A question about the theory of relativity

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The original poster presents a scenario involving the theory of relativity, specifically questioning the visual and physical implications of observing a star while traveling at speeds close to that of light. They inquire about the potential changes in the star's appearance and whether it could resemble a neutron star or black hole.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the effects of length contraction and relativistic mass on the perception of celestial objects. Some question the distinction between observational effects and physical processes, while others suggest looking into specific concepts like Penrose-Terrell Rotation.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored regarding the implications of relativistic effects on the observation of stars. Some participants have offered insights into the nature of relativistic mass and the conditions under which a star may become a black hole, though no consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the Chandrasekhar limit and its relevance to the formation of black holes, as well as the potential differences in conditions when viewed from different reference frames. The original poster expresses concern about their language skills, which may affect communication.

IDOGAWACONAN
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If I fly at the speed which is similar to the speed of light,and I am watching a still star,then because of the theory of relativity,the size of the star will change.If the size of the star turn to the size of a neutron star or a black hole,what will happen?Will I see a neutron star or a black hole?(My English is terrible,so I am sorry if you can't understand it well)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well I am not an expert on relativity in any way really, but the length contraction caused by the lorentz equations would only possibly alter the size of the object that you see, not what it actually "looks" like. A black star "looks" completely different to a star as light cannot escape its gravity, but you moving similar to the speed of light wouldn't make much difference I don't think.
 
Welcome to PF!

You may want to search your references for "Penrose-Terrell Rotation" and see if that will allow you to draw your own conclusion regarding your questions.
 
But the mass of the star will grow.When it's beyond the Chandrasekhar'limit,should it become a black hole?
 
The relativistic mass of the star will grow, but not the rest mass. A star collapsing to a black hole is a very real, local, physical process and not an "observational" effect only, like relativistic mass. You can think of relativistic mass as a kind of a "transformation cheat" used in special relativity to make many other mechanical interactions appear Newtonian.

Others here may be able to offer you a better explanation.
 
Filip Larsen said:
The relativistic mass of the star will grow, but not the rest mass. A star collapsing to a black hole is a very real, local, physical process and not an "observational" effect only, like relativistic mass. You can think of relativistic mass as a kind of a "transformation cheat" used in special relativity to make many other mechanical interactions appear Newtonian.
Excellent points.

As far as I know, the conditions under which a star is able to become a black hole (i.e. Chandrasekhar limit) only apply when measured in the rest frame of the star. If you wanted to figure out the conditions required for a star to become a black hole in a reference frame in which the star is moving with some constant velocity, they would presumably be different. In particular, the critical density required to form the black hole would probably be higher. I haven't done the math, so I might be wrong, but it seems like there would be a logical inconsistency if a black hole (i.e. event horizon) existed in one distant inertial reference frame but not another.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K