Can an object tethered to a spaceship be pulled out of event horizon?Another layman blackhole question, pulling one end of a string out from behind the event horizonWhat happens if you let a cable roll slip into a black hole?What happens if I slowly lower a dangling object into a black hole?Event Horizon violability?Frame dragging around a black holeIs it possible for one black hole to pull an object out of another black hole?Can something (again) ever fall through the event horizon?How high can a light-beam (or apple) travel when pointed (thrown) out from the event horizon?Why won't the following hypothetical scenario succeed in pulling an object free from a black hole's event horizon?Can anything orbit a black hole with dipping under the event horizon?
Is there an in-universe explanation given to the senior Imperial Navy Officers as to why Darth Vader serves Emperor Palpatine?
How to determine algebraically whether an equation has an infinite solutions or not?
Which meaning of "must" does the Slow spell use?
Why was this commercial plane highly delayed mid-flight?
If I said I had $100 when asked, but I actually had $200, would I be lying by omission?
Count the number of triangles
Why did Lucius make a deal out of Buckbeak hurting Draco but not about Draco being turned into a ferret?
What stops you from using fixed income in developing countries?
How could a self contained organic body propel itself in space
Why is there not a willingness from the world to step in between Pakistan and India?
How to force GCC to assume that a floating-point expression is non-negative?
Can I use coax outlets for cable modem?
What was the point of "Substance"?
Why does the `ls` command sort files like this?
Are there any to-scale diagrams of the TRAPPIST-1 system?
Can I take a boxed bicycle on a German train?
What's the point of fighting monsters in Zelda BoTW?
How many petaflops does it take to land on the moon? What does Artemis need with an Aitken?
Can someone identify this unusual plane at airport?
Book featuring a child learning from a crowdsourced AI book
Will removing shelving screws from studs damage the studs?
How to emphasise the insignificance of someone/thing – besides using "klein"
Time difference between banns and marriage
Why does a sticker slowly peel off, but if it is pulled quickly it tears?
Can an object tethered to a spaceship be pulled out of event horizon?
Another layman blackhole question, pulling one end of a string out from behind the event horizonWhat happens if you let a cable roll slip into a black hole?What happens if I slowly lower a dangling object into a black hole?Event Horizon violability?Frame dragging around a black holeIs it possible for one black hole to pull an object out of another black hole?Can something (again) ever fall through the event horizon?How high can a light-beam (or apple) travel when pointed (thrown) out from the event horizon?Why won't the following hypothetical scenario succeed in pulling an object free from a black hole's event horizon?Can anything orbit a black hole with dipping under the event horizon?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
An object cannot escape the event horizon by catapulting it outside the black hole. However, what if instead of relying on escape velocity, the object was tethered to a ship orbiting well outside the event horizon? The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than $c$, but rather can be pulled slowly.
Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough. (Or it's just a loose end). Would such an object be pulled-out of the event horizon?
general-relativity black-holes event-horizon string
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An object cannot escape the event horizon by catapulting it outside the black hole. However, what if instead of relying on escape velocity, the object was tethered to a ship orbiting well outside the event horizon? The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than $c$, but rather can be pulled slowly.
Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough. (Or it's just a loose end). Would such an object be pulled-out of the event horizon?
general-relativity black-holes event-horizon string
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How would an object “catapult” itself?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An object cannot escape the event horizon by catapulting it outside the black hole. However, what if instead of relying on escape velocity, the object was tethered to a ship orbiting well outside the event horizon? The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than $c$, but rather can be pulled slowly.
Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough. (Or it's just a loose end). Would such an object be pulled-out of the event horizon?
general-relativity black-holes event-horizon string
$endgroup$
An object cannot escape the event horizon by catapulting it outside the black hole. However, what if instead of relying on escape velocity, the object was tethered to a ship orbiting well outside the event horizon? The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than $c$, but rather can be pulled slowly.
Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough. (Or it's just a loose end). Would such an object be pulled-out of the event horizon?
general-relativity black-holes event-horizon string
general-relativity black-holes event-horizon string
edited 9 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
113k13 gold badges221 silver badges1339 bronze badges
113k13 gold badges221 silver badges1339 bronze badges
asked 11 hours ago
Christmas SnowChristmas Snow
1364 bronze badges
1364 bronze badges
$begingroup$
How would an object “catapult” itself?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
9 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How would an object “catapult” itself?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
How would an object “catapult” itself?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
How would an object “catapult” itself?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
10 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
"Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
9 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.
All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.
The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.
You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.
Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.
Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.
(In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
rather can be pulled slowly.
