About 10 years ago, I read Schwarzschild's paper on black holes, and I noticed, in particular, that the roles of the $r$ and $t$ coordinates reverse in their meanings when some mass goes from outside the event horizon (where $r$ is the spatial, radial variable, and $t$ is the time variable) to inside the event horizon (where $r$ is time and $t$ is spatial). My reaction to that was to conclude that there is nothing inside the event horizon. Shortly after that, I discovered that Dirac had published a paper in 1962 concluding the same thing.
-
There's no experiment that can demonstrate that an event horizon physically exists. – John Doty Dec 23 '22 at 19:43
-
1You can compute the energy-momentum-stress tensor inside the event horizon and see that it’s zero… there’s nothing inside that has energy, or momentum, or stress. This is not a surprise, because the derivation of the Schwarzschild metric begins by looking for a vacuum solution. – Ghoster Dec 23 '22 at 19:49
-
@Ghoster There's obviously a mass that sources the black hole. The solution describes spacetime outside the source. – Avantgarde Dec 23 '22 at 21:15
-
@Mike Fontenot How did you come to the conclusion you claim in your question? – Avantgarde Dec 23 '22 at 21:18
-
1@Avantgarde The singularity is not part of the spacetime manifold, by definition of a manifold. – Ghoster Dec 24 '22 at 01:58
-
@Ghoster That's correct. But that doesn't imply that there is vacuum inside a black hole. Obviously not. – Avantgarde Dec 24 '22 at 04:10
-
1@Avantgarde At every point of the spacetime manifold inside, there obviously is vacuum, because $T^{\mu\nu}=0$ was the assumption made when deriving the Schwarzschild metric. What is “at” the singularity is a meaningless question, since it is not a place. The effect of the metric curvature at large distances is effectively that of a mass, but it is incorrect to say that there “is” mass “at” the singularity. – Ghoster Dec 24 '22 at 05:19
-
@Ghoster If there's no mass in a black hole, what is the 'M' parameter of mass dimension 1 in the Schwarzschild solution? Anyway, these issues have been discussed elsewhere: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/469093/133418. – Avantgarde Dec 24 '22 at 08:13
-
1@Avantgarde As I explained, the effect of the metric curvature at large distances is effectively that of a mass $M$. See also Wikipedia for a technical discussion. – Ghoster Dec 24 '22 at 17:47
-
@Ghoster Yes, that just substantiates what I meant. There is mass. Spacetime cannot curve in the absence of energy-momentum. Else we'd have black holes everywhere in the vacuum of our universe, but we obviously do not. – Avantgarde Dec 24 '22 at 19:59
-
@safesphere If I have a deep well, it's not so hard to test its depth with a weighted string. But should I conclude that it has no bottom if my longest string is incapable of finding it? – John Doty Dec 25 '22 at 20:45
-
@safesphere We don't have black holes popping out of vacuum. And no, your argument is circular if you say that mass is due to an effect of curvature. What is causing this curvature? – Avantgarde Dec 25 '22 at 23:57
-
@safesphere If I had rope of unlimited length, how long, in theory, would it take to lower its end to the horizon and get a message back that it had made contact? How much rope would I have dispensed? – John Doty Dec 26 '22 at 15:30
-
@safesphere I don't believe you are correct. Suppose the "string" is a light ray, the fastest string you can deploy. By definition, the speed of light is constant, so if you send a light ray toward the horizon, the leading point will travel at the speed of light until it reaches the horizon. But you see it as taking forever. So, you deploy an infinite string, but it never reaches the horizon. – John Doty Dec 27 '22 at 16:37
-
No, the speed of light is constant in GR. GR theorists often use natural units where the speed of light is one. – John Doty Dec 29 '22 at 16:16
-
JohnDoty wrote: "The speed of light is constant in Special Relativity, [...]". Actually, in special relativity, the speed of light, according to an ACCELERATING observer, is NOT constant. In SR, the speed of light is constant ONLY for an inertial observer. – Mike Fontenot Dec 30 '22 at 20:25
1 Answers
I turns out that nothing particularly significant happens to a local observer as they cross the event horizon of a typical black hole. The structure of spacetime is actually smooth across the horizon, with equally well behaved exterior and interior regions.
