0
$\begingroup$

On the internets, it's common to state that inhabitants of hypothetical spaceship falling on the black hole wouldn't notice anything special when they cross the event horizon, and the only effect of them approaching the black hole if it's large enough would be tidal forces as they would approach the singularity.

To my understanding (based on the concept of Hocking's radiation), event horizon boundary is smooth and has no probabilistic component - e.g. all points are either inside or outside the event horizon, so it's not possible for a material point to be inside with 20% probability. Real life particles may be "20% inside", but due to their own uncertainty, not because of event horizon having some "probabilistic transition area".

What puzzles me is why I haven't seen anything about the event horizon influence on the molecular/atomic forces. If we imagine something half-submerged into an event horizon, wouldn't it prevent all fundamental interactions, including gravity, between an "inside" and "outside" parts of the object? It may still let interaction bozons through the event horizon to the inside part, but "reply bozons" won't get through, and to the matter outside the event horizon it would seem that the inside part is no longer existing, as it's not replying.

Also, due to the event horizon being the almost perfect plane (discarding slight curvature), it will go across bonds between atoms, and it could possibly split the nucleus into two parts as well. If splitting light nuclei this way, what would cover the energy deficite? What would happen to quarks if the event horizon boundary goes across the hadron?

So, due to my assumptions, any real life body crossing the event horizon would immediately cause nuclear decay and turn into some sort of quark dust long before spaghetticiation would occur. This maybe could be proven by actually submerging anything into the black hole's event horizon and then pulling it back to see the smooth cut and an explosion.

While flying to the black hole seems to be unrealistic, at least this year, nuclear decay events maybe should be observable from the far away due to lots of natural events of things falling into black holes?

I guess, these nuclear events maybe should be observed? If they are not, what am I missing in my thinkings?

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by John Rennie black-holes May 1 '18 at 9:37

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • $\begingroup$ Also, to clarify, I'm specifically asking about supermassive black holes, so the curvature of the event horizon and tidal forces are both negligible enough. $\endgroup$ – toriningen May 1 '18 at 9:36
  • $\begingroup$ See the question I've linked. It's true that light can't move outwards at or inside the event horizon, but because you're falling inwards you catch up with the light being emitted outwards. So even inside the black hole light appears to be travelling normally. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie May 1 '18 at 9:38
  • $\begingroup$ There are two problems with your interpretation. (1) The radius of the event horizon depends on the frame of reference. As you fall into the black hole, you would see the event horizon shrinking in front of you, so in your falling frame you never cross it until you hit the singularity. (2) You speak of the event horizon as of some place, such as "plane" or "surface". This is incorrect. A surface is a space-like object. However, the event horizon is a ligh-tlike object. So it is not a surface in space that you could cross, but more like a set of worldliness of beams of light. $\endgroup$ – safesphere May 1 '18 at 13:39