My second shallow question - about black hole¬

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ThomasJoe40
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole Hole
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between gravity and light, particularly in the context of black holes and general relativity. Participants explore the implications of the universal gravitational law and challenge the notion that photons, having zero mass, are unaffected by gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the application of the universal gravitational law to photons, suggesting that since photons have zero mass, they should not be affected by gravity, allowing them to escape black holes.
  • Another participant counters this by explaining that photons, despite having no rest mass, possess energy which contributes to their gravitational interaction, as described by the mass-energy equivalence principle.
  • A further explanation is provided regarding general relativity, emphasizing that gravity is not a force in the Newtonian sense but rather a curvature of spacetime that affects the paths of all objects, including photons.
  • Some participants discuss the historical context of Newton's theories and how they have evolved, noting that observations of light bending due to gravity support the predictions of general relativity over Newtonian physics.
  • One participant proposes a metaphor comparing photons to water flowing through a bent tube, suggesting that gravity shapes the paths of photons rather than attracting them directly.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of gravitational acceleration on photons, with one participant expressing uncertainty about whether all photons fall towards Earth at the same rate as other objects.
  • A later reply highlights the need for experimental validation of the claims regarding the behavior of photons in gravitational fields, indicating that this question remains open for investigation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of gravity's effect on photons, with some asserting that gravity does influence photons while others question the implications of Newtonian versus relativistic interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific behavior of photons in gravitational fields.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of Newtonian physics in explaining gravitational effects on light and the necessity of general relativity for a more accurate understanding. The discussion also touches on the historical evolution of these concepts, indicating that assumptions about mass and gravity may vary based on the theoretical framework applied.

ThomasJoe40
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

I am writing because I found a contradiction between the universial gravitational law and black hole.

We all know that the universial gravitational law is: [tex]F=G\frac{m1m2}{r^2}[/tex]

But because the mass of a photon is zero, so the gravitational force acted on a photo should be zero as well, and that leads to the obvious result: light could escapa from black hole whatever the black hole mass is.

I understand that my hypothesis should be 99.999999% wrong, because unless that means the Lucasian professor of Cambridge is an idiot¬

... Finally, by the way, is this related to the general relativity, because I guess for explaining this sort of large scale problem, we should account on it...

Plz give me a hand¬ :bugeye: :rolleyes: :smile:
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Well 'ThomasJoe40' you are right and you are wrong! You are right to ask "is this related to the general relativity", but wrong to assume that gravity does not act on a photon.

There is a 'hand waving' explanation and the proper one!
The hand waving explanation is to point out that, according to Special Relativity, even though photons do not have rest mass, they do have energy and their energy has a mass equivalent [tex]E=m{c^2}[/tex]. So gravity acts on their energy and thus prevents them from escaping from a Black Hole.

Actually black holes were thought about before special or general relativity was developed because it was known that light had a finite velocity. As the velocity of escape of an object depends on its mass and its radius, it was known that a sufficiently massive and compact object would have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. Light would not be able to escape from such an object and hence the object would be 'black'.

The proper explanation however is the GR one, which depends on its description of gravitation not as a Newtonian force but as the effect of freely falling objects traveling or 'falling' on straight lines, known as geodesics, along a curved hypersurface of four dimensional spacetime. Spacetime is curved by the presence of mass and energy. If the gravitating mass becomes massive and compact enough certain straight lines or geodesics of even an outward-bound photon are curved so much that they 'bend back on themselves' and the photon cannot leave the mass, it is a black hole.

There is a further complication in that unless the mass of the black hole is very large, much larger than a solar mass, then the density required is so great, and the gravitational attraction so large that no known physical force can withstand it. The matter forming the gravitating mass then collapses down into zero volume. It that case the black hole consists of an event horizon at which escape velocity equals light velocity, and a singularity at the centre.
- Garth
 
Last edited:
Its not a knock on Newton to say he didn't know everything: he did, after all, do his work several hundred years ago. Today, we know his theory is incomplete. In fact, the observation of gravity affecting light is one of the reaons we know it.
 
I would think that it would be clearer just to say that a large mass (black hole) bends the frame of spacetime and the massless photon is just following a normal straight line that is curved back in on itself. Gravity isn't "attracting" or "grabbing" the photon(s), gravity is just determining the shape of the local paths. (?)

As far as photons having mass, see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
 
Well said, lab. The photon is just an innocent bystander. It takes the path of least resistance. Think of water flowing through a flexible tube. Bend the tube and the water follows the curvature.
 
I don't agree with the idea that Newton would have thought that light has no mass and is therefore unaffected by gravity. Galileo demonstrated that all bodies fall with the same acceleration, whatever their mass. It seems perfectly reasonable to include zero mass within 'whatever their mass', so zero mass particles should be affected by a gravitational field just the same.

This was known when Eddington' observed the bending of light during a solar eclipse. The important thing is that GR predicts twice the effect that Newtonian theory would, and the results agreed with GR. (Roughly, this is because GR is about the curvature of spacetime rather than just space)
 
Thanks, thanks so much guys, all of you owns a greater deal of knowledges than I had... so first thing to say is my hypothesis is 1000% wrong, and the Lucasian Professor of Cambridge is still a genius...

I don't agree with the idea that Newton would have thought that light has no mass and is therefore unaffected by gravity. Galileo demonstrated that all bodies fall with the same acceleration, whatever their mass. It seems perfectly reasonable to include zero mass within 'whatever their mass', so zero mass particles should be affected by a gravitational field just the same.

Chrono, I do not quite agree with what you said after viewed other people's opinions about GR...

Well, [tex]G=ma[/tex], the mass of a photon is [tex]m=\frac{E}{c^2}[/tex] which is very small, so the gravitational pull on it is [tex]f=\frac{GMearthMphoton}{r^2}[/tex]. To calculate the gravitational acceleration of a photon is by [tex]g=\frac{f}{Mphoton}[/tex], substitute the universal gravitational formula in, [tex]\frac{GMearth}{r^2}[/tex], which is a constant - app. [tex]9.81\frac{m}{s^2}[/tex]

Sorry, Chrono, you are right, brilliant¬¬ :smile: :smile: :smile:

But what I want to ask is, will this truly happen - every photon falls towards the Earth at this acceleration? :rolleyes:
 
ThomasJoe40 - are you mixing up a Newtonian and a GR way of deriving the photon's acceleration?

In GR four dimensional spacetime is considered to be like a 'sheet' in a higher dimension, this is a visual not a rigourous way of looking at it, and the presence of a mass bends that sheet. Imagine a bowling ball placed at the centre of a rubber sheet. There will be a dip in the middle. Photons and freely falling particles travel along staight lines along (actually in) that curved surface. Their paths 'bend' because space-time is 'bent'. The effect of this when observed from a supported (not free falling)observer is that all objects fall to the ground at the same rate. However in GR there is no gravitational force as there is in Newtonian gravity, instead the effect of a force is explained as the effect of the curvature of space-time.

Your question,
But what I want to ask is, will this truly happen - every photon falls towards the Earth at this acceleration?
can be answered in three ways.
1. According to the principles of GR photons will 'fall at the same rate' as all freely falling particles.
2. If we go outside the confines of GR for a moment there may be forces other than gravitational, i.e. curvature, which acts on freely falling bodies and photons differently. In this case photons will not fall at this same rate, but this view would be very contentious.
3. The answer to this question is to be determined by an experiment. This specific experiment, asking the question "Do photons 'fall at the same rate' as particles?" is yet to be done.

Garth
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K