<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The event horizon&#8217;s involved, but the singularity is committed</title>
	<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213</link>
	<description>The Blog of Scott Aaronson</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Philosophia Naturalis #8 &#171; {metadatta}</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10686</link>
		<author>Philosophia Naturalis #8 &#171; {metadatta}</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 20:17:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10686</guid>
		<description>[...] Penrose is an excellent segway into two posts by Scott Aaronson. The first poses the question: &#8220;what’s the connection between a black hole having an event horizon and its having a singularity? In other words, once you’ve clumped enough stuff together that light can’t escape, why have you also clumped enough together to create a singularity?&#8221; (This is related to the Penrose-Hawking theorems of general relativity). The second (or rather, the subsequent comments) deals with possible connections between the brain and quantum computers, something Roger Penrose has discussed in a good deal of depth. (Matt Leifer has a similar post, asking the question: &#8220;if quantum computers are more efficient than classical ones then why didn’t our brains evolve to take advantage of quantum information processing?&#8220;) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Penrose is an excellent segway into two posts by Scott Aaronson. The first poses the question: &#8220;what’s the connection between a black hole having an event horizon and its having a singularity? In other words, once you’ve clumped enough stuff together that light can’t escape, why have you also clumped enough together to create a singularity?&#8221; (This is related to the Penrose-Hawking theorems of general relativity). The second (or rather, the subsequent comments) deals with possible connections between the brain and quantum computers, something Roger Penrose has discussed in a good deal of depth. (Matt Leifer has a similar post, asking the question: &#8220;if quantum computers are more efficient than classical ones then why didn’t our brains evolve to take advantage of quantum information processing?&#8220;) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neratin</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10672</link>
		<author>Neratin</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:31:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10672</guid>
		<description>Thank you for your answer, Greg! I am no way General Relativity Guy, I just skimmed through some textbooks, but I think I can see your point...

BTW, I always thought GR _is_ about exotic solutions (just look at the arXiv statistics), just like science fiction (speaking of which, your 'Permutation City' was - at last - published here in Poland four days ago ;) )!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for your answer, Greg! I am no way General Relativity Guy, I just skimmed through some textbooks, but I think I can see your point&#8230;</p>
<p>BTW, I always thought GR _is_ about exotic solutions (just look at the arXiv statistics), just like science fiction (speaking of which, your &#8216;Permutation City&#8217; was - at last - published here in Poland four days ago <img src='http://scottaaronson.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> )!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Egan</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10649</link>
		<author>Greg Egan</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10649</guid>
		<description>Neratin, it would probably take me a month to quantify anything about the BKL geometry, but I can offer you two hand-waving intuitive arguments against seeing the entire future of an external radiation source by jumping into a BKL hole.

In Schwarzschild geometry, you suffer tidal stretching in the direction you're falling, and (half as much) tidal squeezing in each direction perpendicular to it.  The red shift you see aligns with the stretch, the blue shift with the squeeze.

In BKL geometry, the same arrangement just oscillates:  each of the 3 directions takes turns being the stretch while the other two are the squeeze.

As you integrate down to the singularity, I think you'd just be averaging (and possibly diluting) the same net effect as you'd get from the Schwarzschild geometry.  Basically, if you integrate an oscillating function (of constant peak-to-peak size) multiplied by some original function, you're not going to get an infinite result when the integral of the original function was finite.

My other argument is this:  suppose Bob falls into the hole, and he gets to see every wavefront ever emitted by some radiation source.  I think that would mean that the family of null geodesics describing those wavefronts would have to converge on a particular null curve (you could think of this limit curve as "the light from the infinitely far future", though of course there is no &lt;i&gt;actual&lt;/i&gt; light taking this path).  That null curve would intersect the singularity at some distinguished event E.  But the BKL geometry, although it's not &lt;i&gt;exactly&lt;/i&gt; time-invariant like the Schwarzschild geometry, is always the same &lt;i&gt;on average&lt;/i&gt;; it's just oscillating, it's not evolving.  So there is no "distinguished event E" coming from the geometry.

