13

I was going through Hawking's incantations on black holes, where black holes get defined as follows:

Black Hole: A region of spacetime from which the escape velocity exceeds the velocity of light.

I am told that nothing in this universe can have a speed greater than that of light. By Einstein's theory, if black holes actually do have escape velocity greater than the speed of light, this should mean that time in the black hole has stopped completely. In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. Although supermassive black holes do not usually indulge in the process of moving about the universe, smaller black holes do. I have read from various sources that these black holes move at an appreciable speed comparing with light. So my question here is about the increase in mass and density of the black hole further.

By Einstein's equation, the density of the point where the gravitational singularity has been developed and the mass of the black hole should constantly be increasing. Does this imply that at one time, the black hole should grow vast enough to swallow the entire universe and after the "spaghettification" all the mass of the universe gets stored at the infinitely small point with infinite density?

What I further do not understand is, is that how do black holes grow in mass? In my opinion, by swallowing stars, asteroids, etc., the size of black holes should remain constant and the mass of the point where the singularity is developed should be increased. I have also read that when two black holes crash into each other, their gravitational fields combine to create an even stronger gravitational field.

In this case, are the black holes superposing on each other by pure constructive interference?

  • 4
    Escape velocity of a black hole is a theoretical velocity, not a real one (because nothing can achieve it). Keep thinking about this until it make sense! – m4r35n357 Feb 15 '21 at 09:35
  • 5
    That creates certain bizarre implications which I do not understand” - What “certain implications”? What exactly do you see as “bizarre”? What specifically do you not understand? Your question is unclear. – safesphere Feb 15 '21 at 13:49
  • 1
    Black Hole: A region of spacetime from which the escape velocity exceeds the velocity of light.” - This is not a correct definition obviously, because no velocity can exceed the speed of light (plus we see the speed of light at the horizon as zero). A correct definition simply is a region, from which light cannot escape. – safesphere Feb 15 '21 at 13:55
  • @safesphere, Re, "no velocity can exceed the speed of light." No signal and no physical object can outrace a pulse of light from point A to point B, but we can talk about velocities other than the velocities of actual signals and actual physical objects. https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/48328/74763 – Solomon Slow Feb 15 '21 at 22:53
  • 4
  • 2

3 Answers3

18

... this should mean that time in the blackhole has stopped completely

Not sure how you reach this conclusion. If we assume that general relativity still applies beyond the event horizon of a black hole (although we cannot observe this, we have no reason to think otherwise) then the time co-ordinate of objects that have fallen within the event horizon still changes. The key thing is that all timelike paths inside the future light cone of an object within the event horizon end up at the centre of the black hole. So all objects within the event horizon will reach the centre of the black hole in a finite amount of proper time. What happens to them then we do not know - GR predicts a singularity at the centre of a black hole, which we believe is not physically realistic. But to go beyond this we need a theory of quantum gravity, which we do not yet have.

gandalf61
  • 52,505
  • 1
    “The key thing is that the centre of the black hole (a physical location) lies inside the future light cone of all objects within the event horizon.” – isn’t something backwards there? The centre of Sun lies in my future light cone, doesn’t it (I could send a signal now, reaching the center of Sun in around eight minutes)? I guess you meant “the whole future light cone lies inside the event horizon” or something like that? – Mormegil Feb 16 '21 at 09:46
  • 3
    @Mormegil I have re-phrased that sentence. – gandalf61 Feb 16 '21 at 09:59
10

"if black holes actually do have escape velocity greater than the speed of light, this should mean that time in the black hole has stopped completely"

What it means is that the time axis has twisted round so far that the entire future of an event on the event horizon points entirely into the black hole. You can't escape from the black hole for the same reason you can't escape from the future.

Time doesn't stop at the event horizon. If you fall into a black hole, time continues as normal for you as you pass the event horizon. From the point of view of somebody outside, if you try to join up the time and space coordinates valid a long way away from point to point, as you get closer the flow of time diverges and it looks like time 'stops'. But this is just a peculiarity of the choice of coordinates. It's the same as saying time 'stops' for a ray of light - but we commonly cross the paths of light rays without anything odd happening.

