Register to reply 
Can flat spacetime model Black Holes? 
Share this thread: 
#1
Feb2712, 05:25 PM

P: 381

I'm asking because some of you state that flat spacetime can't model black holes... meaning even between the planck scale and event horizon, but yet atyy said spin2 field in flat spacetime is equivalent to General Relativity for spacetime that is covered by harmonic coordinates which atyy thought can include the event horizon up to the planck scale. So this means spin2 field in flat spacetime can model black holes.
So can flat spacetime model black holes or not? And if you add spin2, why can it do that? Why, is there flat spacetime without spin2 field? Are these distinct concepts? 


#2
Feb2712, 08:22 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,597

MTW has a discussion of this on p. 425. They give a final interpretation by Deser, with a reference to Deser, S., 1970, "Selfinteraction and gauge invariance," Gen Rel and Grav 1, 9. They describe an interative process in which flatspacetime gravity, which is not mathematically selfconsistent, is repaired. After an infinite process of iteration, we arrive at a theory in which the original flat spacetime "is no longer observable." They claim that the resulting theory makes the same predictions as GR.
Mentz114 linked to a review article by Baryshev that is more up to date than MTW: http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/9912003 . Baryshev says that the two approaches are not in fact equivalent, so "fieldtheory gravity" (FTG) is not equivalent to GR as claimed by MTW. Some quotes from the Baryshev paper: "In fact, Deser showed no more then it is possible to find such an expression of EMT which at the third iteration gives Einstein equations and in no way this leads to the conclusion about identity of field and geometrical approaches, as was claimed in the book of Misner, Thorne, Weeler (1977). Moreover, the essence of field approach suggests such a choice of gravitational EMT that satisfies zero trace (massless graviton) and positive energy density of gravitational field and namely these properties should be tested first. Deser’s EMT does not satisfy these conditions. It is easy to demonstrate that positive energy requirement leads to radical difference of field approach from that of geometrical one (see 5.3)." "[...]black holes are prohibited [in FTG] by the energy conservation" (5.3) "Frequently one finds in literature that black holes have already been detected, because there are systems with components more massive than the OppenheimerVolkoff limit, i.e. over the three solar masses. This statement is not correct, since this limit exists only in GR, but in FTG there could exist relativistic stars with larger masses." What I'm unable to gauge at this point is whether Baryshev's interpretation is controversial, or whether everyone in the field now agrees that Deser's conclusion about the equivalence of the two theories was incorrect. A shortcut method for checking into this without digging deep into the math is to see whether Baryshev's review paper was published in a refereed journal (apparently not) and whether Baryshev publishes regularly in the usual journals where relativists publish (looks like the answer is no, after a quick dig through arxiv and Baryshev's web site). So I would be cautious about assuming that Baryshev is correct and/or noncontroversial. 


#3
Feb2712, 08:37 PM

P: 381

Do you happen to know the meaning of Harmonic Coordinates? Is it valid in between the event horizon and the boundary of the planck scale singularity? 


#4
Feb2712, 08:52 PM

P: 381

Can flat spacetime model Black Holes?



#5
Feb2712, 09:47 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,597

Another paper along these lines: T.Padmanabhan, "From Gravitons to Gravity: Myths and Reality," http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0409089



#6
Feb2712, 09:50 PM

P: 381

My question is. Can a quantum theory of gravity.. or quantum gravity produce the degrees of freedom where the spin2 versions in flat spacetime can model strong fields too. I mean quantum gravity is supposed to address beyond planck scale. But how about strong fields like between the event horizon and the boundary of the planck scale. Can a quantum gravity theory enable spin2 over flat spacetime in strong fields such as between event horizons and near planck scale too in contrast to normal Field Theory of Gravitation?? 


#7
Feb2712, 09:59 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,665

@bcrowell: as an argument from authority, harmonic coodinates are used in the proof of local existence of solutions to the EFE. I believe the restriction to "local" is due to the generic development of singularities, which the field on flat spacetime approach obviously cannot cover. The field on flat spacetime approach also cannot cover exotic topologies. OTOH, I think the ADM formalism, which is as far as we know good enough for observable physics, also assumes nice topologies. I am, however, not sure whether the conditions to use ADM and field theory on flat spacetime are exactly equivalent.
Will's review (Eqn 62) references MTW for the EFE written using flat spacetime, and says "Equation (62) is exact, and depends only on the assumption that spacetime can be covered by harmonic coordinates." Weinberg's text (chapter 8) displays harmonic coordinates for the Schwarzschild and FRW solutions (obviously restricted to the parts with nice topologices). 


