Do you ever die when you fall into a black hole?

[dreamsinmymynd]

I read a report on black holes and it said once you get to a certain point inside of the black hole, time stops. It just gets slower and slower until it stops moving inside of the black hole. Is it possible to remain living inside of the black hole forever in your own perspective, in immense pain?

[DuB]

I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd be dead long before you reached the center. Probably something to do with the ultra intense, star-destroying gravity.

[dreamsinmymynd]

I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd be dead long before you reached the center. Probably something to do with the ultra intense, star-destroying gravity. time doesn't reach infinity at the center though, its somewhere in the middle.

[DuB]

You would be dead long before even getting close to a black hole. They swallow galaxies.

[Sornaensis]

Not necessarily. A large black hole wouldn't kill you, but a small one would.

[drewmandan]

To answer the question, general relativity says that the person falling takes a finite amount of time to hit the singularity. However, an outside observer will think it took infinite time to happen.

[Xei]

And obviously consciousness is subjective, so bingo, there's your answer.

[CryoDragoon]

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1iJXOUMJpg

[dreamsinmymynd]

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1iJXOUMJpg thanks for the video. It fit this perfectly.

[MattyMassacre]

Thats pritty rad...and believable. I wonder if there is a way around being atamized. haha

[skysaw]

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1iJXOUMJpg Neil DeGrasse Tyson rocks. I think he's the logical successor to Carl Sagan... a physicist that can explain things so clearly, and with a good screen presence.

[Schmaven]

spaghetification good video.

[wendylove]

I read Stephen Hawking book A brief history of time. In the book he argued that when you enter a black hole the arrow of time flips, so basically you would remeber the future and so could for example you will know your going to die. He argued this is due to thermodynamics and how the psychology arrow of time is just thermodynamics arrow of time. Anyway, however at the end he argued this is a mistake and that a contracting universe is not the symmetrical to a expanding universe, so the arrow of time does not flip in a black hole. Saying that it would be cool if it did, as you would remeber getting ripped to pieces when you enter a black hole. Anyway, so the psychological arrow of time is just entropy.

[Xei]

I'd prefer to say causality.

[Schmaven]

Anyway, so the psychological arrow of time is just entropy. I always thought entropy was Joules / kilogram * kelvin or meters^2 / second^2 * kelvin interesting units for an arrow of time In thermodynamics it's used as a measure of disorder, or of reversibility in a process. Entropy can only be created, it can't be destroyed, so if a process were reversible no entropy would be generated. Entropy is created when any process has irreversibilities, which all do. As an arrow of time, entropy would point towards ever growing chaos and disorder. That actually makes sense for it to be the psychological arrow of time too, because with each new memory we form, there is more disorder in our heads.

[Pyrofan1]

I read a report on black holes and it said once you get to a certain point inside of the black hole, time stops. It just gets slower and slower until it stops moving inside of the black hole If i remember correctly time doesn't stop inside a black hole, it just appears that way to outside observers.

[Xei]

Since when are outside observers wrong?

[Schmaven]

Actually, neither the outside observer, nor the one in the blackhole would be wrong. To the one going into the black hole, time would seem to go alone perfectly normal. But because the outside observers are not being sucked into the black hole, to them it would look like time has stopped, when in reality, you'd already be spaghetified.

[Xei]

Well not really. There is no 'reality', that's the thing that's wrong. There is no objective time. Time is subjective - relative - to the observer (depending on velocity and gravitational field strength). That's the crux of the theory of relativity.

[Schmaven]

True, but I meant that the one in the black hole would already be spaghetified while people observing his spaghetification would see him appear to freeze in time.

[Xei]

...see above. 'Already'; in whos frame of reference? There's no objective time. The people outside have just as valid a frame of reference. According to them the man is still alive, and they're completely right. The man isn't actually already dead, that has no meaning, he's still alive.

[Oneironaut Zero]

...see above. 'Already'; in whos frame of reference? There's no objective time. The people outside have just as valid a frame of reference. According to them the man is still alive, and they're completely right. The man isn't actually already dead, that has no meaning, he's still alive. I believe that is incorrect. The outside observer would be basing his/her opinion on what he saw from the photons that left the event horizon and reached his eye. So, if the person in question entered a black hole, and the visual of his being spaghettified took x amount of time to reach the outside observer, it would be because the photons showing the person in question getting S-ified would take longer to reach the observer (if ever). That would not mean that the observer would be right in saying that the person in question wasn't already S-ified. Frame of reference does not change the absolution of whether or not that person has already been stretched/split into sections that no longer sustain human life. It's either happened and he's no longer intact, or it hasn't happened, and he is. It's the same as someone saying "A star that we see with our naked eye does not actually exist anymore." We, as observers, may still see it, but that does not mean the star still exists, as it could have been destroyed light years ago. If that was the case, the person saying that it still exists (regardless of whether or not we could still see it) would, in fact, be wrong.

[dreamsinmymynd]

I believe that is incorrect. The outside observer would be basing his/her opinion on what he saw from the photons that left the event horizon and reached his eye. So, if the person in question entered a black hole, and the visual of his being spaghettified took x amount of time to reach the outside observer, it would be because the photons showing the person in question getting S-ified would take longer to reach the observer (if ever). That would not mean that the observer would be right in saying that the person in question wasn't already S-ified. Frame of reference does not change the absolution of whether or not that person has already been stretched/split into section that no longer sustained human life. It's either happened and he's no longer intact, or it has happened, and he is. It's the same as someone saying "A star that we see with our naked eye does not actually exist anymore." We, as observers, may still see it, but that does not mean the star still exists, as it could have been destroyed light years ago. If that was the case, the person saying that it still exists (regardless of whether or not we could still see it) would, in fact, be wrong. I think Oneironaut hit the nail on the head. I'm wondering though, If black holes are strong enough to pull light in, wouldn't it be impossible to see the person inside of the black hole at all?

[Oneironaut Zero]

I think Oneironaut hit the nail on the head. I'm wondering though, If black holes are strong enough to pull light in, wouldn't it be impossible to see the person inside of the black hole at all? Yes it would. The closest we could get is to see a sort of freeze-frame of the person, just as he approached the event horizon. My best approximation (which is, by no means, infallible) is that; say - if the person was dancing while approaching the event horizon - we would see them dancing one moment, and then, all of a sudden, they would seem to just stop, as if someone pressed the pause button. That still image would then spaghettify, itself, and shrink to the size of a pin-point (or a long, stretched-out line - depending on our position relevant to the person and the black hole), as some photons would still be reaching us, albeit more slowly than the ones before them. Shortly after, the person/object would come too close for any photons to reach us, in which case it would simply vanish from sight.

[Sornaensis]

No, the light would sit there forever until the universe ends.