Calculation of gravity near a black hole.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Calculating gravity near a black hole requires the application of general relativity rather than Newton's Universal Law of Gravity. The key equation for proper acceleration needed to hover at a Schwarzschild coordinate r for a black hole of mass M is a = GM/(r²√(1 - 2GM/(rc²))). Additionally, the distance to the event horizon can be approximated using the Rindler metric for large black holes, where the horizon is located at a distance of c²/a. Understanding these concepts is essential for accurately modeling gravitational effects in extreme conditions.

PREREQUISITES
  • General relativity fundamentals
  • Schwarzschild coordinates
  • Rindler metric
  • Proper acceleration calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Einstein's gravitational tensor G_{\mu\nu}
  • Learn about geodesic curves in general relativity
  • Explore the implications of the Rindler metric in gravitational fields
  • Investigate the effects of tidal forces near black holes
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and students of general relativity who seek to understand gravitational dynamics in extreme environments, particularly near black holes.

avito009
Messages
184
Reaction score
4
Newtons Universal law of gravity equations are an excellent approximation when dealing with low velocities (i.e., velocities whose magnitude is much smaller than the speed of light) and when dealing with weak gravity fields (such as those found on Earth or around low-mass stars). The approximation fails when you're dealing with speeds close to that of light, or gravity fields around black holes, at which point, you switch to general relativity.

So to calculate gravity close to a black hole you have to use equations from general relativity. I tried finding these equations on google but I wasnt able to find any.

Can somebody tell me the equations to find gravitational force near a black hole using general relativity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You won't find equations of the type you are used to, except, possibly, as simplified approximations.

The "equation of gravity" in general relativity is G_{\mu\nu}= 0. G here is Einstein's gravitational tensor. Its entries are derived from derivatives of the metric tensor so each entry is a differential equation for the entries of the metric tensor. Once you have found those, you can use them in the equation for the geodesic curves- the lines of motions of objects freefalling in that gravitational field.
 
avito009 said:
Newtons Universal law of gravity equations are an excellent approximation when dealing with low velocities (i.e., velocities whose magnitude is much smaller than the speed of light) and when dealing with weak gravity fields (such as those found on Earth or around low-mass stars). The approximation fails when you're dealing with speeds close to that of light, or gravity fields around black holes, at which point, you switch to general relativity.

So to calculate gravity close to a black hole you have to use equations from general relativity. I tried finding these equations on google but I wasnt able to find any.

Can somebody tell me the equations to find gravitational force near a black hole using general relativity?

Well, what I think you probably want to know is the answer to one of the two following questions.

The first question is "What is the amount of proper acceleration a (as measured by an onboard accelerometer) that a rocket would need to hover at a Schwarzschild coordinate r for a black hole of mass M."

The answer to that question turns out to be

a = \frac{GM}{r^2\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}}

Note that the circumference of a circle at a Schwarzschild coordinate of r is, by definition ##2 \pi r##. However, the "distance" to the event horizon is in general not equal to that number.

The second question is "What would this observer measure for the distance to the event horizon, assuming they use fermi-normal coordinates to define and measure the distance". If you have some other procedure in mind to measure the distance, you'd have to specify what it was for me to be able to answer the question. Offhand I would guess you don't have an exact procedure for measuring the distance in mind, so I am applying what I think is a "reasonable" default. It still may or may not match what you really intended, but there's no cure for that other than you to specify exactly how you intend to measure the distance :(. This is trickier than it sounds - a radar signal would take an infinite time to reach the event horizon and come back. However, the coordinate speed of light in the Rindler coordinate system approaches zero, so in the end the procedure I suggest comes up with a finite number.

I don't have a formula for a small black hole to answer the second question exactly, but for a large black hole, you can ignore tidal forces and approximate the black hole by the Rindler metric of a uniformly accelerating observer. With this approximation, the horizon is always located at the Rindler horizon, a distance of ##\frac{c^2}{a}## . This means that if you are accelerating at 1g to hold station away from a large black hole, the event horizon will be about 1 light year away (since c is approximately 1 light year/ year^2). Another way to put this : the (proper) acceleration required to hold station is ##c^2/d## for a large black hole, d being the distance away from the event horizon in the fermi-normal coordinates of the hovering observer.
 
Last edited:
pervect said:
Note that the radius of a circle at a Schwarzschild coordinate of r is, by definition ##2 \pi r##.
I'm sure pervect meant to say "circumference", not "radius".
 
DrGreg said:
I'm sure pervect meant to say "circumference", not "radius".
Ooops, yes, I was able to edit and fix that typo.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
8K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K