<p>The matter falling into a black hole does reach the event horizon, so it is not possible. However, a better question would be that if a black hole has infinite density, than does matter actually reach the singularity? The answer here has to be yes, mainly because if not, then nothing we know of could undo a black hole, but also because while it has infinite density, than it also warps space-time infinitely, at least at the singularity. So at some point, the matter should merge into the singularity's space-time warp and by then it is practically a part of it. </p>

<p>So the answer to your original question would be a no, but that is according to our present theories. It is an intriguing question, however, and it doesn't hurt to speculate.   </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-25T01:51:16.807Z
The world is complex. It's better to feed people ideas than not in case it's a good idea, and people can't always do what they're expected to do by others to do and they won't always understand. I downvoted this answer. It's okay. You have to accept risk. It looks like you're just going by what you were already told about how black holes work. I discovered a possible reason people might have been making a mistake all along in how they thought black holes worked. That's the vary reason I asked this question in the first place. All black holes formed at some time. A slight tweak in the laws
Timothy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-25T01:56:08.083Z
maybe could lead to the region outside the apparent horizon being skewed forward in time compared to the model that depicts space as flowing into the black hole. Even in the really distant future, the region beyond where you would expect the apparent horizon to be what general relativity predicts was going on when the black hole was just forming.
Timothy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-25T09:31:51.600Z
Hey you all, please read [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82678/does-someone-falling-into-a-black-hole-see-the-end-of-the-universe).
peterh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-25T01:13:53.863Z
2020-04-25T01:13:53.863Z
Mr.555
<p>I know a black hole can absorb matter and maybe also release Hawking radiation. I think that according to the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinates, space is flowing and the apparent horizon is the region of space moving outward at the speed of light that will never fall into the black hole or escape. I know what matter the black hole absorbs later affects where the apparent horizon is not according to that coordinate system. However, maybe slightly different physical laws could end up with the following result. All the space outside the apparent horizon is skewed forward in time compared to the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinate system and the amount it's skewed forward varies as the log of the reciprocal of the distance from the apparent horizon. I don't see how it's impossible that the laws would make it actually for real take an infinite amount of time for an object falling into a black hole to reach the apparent horizon. Maybe that would be a solution to the black hole information paradox. Maybe there's some sort of real actual physical truth out there that's true whether we define it to be or not we just don't know it and the truth of what's really going on means you cannot reasonably define it to take a finite amount of time to reach the apparent horizon, and the space beyond it doesn't exist whether you define it to or not.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-21T03:48:54.100Z
Check out https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82678/does-someone-falling-into-a-black-hole-see-the-end-of-the-universe for good reading
Ingolifs
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-21T05:58:06.480Z
There seems to be quite a lot of "if the physical rules were different" here.  But gravity up to and beyond the event horizon is actually quite well understood.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-21T15:08:35.477Z
@JamesK Just because one theory explains observations doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I figured out that maybe a totally different theory that gives rise to the same observations is possible. Maybe almost everyone else is sure that object eventually cross the apparent horizon because they have an intuition for it but that doesn't make it true. I believe that you have to have an open mind and question things and I figured out how it might be possible that it actually takes an infinite amount of time.
Timothy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-22T20:15:55.053Z
@JamesK I thought this was Physics Stack Exchange and now I see that I was on Astronomy Stack Exchange. I think it's because Google Chrome lists past web pages I went to and I may have gone to a past question of mine that I asked on Astronomy Stack Exchange then forgot that I asked on Astronomy Stack Exchange. Maybe somebody could move it to Physics Stack Exchange.
Timothy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-22T20:23:55.397Z
You could move it by simple deletion and reposting.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-24T02:31:38.050Z
@JamesK That will waste my chances to ask questions. Deleting questions can maybe even be used against me. I think it's better if it's moved.
Timothy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-25T07:46:56.363Z
No, please do *not* post this question on Physics.SE. It would be closed there as non-mainstream because of *"maybe slightly different physical laws could end up with the following result"*.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-25T07:52:48.013Z
But speaking of Physics.SE, you should take a look at https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/144458/123208 Note that "A singularity in GR is like a piece that has been cut out of the manifold. It's not a point or point-set at all. Because of this, formal treatments of singularities have to do a lot of nontrivial things to define stuff that would be trivial to define for a point set."
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-26T01:33:26.820Z
@PM2Ring Maybe it could be moved to Skeptics Stack Exchange.
Timothy
<black-hole>
Is it possible that it actually takes an infinite amount of time to reach the apparent horizon of a black hole?
Timothy
# Is it possible that it actually takes an infinite amount of time to reach the apparent horizon of a black hole?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-04-21)

