Back in August 2004, kurious asked:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

1. There is considerable observational evidence that astrophysical black holes (think of their definining characteristic as being the presence of an event horizon; an abstract surface which operates a bit like a trapdoor---things and signals can fall in but they can't get out--- but which is nonetheless not a physical surface and is not, according to gtr, anything you could notice from local physics as you passed through it on your way into the hole), do exist in nature, and are well described even in the vicinity of the horizon by gtr, kurious said: ↑What evidence is there that the schwarzschild metric is valid inside a black hole (as opposed to outside the Sun where evidence comes in the form of mercury's perihelion)?

2. In addition to specific evidence for the existence of black holes (and one should note that other theories besides gtr predicts them), there are various "tests of gravitation theories" such as the three of the "four classical solar system tests" (light bending, precession of pericenters, light delay) which tightly constrain, on the basis of observations, viable gravitation theories to closely mimim the predictions of gtr; the overall thrust of this work is that gtr appears to be distinguished as the simplest viable relativistic classical field theory of gravitation, at least within a large class of competing theories of this kind (the fourth test, gravitational redshift, validates a prediction of a large class of theories including gtr),

3. At present, there is a general expectation, based upon various theoretical arguments, that the interior of astrophysical black holes more closely resembles the Schwarzschild interior than the Kerr vacuum or Reissner-Nordstrom electrovacuum interiors,

4. This does not contradict assertions you might have heard about such as the no hair theorems or Price's theorem.

Say instead: "the Schwarzschild solution is one of many, MANY vacuum solutions of the EFE" (it also arises as a vacuum solution in some other theories). da_willem said: ↑The Schwarzschild metric is anexterior solutionand is derived as such. So when the empty spacetime field equation holds theoretically the Schwarzschild metric is valid.

Recall that Birkhoff's theorem states that spherically symmetric vacuum solutions of the EFE must be static (from which it is easy to see that such a solution must in fact be locally isometric to "the" Schwarzschild solution, or more precisely, one in this one parameter family of solutions.) This does NOT mean that every vacuum solution must be locally isometric to a Schwarzschild solution, just every spherically symmetric vacuum solution. There are plenty of axisymmetric vacuum solutions which are not a Schwarzchild vacuum, for example. (These are Weyl's vacuum solutions, a rather significant generalization.)

Actually, according to gtr, experiments could be performed inside a black hole by any intrepid physicist willing to dive into one (at least, if the hole were sufficiently massive for him to survive for some time inside the hole). The problem for science is that he couldn't report his results back to his more timorous colleagues waiting outside. The problem for himself is that once he falls in, his remaining lifetime will be finite and rather short. da_willem said: ↑In terms of e.g. Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates you can still investigate what happens inside the black hole using the Schwarzschild metric and it predicts (not unreasonable) ingoing null geodesics. But it's more a matter of faith than science because no experiment could be performed to investigate the validity of the Schwarzschild metric inside a black hole.

Since the notions of "geons" and "massless stationary axisymmetric asymptotically flat vacuum solutions" have come up recently in other threads, I should stress that neither of these neccessarily correspond to anything like "a black hole made from photons". da_willem said: ↑Also, if a black hole is made from photons, would it be massless and move at the speed of light?

The 2004 thread was long and at times quite bizzarre; the incoherent posts by "Orion 1" would be suitable candidates for withdrawal, I think.

pmb_phy was puzzled by a computation he made:

It looks like pmb probably tried to compute the Riemann components with respect to the frame field for a static observer, which of course becomes ill-defined at the horizon. If you compute the Riemann tensor with respect to a frame field which is well defined at the horizon, all components are finite. The easiest way to see this is to observe that the Kretschmann invariant [tex]R_{abcd} \, R^{abcd} [/tex] is finite there, in fact blows up only as [tex]r \rightarrow 0[/tex]. Sophisticates know that this is not a general criterion, but in this case we know that the Schwarzschild vacuum is Petrov type D, so we don't need to worry about gravitational radiation possibly leading to something drastic but unrevealed by curvature scalars. pmb_phy said: ↑I then said that when you calculate the Riemann tensor in Schwarzschild coordinates then at least one component is infinite at the horizon and that what that means physically is a bit difficult to interpret.

...

Are you saying that the component above in Scwazchild coordinates is incorrect? Are you saying that this component in these coordinates is finite when r = r_{s}.

Chris Hillman

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Black hole interiors?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**