Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How an Astronaut Falling Into a Black Hole Would Die Part 2

samzenpus posted 1 year,4 days | from the unlikeliest-of-endings dept.

Science 263

First time accepted submitter ydrozd writes "Until recently, most physicists believed that an observer falling into a black hole would experience nothing unusual when crossing its event horizon. As has been previously mentioned on Slashdot, there is a strong argument, initially based on observing an entangled pair at the event horizon, that suggests that the unfortunate observer would instead be burned up by a high energy quanta (a.k.a "firewall") just before crossing the black hole's event horizon. A new paper significantly improves the argument by removing reliance on quantum entanglement. The existence of black hole "firewalls" is a rare breakthrough in theoretical physics."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So what should the family do? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253189)

Technically if you cross the event horizon and if there is no firewall, then your family will die long before you do. So, should they set up funeral for millions of years in the future. And if you cross the event horizon, should you mourn them immediately?

Why hasn't science answered these questions?

Re:So what should the family do? (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253297)

He'd die of old age.

The nearest black hole is 1600 light-years away [universetoday.com] . If our astronaught started to journey thence, at the beginning of the Bronze age, it would be conceivable that he'd arrive there sometime in the next couple hundred years - using the fastest of feasibly extrapolated propulsion technologies. This of course, supposing those could have existed after the retreat f European ice-sheets.

Any other planned method to acquire more rapid proximity to a black hole, probably wouldn't work out, [huffingtonpost.com] either...

Re:So what should the family do? (5, Funny)

StripedCow (776465) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253403)

The nearest black hole is 1600 light-years away

Famous last words...

Re:So what should the family do? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,3 days | (#45254113)

"Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space -- the color of space, your basic space color -- is it's black. So how are you supposed to see them?" - Holly

Re:So what should the family do? (2, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254343)

Of course space isn't really black; rather it is completely transparent. It's the cosmic horizon behind it which is black. Actually at the horizon there's the glow of the big bang, but it is so heavily red-shifted that we only see it in the microwave range (the cosmic microwave background). Now in principle, when looking in the microwave range, black holes should be detectable as "microwave shadows". However I don't think we can measure microwaves in sufficient angular resolution for that.

Re:So what should the family do? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253521)

So the best answer on how an astronaut will die is "like the rest of mankind"? The only way to go to a black hole is that there is one coming toward us (don't need to be so far, is hard to detect them unless they interact with enough matter), and probably the cause of death won't be falling into it, but the mess that it will cause in the solar system just for getting close.

Anyway, they are not very common, maybe the closest one is that one 1600 light years away, and we probably will never get to it, or even the next star system.

Nearest we can see (2)

Roger W Moore (538166) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253531)

The nearest black hole is 1600 light-years away

That's the nearest one that we can see. However we only detect them by seeing emissions from the matter which falls into them. There could easily be one nearer that is nowhere near any matter. The only way we would then be able to detect it is by its gravitational influence on the solar system.

However, regardless of this, if you actually made it to a Black Hole the tidal forces would rip you apart well before you close enough to worry about massive time dilation effects. The closer you get to the black hole the stronger the field which means that, assuming you went in head first, the gravitational pull on your head would be a lot greater than the pull on your feet...you can imagine what the result will be when this force difference becomes large enough.

Re:Nearest we can see (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253773)

I remember reading that if the black hole is large enough, then the event horizon would be far enough away so that the tidal forces might not even be noticeable.

Radiation (1)

duckintheface (710137) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253851)

Assuming you could get to a black hole before dying of old age.....

Gamma Radiation would kill you long before a quantum firewall or tidal forces.

Re:Nearest we can see (4, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253965)

That's correct. On a 1-stellar mass black hole, the tidal force across a human body at the event horizon would shredded well before you get to the event horizon. But on a supermassive black hole, no such thing would hapen.

Re:So what should the family do? (2, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253649)

True, but in any scenario at all this is about what would happen to his corpse.

Re:So what should the family do? (4, Interesting)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253309)

I love how we treat blackholes specially.

The escape velocity of a neutron star is about 1/3 the speed of light --- and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible.

Escape velocity from the Sun is 617 km/per second --- not even New Horizons at 35,000 kph is anywhere close to that!

Jupiter's escape velocity? About 60 kps --- so if New Horizons was 8 or 9 times faster, would match that.

