Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   So if he isn't inside the EH, that means that actually *nothing* can
> ever cross the EH, which means that nothing goes inside a BH, and thus
> nothing is "lost" there.

That's basically what I think it says, yes.

>   Great, you have solved the information loss problem. No information
> is ever lost to a BH because nothing can enter it. Everything will just
> hover endlessly asymptotically close to the EH, and can in fact be
> interacted with.
>
>   What are the quantum mechanists complaining about?

I have no idea. Ask them :)


BTW, I after having so far worked only with what I picked up and remembered and
imagined, but finding that drawing a proper image based on this information is
not so trivial, I did have a closer look at the Schwarzschild metric details,
finding this on Wikipedia:

----------------------------------------
In Schwarzschild Coordinates, the Schwarzschild metric has the form:

c^2 dT^2 = (1 - r[s]/r) c^2 dt^2 - ... - ...

where

T is the proper time (time measured by a clock moving with the particle) ...
t is the time coordinate (measured by a stationary clock at infinity) ...,
r is the radial coordinate ...
r[s] is the Schwarzschild radius (in meters) of the massive body
....
----------------------------------------
(Note that dT and dt denote time intervals. I stripped the other terms because
they're not easy to represent in ASCII, and are independent of time, so they
can be considered constant for the sake of my arguments.)

There are a few interesting things to note here:

(1) As we approach r = r[s] (the radius of the EH), we'll find that the factor
of the dt^2 term diminishes zero. That means not only that "victim time" slows
down with respect to the "observer time", but that it actually slows down to
zero (or, seen the other way round, "observer time" speeds up to infinity) at
the EH.

Thus, in the observer's reference frame (I'm deliberately avoiding the phrase
"as seen from the observer", because the formula doesn't say anything about
perception, but plain hard facts), as soon as the "victim" would hit the EH,
its time would come to a standstill, so it couldn't move *any* distance in
finite time. (Note however that time slows down so dramatically already very
close to the EH that the "victim" will not even *reach* EH in finite time.)

However, in the "victim's" reference frame, as soon as the "victim" would hit
the EH, the observer's time would speed up to infinity. Again, note that the
speedup would already have reached dramatic values very close to the EH.


(2) Note that the formula is given "in Schwarzschild Coordinates"...
(Uh-huh?!)... Well, this is what Wikipedia has to say about those (emphasis
added):

"The defining characteristic of Schwarzschild chart is that the radial
coordinate possesses a natural geometric interpretation in terms of the SURFACE
AREA and Gaussian curvature of each sphere. However, RADIAL DISTANCES and angles
are NOT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED."

So, the equation does *not* state that the EH has a radius of r[s] = 2GM/c^2
after all. Instead, it states that it has a *surface* of 4 pi (2GM/c^2)^2.

Given that spacetime is notoriously distorted at the EH, this makes *no*
statement whatsoever about its radial distance from the singularity. It could
be - ta-ding! - zero after all...


(Again, I find my theory of "EH=singularity" supported - it will mark a paradigm
shift in the understanding of black holes, and I'm going to be a world-famous
nobel prize winner, named along with Einstein, Hawking and Feinman! GR and QM
will at last be proven false, and MY theory will TAKE OVER THE WORLD... no, THE
*UNIVERSE*! *MUAHAHAHAHA*!)

(Good enough to quality for a world-class crackpot this time, huh? =B))

Post a reply to this message