Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

triffid_hunter t1_j27pxdf wrote

Reply to comment by WittyUnwittingly in What is our current "best guess" about how to observers that entered a black hole on opposite sides would look to each other once they crossed the event horizon? by WittyUnwittingly

This is the heart of the ongoing firewall debate; basically one set of physics says there should be a maelstrom of particles flying around at insane temperatures at the event horizon, but different physics says you shouldn't notice anything at all when approaching or crossing an event horizon because it's a non-local phenomena.

5

WittyUnwittingly OP t1_j27rssk wrote

Oh wow, I did not realize that was this, but now I am connecting the dots. Thank you!

3

The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j27rr6l wrote

I wonder if the concept of time in a singularity affecting the temperature/energy of those particles may play a hand in solving this? I'm keen on science but took me 3 tries to pass algebra so take that with a big grain of sodium chloride :-)

0

triffid_hunter t1_j27tf5e wrote

I don't think temperature depends on time…

−1

The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j27z5j2 wrote

Temperature is a measurement of vibrations in particles essentially. That is wholly dependent on time passing. Mathematically time stops in a singularity. If that is so then, in my incredibly layman-style interpretation, Temperature is physically the same as absolute 0 K. Would you like to explain what you mean? I love learning. I'm very curious. Or you can make condescending statements, or rather half-statements, without providing any explanation and then downvoting my curiosity. Your choice, I suppose, but I was eager to see an intelligent conversation on this. You have offered no conversation nor any intelligence. I would enjoy it if you did.

1

triffid_hunter t1_j2810g5 wrote

> Temperature is a measurement of vibrations in particles essentially.

That's the entry-level understanding of it in matter, but the scientists have come up with new better understandings based on entropy - which is how we end up with negative temperatures that are hotter than any positive temperature, and exist in lasers.

> Mathematically time stops in a singularity. If that is so then, in my incredibly layman-style interpretation, Temperature is physically the same as absolute 0 K.

Nope - particles' momentum is related to temperature, and they keep their momentum if you stop time - they can't move anywhere because no time is passing, but their velocity is still non-zero.

This is quite distinct from particles inhabiting the lowest possible energy state (ie being at absolute zero) where they don't move (or do weird stuff) even though time is passing

3

The-Temple-Of-Iron t1_j2816ac wrote

Thank you! That is really interesting and I'm definitely about to go down a rabbit hole on this. I appreciate that!

1

WittyUnwittingly OP t1_j281je9 wrote

So I'm not sure about all this, but I do have an MS in optics, so I do have a firm grasp on optical communication and dispersion and such things.

The "infinitely blue shifted" light that would be incident on you from everything "outside" would not contain any causal information (a pulse that was originally 101, would now have all of those in superposition - the original message could have been 110, 101, or 011, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference).

You'd be receiving all of the radiative energy that the black hole ever gobbles up after you instantaneously. So, any temperature calculation you'd do would just yield infinity, including a speculative black body radiation calculation (infinitely blue shifted).

1

wokeupatapicnic t1_j2bsr06 wrote

Absolute 0 is unreachable, in the sense that it breaks the laws of quantum physics. It violates the uncertainty principle.

I realize that black holes violate a lot of fundamental ideas in physics, but the general attempt is to find rational ways to rectify those violations, not simply accept them. Hawking’s work was based on solving many of those discrepancies.

1