Black Hole/Parallel Universe Theory

[Heat]

Can someone help me understand this?

So say we assume the Parallel Universe theory is true, basically meaning, or at least my understanding being, that any and all events that can occur will occur in a parallel universe.

That being said, how does this work with a black hole? If a black hole contains a bunch of events trapped inside it, that an outside viewer will never see happen after an object passes the event horizon, since the viewer sees an object disappear at the event horizon but from the objects perspective it keeps travelling until it is at the center of a black hole(or at least somewhere past the event horizon), how would this work in the theory of "anything that can happen will happen" with parallel universes. How could you determine what could happen, or what didn't happen, in a scenario where there are two different answers that are both correct at the exact same time?

[Anomalocaris]

Where is there two truly different answers?

[Heat]

Where is there two truly different answers?

From the observer no events can occur inside the event horizon, however the object still continues after the event horizon in the same event.

For the observer the event stops once they reach the event horizon, but it doesn't stop for the object,
The observer will think based on what they observe, the object just stopped(or whatever happens when you see something reach the event horizon)
However the object will still argue(in an implausible hypothetical scenario) that it went to the center of the black hole. Two different events occurring at the same time. One where the object stops, the other where it keeps going.

[IATIA]

Does anything really go beyond the event horizon? You can watch something fall in slower and s l o w e r and s - l - o - w - e - r, but you will never see it hit the event horizon

[Heat]

Does anything really go beyond the event horizon?  You can watch something fall in slower and  s l o w e r  and  s  -  l  -  o  -  w  -  e  -  r,  but you will never see it hit the event horizon

That's the point. You won't see the object hit the event horizon, I mean regardless I was just being more precise saying you will never see it pass the event horizon(which is basically the same thing only more technical), but the object will experience passing the event horizon, hence me saying that "two different events occur at the same time".

[Anomalocaris]

Where is there two truly different answers?

From the observer no events can occur inside the event horizon, however the object still continues after the event horizon in the same event.

For the observer the event stops once they reach the event horizon, but it doesn't stop for the object,
The observer will think based on what they observe, the object just stopped(or whatever happens when you see something reach the event horizon)
However the object will still argue(in an implausible hypothetical scenario) that it went to the center of the black hole. Two different events occurring at the same time. One where the object stops, the other where it keeps going.

By conventional interpretation, for the observer, it is impossible to determine what is happening inside the event horizon.   Not nothing happens within the event horizon.  Lack of information is not the same as nothing happen.

when you say event stop once they reach the event horizon, you are confusing two different frame of references that are dilated with respect to each other. In the frame of reference of the event, things always happen at the normal rate. But this frame is dilated relative to the frame of the observer. So to the observer, the event appear to happen ever more slowly, but it does not ever stop.

[Anomalocaris]

Does anything really go beyond the event horizon?  You can watch something fall in slower and  s l o w e r  and  s  -  l  -  o  -  w  -  e  -  r,  but you will never see it hit the event horizon

The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It happens in the frame of reference of the thing that is falling. But the time in that frame is dilated relative to the time frame of an observer.

[Ravenshire]

I probably misunderstand more about black holes than not, but wouldn't the object in question be crushed by the gravity before it even reaches the event horizon?

[Anomalocaris]

I probably misunderstand more about black holes than not, but wouldn't the object in question be crushed by the gravity before it even reaches the event horizon?

Not crushed.  There is nothing to push against you to crush you.  Event horizon is not a solid surface.

Paradoxically, as you fall towards a black hole, Gravity would tend to tear you apart rather than crush you.

 The force of gravity of black hole acting on the infalling object is proportional to the square of distance to the center of the black hole.   Near the black hole, the force of gravity is extremely strong, true, but more importantly, the force of gravity increases very quickly as the distance to the black hole shortens. It can increase so quickly that the small distance between the part of infalling object further away from the blackhole and the part of the object closest to the black hole could be sufficient for the difference in the strength of gravitational pulls of the black hole to overwhelm the structural strength of the object.  So in the case, gravity will tear the object apart. The larger the infalling object, the more easily it would be torn apart by gravity.

For example, for a really large object, say the moon, it is so easy for gravity to tear it apart the gravity of the earth could do it, you won't need a black hole. If you put the moon in a orbit that would bring it very close to the earth, to say within 1 earth radii. The gravity of the earth would tear the moon apart before the moon reach the closest approach.

But the differential force tearing apart an object of given size declines with the size of the event horizon.  For extremely large black holes with a large radius of event horizon, the force tearing part an object would be very small.   So you are better off falling into a really big black hole than a small one. You might be shredded into atoms before reaching event horizon if you were to fall towards a stellar sized black hole. But you would hardly notice any stretch if you were to fall towards a black hole the size of the core of milk way.

[Heat]

I probably misunderstand more about black holes than not, but wouldn't the object in question be crushed by the gravity before it even reaches the event horizon?

You're thinking human, a human would be crushed, not an object, however it would be changed the closer and closer it got to the center of the black hole, and as well in the future if we are ever able to build a machine capable of widthstanding a blackhole, it would spark possibility that someday a human could also go into one without being crushed.


There's nothing definitively preventing us like a physical law from going through a black hole, nothing except machines. One day it's quite possible we will be able to build something capable of going in to a blackhole. Mid-way through this I got confused and was thinking of wormholes and forgot that there was no other side to a black hole. Instead, I believe the goal is to have a machine capable of going in to a black hole and still relay data. This would give us an exponentially better understanding of not only what black holes are, but what lies in the center as well, it would spark new scientific discoveries and theories that would change how we perceive the universe. Furthermore, there is a theory that would allow you to "come out the other side" i believe, if the white hole theory is correct. This is a theory stating that since black holes suck in matter and consume matter, the matter has to go somewhere, and is then pushed out the other side in a "White hole" basically the opposite of a black hole, black holes suck in matter only, white holes push out matter only. The "White hole" theory is also theoretically what caused the big bang, since the big bang seems to fit the exact same description. 


All in all, we hardly know how the universe works, let alone what is possible inside it. No matter how correct a theory is, it will only ever be a theory until we can prove it, we will only ever confirm what we "think" we know about black holes if we physically confirmed it.