Limits of Frame Dragging: Can Objects Create Their Own Event Horizons?

tkav1980
Messages
47
Reaction score
1
Objects smaller than black holes, by mass can still drag space along with their rotation. I picture this like a plate of Spaghetti there the pasta is radiating out from the center of the plate. But let's say its rubbery spaghetti and can stratch. And its attached at one end to the outer egde of the plate. So you twirl the pasta in the canter causing the pasta to "swirl" around the central mass. Well when a body does this to space, like our sun, Why doesn't it pull space into a complete loop around itself and in effect create an event horizon? Is there some measure of "slip" or lack of "friction" between space and the star that limits this dragging effect to an upper limit, relative to the objects mass?

I would think that if a large object looped space around on itself it would in essence remove itself from our universe in the sense that no information can come from or to that object again. Doesnt that mean our universe ould be incomplete and predictability would essentially go out the window?


Sorry my questions are so elementary. I am not a Physicist just a fan of it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tkav1980 said:
Objects smaller than black holes, by mass can still drag space along with their rotation.
Your statement seem to imply you think that black holes are black holes due to their mass this is not correct. An object is (or becomes) a black hole is when the object's area is smaller than 4 times the area representing its mass. So the ratio is important the absolute value of mass is not significant.

tkav1980 said:
I picture this like a plate of Spaghetti there the pasta is radiating out from the center of the plate. But let's say its rubbery spaghetti and can stratch. And its attached at one end to the outer egde of the plate. So you twirl the pasta in the canter causing the pasta to "swirl" around the central mass. Well when a body does this to space, like our sun, Why doesn't it pull space into a complete loop around itself and in effect create an event horizon? Is there some measure of "slip" or lack of "friction" between space and the star that limits this dragging effect to an upper limit, relative to the objects mass?

I would think that if a large object looped space around on itself it would in essence remove itself from our universe in the sense that no information can come from or to that object again. Doesnt that mean our universe ould be incomplete and predictability would essentially go out the window?
It is not quite like that. Check the river model by Andrew Hamilton, the second part deals with rotating black holes, there is math but the document is still interesting without the math.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060
 
Passionflower said:
Your statement seem to imply you think that black holes are black holes due to their mass this is not correct. An object is (or becomes) a black hole is when the object's area is smaller than 4 times the area representing its mass. So the ratio is important the absolute value of mass is not significant.
I worded That wrong. I meant it as a point of reference of mass. I was thinking of something much more massive than the sun.

It is not quite like that. Check the river model by Andrew Hamilton, the second part deals with rotating black holes, there is math but the document is still interesting without the math.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060

Thank you. That helped immensily.

I think my question may be beyond my level of comprehension. Or rather my understanding of the paper I read on rotating black holes, that lead me to a paper on Frame dragging. Admittedly, i had no choice but to skip ofer the math. I fear that is my problem.
 
tkav1980 said:
I think my question may be beyond my level of comprehension. Or rather my understanding of the paper I read on rotating black holes, that lead me to a paper on Frame dragging. Admittedly, i had no choice but to skip ofer the math. I fear that is my problem.
Even with the math it is very hard to understand. :)
 
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...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...

Similar threads

Back
Top