What is Feynman's excess radius for a black hole?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Feynman's excess radius for a black hole, as stated in his lectures, is given by the formula GM/3c², where G is the gravitational constant, M is mass, and c is the speed of light. For a Schwarzschild black hole, the predicted radius is Rp = 2GM/c², while the observed radius approaches zero. The discrepancy arises because Feynman’s analysis applies to constant density spheres larger than their Schwarzschild radii, not black holes. The correct relationship for the proper distance from the center to the surface of such a sphere is L = R(1 + GM/3c²R).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity concepts
  • Familiarity with Schwarzschild black hole metrics
  • Knowledge of gravitational physics and constants (G, c)
  • Basic calculus for integration and series expansion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Schwarzschild metric in detail
  • Learn about the properties of constant density spheres in general relativity
  • Explore the implications of Feynman's work on black hole physics
  • Investigate the mathematical techniques for integrating metrics in curved spacetime
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, astrophysicists, and students of general relativity seeking to deepen their understanding of black hole metrics and Feynman's contributions to gravitational theory.

heinz
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
In his lectures, Feynman writes on page 42-6 that the radius excess due to space-time curvature is GM/3c^2.

How does this work out for a Schwarzschild black hole? In this case, the predicted radius should be Rp= 2GM/c^2. The observed radius should probably be 0. But the difference is not what Feynman states. What is wrong here?

Hz
 
Physics news on Phys.org
heinz said:
In his lectures, Feynman writes on page 42-6

of Volume II
heinz said:
that the radius excess due to space-time curvature is GM/3c^2.

How does this work out for a Schwarzschild black hole? In this case, the predicted radius should be Rp= 2GM/c^2. The observed radius should probably be 0. But the difference is not what Feynman states. What is wrong here?

In typical Feynman fashion, he left out quite a bit. Feynman is not treating black holes, he is considering constant density spheres that are much larger than their Schwarzschild radii.

If A is the surface area of the sphere, then R, the value of the Schwarzschild r-coordinate at the surface, is defined by A = 4 \pi R^2.

Now, dig a small tunnel from the surface to the centre of the sphere, and drop a tape measure down the tunnel. If the tape measure shows that the distance from center to surface is L, then (Feynman's sign is wrong)

L - R = \frac{GM}{3c^2}.

I have had sme fun verifying this.

The metric inside a constant density sphere is given by

<br /> ds^{2}=A\left( r\right) dt^{2}-\frac{dr^{2}}{1-\frac{2GM}{c^{2}R^{3}}r^{2}}-r^{2}\left( d\theta ^{2}+\sin ^{2}\theta d\phi ^{2}\right),<br />

where A\left( r\right) is a (somewhat complicated) known function that doesn't come into play in this situation.

Proper (tape measure) distance is calculated at "instant in time", and the tunnel is purely radial, so angles are constant, i.e., 0 = dt = d \theta = d \phi. Using this in the metric

<br /> dl^2 = \frac{dr^{2}}{1-\frac{2GM}{c^{2}R^{3}}r^{2}}<br />

for the proper distance l. Integrating this from centre to surface gives

<br /> L = \int_{0}^{R}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{c^{2}R^{3}}r^{2}}}.<br />

Making the substitution

<br /> u = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{c^{2}R^{3}}}r<br />

in the integral gives

<br /> L = \sqrt{\frac{c^{2}R^{3}}{2GM}}\arcsin \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{c^{2}R}}.<br />

Now, if R is larger than the Schwarzschild radius, then the argument of the \arcsin is fairly small, so keep only the first two terms of a power series expansion of the \arcsin term, giving

<br /> L = R \left(1 + \frac{GM}{3c^{2}R} \right).<br />
 
Last edited:
Thank you! Is there some way that Feynman's argument can be used for black holes?
Or can it be changed so that it is also valid for black holes?

Hz
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K