5 ms·
NB I haven't studied it at all, beyond a high school level AP class touching on special relativity 20 years ago. That said, this was spinning in my head last n
by daxfohl 11y ago
NB I haven't studied it at all, beyond a high school level AP class touching on special relativity 20 years ago. That said, this was spinning in my head last night and now totally makes sense to me. From the faller's perspective time slows down until the black hole evaporates in front of you (Hawking radiation), leaving you in a universe a billion years in the future. Or if the hole is eternal, you get crushed by every particle ever destined for that black hole hitting you at once (since the rest of the universe speeds up from your perspective). Not to mention the inward-facing part of your brain would not be able to send signals to the outward-facing part, so you'd be pretty screwed there too.
That said, I doubt physicists would have overlooked this for 100 years when they pretty consistently say you'd fall into the hole unscathed and not even know you'd passed the horizon, so I'm sure this is wrong.
- ars 11y ago> until the black hole evaporates in front of you (Hawking radiation) There would not be Hawking radiation since the black hole has not formed. > That said, I doubt physicists would have overlooked this for 100 years Other people have noticed this too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternally_collapsing_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternally_collapsing_object It doesn't seem to get as much attention, I think because there is less interesting math there to do research on.
- daxfohl 11y agoHawking radiation is just spontaneous quantum particle pairs caused by the strong gravitational field, where one reaches escape velocity, reducing the mass of the object. This would still occur, whether you call it Hawking radiation or not.