#8
Feb2712, 11:02 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,597

I don't claim to know more than epsilon about this highly technical topic within GR. One thing that strikes me, simply from casually skimming some of the papers, is that Baryshev seems to be making some very strong claims, from which Padmanabhan carefully abstains.
Another observation is that Baryshev's section 5.3 seems to be claiming not just that blackhole singularities can't form in what he calls "FTG," but also that event horizons can't form. It wouldn't surprise me (although I don't find it obvious as atyy does) if spin2 on a flat background can't produce singularities (what if the field blows up...?). But saying that it forbids event horizons seems extremely provocative. And Baryshev's argument smells fishy to me. He says: "Eddington in his famous discussion with Chandrasekhar about the fate of white dwarfs with masses over the critical one, stated that there should be the law of nature preventing the contraction of massive stars under their gravitational radius. It is easy to show that there is such a law in FTG and it is the law of conservation of energy!" Huh!? There is no law of conservation of energy in GR. Maybe he's saying that there is one in what he calls FTG? 


#9
Feb2712, 11:18 PM

P: 1,555




#10
Feb2712, 11:57 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,665

Here are some thoughts. Black holes formulated as event horizons are defined nonlocally in spacetime. Harmonic coordinates can penetrate the event horizon. However, I don't know if harmonic coordinates cover enough of black hole spacetimes that a nonlocal structure like an event horizon can also be defined. The nonlocal nature of an event horizon also makes them hard to see in numerical relativity, so people have developed other related, but quasilocal sorts of horizons.
The restriction of gravity as a field on flat spacetime to less than Planck scale curvature comes from thinking of it as an effective quantum field theory, not as a classical field theory. If I understand correctly, gravity as an effective quantum field theory is a working quantum theory of gravity for all phenomena thus far observed. This theory does not make sense near the Planck scale, so it can't have singularities, since the theory doesn't even exist once the curvature approaches Planck scale. I guess the important question is whether Hawking radiation can be seen in harmonic coordinates. 


#11
Feb2812, 01:02 AM

P: 381

If yes, then spin 2 field on flat spacetime can cover black hole event horizon too down to near planck scale. If no, then spin 2 field on flat spacetime as effective quantum field theory of gravity can't cover black hole event horizon. Now my question is. If no. Would the right or complete quantum gravity theory be able to cover event horizon NOT covered by harmonic coordinates? How? This is what I wanted to know for weeks but can't verbalize. Hope someone can clarify all these basic questions first. Thanks. 


#12
Feb2812, 04:52 AM

P: 381

While waiting the answers to the above I have some rudamentary questions:
1. In the statement "Black holes formulated as event horizons are defined nonlocally in spacetime.". So the "nonlocally" is also true in spin2 flat spacetime. Now I wonder if this is related to quantum nonlocality. That is. Can one model event horizon in flat spacetime (in case these are not covered by harmonic coordinates) by using some kind of quantum nonlocality thing (in quantum gravity where quantum and GR is united)? 2. In low energy where spin2 flat spacetime works. How do you calculate how to scatter a graviton with an electron? I haven't seen much calculations about this. 3. How do you define or address Background Independence (no prior geometry) in spin2 flat spacetime? 


#13
Feb2812, 07:01 AM

P: 3,187




#14
Feb2812, 04:09 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,597

Why did we suddenly start talking about quantum mechanics? As far as I understand, this entire question is purely classical, and all the papers we've been discussing are purely classical.



#15
Feb2812, 05:32 PM

P: 381

About quantum mechanics. He said in the same message that "Black holes formulated as event horizons are defined nonlocally in spacetime". Here since spin2 field on flat spacetime has difficulty with event horizons because of their nonlocal nature. Then why not tie it up to quantum nonlocality. Who knows, they may have similar mechanisms or related. Why not? 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
3d model for space and black holes  Special & General Relativity  5  
Strominger and Vafa pbrane model of black holes  Advanced Physics Homework  1  
Black Holes, Quantum Gravity and the Curvature of spacetime  Special & General Relativity  34 