Definition of black hole for the purposes of no-hair theorems?

bcrowell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
6,723
Reaction score
431
definition of "black hole" for the purposes of no-hair theorems?

Living Reviews has a nice review article on no-hair theorems: http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-1998-6 Their rough verbal statement of the no-hair theorem for GR coupled to E&M is: "all stationary black hole solutions to the EM equations (with non-degenerate horizon) are parametrized by their mass, angular momentum and electric charge."

I have a really elementary question, which is how "black hole" is defined in this context. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see anywhere in the Living Reviews article where they come out and say this plainly.

It seems to me that it can't be "a black hole is any electrovac solution with a singularity," because then the proof of the no-hair theorem would seem to be a proof of cosmic censorship in the case of GR+EM, which I assume has not been proved...? Is \Lambda=0 assumed? For the purposes of this theorem, does "black hole" include things like topological defects? Is it explicitly limited to things that have an event horizon? How about things that aren't asymptotically flat?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Via the event horizon, at least in figure 1. They also give state asymptotically flat.
 


Thanks for the reply, atyy! So you think the definition is effectively given in the figure? I guess it makes sense that they define it as having an event horizon, since otherwise I guess you'd have to prove cosmic censorship in order to prove a no-hair theorem.
 


atyy said:
Via the event horizon, at least in figure 1. They also give state asymptotically flat.

Asymptotic flatness is used to define what "escape to infinity" means.

The standard definition of the black hole region of an asymptotically flat spacetime is the region of spacetime from which it is impossible to escape to future null infinity. An event horizon is the boundary of this region.

The review article Black Hole Boundaries by Ivan Booth,

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508107,

explores other characterizations of black holes, but I don't think thinks that it looks at "hair".
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Back
Top