Putting this another way, suppose the time for Bob when he observes wavefront N, tau(N), converges, as N goes to infinity, on the time when he hits the singularity.  If Alice fell into the hole before Bob, I &lt;i&gt;think&lt;/i&gt; it's inevitable that she'd fail to see the entire history of the radiation.  And if Carol fell into the hole &lt;i&gt;after&lt;/i&gt; Bob, I think she'd see the entire history completed some finite time before she struck the singularity.  But what's so special about Bob?  There's nothing about his relationship to the black hole or the radiation source that can make him special like this.

I haven't read the paper you cited on Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, but it looks like fun.  In Scott's &lt;a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502072" rel="nofollow"&gt;review article&lt;/a&gt;, I think the only real objection he raised to Malament-Hogarth spacetimes was quantum effects.  FWIW I'm generally sceptical about these kinds of exotic solutions of classical GR (or at least I am when I'm not writing science fiction).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neratin, it would probably take me a month to quantify anything about the BKL geometry, but I can offer you two hand-waving intuitive arguments against seeing the entire future of an external radiation source by jumping into a BKL hole.</p>
<p>In Schwarzschild geometry, you suffer tidal stretching in the direction you&#8217;re falling, and (half as much) tidal squeezing in each direction perpendicular to it.  The red shift you see aligns with the stretch, the blue shift with the squeeze.</p>
<p>In BKL geometry, the same arrangement just oscillates:  each of the 3 directions takes turns being the stretch while the other two are the squeeze.</p>
<p>As you integrate down to the singularity, I think you&#8217;d just be averaging (and possibly diluting) the same net effect as you&#8217;d get from the Schwarzschild geometry.  Basically, if you integrate an oscillating function (of constant peak-to-peak size) multiplied by some original function, you&#8217;re not going to get an infinite result when the integral of the original function was finite.</p>
<p>My other argument is this:  suppose Bob falls into the hole, and he gets to see every wavefront ever emitted by some radiation source.  I think that would mean that the family of null geodesics describing those wavefronts would have to converge on a particular null curve (you could think of this limit curve as &#8220;the light from the infinitely far future&#8221;, though of course there is no <i>actual</i> light taking this path).  That null curve would intersect the singularity at some distinguished event E.  But the BKL geometry, although it&#8217;s not <i>exactly</i> time-invariant like the Schwarzschild geometry, is always the same <i>on average</i>; it&#8217;s just oscillating, it&#8217;s not evolving.  So there is no &#8220;distinguished event E&#8221; coming from the geometry.</p>
<p>Putting this another way, suppose the time for Bob when he observes wavefront N, tau(N), converges, as N goes to infinity, on the time when he hits the singularity.  If Alice fell into the hole before Bob, I <i>think</i> it&#8217;s inevitable that she&#8217;d fail to see the entire history of the radiation.  And if Carol fell into the hole <i>after</i> Bob, I think she&#8217;d see the entire history completed some finite time before she struck the singularity.  But what&#8217;s so special about Bob?  There&#8217;s nothing about his relationship to the black hole or the radiation source that can make him special like this.</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t read the paper you cited on Malament-Hogarth spacetimes, but it looks like fun.  In Scott&#8217;s <a href="http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502072" rel="nofollow">review article</a>, I think the only real objection he raised to Malament-Hogarth spacetimes was quantum effects.  FWIW I&#8217;m generally sceptical about these kinds of exotic solutions of classical GR (or at least I am when I&#8217;m not writing science fiction).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pedro Pinheiro</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10630</link>
		<author>Pedro Pinheiro</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:57:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10630</guid>
		<description>Greg, I think the saying goes something like "In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different" :-) Thank you for your patience!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg, I think the saying goes something like &#8220;In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice, theory and practice are different&#8221; <img src='http://scottaaronson.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> Thank you for your patience!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neratin</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10629</link>
		<author>Neratin</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:45:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10629</guid>
		<description>Greg, have you read Etesi&#38;Nemeti &lt;a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104023" rel="nofollow"&gt;paper&lt;/a&gt;? How realistic is scenario they describe? Can you use BLK black hole, instead of Kerr BH, to do the trick and observe the universe infinite history (let's forget about quantum gravity, Hawking radiation, etc)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg, have you read Etesi&amp;Nemeti <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104023" rel="nofollow">paper</a>? How realistic is scenario they describe? Can you use BLK black hole, instead of Kerr BH, to do the trick and observe the universe infinite history (let&#8217;s forget about quantum gravity, Hawking radiation, etc)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Egan</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10627</link>
		<author>Greg Egan</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10627</guid>
		<description>Pedro, sure the blue-shifted incoming radiation would be a big problem.  Not just for the observer -- it would also mean that most black holes (even non-spinning ones) wouldn't really be the Schwarzschild black holes of this nice mathematical fantasy.  I &lt;i&gt;think&lt;/i&gt; the current belief among the GR cognoscenti is still that real black holes actually have something called Belinsky-Khalatnikov-Lifshitz geometry, which is horribly complicated and makes calculations near the singularity much more difficult (try Kip Thorne's book &lt;i&gt;Black Holes and Timewarps&lt;/i&gt; for more on that).

