Viewing black holes

[munch]

A couple questions have been bothering me for a while. We all know the event horizon is an area beyond which no information can pass to the outside universe. However, if I was to hover just outside the event horizon, wouldn't I be able to take information from outside the event horizon as I see it?

 

Furthermore, what's to stop me from sending a series of probes, each one penetrating deeper into the event horizon, and having the probes relay information from as far into the event horizon as I want? (This is assuming the probes can boost the energy of the redshifted information coming from further in.) I know this shouldn't be possible, but I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work. Can anyone prove me wrong?

[Jay-qu]

Well assuming you have sufficiently indestructible probes, and lots of fuel to keep your self hovering at the event horizon, once anything passes beyond that point the curvature of space is so great that not even traveling at the speed of light will allow you to escape. So if your probes couldnt send you any information in any form, even if they where in 'arms reach' of yourself.

[munch]

Right, but doesn't the event horizon mark where information can't escape to normal "flat" space? The idea is the information doesn't have to escape, it just needs to reach the next probe out. Although the information that does escape isn't the same that the innermost probe received, it should contain the same information.

[Jay-qu]

yes, the curvature of space at the event horizon prevents any information from traveling further away from the center of the hole.

[munch]

Ok, but the idea is that a series of probes could relay copies of the information from inside the event horizon. I know information from inside the horizon can't escape, but it's not necessarily that information that escapes, it's information about what the probes see and relay to the next probe in sequence.

 

I'm thinking of maybe a picture file, for example. Probe 1 takes a picture and sends it out to probe 2. It's redshifted into radio range when probe 2 receives it, but once it gets the entire picture, it re-broadcasts it as, say, a gamma ray burst. Probe 3 gets the redshifted gamma ray burst as radio, makes its own gamma ray transmission, and so on until probe n transmits into flat space.

 

That's what shouldn't work.

[CraigD]

However, if I was to hover just outside the event horizon, wouldn't I be able to take information from outside the event horizon as I see it?

 

Furthermore, what's to stop me from sending a series of probes, each one penetrating deeper into the event horizon, and having the probes relay information from as far into the event horizon as I want? (This is assuming the probes can boost the energy of the redshifted information coming from further in.) I know this shouldn't be possible, but I can't think of any reason it wouldn't work.

According to General Relativity, it would be impossible for a probe even a tiny distance within the event horizon of a black hole to send a signal of any kind to one even a tiny distance outside it. If a probe were positioned part within and part outside the event horizon, it would be unable to communicate within itself – a very severe problem, as at some location, the photons of magnetic force holding its matter together would be unable to “communicate”, and it would fall apart, despite the fact that the gravitational tidal force of a sufficiently massive black hole is small enough to not cause too much strain for commonplace materials to hold together.

 

According to quantum mechanics, it should be possible to send a signal across the event horizon of a black hole by manipulating the distribution of mass within it, effecting the Hawking radiation produced outside it. According to General Relativity again, however, such manipulation might take an infinite amount of time relative to an observer outside the event horizon.

 

Neither of these theories (Relativity and Hawking radiation) are uncontroversial when applied to the vicinity of the event horizon of a black hole, so what would actually happen is debatable. Reconciling gravity with quantum mechanics – a theory of quantum gravity - would help settle this debate, but is a very difficult problem.

[munch]

Huh. I thought the event horizon wasn't static... like the closer you got to the Swartzchild radius, the further into the black hole you could see. It still doesn't make sense, but I guess relativity isn't supposed to make sense.

[Jay-qu]

like the closer you got to the Swartzchild radius, the further into the black hole you could see. It still doesn't make sense, but I guess relativity isn't supposed to make sense.

 

Im not sure where you got that from, but I am pretty sure its false. Relativity makes sense insofar as its self consistent and is a great description of the world we see around us.

[von Faulkenstein]

Interesting question and answers. I did find out from Wikipedia that--

 

"In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole, which would resolve the information paradox. Basically, his argument assumes the unitarity of the AdS/CFT correspondence which implies that an AdS black hole which is dual to a thermal conformal field theory, is unitary."

 

Could such an event(if found to be correct) take place that would present some such information about a black hole?

[munch]

I remember reading about that too. I think it had something to do with quantum displacement of the singularity. In any event, Stephen Hawking owes Kip Thorne an encyclopedia set, since he originally bet black holes don't store information. And since Hawking never pays off a wager until he's absolutely convinced it's true, I take information preservation at face value.