But black holes --- are not especially dangerous to humans in any way that any other massive objects (gas giants included) aren't. For some reason, we teach kids and adults that blackholes are "evil" and suck up everything --- but blackholes are very helpful holding galaxies together and binding our galaxies together so that they are warm and stable for extremely long periods of time.

Without blackholes, the universe may not be able to support life without the stability that blackholes give to galaxies.

So quit dogging our friends, the blackholes, you insensitive jerks!

Re:So what should the family do? (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253367)

I love how we treat blackholes specially.

Why shouldn't we? They're extremely interesting.

For some reason, we teach kids and adults that blackholes are "evil" and suck up everything

At least that's less wrong than declaring that:

getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible.

Re:So what should the family do? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253397)

and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible

FTFY: and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is currently impossible

Re:So what should the family do? (5, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253455)

and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible

FTFY: and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is currently impossible

Actually, it's very possible; about every accelerator in the world does it regularly.

Having said that, getting a macroscopic mass to 1/3 the speed of light is currently impossible. Well, at least when considered from the frame of reference in which it originally was at rest.

Re:So what should the family do? (2)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253711)

Having said that, getting a macroscopic mass to 1/3 the speed of light is currently impossible. Well, at least when considered from the frame of reference in which it originally was at rest.

Where are the mods? +5 insightful. Note: currently impossible. Look at how primitive things were just half a century ago.

Re:So what should the family do? (1)

sjames (1099) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253827)

It would be very easy, let the neutron star's gravity do the work. The hard part is getting to one at all at this point.

Re:So what should the family do? (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253443)

Interstellar racism, you think?

Re:So what should the family do? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253669)

Specism, not racism.

Re:So what should the family do? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,3 days | (#45254215)

More like spacism.

Re:So what should the family do? (2)

gmuslera (3436) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253617)

Black holes are the sharks of space. Despite of being thousands of times less probable to die because of sharks than because (directly or indirectly) of cars the culture is only afraid of sharks. The end of mankind will more probably come from down here than from up there.

Re:So what should the family do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253835)

...getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible...

Hmm. Should be doable. Just drop it into a black hole.

Re:So what should the family do? (1)

pscottdv (676889) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253877)

The paper isn't really about how an astronaut would die. It is about the nature of the interface between the inside and the outside of the black hole.

This is interesting because it has applications to cosmology in general. In fact, many (perhaps even most) of our cosmological models have their origins in the study of the theory of black holes and, particularly, the study of event horizons. This makes them fundamentally more interesting to study than neutron stars and the like to many cosmologists.

Re:So what should the family do? (1)

pscottdv (676889) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253911)

The escape velocity of a neutron star is about 1/3 the speed of light --- and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible.

Actually, you can get mass to within a whisker of the speed of light right on your desk:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/desktop-sized-atom-smasher-demonstrated/ [wattsupwiththat.com]

Re:So what should the family do? (2)

benjfowler (239527) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253971)

You just quoted WUWT in a scientific discussion with a straight face?

Re:So what should the family do? (5, Informative)

Dan East (318230) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253975)

First off, New Horizons is travelling at 35,000 MPH, not kph. Second, those escape velocities would be at the surface of the body for unpowered bodies. Escape velocity decreases with distance from the body. It's possible to simply accelerate directly away from an object and never reach speeds anywhere close to escape velocity, until you are far enough away that you have simply exceeded (that now much lower) escape velocity threshold. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Re:So what should the family do? (2)

rssrss (686344) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254189)

"and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible."

Isn't that done in particle accelerators every day?

Re:So what should the family do? (1)

flyneye (84093) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253761)

But would he succumb to the embarrassment of failure and vaporlock due to a high stress lifestyle and the infinite failure of a mission to a black hole? that would leave only a carcass at an indeterminate time
This is the Fly N. Eye indeterminacy theory
                              X = - unless * to the 1st of nil.
Technically your question is tightly valid but lacks to conceive of other possible criteria, not commonly thought of , but common to the human experience, when dealing with humans.

Re:So what should the family do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253871)

Why hasn't science answered these questions?

I don't know, but the question in the title of the summary is missing the mark, don't you think

Pay wall crap. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253195)

The only new information cited is behind a $25 pay wall. Kill it with fire.

