Proof that black hole's irreducible mass never decreases

  • Thread starter NanakiXIII
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mass Proof
In summary, in a Penrose process, the mass and angular momentum added to a black hole must follow the inequality \delta J \leq \frac{\delta M}{\Omega}, where \Omega is the angular velocity of the horizon. This inequality ensures that the irreducible mass of the black hole, represented by the equation M_{irr}^2 = \frac{1}{2} \left[ M^2 + \sqrt{M^4 - J^2} \right], never decreases. The expression \Omega = -\frac{g_{t\phi}}{g_{\phi\phi}} represents the frame dragging rate as viewed from infinity, which increases as the radial distance from the black hole decreases
  • #1
NanakiXIII
392
0

Homework Statement



In a Penrose process, a mass [itex]\delta M < 0[/itex] and an angular momentum [itex]\delta J < 0[/itex] are added to a black hole. Given that

[tex]
\delta J \leq \frac{\delta M}{\Omega}
[/tex]

where [itex]\Omega[/itex] is the angular velocity of the horizon, show that the irreducible mass never decreases, i.e. [itex]\delta M_{irr} > 0[/itex].

Homework Equations



[tex]M_{irr}^2 = \frac{1}{2} \left[ M^2 + \sqrt{M^4 - J^2} \right][/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



The function for the irreducible mass is weakly decreasing for decreasing [itex]M[/itex] and strongly increasing for decreasing [itex]J[/itex], so I imagine that if [itex]J[/itex] decreases enough compared to the decrease in [itex]M[/itex], you indeed get that the irreducible mass can only rise. That is, I can imagine that the given inequality might lead to the requested conclusion. I have not been able to prove that this particular inequality works. For one, I'm not sure how to relate the angular velocity to anything else, which I think might be crucial. Perhaps I should somehow relate it to the angular momentum, but how?

EDIT: I've found an expression saying

[tex]
\Omega = -\frac{g_{t\phi}}{g_{\phi\phi}}.
[/tex]

I don't understand this, can anyone explain why this is true?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
NanakiXIII said:
I've found an expression saying

[tex]
\Omega = -\frac{g_{t\phi}}{g_{\phi\phi}}.
[/tex]

I don't understand this, can anyone explain why this is true?

I can tell you this is the frame dragging rate as viewed from infinity which increases as r reduces.

[tex]g_{\phi\phi}}\ =\frac{\Sigma^2}{\rho^2}\sin^2\theta\ =\frac{(r^2+a^2)^2-a^2\Delta \sin^2\theta}{\rho^2}\ \sin^2\theta[/tex]

[tex]g_{t\phi}=-\frac{2Mra\ \sin^2\theta}{\rho^2}[/tex]

where [itex]\Delta= r^{2}+a^{2}-2Mr[/itex] and [itex]\rho^2=r^2+a^2 \cos^2\theta[/itex]

This can reduce to-

[tex]
-\frac{g_{t\phi}}{g_{\phi\phi}}\ =\ \omega\ =\ \frac{2Mra}{\Sigma^2}
[/tex]

Multiply by c for SI units (rad/s). [itex]\Omega[/itex] is normally used to represent the frame dragging (as observed from infinity) at the event horizon, normally denoted with a + or - to represent the outer or inner horizon, [itex]\omega[/itex] is normally used to represent the frame dragging rate else where.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Yes, I had discovered this is how it is regarded, but I do not understand why that expression is valid. Apparently the Kerr metric can also be regarded as a co-rotating frame that is rotating at an angular velocity of

[tex] \Omega = -\frac{g_{t \phi}}{g_{\phi \phi}} [/tex]

but I do not see why this is true.
 