 

That raises another question. Has Hawking ever won a bet with Thorne?

 

Relativity makes sense insofar as its self consistent and is a great description of the world we see around us.

 

General mechanics is a great description of the world we see. For most practical purposes, no one really needs relativity, as it does tend to complicate things so. Most of us won't ever encounter a situation that requires it.

 

Plus, relativity is the main reason I gave up on physics, so I do hold a bit of a grudge there. :)

[Jay-qu]

 

General mechanics is a great description of the world we see. For most practical purposes, no one really needs relativity, as it does tend to complicate things so. Most of us won't ever encounter a situation that requires it.

 

Well that depends on what you mean by encountering.. because systems such as the GPS rely on relativistic calculations to be correct, normal mechanics wont do in this situation.

[munch]

Ok, you got me. I was thinking along the lines of "most people don't get to play with particle accelerators."

[Qfwfq]

In any case, relativity is meant to make sense and it does. The only small detail is that you need to understand it, not such a simple thing.

[von Faulkenstein]

It seems that the two great theories of the universe are relativity (Einstein's GRT) and quantum but they remain separated to date while researchers continue to find the uniting theory (TOE) from the 'small end" of particle concepts. I have read that perhaps we should consider the "large end" of cosmic structures to find such a unified theory. Does such a suggestion include Hawking's use of quantum theories to black holes and the use of Mandelbrot set theory applied to these large cosmic structures?

[arkain101]

I would preose that we would have to expand on sense itself.

 

"Hey that doesnt make sense"

 

We hear that allot, we say that allot.

 

However, what is required to create something that is sensible.

 

For example; the number 1 does not make 'sense'. (A thought that scares me for it in the use of the unit for c, but that is a different topic all together.)

 

The number 1 does not make sense in its definition

 

A quick google defintion on the word one reveils:

 

# used of a single unit or thing; not two or more; "`ane' is Scottish"

# one(a): having the indivisible character of a unit; "a unitary action"; "spoke with one voice"

# one(a): of the same kind or quality; "two animals of one species"

# one(a): used informally as an intensifier; "that is one fine dog"

# one(a): indefinite in time or position; "he will come one day"; "one place or another"

# the smallest whole number or a numeral representing this number; "he has the one but will need a two and three to go with it"; "they had lunch at one"

# being a single entity made by combining separate components; "three chemicals combining into one solution"

# a single person or thing; "he is the best one"; "this is the one I ordered"

# matchless: eminent beyond or above comparison; "matchless beauty"; "the team's nonpareil center fielder"; "she's one girl in a million"; "the one and only Muhammad Ali"; "a peerless scholar"; "infamy unmatched in the Western world"; "wrote with unmatchable clarity"; "unrivaled mastery of her art"

 

However, to have 1 you must either be that ONE, or be the other ONE of which to describe/define/observe the one in the frame of reference, (the one we are referring to.)

 

So the number 1 makes no sense like it is to imagine the universe all as one thing including yourself, so much so, either everything is the same or nothing is everything-everything is nothing. However you need to refer to it.

 

So to have one we must have two.

 

Relating this back to the topic of discussion I find one shall see that sense is not found in singularity.

 

The very heart of relativity is based on the proposal (postulate) that there is no such thing as an absolute, an all important ONE.. This is not only due to the consequences involved in relativity but also due to the fact of it not making "SENSE".

 

What seems to make No sense, no matter how you attempt to look at it, tends to not be capable to exist in our known realm of existence.

 

If the particular thing as it were, exists without our knowing, it may be so, just as one was un-aware earth could be observed as a relative sphere in comparison to it being flat, and it being possible when involving a certain velocity, time, or distance.

 

There is much that leans towards black holes as being singularities, and as we may have learned here in this post, singularities do not make sense, and thus a black hole does not make sense, and thus a black hole could be defined as a non existence, nothing , or everything.

 

Information of a black hole is found in being capable to make an observation of course. to make an observation, a space-time frame must intermingle with the frame of the black hole, and thus, at the cost of giving up the mingling with the other frames we know and see today.

 

Each probe would experience its closer partner probe as further itself from its own locality of space and time which information determines (space-time), thus any form of information should follow suite.

 

Hope this made sense.