For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).
The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.
To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f499053%2fcan-an-object-tethered-to-a-spaceship-be-pulled-out-of-event-horizon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.
All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.
The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.
All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.
The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.
All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.
The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.
$endgroup$
In General Relativity, no amount of force, exerted through a tether or in any other way, can extract an object from the interior of a black hole. There are no “tricks” to get around this fact, any more than there are tricks to make a perpetual motion machine possible.
All future-directed timelike worldlines within the interior lead to the singularity, not just ones for freely falling objects. This is a consequence of the black hole’s geometry.
The gravity gradient is irrelevant. The mass of the object is irrelevant. The strength of the tether is irrelevant. All that matters is the spacetime geometry and the possible worldlines that it allows.
edited 10 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
20.9k1 gold badge36 silver badges68 bronze badges
20.9k1 gold badge36 silver badges68 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.
You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.
Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.
Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.
(In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.
You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.
Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.
Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.
(In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.
You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.
Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.
Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.
(In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)
$endgroup$
The problem here is that while the escape speed is indeed $c$ at the horizon, the classical (Newtonian) way of conceiving of the significance of that speed is much different in general relativity versus in Newtonian gravity - or, actually, it can be thought of in the same way in both, but it really becomes important when you are considering general relativity.
You should not think of the escape speed as simply being a speed which only applies to ballistic escapes, but rather as a speed that signifies how hard it is to escape the gravity well of whatever the thing in question is, by any method. Namely, it is "as hard as accelerating your whatsit up to that speed", whether you actually achieve that acceleration or not: remember that when considering a "slow" climb out of a gravity well even in Newtonian mechanics, your rockets have to be firing continuously and they will use at least (and likely much more) as much energy and propellant as reaching that escape speed requires despite the slow climb.
Hence, when in general relativity you see escape velocity $c$, what it really means is "it is as hard to get away from here as it is to travel at exactly the speed of light". In other words, right at the horizon, getting away is equivalent to sending your massive spaceship at the speed of light: something you already should know from special relativity is infinitely hard. Going below the horizon, it becomes "beyond infinite" - so hard that it is described with an imaginary number, which in relativityese actually means "as hard as going faster than light" and thus "as hard as making a time machine", and therefore, you really really can't get away.
Likewise the same applies to tethers: you will have to pull on it with infinite muscle to get it just up from being exactly at the horizon, and no rope can be infinitely strong, so when lowering something, all ropes must break before the suspended objects reach the horizon.
(In a sense, you could say "gravity becomes infinitely strong" at the horizon, not the singularity, but it's better to say "gravity becomes irresistible", or that the hovering force becomes infinite, because the "strength of gravity" has other definitions that are more appropriate to the general-relativistic setting. In particular, the gravitational field must be described by a tensor, not a vector, in general relativity, and this tensor does not become infinite at the horizon, but the function mapping from this tensor field to the needed hovering force does become infinite there.)
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
6,52312 silver badges30 bronze badges
6,52312 silver badges30 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
rather can be pulled slowly.
For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).
The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.
To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
rather can be pulled slowly.
For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).
The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.
To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
rather can be pulled slowly.
For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).
The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.
To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.
$endgroup$
The object needs not to be pulled out at speeds higher than c, but
rather can be pulled slowly.
For simplicity, consider the Schwarzschild black hole solution. Inside the horizon, the world-lines of 'outwardly' directed light not only remain within the horizon, they end on the singularity (the singularity is in the future of all world lines within the horizon).
The world line of a massive object remains within its future light cone (since speed must be less than $c$) and so must also end on the singularity if within the horizon.
To 'pull the object out' would require that the object's world-line cross out of its future light cone which is as impossible as is having a speed greater than $c$.
answered 8 hours ago
Hal HollisHal Hollis
1,6963 silver badges10 bronze badges
1,6963 silver badges10 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f499053%2fcan-an-object-tethered-to-a-spaceship-be-pulled-out-of-event-horizon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
How would an object “catapult” itself?
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
10 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Assume the gravity gradient between the ship's orbit and the tether's other end is manageable, the mass of the object is small enough to be pulled without too much burden on the ship's engines, and the tether is strong enough." As far as I know, this basically reads like "Assume black holes don't work like they do". If you made all those assumptions, whatever conclusion you make wouldn't apply to a real black hole; because in reality all those assumptions wouldn't hold when going into an event horizon, AFAIK.
$endgroup$
– JMac
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/104474/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/126929/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/252312/2451 and links therein.
$endgroup$
– Qmechanic♦
9 hours ago