Sorry, I am not informed about general relativity, but I can say this: the mass (and the angular momentum, and the electric charge IIRC) are all ‘visible’ through the event horizon - indeed, if they weren’t, the a black hole would in some sense wink out of existence as it formed - no gravitational pull, no frame-dragging.
I am oversimplifying, and treating the black hole as already collapsed inside the event horizon from the point of view of somebody well away from it; that’s not accurate. Perhaps thinking of that mass as being ‘just about to collapse into the event horizon’ is the best way to think about it, because that’s what that somebody would perceived from the outside who is not in free-fall into it.
Need a proper physicist to follow up on this, my training stopped at special relativity and Newtonian gravity…
(PS: studying tensor calculus and general relativity is on my bucket list - thanks for reminding me to get a move on with it!)
I'm a layman but as I understand it Hawking radiation (which is what we seem to be discussing) is a consequence of quantum mechanics and uncertainty - it isn't actually possible for a black hole to capture all of the energy that falls into it because the vacuum itself contains random quantum fluctuations of energy states which can result in energy escaping the black hole (although not information) through quantum tunneling, increasing entropy.
No, we're not talking about Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is particles and, for medium-to-large black holes, it's very slow. We're talking about the gravitational waves generated by a black hole merger, most of which are generated in seconds.
Sorry, I am not informed about general relativity, but I can say this: the mass (and the angular momentum, and the electric charge IIRC) are all ‘visible’ through the event horizon - indeed, if they weren’t, the a black hole would in some sense wink out of existence as it formed - no gravitational pull, no frame-dragging.
I am oversimplifying, and treating the black hole as already collapsed inside the event horizon from the point of view of somebody well away from it; that’s not accurate. Perhaps thinking of that mass as being ‘just about to collapse into the event horizon’ is the best way to think about it, because that’s what that somebody would perceived from the outside who is not in free-fall into it.
Need a proper physicist to follow up on this, my training stopped at special relativity and Newtonian gravity…
(PS: studying tensor calculus and general relativity is on my bucket list - thanks for reminding me to get a move on with it!)
I'm a layman but as I understand it Hawking radiation (which is what we seem to be discussing) is a consequence of quantum mechanics and uncertainty - it isn't actually possible for a black hole to capture all of the energy that falls into it because the vacuum itself contains random quantum fluctuations of energy states which can result in energy escaping the black hole (although not information) through quantum tunneling, increasing entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
No, we're not talking about Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is particles and, for medium-to-large black holes, it's very slow. We're talking about the gravitational waves generated by a black hole merger, most of which are generated in seconds.