Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 6086637" data-attributes="member: 40227">I just want to emphasize what Umbran said here.  In classical general relativity, the event horizon is not special at all.Right, once again, the event horizon (or near it) is not special in classical general relativity.That's not actually right in classical relativity.  You're right, from our point of view, an infalling object doesn't make it into the black hole.  We see it slow down and never quite enter the horizon as we reach the infinite future.  However, from the infalling object's point of view, as you said, time passes perfectly normally, and it falls in just fine.  In fact, the infalling object doesn't see a horizon at all.  There is no need for quantum mechanics whatsoever.  Tunnelling is sometimes used as a way to explain where Hawking radiation comes from, but that's about stuff coming out of the black hole, not falling in.That might be true in the real universe, but this argument is made in a universe devoid of anything but the infalling person, the black hole, and outgoing Hawking radiation.  In this case, it's supposed to be the Hawking radiation that burns up the infalling person.  The reason this claim is unusual sounding comes back to the point that the horizon isn't supposed to be special for an infalling object.  In fact, in the usual calculation deriving Hawking radiation, the Hawking radiation doesn't come from the horizon at all but from generally all the space around the black hole.  So it's a bit of a puzzle.</blockquote>

Verification