[JumpCrisscross]

> Occam's razor says that you must present a proof that they are not existing in a black hole

Occam’s razor absolutely doesn’t predict that the weird thing that breaks physics occurs twice and then precipitates a crystal.

[oneshtein]

Physics is fine, it just model, which breaks.

However, we can see that stars are eaten by black holes, and then can be partially released back years later, so it's proven that 1) «an event horizon» exists, 2) matter can pass the «event horizon» in both directions, 3) light cannot pass the «event horizon» in one direction.

I do not introduce a new physics, like a «singularity», without any evidence. Occam's razor is in my hands now.

[zardo]

> 2) matter can pass the «event horizon» in both directions

Where was this proven?

[mitthrowaway2]

The comment you're responding to didn't assert that it is proven, but regardless: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Emission_pro...

[JumpCrisscross]

Hawking radiation is almost painfully constructed to avoid the problem of anything, even information, crossing back through the event horizon.

[Maxatar]

The Wikipedia article is fairly loose with language, but at any rate Hawking radiation does not originate past the event horizon itself but just before it.

[mitthrowaway2]

I suppose it's a philosophical matter, but it seems legitimate to me to view this as matter moving out of the event horizon, even if the mechanism of that motion is very indirect. One's answer would depend on whether you consider a photon that travels to your eyes from the sun after reflecting from a mirror to be the same photon that was originally emitted by the sun, because it carries that photon's energy and information, even if it was actually absorbed and then coherently re-emitted by the mirror after a staggeringly complicated sea of particle-particle interactions.

[Maxatar]

Okay in terms of philosophy sure you could maybe make an argument, I don't know.

What we can, however, say that is more tangible is that the make-up of Hawking radiation cannot depend whatsoever on the matter that falls into the black hole apart from three properties: mass, charge and momentum. Other than those three properties, all other information that crosses the event horizon is lost and can't escape.

So, if one black hole was formed purely from 1 kg of protons with 0 momentum, and another black hole was formed from 1 kg of positrons with 0 momentum, these two black holes would be indistinguishable from each other. There would be nothing that could be emitted by either black hole via Hawking radiation or any other mechanism that could allow you to deduce that one was formed from protons and the other from positrons.

It's in this stricter information theoretic sense that nothing escapes from beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

[oneshtein]

See there: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/10/black-hole-bu...

[JumpCrisscross]

These are ejecta from the black hole’s accretion disk.

[oneshtein]

Of course, but it looks like this accretion disk was below the «event horizon», because speed is much higher, 50% of speed of light, instead of typical 10%.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it looks like this accretion disk was below the «event horizon»

No it doesn’t.

> because speed is much higher, 50% of speed of light

Spin the singularity.

I’d love to see a source for the authors claiming they believe matter exited the event horizon. That’s literally Nobel prize groundbreaking.