Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Schwarzschild Defence

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: The Schwarzschild Defence

#31

Post by throwbadubadu »

codeflo wrote: post #27
doctor_eval wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think - it was a very very long time ago when I read this - but a bad person can put someone into a stasis field without their consent. The stasis field is the shape of a perfect bubble or ball. IIRC it's also perfectly reflective. Anything inside the stasis field simply doesn't participate in time. Once Bob puts Alice into statis, the stasis ball is impenetrable, so the cops don't know if Alice was alive or dead w…

I still don’t get it. So in this fictional universe, has the legal system regressed to the point where kidnapping someone for (presumably) decades is no longer a crime with a life sentence? Or alternatively, is the point that you can’t be punished for kidnapping if you might also have murdered the person, but that part can’t be proven? None of that makes sense.

Why regressed? You sure can trial them for either kidnapping or murder. But first do the same thing to them they did to the victim, and then you also know for what to trial them. Sounds fair and makes total sense to me.

Re: The Schwarzschild Defence

#32

Post by xg15 »

> That’s all there is, Detective. Clearly, there’s been no murder. Inconvenience, probably, but has he actually said so? Is he pressing charges? I didn’t think so.

This seems like the kind of "clever" legal defense that I expect judges in the real world would probably shoot down real quick though.

Even without a black hole or stasis tech, you could attempt, a similar situation occurs e.g. with people in coma. Someone who injured a person badly enough that he is in coma could also try to argue "Your honour, the person never said he is uncomfortable with the situation, you can go right ahead and ask him..."

I don't think that would be very convincing.

Re: The Schwarzschild Defence

#33

Post by ksaxena »

There is a huge mistake in this reasoning! Time dilation goes to infinity at the center of the black hole - at the singularity, not at the event horizon! The event horizon could be millions of miles (many AUs) away from the singularity. Near the event horizon, her husband is likely to be falling rapidly into the black hole and is not going to be stuck indefinitely. So, it's Murder 1, immediately.

Re: The Schwarzschild Defence

#35

Post by doctor_eval »

codeflo wrote: post #27
doctor_eval wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think - it was a very very long time ago when I read this - but a bad person can put someone into a stasis field without their consent. The stasis field is the shape of a perfect bubble or ball. IIRC it's also perfectly reflective. Anything inside the stasis field simply doesn't participate in time. Once Bob puts Alice into statis, the stasis ball is impenetrable, so the cops don't know if Alice was alive or dead w…

I still don’t get it. So in this fictional universe, has the legal system regressed to the point where kidnapping someone for (presumably) decades is no longer a crime with a life sentence? Or alternatively, is the point that you can’t be punished for kidnapping if you might also have murdered the person, but that part can’t be proven? None of that makes sense.

No, Bob’s put into stasis until Alice is out of stasis, and then he is tried for the appropriate crime. I suppose you could say that the minimum sentence is losing the same amount of time that Alice lost with her loved ones.

There is also the interesting question, what if Alice was never in the bubble in the first place?

Re: The Schwarzschild Defence

#36

Post by bsza »

ksaxena wrote: post #33

There is a huge mistake in this reasoning! Time dilation goes to infinity at the center of the black hole - at the singularity, not at the event horizon! The event horizon could be millions of miles (many AUs) away from the singularity. Near the event horizon, her husband is likely to be falling rapidly into the black hole and is not going to be stuck indefinitely. So, it's Murder 1, immediately.

Not a physicist, but Wikipedia seems to disagree with this.

> Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Event_horizon

Re: The Schwarzschild Defence

#37

Post by askjdlkasdjsd »

ksaxena wrote: post #33

There is a huge mistake in this reasoning! Time dilation goes to infinity at the center of the black hole - at the singularity, not at the event horizon! The event horizon could be millions of miles (many AUs) away from the singularity. Near the event horizon, her husband is likely to be falling rapidly into the black hole and is not going to be stuck indefinitely. So, it's Murder 1, immediately.

> Time dilation goes to infinity at the center of the black hole - at the singularity, not at the event horizon

That is incorrect. The inside and outside of the black hole are causally disconnected. For someone who passes the event horizon the entire future history of the universe plays out above them as the universe warps down into a single beam of light as the black-ness engulfs you.

From the perspective of someone outside, nothing ever "crosses" the event horizon - it just slowly redshifts into darkness and appears to take infinity to "touch" the even horizon.

There is nothing "happening" inside of any black hole right now that has any corresponding time in the outside universe. From our perspective, it happens in the infinitely far future.

Re: The Schwarzschild Defence

#38

Post by T-A »

ksaxena wrote: post #33

There is a huge mistake in this reasoning! Time dilation goes to infinity at the center of the black hole - at the singularity, not at the event horizon! The event horizon could be millions of miles (many AUs) away from the singularity. Near the event horizon, her husband is likely to be falling rapidly into the black hole and is not going to be stuck indefinitely. So, it's Murder 1, immediately.

> There is a huge mistake in this reasoning!

No there isn't. As far as external observers are concerned, an object falling into a black hole takes an infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon. It vanishes from sight because its emissions get red-shifted beyond detection range, but in principle you could still see it however far in the future you care to go, "frozen" in place over the horizon, still approaching it asymptotically.

Re: The Schwarzschild Defence

#39

Post by michpoch »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #29
codeflo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don’t get it. So in this fictional universe, has the legal system regressed to the point where kidnapping someone for (presumably) decades is no longer a crime with a life sentence? Or alternatively, is the point that you can’t be punished for kidnapping if you might also have murdered the person, but that part can’t be proven? None of that makes sense.

> kidnapping someone for (presumably) decades Presume Alice was 'kidnapped' in the ball for XX years. You trial Bob and sentence him for 20 years. 20 years passes, Bob serves his sentence and some time later it occurs what Alice were dead all these years, but Bob not only left the country but served his sentence. Or you sentence Bob for the murder of Alice (even better - execute him), yet Alice is alive, though 20 ye…

What would be the difference between this futuristic case and: - Bob kidnapping Alice - Alice not being found - Bob's guilt of the kidnapping is proven in court

Bob could claim e.g. that she escaped after being kidnapped and he's no longer aware of where she is.

Alice's dead body can still be found at some point, which could prove that Bob killed Alice; or she can be found alive, but because of any reason did not want to be found.

Re: The Schwarzschild Defence

#40

Post by conorcleary »

xg15 wrote: post #32

> That’s all there is, Detective. Clearly, there’s been no murder. Inconvenience, probably, but has he actually said so? Is he pressing charges? I didn’t think so. This seems like the kind of "clever" legal defense that I expect judges in the real world would probably shoot down real quick though. Even without a black hole or stasis tech, you could attempt, a similar situation occurs e.g. with people in coma. Someone…

On the contrary - if you say that with confidence in front of a crowd that is hanging on your every word, that's a winning chess move. Sometimes, rarely. Maybe only once.
Post reply on HN