B Can Relativistic Mass Create a Black Hole?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Aerodyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity Speed
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
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top