Can Relativistic Mass Create a Black Hole?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Aerodyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity Speed
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the misconception that relativistic mass can create a black hole. It is established that the relevant quantity for determining black hole formation is not relativistic mass, which is frame-dependent, but rather invariant properties. The argument presented incorrectly assumes that an object's relativistic mass can lead to conditions for black hole creation, which is fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the concept of relativistic mass has largely fallen out of favor in modern physics, as it oversimplifies the complexities of gravity described by the stress-energy tensor.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relativistic physics concepts, particularly Lorentz transformations.
  • Familiarity with the concept of black holes and their formation criteria.
  • Knowledge of the stress-energy tensor and its role in general relativity.
  • Awareness of the historical context and evolution of the concept of mass in physics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of the stress-energy tensor in general relativity.
  • Study the differences between invariant mass and relativistic mass in modern physics.
  • Learn about the criteria for black hole formation and the Schwarzschild radius.
  • Explore the implications of Lorentz transformations on mass and energy in relativistic contexts.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the nuances of black hole formation and relativistic mass concepts.

Aerodyn
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Hello dear colleagues from the physics forum,

Following question came to my mind, can you tell me which statement (s) is/are wrong?.

Since relativistic mass is weighed with the Lorentz factor for an external observer, it is expected an increase with speed.

Such mass (m1) would tend to infinity with v=c, but before infinity it would go through the mass required to create a black hole. In addition, since the external observer would see the fast object contracted due to its speed, he would see a smaller object with a higher mass, which definitely would increase its density, creating the best conditions for a good black hole soup.

So the external observer would see m1 creating a black hole. What if now m1 decides to slow down until v=0? Would the external observer see m1 escaping from a black hole?

Thank you very much for four support on understanding this strange phenomenaAerodyn
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aerodyn said:
can you tell me which statement (s) is/are wrong?
This:

Aerodyn said:
Such mass (m1) would tend to infinity with v=c, but before infinity it would go through the mass required to create a black hole. In addition, since the external observer would see the fast object contracted due to its speed, he would see a smaller object with a higher mass, which definitely would increase its density, creating the best conditions for a good black hole soup.
The relevant quantity for determining whether an object is a black hole is not its relativistic mass, so the entire quote above is wrong. Whether or not an object is a black hole is invariant, independent of any choice of reference frame. Since relativistic mass is not an invariant, but frame-dependent, it obviously cannot be what determines whether an object is a black hole.

The rest of your post is also wrong since it follows from the above error.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby and FactChecker
Also, relativistic mass is not used by most scientists for the last many decades. It basically fell out of favor even within Einstein's lifetime.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby and vanhees71
Aerodyn said:
can you tell me which statement (s) is/are wrong?.
A simple way to see that your reasoning fails is to note that, as seen by a neutrino emitted by the Sun, you are doing 99.99999...% of the speed of light. Do you feel like a black hole?

This kind of mistake is one of the reasons relativistic mass fell out of favour. It leads to too many problems by kind of implying that relativistic physics is just Newtonian physics with a few Lorentz gammas thrown in. It is not. The source of gravity in relativity is a thing called the stress-energy tensor, which includes rest mass and various other forms of energy, but its behaviour is significantly more complex than just relativistic mass, I'm afraid.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, malawi_glenn, Nugatory and 3 others

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K