B Can Relativistic Mass Create a Black Hole?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aerodyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity Speed
Click For Summary
Relativistic mass, which increases with speed according to the Lorentz factor, does not determine whether an object can create a black hole, as this is an invariant quantity independent of the observer's frame of reference. The concept of relativistic mass has fallen out of favor among physicists, including Einstein himself, due to its misleading implications and the complexities of general relativity. An object's ability to become a black hole is based on its stress-energy tensor, which encompasses rest mass and other energy forms, rather than just relativistic mass. The discussion highlights the misconception that increasing relativistic mass can lead to black hole formation, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of relativistic physics. This clarification is essential for accurately interpreting black hole criteria in the context of relativity.
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 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 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 vanhees71, malawi_glenn, Nugatory and 3 others
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K