Re:Pay wall crap. (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254049)

Fortunately, in physics, nearly everyone posts a manuscript version on arxiv.org (i.e. the same article but with the authors' own formatting, rather than the journal's layout). And indeed that is the case here [arxiv.org] .

Spaghetti (0)

puddingebola (2036796) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253213)

I still say she/he would be stretched out into spaghetti.

Re:Spaghetti (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253281)

I'm thinking more like crushed like a marshmallow in an infinite pressure pressure-cooker.

Or pummeled to death by other matter falling into the black hole.

Or die from the radiation.

Or die from being absorbed into a star falling into said black hole.

Or from the smell of shitting their pants in the space suit once they realize they're falling into a black hole.

Or just from lack of oxygen, dehydration, or starvation, as it's a pretty long trip from here to the nearest black hole. [universetoday.com] 1600 light years is a long trip, even at the speed of light.

Re:Spaghetti (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253417)

I'm thinking more like crushed like a marshmallow in an infinite pressure pressure-cooker.

Or pummeled to death by other matter falling into the black hole.

Or die from the radiation.

Or die from being absorbed into a star falling into said black hole.

Or from the smell of shitting their pants in the space suit once they realize they're falling into a black hole.

Or just from lack of oxygen, dehydration, or starvation, as it's a pretty long trip from here to the nearest black hole. [universetoday.com] 1600 light years is a long trip, even at the speed of light.

Yes to the above.

Spaghettification is one component of the end game. The gravity delta from head to
toe would tear a human into a true mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification [wikipedia.org]

In addition any external mass like the space ship or any maneuvering jet
reaction mass would accelerate to the point of generating astoundingly short
wavelength ionizing radiation and the proteins of life would be totally denatured.

I would discount the smell of poo in the pants as being fatal, stuff happens
as we all know but not fatal except for those that aspirate their vomit and
die of pneumonia. Aspiration pneumonia is a big risk even if a drowning
victim "recovers" a trip to a hospital is a good thing to do.

Re:Spaghetti (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253653)

I'm thinking any which way it's a bad place to end up.

When aliens finally visit Earth and drop off a huge fleet of spare intergalactic spaceships, I'll make sure to ask for maps that avoid unsurvivable gravity wells. :)

I think we'll be ok for quite a while.

Re:Spaghetti (3, Interesting)

pscottdv (676889) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253401)

A black hole would eventually stretch a person into spagetti, but not necessarily near the event horizon. For a small black hole the effect might be well outside the event horizon while for a supermassive black hole the effect would be well inside of it.

This is because the event horizon of a super-massive black hole is so large that while the gravitational pull there is enormous, the variation in the graviational forces in a human-sized volume is quite small. It's the variation in the forces that stretches you.

Likewise, while the total gravitation pull well outside the event horizon of a small black hole is much less than the total gravitational pull near the event horizon of a super-massive one, the variation is much higher.

Re:Spaghetti (1)

StripedCow (776465) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253431)

So the flying spaghetti monster could, one day, be for real...

Re:Spaghetti (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254249)

So the flying spaghetti monster could, one day, be for real...

It was created when a walking lasagne monster got too close to a black hole.

Re:Spaghetti (1)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253481)

You beat me to it, the tidal effects would tear you apart. You can shield radiation, you can't shield gravity.

Hopefully the last time too (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253223)

From a surfeit of "would"s, apparently.

Re:Hopefully the last time too (2)

91degrees (207121) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253339)

It's the gravity. You're actually seeing one "would", but the gravity bends light around that you see it again in a different apparent position.

Re:Hopefully the last time too (1)

SIR_Taco (467460) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254311)

It would seem that verbs enter a black hole, temporarily escape, and are again swallowed by said black hole.

Firewall? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253235)

I wonder how you setup a static nat on a Black Hole...

hmmm

Re:Firewall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253429)

Just use an Einstein-Rosen bridge.

Re:Firewall? (5, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253529)

Well, the firewall rules for a black hole are easy: You let every packet in, but none out.

Re:Firewall? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253537)

I think if you're falling into a black hole you're not going to be worrying about that.

Ah, Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253237)

How Would I Get Through A Day Would No Slashdot?

I guess samzenpus can't read either, so its too much to expect him to actually proofread the title and summary?