As for the link between conservation of energy, red and blue shift, and the time you see pass in the outside universe, the reasoning goes like this:  starting with the Schwarzschild geometry, you can make use of the fact that it has a "time translation symmetry" to get something like a conservation law along the world lines of the incoming photons.  (In general, conservation of energy is a more complicated notion in curved spacetime than it is in special relativity or Newtonian physics.)  That's how you derive the red and blue shifts.

Once you know those shifts, it's just a simple counting argument to deduce the amount of time you see passing.  If a one-hertz wave is emitted from a distant star, and what you observe due to blue shift is a ten-hertz wave, then for every second that passes for you, you &lt;i&gt;must&lt;/i&gt; see 10 seconds pass for that star.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pedro, sure the blue-shifted incoming radiation would be a big problem.  Not just for the observer &#8212; it would also mean that most black holes (even non-spinning ones) wouldn&#8217;t really be the Schwarzschild black holes of this nice mathematical fantasy.  I <i>think</i> the current belief among the GR cognoscenti is still that real black holes actually have something called Belinsky-Khalatnikov-Lifshitz geometry, which is horribly complicated and makes calculations near the singularity much more difficult (try Kip Thorne&#8217;s book <i>Black Holes and Timewarps</i> for more on that).</p>
<p>As for the link between conservation of energy, red and blue shift, and the time you see pass in the outside universe, the reasoning goes like this:  starting with the Schwarzschild geometry, you can make use of the fact that it has a &#8220;time translation symmetry&#8221; to get something like a conservation law along the world lines of the incoming photons.  (In general, conservation of energy is a more complicated notion in curved spacetime than it is in special relativity or Newtonian physics.)  That&#8217;s how you derive the red and blue shifts.</p>
<p>Once you know those shifts, it&#8217;s just a simple counting argument to deduce the amount of time you see passing.  If a one-hertz wave is emitted from a distant star, and what you observe due to blue shift is a ten-hertz wave, then for every second that passes for you, you <i>must</i> see 10 seconds pass for that star.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pedro Pinheiro</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10626</link>
		<author>Pedro Pinheiro</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:10:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10626</guid>
		<description>Greg, thank you again for your answer - although the math in your explanation is waaaaay over my head :-)
Another corollary to the already decreasing health of my very sturdy solid state observer (besides the gravity effects) would be the blue-shifting of all outside incoming radiation into high-energy gamma rays, correct?  Which would make empirical sense as the same amount of energy of a longer period of time reaching the black hole being experienced in a relatively shorter timed frame of reference would need to have the overall energy conserved?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg, thank you again for your answer - although the math in your explanation is waaaaay over my head <img src='http://scottaaronson.com/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
Another corollary to the already decreasing health of my very sturdy solid state observer (besides the gravity effects) would be the blue-shifting of all outside incoming radiation into high-energy gamma rays, correct?  Which would make empirical sense as the same amount of energy of a longer period of time reaching the black hole being experienced in a relatively shorter timed frame of reference would need to have the overall energy conserved?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Egan</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10624</link>
		<author>Greg Egan</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:01:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10624</guid>
		<description>Carl, &lt;abbr title="For What It's Worth"&gt;FWIW&lt;/abbr&gt; I'd be amazed if any object falling towards a black hole would get a reprieve due to Hawking evaporation, unless the hole's final decay was already imminent.   But don't ask me to quantify "imminent".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carl, <abbr title="For What It's Worth">FWIW</abbr> I&#8217;d be amazed if any object falling towards a black hole would get a reprieve due to Hawking evaporation, unless the hole&#8217;s final decay was already imminent.   But don&#8217;t ask me to quantify &#8220;imminent&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10611</link>
		<author>Carl</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:24:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10611</guid>
		<description>Ah, as a kid, I often wondered if when you fall into a black hole, since to an outside observer it looks like you never cross the event horizon due to time dilation, you could look out your window and watch the universe end before you cross the threshold. On a related note, I suppose if you only get to see a finite amount of what's happening outside your aft window, there's also usually no hope for you that the black hole will decay due to Hawking radiation before you hit either (unless obviously, the black hole was just about to decay anyway)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, as a kid, I often wondered if when you fall into a black hole, since to an outside observer it looks like you never cross the event horizon due to time dilation, you could look out your window and watch the universe end before you cross the threshold. On a related note, I suppose if you only get to see a finite amount of what&#8217;s happening outside your aft window, there&#8217;s also usually no hope for you that the black hole will decay due to Hawking radiation before you hit either (unless obviously, the black hole was just about to decay anyway)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Egan</title>
		<link>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10610</link>
		<author>Greg Egan</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:49:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=213#comment-10610</guid>
		<description>Pedro, that's an interesting question!

