Can Black Holes Increase Their Mass According to Remote Observers?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of black holes and whether they can increase their mass according to remote observers. Participants explore the implications of Schwarzschild coordinates, the nature of time at the event horizon, and various interpretations of general relativity (GR) and special relativity (SR) in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a remote observer can claim that a black hole increases its mass as objects fall into it, given that it takes infinite time for these objects to reach the horizon.
  • Another participant discusses the concept of "frozen time" at the Schwarzschild radius and how it relates to the accretion of matter by black holes, noting the complexities arising from different interpretations of SR and GR.
  • A comparison is made between gravitational and electric fields to illustrate how external observers perceive objects falling into a black hole, suggesting that there is no functional difference between viewing a black hole as a singularity or as a star in collapse.
  • Questions are raised about whether a black hole's mass increases with its speed relative to Earth, and whether this affects its temperature and the size of the Schwarzschild horizon.
  • Some participants assert that mass is typically defined as proper mass in relativity, which remains constant, and that temperature may appear different due to redshift or blueshift effects.
  • There is a discussion about the breakdown of GR at the time of the big bang and the implications for defining mass in cosmological contexts.
  • One participant mentions Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates as a potential framework for remote observers that allows crossing the event horizon, questioning the implications of this for understanding black holes.
  • Another participant reflects on the limitations of the Schwarzschild solution, suggesting that real-world conditions may invalidate some theoretical results regarding horizons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of mass, the perception of black holes by remote observers, and the implications of different coordinate systems. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on these complex issues.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that measuring mass in GR can be problematic, particularly in non-asymptotically flat spacetimes, and that the assumptions underlying the Schwarzschild solution may not hold in realistic scenarios involving matter and time dependence.

hellfire
Science Advisor
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
1
A remote observer describes a black hole with Schwarzschild coordinates. These have a coordinate singularity at the horizon, which implies that the distante between any spacetime point and the horizon is infinite. My question is whether a remote observer is allowed to claim that a black hole may increase its mass (objects falling into the black hole), since any object needs of infinite time to reach the horizon. (Example: we as remote observers of the supermassive black hole in the centre of the Milky Way).

Regards.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Interesting question - I have wondered myself whether the frozen time concept is applicable to the rate at which black holes accrete additional matter - these issues always seem to not go away easily because they involve different interpretations of SR and GR - is time really stopped at the Swartzchild radius - or is the slow down ajectival. Seems the black hole would have to dilate to embrace a greater mass as its density diminishes. Ed Harrison gives this account: "The free falling particle's own spacetime is always flat and the same as that for ordinary SR, and therefore the particle passes smoothly into the black hole without realizing that anything unusual has happened. If we are measuring its own intervals of time, it reaches the singularity after entering the black hole in a time equal to the Schwartzchild radius divided by the speed of light. To the distant observer, however, the particle takes an infinite time to enter the black hole." I wonder then how the size of the black hole at the center of our Milkyway would appear in different epochs - it must have grown to reach its present size - but it takes infinite time to change ---something bothersome here.
 
Very good question. Its somewhat hard to talk about the gravitational field, so think about the electric one instead. A charge all by itself will have electric field lines radially pointing out of it. Put it near an uncharged black hole, and those lines will be bent.If you put it very near the horizon, the lines appear to come out of the center of the black hole, not the charge! To an external observer, it looks like the charge fell into hole, even though it didn't.

There is no functional difference between the singularity+horizon viewpoint, and the one that a black hole is a star frozen in collapse with "near infinite" redshift (at least in spherical symmetry).
 
Does a black hole increase its mass if its speed relative to the Earth increases? And if it does, does this mean its temperature drops too?
And what about the scwarzschild horizon - does that get smaller by lorentz contraction?
 
kurious said:
Does a black hole increase its mass if its speed relative to the Earth increases? And if it does, does this mean its temperature drops too?
And what about the scwarzschild horizon - does that get smaller by lorentz contraction?

Mass doesn't increase when moving. Mass (when defineable) is independent of the frame of reference. I know popular books and freshman textbooks often say that mass increases with speed, but this is poor terminology. Mass is almost always taken to mean proper mass in relativity, which stays the same.

The temperature will look different for one observer or another due to a redshift or blueshift.

The horizon can be made to look distorted by a moving observer. Its area looks the same to everyone though.
 
Mass is almost always taken to mean proper mass in relativity, which stays the same.
What happens to proper mass when GR breaks down at the time of the big bang -
did the universe have a different mass then?
 
I was trying to find an answer to my question reading chapter 7 of Sean Carroll's Lecture Notes on General Relativity (http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/9712019 ) and my impression is that there exists a coordinate system called Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, which is adequate for remote observers and does allow crossing of the event horizon. Is this correct?

Regards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kurious said:
Mass is almost always taken to mean proper mass in relativity, which stays the same.
What happens to proper mass when GR breaks down at the time of the big bang -
did the universe have a different mass then?

Nobody knows what happens when GR breaks down.

Actually, my original statement wasn't completely correct. Mass cannot even be defined consistently in GR in many contexts. Cosmology is one of those examples. Measuring mass requires that the spacetime be asymptotically flat (at least as far as anyone can tell).
 
hellfire said:
I was trying to find an answer to my question reading chapter 7 of Sean Carroll's Lecture Notes on General Relativity (http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/9712019 ) and my impression is that there exists a coordinate system called Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, which is adequate for remote observers and does allow crossing of the event horizon. Is this correct?

Regards.

I looked at the section you're talking about. The part important to this discussion is (p 189)

"The fact that we never see the infalling astronauts reach r=2M is a meaningful statement, but the fact that their trajectory in the t-r plane never reaches there is not."

To translate, external observers never see anything fall into a black hole, but that doesn't mean that things don't fall in. Particles will fall in in a finite amount of *proper* time, but someone sitting outside the hole won't ever see it.

This might have little to do with reality. I suspect that it is taking the Schwarzschild solution too far. In real life, there is matter (Schwarzschild assumes a perfect vacuum everywhere), there is time dependence, and there is an external universe. Intuitively, each of these things could invalidate any results on passing through horizons. I don't know the answer, but its interesting to think about.

If you can find it, I'd recommend a book called "Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm," edited by Kip Thorne, Price, and Macdonald. It gives a much more astrophysically-motivated conceptualization of black holes than the standard one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K