Re:Ah, Slashdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253253)

You, sir, strike me as a big of a nigger. Perhaps you should kill yourself.

You know what they say... (3, Funny)

Kahlandad (1999936) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253243)

It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden ...oh wait, it IS the fall that kills you.

Free link to arxive here (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253257)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4706

How did the mods miss this? Hiding public research behind a paywall is (morally) a crime.

I nominate ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253261)

Former VP Dick Cheney for the brave and important mission

If it is based on Quantum theory (1)

prasadsurve (665770) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253275)

he might be frozen, burned, alive and dead all at same time.

Infinitesimally small (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253305)

If the astronaut would be very small he might notice nothing.

But even a moon too close to a plent gets eaten by the gravitational forces - and that would not be different from an astronaut approaching a (much smaller) black hole.

Wasn't the event horizon of an earth-mass black hole about 1 cm in diameter?

Re:Infinitesimally small (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253381)

If the astronaut would be very small he might notice nothing.

Or if the black hole was very big. Which most of the ones we know about are.

Any volunteers . . . ? (4, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253313)

The funny thing is . . . if someone announced a space program to toss an astronaut down a black hole . . . there would be plenty of volunteers for the mission.

Long before the event horizon (1, Insightful)

aneroid (856995) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253359)

The gravitational force on physical objects would squeeze his body to a spaghetti far before the event horizon.

Hopefully quickly.

Re:Long before the event horizon (2)

scorp1us (235526) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253449)

I don't agree. If you assume he is 1.5 meters high, then the relative forces at the event horizon would be minimal, remember it is over r^2. The Schwarzschild radius as it is called. If you took our sun's mass and converted to to black hole densities, it would be r of 2,950 m. Now, the force at this even horizon would then be 2950m and 2951.5m Find the tidal forces over that 1.5 meters. It's not a whole lot. However you start to get into time dilation, again over 1.5 meters it isn't that much.

Roche limit is a better term to use (1)

zippthorne (748122) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253655)

Roche limit describes the maximum characteristic length of a gravitationally bound body in orbit of another object based on gravitational gradient. Basically, no larger objects (of similar density) are expected to form at any particular orbit level. It's not a perfect fit for something that is chemically bound, but you can still derive a form of it using other physical constants of the right units. Yield strength, for instance.

Re:Long before the event horizon (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253501)

Only if he/she were falling into a small black hole. It isn't the gravitational force itself that is the the cause of spaghettification but the gravitational gradient, i.e. the difference in the gravitational force between one end of the astronaut and the other. For a sufficiently large black hole, the gravitational gradient will be relatively shallow at the event horizon, and won't be the cause of a painful and interesting death. Farther in, though...

Re:Long before the event horizon (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253555)

That depends on the mass of the black hole. A sufficiently large black hole will not spaghettify you outside the horizon.

Silly argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253379)

What would kill you? Crushing gravity, intense radiation. The exact manner of death is not that interesting. A bit like a cross between a snuff film and arguing which way your bones would be crushed and mangled if you stuck them in a blender. It's the sci-fi snuff writers that want to know.

Now if you're interested in what's happening at or near the event horizon, it's perfectly reasonable to examine that.

Re:Silly argument (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253577)

Do ACs blend?

Except that black hole "firewalls" don't exist (4, Informative)

mTor (18585) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253383)

Black hole firewalls don't really exist.

Here's a summary:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6334 [arxiv.org]

and the long paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6335 [arxiv.org]

Resolving the issue.

In short, the black hole paradox doesn't exist and can be explained.

Motl has a really nice summary as well:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/10/raju-papadodimas-isolate-reasons-why.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Except that black hole "firewalls" don't exist (5, Funny)

StripedCow (776465) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253467)

Black hole firewalls don't really exist.

Indeed. A firewall would be useless. Any virus trying to penetrate the event horizon would be turned into harmless spaghetti code anyway.

Re:Except that black hole "firewalls" don't exist (0)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253557)

Oh,for mod points...

Re:Except that black hole "firewalls" don't exist (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,3 days | (#45254287)

Black hole firewalls don't really exist.

Indeed. A firewall would be useless. Any virus trying to penetrate the event horizon would be turned into harmless spaghetti code anyway.

If it's spaghetti code then it might GOTO anywhere.

silly (1)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253657)

you are just posting competing hypothesis.