I know a black hole can absorb matter and maybe also release Hawking radiation. I think that according to the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinates, space is flowing and the apparent horizon is the region of space moving outward at the speed of light that will never fall into the black hole or escape. I know what matter the black hole absorbs later affects where the apparent horizon is not according to that coordinate system. However, maybe slightly different physical laws could end up with the following result. All the space outside the apparent horizon is skewed forward in time compared to the Gullstrand–Painlevé coordinate system and the amount it's skewed forward varies as the log of the reciprocal of the distance from the apparent horizon. I don't see how it's impossible that the laws would make it actually for real take an infinite amount of time for an object falling into a black hole to reach the apparent horizon. Maybe that would be a solution to the black hole information paradox. Maybe there's some sort of real actual physical truth out there that's true whether we define it to be or not we just don't know it and the truth of what's really going on means you cannot reasonably define it to take a finite amount of time to reach the apparent horizon, and the space beyond it doesn't exist whether you define it to or not.

**Tags:** black-hole
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Check out https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82678/does-someone-falling-into-a-black-hole-see-the-end-of-the-universe for good reading  
> **username_2**: There seems to be quite a lot of "if the physical rules were different" here.  But gravity up to and beyond the event horizon is actually quite well understood.  
> **username_0**: @JamesK Just because one theory explains observations doesn't necessarily mean it's true. I figured out that maybe a totally different theory that gives rise to the same observations is possible. Maybe almost everyone else is sure that object eventually cross the apparent horizon because they have an intuition for it but that doesn't make it true. I believe that you have to have an open mind and question things and I figured out how it might be possible that it actually takes an infinite amount of time.  
> **username_0**: @JamesK I thought this was Physics Stack Exchange and now I see that I was on Astronomy Stack Exchange. I think it's because Google Chrome lists past web pages I went to and I may have gone to a past question of mine that I asked on Astronomy Stack Exchange then forgot that I asked on Astronomy Stack Exchange. Maybe somebody could move it to Physics Stack Exchange.  
> **username_2**: You could move it by simple deletion and reposting.  
> **username_0**: @JamesK That will waste my chances to ask questions. Deleting questions can maybe even be used against me. I think it's better if it's moved.  
> **username_3**: No, please do *not* post this question on Physics.SE. It would be closed there as non-mainstream because of *"maybe slightly different physical laws could end up with the following result"*.  
> **username_3**: But speaking of Physics.SE, you should take a look at https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/144458/123208 Note that "A singularity in GR is like a piece that has been cut out of the manifold. It's not a point or point-set at all. Because of this, formal treatments of singularities have to do a lot of nontrivial things to define stuff that would be trivial to define for a point set."  
> **username_0**: @PM2Ring Maybe it could be moved to Skeptics Stack Exchange.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-04-25. Score: -1

The matter falling into a black hole does reach the event horizon, so it is not possible. However, a better question would be that if a black hole has infinite density, than does matter actually reach the singularity? The answer here has to be yes, mainly because if not, then nothing we know of could undo a black hole, but also because while it has infinite density, than it also warps space-time infinitely, at least at the singularity. So at some point, the matter should merge into the singularity's space-time warp and by then it is practically a part of it.

So the answer to your original question would be a no, but that is according to our present theories. It is an intriguing question, however, and it doesn't hurt to speculate.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: The world is complex. It's better to feed people ideas than not in case it's a good idea, and people can't always do what they're expected to do by others to do and they won't always understand. I downvoted this answer. It's okay. You have to accept risk. It looks like you're just going by what you were already told about how black holes work. I discovered a possible reason people might have been making a mistake all along in how they thought black holes worked. That's the vary reason I asked this question in the first place. All black holes formed at some time. A slight tweak in the laws  
> **username_0**: maybe could lead to the region outside the apparent horizon being skewed forward in time compared to the model that depicts space as flowing into the black hole. Even in the really distant future, the region beyond where you would expect the apparent horizon to be what general relativity predicts was going on when the black hole was just forming.  
> **username_5**: Hey you all, please read [this](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/82678/does-someone-falling-into-a-black-hole-see-the-end-of-the-universe).  

---

