0
$\begingroup$

I've seen a few posts on the internet which seem to suggest that an observer never seeing a particle crossing the horizon is an idealization for a massless particle. If the particle is massive some mechanism will cause the horizon of the black hole to rise up encompassing the smaller mass within a finite amount of time from a distant observer's perspective. "Kevin Brown" also seems to argue this point in his book (if I interpreted it correctly)

http://mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm

How valid is this interpretation compared to the seemingly more standard one where particles, massless or otherwise, become "frozen" at the event horizon? In the standard interpretation as the horizon expands, the "frozen" material will be "pushed" outwards with the expanding horizon and will never actually be encompassed by it. Meanwhile, Kevin Brown notes that "there is no known mechanism for that to happen."

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The "standard" interpretations that you mention are based on properties of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric. This metric represents a static black hole, which can by definition never change its mass or "size".

Kevin Brown is discussing a more "realistic" situation in which the infalling mass adds to that of the black hole, increasing its "size". This scenario has been studied in many numerical simulations, but there are currently no known closed-form equations describing it.

So the two approaches are not contradictory, just slightly different.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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