Re:Except that black hole "firewalls" don't exist (1)

Snowhare (263311) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253977)

Those papers have been out all of four days. I would would wait a few days before proclaiming them rock solid disproof of firewalls. Even Motls admits that they are making a few assumptions that are themselves subject to debate. ;)

How do you see the entagled pair at the EH? (1)

Nyder (754090) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253409)

I'm sort of lost here. Granted I know very little about this subject, but what I do know is black holes are far away. And entangled pairs are really fucking small. So how the hell can we see entangled pairs at the event horizon of a black hole? Seems to me if we can see stuff that small, that far away, finding planets similar to ours would be easy, since they are very very very much bigger.

Re:How do you see the entagled pair at the EH? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253489)

I don't think we can see anything at all, at present, other than their gravitational effect. For example, the mass of something at the center of our galaxy can be determined by the orbits of some stars zipping around it, and the size of those orbits put an upper bound on that something's diameter.

If we were nearer we should be able to see something similar to black body radiation, assuming we weren't blinded by the material swarming around it and falling in.

Interestingly, some physicists think that we might be able to "see" inside a black hole by detecting gravitons / gravity waves.

Re:How do you see the entagled pair at the EH? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253593)

This doesn't have anything to do with telescopic observation, this has to do with math.

Re:How do you see the entagled pair at the EH? (1)

Nyder (754090) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253771)

This doesn't have anything to do with telescopic observation, this has to do with math.

Ah, math, the answer to everything.

So then basically they are just guessing and really have no idea at all if they are right or not. Figures.

Re:How do you see the entagled pair at the EH? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253969)

Yeah... just guessing. Like the way that finite element systems work by guessing, and how a CT scanner just guesses at what it sees inside your body, and the way that Einstein just guessed at the corrections necessary to make GPS work, and how Higgs et al just guessed at a particle necessary to make gauge invariance work properly. You know, all so much guesswork... "they" have no idea at all. :-P

Re:How do you see the entagled pair at the EH? (1)

Nyder (754090) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254159)

Yeah... just guessing. Like the way that finite element systems work by guessing, and how a CT scanner just guesses at what it sees inside your body, and the way that Einstein just guessed at the corrections necessary to make GPS work, and how Higgs et al just guessed at a particle necessary to make gauge invariance work properly. You know, all so much guesswork... "they" have no idea at all. :-P

They claimed to observe a entangled pair on the event horizon of a Black Hole, when they simulated a Black Hole using math, which may or not actually be a true representation of how a black hole behaves. So yes, it is guess. Now, if they went to a black hole and use instruments to measure the entangled pair, then I'd be cool. But instead, they claimed they did it, when all they did was run a simulation and did math based on it.

So yes, that is guessing. Educated guessing, but still guessing.

Views from a layman (1)

PC_THE_GREAT (893738) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253433)

How can "the observer" be burnt, when the observer can be any object at any particular time and space? One can observe from any angle or reflection hence be anywhere. You don't know if someone really dies or lives. if the black hole is as misunderstood as how it is so far, we don't know enough to know the answer to this, how come a conclusion can be reached from so little information? if he is dead, the most probably he wouldn't know. Radiation will not burnt it, if light itself can not escape a black hole, how can information reaching the brain give any notion of pain if it probably got discarded in some random [or not so random] motion? Plus how can the radiation escape to burn, if the event horizon is absorbing anything, it makes sense that it will suck out even information, so how can your brain interpret you are burning? In fact, it can't even see it is burning, because to see, you need to have reflection, this will defeat the theory that a blackhole absorbs even light.

Re:Views from a layman (3, Interesting)

globaljustin (574257) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253487)

hey man...good thoughts...

I think I might have some answers...

It seems, and this research bolsters the idea, that the Event Horizon obliterates **everything** and scatters the energy across the event horizon. Anything like "Hawking Radiation" then becomes just another result of the Event Horizon obliterating matter. The characteristics (information) of the matter (speed, mass, velocity, spin, charge, etc etc) are truly completely obliterated at the Event Horizon.

In this way, *nothing* ever actually crosses the Event Horizon. The 'Black Hole' then functions as a perfect 'black body'.

This view has repurcussions across physics. If what I say is true, then essentially, Black Holes could be viewed as bubbles in the Quantum Foam of the universe. Which means the universe ends in heat death.

