2 ms·
No. There were two points. Firstly, a torus of ultradense matter is almost certainly unphysical. Such a torus surrounding the near-horizon of a black hole is
by raattgift 6y ago
No. There were two points.
Firstly, a torus of ultradense matter is almost certainly unphysical. Such a torus surrounding the near-horizon of a black hole is even less physically plausible.
Secondly, the waterfall analogy only (and only barely) works for an infaller who starts outside an already existing horizon. But in a black hole formed by gravitational collapse there are inside-the-horizon observers (collections of particles, essentially) who never cross from the outside of an event horizon to the inside of an event horizon: they do not fall in any meaningful sense of the word past any point of no return. They are just in a region of the universe with no horizon and suddenly in a region of the universe with a horizon, and unfortunately for them they are on the much less comfortable side of the horizon (the inside). The events that trigger the appearance of the horizon can be at a substantial distance from these unfortunate observers.
- ben_w 6y agoI believe I fairly explicitly said I wasn’t able to apply GR? That it was above my level? That this was a simplification? And I also believe that simplification is appropriate in this context, especially when so signalled. I am still confused as to why you felt the need to write “The horizon is not anything like hard surface. You can't stack things on top of it.”, given I cannot see how my words could have led you to think I thought it was solid. Actually, this leads to an important question: given that my attempt at signalling the limits of my knowledge failed, can you tell me what the right way is to signal the equivalent of “I have been comfortably following the Susskind lectures on my commute at faster than real-time, but my actual degree is not physics”?