5
$\begingroup$

According to a distant observer, any mass never falls into the event horizon, they just appear to be moving slower towards it.

So, why can't we tell people this : there are black holes, but it's just a huge amount of mass packed closely and frozen in time. There are no event horizons, because whenever it forms, nothing can enter it. Everything close to it gets frozen just outside the horizon.

The gravitational pull from the "black hole" is the same no matter the mass is packed just outside the event horizon or inside at the singularity. To any outside observer it's physically the same.

What about the coordinate frame moving with the mass falling into the horizon? Actually we don't care, because anything falling into a black hole, is effectively removed from the causality of our universe.

Einstein's great contribution is that we only define what we can measure. We don't assume there's a concept of time and space, we define the way we measure it, and that lead to our new understanding of the space-time (and how it can actually transform wrt different observers).

Now we can't measure anything inside a event horizon, or anything that fell inside. Therefore talking about what's inside, according to the philosophy or relativity, has no physical meaning. If you can't measure it, talking about it is just fairy-tale.

And if we adopt this point of view of black holes, there's no information paradox. Because nothing disappears into the black hole, they are just frozen in a slow zone. Quantum mechanics works there, and no information is lost. The information paradox is solved?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are confusing the Scwartzschild spacetime (static) with a "realistic" black hole model (non-static). Clearly, a static solution can never change . . . $\endgroup$
    – m4r35n357
    Commented Sep 9, 2019 at 10:03
  • $\begingroup$ This is a question which needs an answer from someone who really knows quantum gravity. For now I will say it resembles the 'stretched horizon' paradigm of Susskind et al, which has been an important part of conceptual development arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9306069 (over 1000 citations) $\endgroup$
    – Mitchell Porter
    Commented Sep 9, 2019 at 10:11
  • $\begingroup$ Related: physicalprinciples.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/… $\endgroup$
    – safesphere
    Commented Sep 10, 2019 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ 1) If all the mass (in your theory) sits outside the "event horizon" -- there is no event horizon (at $r<$the minimal distance of the mass locale from the "center of event horizon", let's call its location $\bf{r}=\bf{0}$). $T^{\mu\nu}=0$ at smaller $r$, with that $R^{\mu\nu}=0$ there. What prevents matter from falling inwards to smaller $r$ then? $\quad$ 2) Given the location of the event horizon of conventional stellar BH, there had been some mass inside that before the star officially collapsed. Where does that mass go in your theory? $\endgroup$
    – matteroffact
    Commented Oct 16, 2022 at 18:26

0

Reset to default