Re: Views from a layman (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253823)

Wrong. The information paradox has been settled. Information is NOT destroyed. That was the idea of Stephen Hawking but he was proven wrong and admitted it. The information of the matter falling into BH is completely preserved on the surface of the event horizon. Like a hologram.

black holes are bubbles of pure nothingness (1)

globaljustin (574257) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254067)

I've always sided against Hawking on this...Susskind was right

The information of the matter falling into BH is completely preserved on the surface of the event horizon

I think you actually agree with me, b/c this is the same as the EH 'obliterating' it...

I never said it was "lost" i said it was "obliterated"

the **way** the energy is dispersed across the EH preserves the 2nd Law...the conflict over whether information is 'lost' or 'not lost' is a fault of Hawking-style information theory. Hawking (as is his custom) was making a distinction w/o a difference.

something can be obliterated without the information being 'lost'....we watch it obliterated into 'nothing' (aka the Evebt Horizon)...yes, you could call the state of the matter immediately before it becomes 'obliterated' as a 'hologram'...but it doesn't disprove what I'm saying at all

in this sense, a 'black hole' truly is 'nothing'...that's why if TFA is right, black holes are essentially bubbles of 'nothing' in the quantum foam of the universe

black hole gets bigger.... (1)

globaljustin (574257) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254073)

sorry...one last thing...

when matter hits the Event Horizon, it is obliterated into 'nothing' and scattered across the EH...

one thing I forgot to mention is that, again, the 2nd Law is not violated in my view b/c the **black hole gets bigger** as it obliterates matter

Re:Views from a layman (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45254025)

Theoretical physics is a guessing game. No one has arrived at a black hole. No one has entered or exited a black hole. No probe has came close enough to send data about a black hole. So in short... we have no idea what a black hole is, only a guesses. I could just a well guess that a black hole leads to another universe, would that be wrong ? No one knows. I remember a cartoon about a cat watching a black hole on the ground expand, just before learning the hole was only a shadow caused by a bag of trash tossed from above. The cat could have made a theory, just before getting smacked by trash, that black holes grow larger when watched.

Sort of like trying to sign up for Obamacare (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253461)

Bazinga.

Re:Sort of like trying to sign up for Obamacare (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253815)

or any socialist endeavor. All they do is collapse in on themselves leaving a trail of destruction and decay...

Way to proof-read the topic. (1)

pellik (193063) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253499)

But would he chuck wood?

Re:Way to proof-read the topic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253991)

Would a wood astronaut get a black woody?

Cloaking? Silly but... (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253509)

We can cloak light. We can cloak magnetism. Both recent developments, both recently far fetched science-fiction. As a thought experiement at least, what if we could cloak an object - perhaps even one containing a human - from gravity and then send that object on a trajectory into a black hole. This assumes that the high levels of radiation and firewall have also been overcome.

Who is going to volunteer for this mission? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#45253631)

How about we send someone with a live video feed into a black hole and settle this whole question?

Too much romance - it's radiation! (1)

burni2 (1643061) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253747)

Sorry guys, it's not romantic at all,

the astronaut would die or be dead anyway, if the black hole is

a.) in absolute Vacuum, nerve destruction by hard gamma radiation+particle radiation, even his spacesuit would not protect him

Why ? -> gamma radiation black body radiation, continuum source -> temperature -> high temperature -> short wave lengths -> hard gamma radiation
Where comes the radiation from, his own atoms off course !

Absolute Vacuum + Astronaut = not a vacuum anymore.

b.) in interstellar space, he would be even dead before hand, because if there are particlesm as there are within interstellar space, these would be
converted to gamma or X-ray radiation

In this case the astronaut should try to adjust his flightpath colinear to the axis of rotation because then the addtional synchrotron radiation from the acretion disc would not add up to his dosage

c.)
if he would dive in feet forward he can .. this is rediculous

if there is a tiny black hole, there are particles, because black holes suck them up, even in the outer space beyond our solar system,
there is no absolute vacuum (mark absolute in addition to vacuum is a double of nothing, vacuum is absolute, interstellar space has no vacuum!)

because you would at least count one atom/molecule within a cubicmeter, and space has many cubic meters !!

