6
$\begingroup$

Black Holes are regions of space where things get weird [Citation Needed]. Past the event horizon of a black hole, any moving particle instantaneously experiences a gravitational acceleration towards the black hole that will cancel out it's current velocity, even light. That means that the gravity well of the black hole must be able to accelerate from -C¹ to 0 instantly². Given that fact, we can assume the gravitational acceleration of black holes is C/instant³. Given this, it stands to reason that in successive instants, the particle will be moving at speeds greater than C, because it is experiencing greater gravitational forces and continuous gravitational acceleration.

Does this actually make sense? Is there something I'm missing here? By this logic, it seems like anything inside of the event horizon of a black hole could and should move faster than C due to gravitational acceleration.

Edit: I showed this question to a friend and he questioned if the hypothetical particles that were radiating from the singularity (The photon traveling exactly away from the black hole) might be hawking radiation; that is, the gravitation acceleration of a black hole is only strong enough to curve the path of light around a non-zero radius (thus not actually stopping it, but altering it's course), and not powerful enough to decelerate light. Is this actually what hawking radiation is, or is he as confused as I am?


¹ Where movement towards the singularity would be considered a positive value, movement away from the singularity is a negative value, that is, anything moving at the speed of light away from the singularity would be moving with a velocity of -C relative to the singularity.

² If it couldn't accelerate from -C to 0 instantly, any photon traveling exactly away from the black hole would be able to escape the event horizon.

³ An instant is an arbitrary amount of time, it could be a fraction of a second, a second, a minute....

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ No. You're making A LOT of assumptions about how a BH works, but reality is very different. It's a difficult topic to figure out, short of actually taking a General Relativity class - but that's what's needed to truly understand these objects. $\endgroup$ – Florin Andrei Aug 27 '15 at 18:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ “Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.” ― Douglas Adams $\endgroup$ – jean Oct 17 at 13:22
18
$\begingroup$

I think your initial question is a good one, but the text gets a bit more jumbled and covers a few different points.

Can things move faster than light inside the event horizon of a black hole?

Nice question.

Black Holes are regions of space where things get weird.

I'm 100% OK with this statement. I think it's a true enough summary and I'm sure I've heard physicists say this too. Even if "Weird" isn't a clearly defined scientific term, I'm 100% fine with this (even without a citation).

Past the event horizon of a black hole, any moving particle instantaneously experiences a gravitational acceleration towards the black hole that will cancel out it's current velocity, even light. That means that the gravity well of the black hole must be able to accelerate from -C* to 0 instantly✝.

Are you quoting somebody here? Anyway, this isn't quite true. Black holes don't accelerate things from -c (which I'm guessing would be a light beam trying to fly away from the singularity but inside the event horizon), to 0 "instantaneously".

Perhaps a better way to look at it is to consider curvature of space, and inside a black hole, space curves so much that all directions point to the singularity. It's the "all roads go to Rome" scenario, even if you do a complete 180, you're still on a road that leads to the singularity.

I understand the temptation to look at that as deceleration, but I think that's a bad way to think about it. Light doesn't decelerate, it follows the curvature of space.

Given that fact, we can assume the gravitational acceleration of black holes is C/instant**. Given this, it stands to reason that in successive instants, the particle will be moving at speeds greater than C, because it is experiencing greater gravitational forces and continuous gravitational acceleration. Does this actually make sense? Is there something I'm missing here? By this logic, it seems like anything inside of the event horizon of a black hole could and should move faster than C due to gravitational acceleration.

outside of a black hole, continuous acceleration would never lead to a speed greater than C. You can accelerate for billions and trillions of years and all you'd do is just add more 9s to the right of the decimal point.

You seem to be assuming that inside a black hole this can happen, but I'm not sure why you'd assume that.

"continuous gravitational acceleration" - no matter how strong, is no guarantee for faster than light travel. That's logically inconsistent with the laws of relativity.

Edit: I showed this question to a friend and he questioned if the hypothetical particles that were radiating from the singularity (The photon traveling exactly away from the black hole) might be hawking radiation; that is, the gravitation acceleration of a black hole is only strong enough to curve the path of light around a non-zero radius (thus not actually stopping it, but altering it's course), and not powerful enough to decelerate light. Is this actually what hawking radiation is, or is he as confused as I am?

I think, a more correct way to look at hawking radiation is to see it as something that forms just outside of the black hole, a particle/anti particle pair and one escapes and the other falls inside, and that's probably not 100% correct either, but the singularity itself doesn't send out particles. Hawking radiation has to do with quantum properties of space. It's not a property of black holes. The black hole just happens to be unique in that it can capture one half of a virtual particle pair and the other half can escape.

This also is a pretty different topic than your original question.

*Where movement towards the singularity would be considered a positive value, movement away from the singularity is a negative value, that is, anything moving at the speed of light away from the singularity would be moving with a velocity of -C relative to the singularity. ✝If it couldn't accelerate from -C to 0 instantly, any photon traveling exactly away from the black hole would be able to escape the event horizon.