For an observer who free-falls into a black hole, she sees light that falls directly from the zenith to be red-shifted, but as she looks towards the edge of her view, the red-shift changes to a blue shift.

Where she sees a red shift, she is seeing fewer periods of the light per unit of her proper time than if she stayed outside; where she sees a blue shift, she is seeing more periods of the light.

The exact formula for the red/blue shift is a bit complicated, but I've worked this out in detail &lt;a href="http://www.gregegan.net/PLANCK/Tour/TourNotes.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.

As the observer approaches the singularity at r=0, the blue shift at the edge of her view goes to infinity like 1/r.  However, dr/dtau for her (where tau is her proper time), also goes to (minus) infinity, like -1/sqrt[r].  So if I'm analysing this correctly, the number of periods of blue-shifted radiation will be the integral of some constant times 1/sqrt[r], which is a finite integral.  So even for the most blue-shifted radiation she sees, she only sees a &lt;i&gt;finite&lt;/i&gt; time period of the history of the radiation source.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pedro, that&#8217;s an interesting question!</p>
<p>For an observer who free-falls into a black hole, she sees light that falls directly from the zenith to be red-shifted, but as she looks towards the edge of her view, the red-shift changes to a blue shift.</p>
<p>Where she sees a red shift, she is seeing fewer periods of the light per unit of her proper time than if she stayed outside; where she sees a blue shift, she is seeing more periods of the light.</p>
<p>The exact formula for the red/blue shift is a bit complicated, but I&#8217;ve worked this out in detail <a href="http://www.gregegan.net/PLANCK/Tour/TourNotes.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
<p>As the observer approaches the singularity at r=0, the blue shift at the edge of her view goes to infinity like 1/r.  However, dr/dtau for her (where tau is her proper time), also goes to (minus) infinity, like -1/sqrt[r].  So if I&#8217;m analysing this correctly, the number of periods of blue-shifted radiation will be the integral of some constant times 1/sqrt[r], which is a finite integral.  So even for the most blue-shifted radiation she sees, she only sees a <i>finite</i> time period of the history of the radiation source.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