The event horizon (at $r_{S}=\frac{2GM}{c^{2}}$ for a Schwarzschild black hole) marks a change in the global geodesic structure; once something is inside, it can never subsequently escape back out to infinity. However, locally there is no physical singularity at $r_{S}$, in spite of the coordinate artifact in the Schwarzschild metric $$ds^{2}=-\left(1-\frac{r_{S}}{r}\right)\,dt^{2}+\left(1-\frac{r_{S}}{r}\right)^{-1}\,dr^{2}+r^{2}\left(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta\,d\phi^{2}\right).$$ (Henceforth, I set $c=1$.)
The fact that the metric components can diverge and change sign is actually an artifact of a somewhat poor choice of coordinates. The variables $r$ and $t$ are very useful at large distances away from the black hole singularity, but close in they are inopportune. Written in terms of $r$ and $t$, the metric behaves badly around $r=r_{S}$, but there is no actual singularity in the curvature tensor $R^{\mu}{}_{\nu\rho\sigma}$. The Riemann tensor $R^{\mu}{}_{\nu\rho\sigma}$ is finite even for $0<r\leq r_{S}$; and, in fact, its Ricci part vanishes, $R_{\mu\nu}=0$, everywhere except at $r=0$, since the Schwarzschild metric is a vacuum solution of the Einstein field equations.
We can make the fact that the spacetime continues smoothly down past the event horizon manifest by choosing different coordinates—the Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates, $$T=\left(\frac{r}{r_{S}}-1\right)^{1/2}\exp\left(\frac{r}{2r_{S}}\right)\sinh\left(\frac{t}{2r_{S}}\right)\\ X=\left(\frac{r}{r_{S}}-1\right)^{1/2}\exp\left(\frac{r}{2r_{S}}\right)\cosh\left(\frac{t}{2r_{S}}\right)$$ outside the horizon ($r\geq r_{S}$); and $$T=\left(1-\frac{r}{r_{S}}\right)^{1/2}\exp\left(\frac{r}{2r_{S}}\right)\cosh\left(\frac{t}{2r_{S}}\right)\\ X=\left(1-\frac{r}{r_{S}}\right)^{1/2}\exp\left(\frac{r}{2r_{S}}\right)\sinh\left(\frac{t}{2r_{S}}\right)$$ inside ($r\leq r_{S}$). Note that $T$ and $X$ are continuous and nonsingular through $r=r_{S}$. In these coordinates, the metric takes a form that is free of singularities except at $r=0$, $$ds^{2}=\frac{4r_{S}^{3}}{r}\exp\left(-\frac{r}{r_{S}}\right)\left(-dT^{2}+dX^{2}\right)+r^{2}\left(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta\,d\phi^{2}\right).$$ This form is slightly awkward, since it still involves the radial coordinate $r$ (which is a function of $X$ and $T$). Moreover, not all values of $X$ and $T$ are permitted; $T^{2}-X^{2}$ must be less than 1. (Note that $T^{2}-X^{2}=1$ corresponds to the singularity at $r=0$.) However, the event horizon lies at $T^{2}-X^{2}=0$, and in these coordinates, there is nothing singular there at all; not only is the curvature tensor finite in all its components, but so is the metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$! We must conclude that the there is nothing locally special about the event horizon, and the singularities that occur there are just an artifact of choosing poor coordinates.

- 16,031
-
1Already gave you a +1 so this is just a suggested improvement. The horizon is special in that all time-like paths are inward. This is fairly direct to see in the K-S coords. So a living organism would suffer drastic effects as it passed the horizon because the outward portions would be causally isolated from the inward portions. – BillOnne Dec 23 '22 at 20:15
-
@BillOnne For a black hole large enough to not spaghettify you, crossing the event horizon is not special. Spacetime will be locally flat there just like anywhere else and you will not notice falling past it. Signals sent from the "inner" part of you will not be able to make it to the "current" position of the "outer" part of you, OK, but that doesn't matter: the "outer" part of you will fall in and catch the signal. The effect you describe would occur if you used a rocket to keep one part of yourself outside (i.e. fix your $r$ coordinate). Then the rocket shreds you, not the horizon. – HTNW Dec 24 '22 at 01:07