**An instant is an arbitrary amount of time, it could be a fraction of a second, a second, a minute....

I think it's a good idea to differentiate mass-less pure energy particles and particles with mass. You seem to be saying that a ray of light can be traveling away from a black hole at the speed of light, get caught in the gravity, slow down and then fall back into the black hole like a ball that's tossed straight up into the air from the surface of the Earth. That's probably not what happens. The ray of light follows the path of space time ahead of it, which happens to be curved so much that it points into the black hole, even if, in the classical sense, the light begins by pointing away. All space curves into the singularity once you're inside the event horizon, so there is no "away from" anymore. At least, that's how I think it works.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ If I could upvote this answer twice I would. Every once in a while I got new activity on this question and reread this answer and am amazed at how clearly it takes the original assumptions about black holes and explains why they are wrong, and how things actually behave. $\endgroup$ – Sidney Mar 7 '16 at 16:15
  • $\begingroup$ Side note: Carls Sagan once said: "If you do want to know-how is inside a black hole just look around". That's why we are confined inside the universe expansion event horizon. So I like to think inside a black hole is likely to exist a universe is expanding, even if for us, observers outside it, its radius is measured finite and static. $\endgroup$ – jean Oct 16 at 12:58
4
$\begingroup$

The short answer to your top-level question "Can things move faster than light inside the event horizon of a black hole?" is no. The text of your question gets confusing and contains a lot of assumptions that are not correct. There's no "special" acceleration happening at or near the event horizon. If things could travel faster than the speed of light there, then they would potentially be able to escape the black hole. The hole is "black" because things are bounded by the speed of light and because of the spacetime curvature.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Can things move faster than light inside the event horizon of a black hole?

We don't know. We do not have any accepted, verifiable–or even more essential: falsifiable–theory about the inside of an event horizon. And this is not because our apparatuses aren't powerful enough (yet), it's of a fundamental nature. If something doesn't emit anything, how could we be able to detect anything?

It is, however, not very likely since „It is generally assumed that fundamental constants such as c have the same value throughout spacetime, meaning that they do not depend on location and do not vary with time.“.

OK, there's the Hawking radiation but that's emitted close to the surface of the event horizon (on the outside).


BTW, things can move faster than light on the moon. If you hold a laser in your hand that's strong enough to create a light spot on the moon and if you turn your hand fast enough (with more than 0.76–0.82 Hz, i.e. about a quarter of a revolution in a third of a second–that's easy to do [select Unit conversion: there, then scroll down]) the light spot moves faster than $ c $.

PLEASE NOTE: There's no transfer of mass, energy or information involved in a laser beam projection point movement! So, Newton, Huygens, Rømer, Bradley, Fizeau, Foucault, Newcomb, Arago, Fresnel, Michelson & Morley and Einstein, amongst many others, are still right.


Past the event horizon of a black hole, any moving particle instantaneously experiences a gravitational acceleration towards the black hole ...

Not only past the event horizon. In fact, everywhere in the rest of the universe. Remember, gravity cannot be shielded and has unlimited reach. So it's not instantaneously as soon as it passes the event horizon, it's already long before. (BTW, instantaneous, i.e. with zero $ \Delta t $, in conjunction with speed leads to terms like $ \frac {\Delta s} 0 $. Mathematicians–and also physicists–don't like such too much.)

... that will cancel out it's current velocity, even light.

Cancel out to zero? No. It's more that the mass of the black hole bends space so hard that particles (or light) stay inside the event horizon while still moving along geodesics, which are straight lines in the Euclidean space we know from everyday experience, but aren't straight at all near (big) masses; see Eddington experiment and gravitational lens.

That means that the gravity well of the black hole must be able to accelerate from -C¹ to 0 instantly².

No, it doesn't have to. (Note: A decrease of the magnitude [or length] of a velocity vector is usually called deceleration.)

Given that fact, we can assume the gravitational acceleration of black holes is C/instant³.

No, we can't assume that. We can rely on Newton's law of universal gravitation

$$ F = G \frac {m_1 m_2}{r^2} $$

where the force for

$$ a = \frac F m $$

decreases with the square of the distance and such the acceleration decreases equally. Closer to the black hole we will have to use Einstein's equations of his GTR.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nice answer, (although that BTW paragraph is a bit of a tangent, and might be misinterpreted by some readers). Velocities in & near event horizons are tricky, and depend on which coordinate system the observer uses & their state of motion. In relativity, the local speed of light is certainly always c, but in GR, spacetime curvature impacts non-local light speed measurements. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Oct 16 at 7:55
  • $\begingroup$ @PM2Ring Thanks. And thanks for the additional info. Re BTW #1: While writing this I actually thought that some might spread the word that they falsified Einstein with a laser pointer. I added an according note. Or do you mean BTW #2? Could m.s or p.s really feel stepped on their toes due to this? When it comes to the math of GR I think I'm still part of the rest Eddington didn't consider: “Asked in 1919 whether it was true that only three people in the world understood the theory of general relativity, [Eddington] allegedly replied: 'Who's the third?'”. :) $\endgroup$ – GeroldBroser reinstates Monica Oct 16 at 19:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I meant the thing about the laser pointer dot moving faster than light. There are a few questions on Physic.SE about that, eg physics.stackexchange.com/q/48328/123208 Your added note makes it a lot clearer. $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Oct 16 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ Your 2nd BTW is (kind of) ok. True, 0/0 is an indeterminate form, but in maths & physics we can (usually) handle things like $\lim_{\Delta t\to 0} \Delta x/\Delta t$ $\endgroup$ – PM 2Ring Oct 16 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ @PM2Ring That's right, but $ \to 0 \not = 0 $ and $ \frac x 0 $ is undefined. $\endgroup$ – GeroldBroser reinstates Monica Oct 17 at 0:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.