  • #4
It has something to do with setting the angular momentum equation for a particle in Kerr space time to zero and finding out that there is still angular motion. Below is a very reduced angular momentum equation for a particle in space time around a BH with a/M=1 (i.e. maximal), it is also only relative to the equatorial plane-

[tex]\frac{L}{m}=R^2\frac{d \phi}{d \tau}-\frac{2M^2}{r}\frac{dt}{d \tau}[/tex]

where

[tex]R^2=r^2+M^2+\frac{2M^3}{r}[/tex]

where R is the reduced circumference for a maximal Kerr BH at the equator.

If we set L/m to zero, we get-

[tex]\frac{d \phi}{dt}=\frac{2M^2}{rR^2}[/tex]

which gives results equivalent to [itex]\omega[/itex] in post #2 when applied to a Kerr BH with a/M=1 at the equator.

source-
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/SpinNEW.pdf" page F-14
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
That seems fair enough. I'm wondering, however, whether the expression with the quotient of metric components might not be something more general, i.e. valid for any metric, not just the Kerr metric.
 
  • #6
NanakiXIII said:
That seems fair enough. I'm wondering, however, whether the expression with the quotient of metric components might not be something more general, i.e. valid for any metric, not just the Kerr metric.

They are general, the equations reduce to the Schwarzschild solution when a=0, though I would say [itex]g_{t\phi}[/itex] is fairly specific to Kerr and Kerr-Newman metric.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Well, [itex]g_{t\phi}[/itex] is just 0 for a static black hole, so that would lead to an angular velocity of 0, which makes sense. But that's not proof that it's a general relation.
 
  • #8
I don't know if this answers your question and you may already be aware of this but the metric tensor is a 4 x 4 matrix with [itex]t, r, \theta, \phi[/itex] running left to right, top to bottom, hence [itex]g_{tt}, g_{rr}[/itex], etc. correspond to points in the matrix. Though the annotations might change, this is pretty much applied to most metrics. As there is a component in Kerr metric that relates to time and change in longitude, a [itex]g_{t \phi}[/itex] component is introduced which has two points in the matrix, hence Kerr metric can be expressed-

[tex]ds^2 = g_{tt} dt^2 + g_{rr}dr^2 + g_{\phi \phi} d\phi^2 + g_{\theta\theta} d\theta^2 + 2 g_{t \phi} dt d\phi [/tex]

where [itex]g_{t \phi}[/itex] is counted twice (see link below).

Source-
http://www.astro.ku.dk/~milvang/RelViz/000_node12.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Yes, I'm aware of what a metric tensor is (not really a matrix, actually ;)), that's not what confused me. I simply did not understand where the expression for [itex]\Omega[/itex] comes from and was wondering whether it held for any metric. I've tracked the expression down in literature and I know now to some extent where it comes from, though I'm waiting for my teacher to provide some more details. If you care to know, I can post what I know here.
 

1. How do scientists determine the existence of black holes?

Scientists use various methods to detect the presence of black holes, such as observing the effects of their strong gravitational pull on surrounding matter and light, detecting X-rays emitted from the hot gas surrounding a black hole, and observing the gravitational lensing effect caused by a black hole on background objects.

2. What is the irreducible mass of a black hole?

The irreducible mass of a black hole is the minimum mass that a black hole can have, and it is determined by its spin and charge. It is the mass that remains after the black hole has stopped absorbing matter and reached a stable state.

3. How do scientists measure the irreducible mass of a black hole?

The irreducible mass of a black hole cannot be measured directly, but it can be calculated using mathematical equations based on the properties of the black hole, such as its spin and charge.

4. Why does the irreducible mass of a black hole never decrease?

This is a fundamental law of physics known as the Second Law of Black Hole Thermodynamics. It states that the area of the event horizon of a black hole can never decrease, which is directly related to the irreducible mass of the black hole. This law is thought to be a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.

5. What is the significance of the proof that a black hole's irreducible mass never decreases?

This proof is important because it provides a deeper understanding of the fundamental principles of black holes and their behavior. It also has implications for our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and gravity, and it helps to confirm the existence of black holes as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
196
Replies
1
Views
804
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
742
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
327
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
0
Views
660
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
588
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
909
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
792
Back
Top