In fact, you can get event horizons without black holes. If a rocket accelerates in a straight line at a constant rate, it gets closer and closer to the path of a particular ray of light. An observer on the rocket can never see anything that happens at the origin after this particular ray of light, as the light from any such event can never catch up to the accelerating observer - it is an event horizon. The diagram here shows the paths of observers with increasing accelerations, and how they all approach a particular diagonal line representing a light ray from the origin. Time for the rocket-propelled observer is shown by the fan of lines through the origin, that go to infinity as the diagonal is approached. An observer on the rocket looking back sees the stationary observer's time apparently 'stop' as their own time continues on to infinity. Of course, time doesn't stop for the stationary observer - they pass through the event horizon without noticing a thing. It's just a peculiarity of the coordinate system of the accelerated observer.

This is an expected consequence of the equivalence principle - that gravity and acceleration look locally the same. The accelerated rocket observers correspond to stationary observers hovering a fixed distance outside a black hole. The stationary observers watching the rocket correspond to a freefall observer falling into the black hole. The spacetime diagram for the Rindler coordinates of uniform acceleration look almost exactly like the Kruskal-Szekeres diagram for a black hole. (Note for the picky, the spacing of the lines in the two diagrams is not quite the same. Rindler 'artificial gravity' goes like $1/r$, not $1/r^2$.) Static observers hovering outside the hole follow the hyperbolic paths in the right-hand quadrant. The event horizon of the black hole is the diagonal lines crossing in the middle. A freefalling observer crosses the event horizon of the black hole like the static observer crosses the event horizon of a uniformly accelerating rocket - simply passing from the past into the future. Once past, he can never move fast enough to recross the line and meet up with the observer on the hyperbola, without exceeding c. Event horizons criss-cross every point in space and time - they're just light rays.

However time does stop at the singularity at the centre of the black hole. The history of particles falling in just stop when they hit it. General relativity predicts the curvature goes to infinity, and can no longer say what happens next.

5

Escape velocity is just the velocity required to escape completely from the gravitational pull of a body. For example if you're on earth's surface and you are not able to reach escape velocity you will be stuck on earth. Similarly if you are near the event horizon of a black hole and are not able to reach escape velocity you won't be able to escape. Since it's physically impossible to reach the speed of light it is impossible for matter to ever escape a black hole. Light can't escape either but the argument is slightly more complicated.

Time does stop in a sense near a black hole but this statement depends on the observer. If an outside observer $O$ sees another observer $F$ falling into a black hole then $O$ will see the watch of $F$ ticking slower and slower. For $O$ it will take infinite time for $F$ to cross the event horizon. This is not an optical illusion: from $O$'s perspective the watch of $F$ actually slows down. For the falling observer $F$ nothing peculiar happens. For him the event horizon is just an arbitrary distance. So when I say that time slows I mean for an outside observer.

So finally I should stress, like in m4r35n357's comment, that escape velocity is just a theoretical velocity needed to escape from some body. It is not related to time slowing down.

  • 3
    "For example if you're on earth's surface and you are not able to reach escape velocity you will be stuck on earth. ". You can go to the moon without ever going escape velocity. – eps Feb 15 '21 at 20:59
  • 1
    Yeah, that’s a fine example of why escape velocity is a wrong oversimplification of black holes. I can throw a stone in the air and surely, it never reaches escape velocity, still, it can stay away from Earth’s surface for a few seconds before falling back to it. It may even get captured by another object’s gravity if its path gets close enough. That’s an entirely different thing as an event horizon, that doesn’t allow such a path at all. – Holger Feb 16 '21 at 13:15
  • @AccidentalTaylorExpansio: Why will it take an infinite time for F to cross the event horizon, from O's observation? An "infinite time"; that means that it never happens? If it takes an "infinite time" to cross the event horizon, how could F fall into the black hole, in the first place? – tony Aug 18 '23 at 09:17
  • @tony That does indeed mean that it will never happen (for the outside observer). You can compare it to the time it takes for someone to travel a distance $s$ given some velocity $v$: $t=\frac{s}v$. If $v$ goes to zero it will take an infinite time: the person will never travel the distance. – AccidentalTaylorExpansion Aug 18 '23 at 09:51
  • @tony The fact that the time it takes to cross the event horizon depends on the observer is one of the incredibly weird properties of special/general relativity. We are used to time always ticking at the same rate everywhere, but if we are moving very fast or are near a very heavy object this is not true anymore. Not all logic is off the table though. For example, in special/general relativity causality is still conserved. This simply means that if event A causes event B, then this is true in any reference frame. If event A involves me pressing a button and invent B involves killing – AccidentalTaylorExpansion Aug 18 '23 at 09:55
  • @tony Schrodingers cat and this is caused by me pressing the button, then this is true for any reference frame (i.e. for any observer). – AccidentalTaylorExpansion Aug 18 '23 at 09:56