Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

So, at least as reported in the media, the physics community is still struggling with the problem of resolving the impossibility of retrieving information from beyond the event horizon of a black hole with the fact that QM seems to guarantee information is preserved.

However, as I understand, a distant observer will never actually see the creation of the black hole occur in finite time. In other words, over all finite times for a distant observer the situation can be described from via solutions to GR that don't actually result in an event horizon in finite time. Now if we assume that either the universe ends after finite time for that distant observer or the (psuedo) black hole evaporates after such time then all events can be described from some perspective without introducing any event horizon.

But by the equivalence principle in GR the perspective of any observer is just as valid and if information is preserved for any observer it is preserved for all observers. So how can there be any confusion?

(The assumption that the universe ends or the (psuedo) black hole evaporates in finite time ensures that there is no observer for whom the external observer's perspective is only valid for a finite amount of time.)

EDIT: Yes, as pointed out the equivalence principle in GR refers to something else. I mean whatever is the GR analog of the SR principle that tells us that a description in any inertial reference frame is equally valid. My understanding was that this was extended in GR to non-inertial observers but regardless of what it is called the point is that if there is any solution of GR that describes all space for all time without the introduction of event horizons then since this description creates no paradox there shouldn't be a paradox with respect to any description.

Also perhaps some assumption about the observer not accelerating to infinite velocity is required as well but maybe such observers are already not considered.

EDIT2: To be more precisce I want to choose a frame whose vector field matches the (usual) local coordinates for some observer who neither falls into a black hole or accelerats to infinite velocity relative to matter in the universe.

Perhaps I am confused and instead want to pick a maximal coordinate chart including all the points on the manifold occupied by my observer.

share|cite|improve this question
Please, please, answer only if you can provide some mathematical reasoning to support your argument. Resist the temptation to answer with what seems to you to be intuitively obvious - GR is rarely obvious or intuitive. – John Rennie Jan 28 '14 at 19:01
The equivalence principle in GR states that one cannot distinguish between a constant gravity field and constant acceleration. – Jim Jan 28 '14 at 19:02
As soon as you talk about comparing things on the black hole horizon to the observations of distant observer, you are no longer talking about a local reference frame. – Jerry Schirmer Jan 28 '14 at 22:35
Sure, but I should still be able to define a (frame)[] which yields the correct local coordinates. The only importance of the observer far from the black hole who isn't falling in is to ensure that the frame doesn't end up crunching all time for such an observer into a finite period. – Peter Gerdes Jan 29 '14 at 1:16
I think perhaps I mean to say that I should be able to define a coordinate chart that not only includes my observer at all points but also includes all points on the manifold (except perhaps the earliest and last points if they exist) occupied by matter. – Peter Gerdes Jan 29 '14 at 2:11

I'm no physicist, but I think that event horizon will form, but nothing will ever fall there. So no information is destroyed, just very inaccessible.

See How can anything ever fall into a black hole as seen from an outside observer?

"All the oblects close enough to the horizon remain "sticked" to it and follow all the changes of the BH form"

Imagine two point Planck masses falling freely towards each other. They'll never hit each other (classically, not sure about quantum) - they'll virtually stop in their fall because time has stopped. What's between them? Event horizon.

What happens when third particle falls on them? I have no idea, but I think they will be pushed apart a bit.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.