, are we allowed to say that future infalling matter from the end point of the spiral inflow will never leave that end point near the horizon and so cannot be distributed about the hole, but results in a non-symmetrical black hole shape?
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you wrote here. Please rephrase for clarification for me. Thank you.
Assuming a rotating black hole has an accretion disk from which matter spirals down, 'spiral inflow, to the horizon, my question…If your saying matter never makes it into the event horizon and is ‘frozen’ at/outside the event horizon, then are we allowed to think any future or later matter that spirals down from the accretion disk will never be seen to reach the horizon but is accumulating at the end point of the spiral inflow near the horizon?
Thus, I suggested wouldn’t this make the shape of the black hole non-symmetrical?