Short form of E=mc is if you smash a particle it will emit a certain energy equivalent to it's mass, and energy equals photons as c is constant you need to charge up the lambda, to extrem short periods this would equal tooo .. yes hard gamma radiation !

Planck !!

This is why the romulans should have won the war, because they use a singularity energy source ... and well this is nothing else than a black hole,
you feed it matter it will give off energy, EXTREMLY effcient.

Need proof ?
Lock at the sky, target cygnus X1 - a X-ray source .. and well this is our galactic center we all circle around, and it's a black hole.

If you would beam an astronaut within a 1km radius .. he would be dead on arrival, as a human being that would be subjected to a gamma radiation source
like these used to sterilize special items, ok if you count after 3 seconds as not DOA .. then so be it.

Re:Too much romance - it's radiation! (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254147)

this is rediculous

I thought you said it was radiation.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck? (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253817)

And how would Slashdot would look if would editors would edit?

Re:How much wood would a woodchuck chuck? (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253917)

We'll never know. It's another unfathomable aspect of being.

Not so fast (1)

mbone (558574) | 1 year,4 days | (#45253929)

Please remember that there is basically no experimental evidence for any of this speculation. No. Experimental. Evidence. There is barely evidence for general relativity type black holes*, no evidence at all for Hawking radiation, and thus of course no evidence for the theoretical infrastructure built on top of Hawking radiation.

And, plenty of (theoretical) papers have looked [arxiv.org] at this and come to alternate [arxiv.org] conclusions [arxiv.org] .

I suspect that when we actually do start experimenting with black hole event horizons directly we will find that some crucial fact was missed which invalidates all of this theoretical work, but I could just be in a grumpy mood.

* There is plenty of evidence that there are very dense collections of matter in the centers of galaxies and other locations in the universe, dense enough that at least some of them have to be black holes in general relativity, but that is not proof that the black holes predicted by General Relativity actually do exist, even though it is very reasonable and convenient to label these objects "black holes" for most purposes, . (The issue is that other theories of gravity have different types of black holes, or none at all, and G.R. cannot be regarded as experimentally proven in this regime.) Only recently has there been any direct evidence [blogspot.com] for an event horizon, one of the key predictions for a general relativistic type black hole, and we are still waiting on the detection of gravitational radiation from a newly formed black hole, which is what it will take for this issue to really be nailed down.

Re:Not so fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,3 days | (#45254055)

Thank you. "The existence of black hole "firewalls" is a rare breakthrough in theoretical physics..." that exists only in the fever-dreams of too-clever-by-half mathematicians.

The Old Accretion Disk X-Men Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,3 days | (#45254087)

Surely one would burn already by the radiation and intense temperature of the accretion disk. The magnetic fields of a spinning black hole might be fun to experiment as well: The Hole: "Hmm, there seems to be something different about you today, fellow space traveler. What could it be? *Slush!*"

Other conditons (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254143)

If someone falls into a black hole, is their soul stuck there for the 62 zillion years it takes the black hole to evaporate?

If you pushed someone into a black hole, could you beat the murder rap by pointing out that he still hadn't finished falling in, from the jury's reference frame?

If you modified Shrõdinger's experiment so that the decay of an atom dropped the cat into a black hole rather than gassing it, then put a cat in the box to create a superposition of "the cat is in the black hole" and "the cat is not in the black hole", is it possible for the superposition to collapse to "the cat is not in the black hole"?

How would would he die? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,3 days | (#45254199)

Maybe out of sheer aggravation that people can't write a sentence of English properly, even when it's a headline on one of the world's most visited sites.

Re:How would would he die? (1)

KreAture (105311) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254251)

You don't have to proofread the headline before posting?
And yes, that headline is a classic "copy/paste/rewrite" mistake.

So, better an arrow to the knee*... (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | 1 year,3 days | (#45254341)

... than to be an adventurer who is the first to enter a black hole.

*Note: Yes, horrible Skyrim joke reference that is completely out of date... but someone had to say it... (grin)

what about fuzzballs? is this dependant on the inf (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,3 days | (#45254361)

it *seems* that this argument assumes that there is indeed a black hole information paradox requiring black holes to emit hawking radiation; if one assumes a model of black holes as fuzzballs which present no problem wrt information loss (a) do black holes still radiate and (b) would any firewall still exist?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?