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

Click For Summary
Feynman's excess radius for space-time curvature is stated as GM/3c^2, but this does not align with the expected behavior for a Schwarzschild black hole, where the predicted radius is Rp= 2GM/c^2 and the observed radius is effectively zero. The discrepancy arises because Feynman was addressing constant density spheres, not black holes, and his calculations do not apply directly to them. The proper distance from the center to the surface of such a sphere can be derived using a specific metric, leading to a corrected expression for the radius. The discussion raises the question of whether Feynman's approach can be adapted to apply to black holes.
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
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K