Could a moving object become a black hole?

  • Thread starter Thread starter erocket
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole Hole
erocket
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
it's my first time here. frankly, i have to say that I have limit knowledge of general relativity. as to special relativity, just walk a step after opening the door of relativity theory. meantime, I always take part in some discussions in another forums which is hold with different language in my country. we had lots of fun and get some progress too. I hope it is a good chance for me to communicate with u guys with different education background. and thanks to u all...

back to the topic:

we all know that the mass of an object increases when it moves faster. according to the general relativity, a black hole could be formed if the mass of an object approaches beyond a certain mass point. here is my question, could a moving object become a black hole, when the speed is large enough?:confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fast rockets

Hi, erocket, welcome to PF!

erocket said:
we all know that the mass of an object increases when it moves faster.

Kinetic energy, actually, just like in Newtonian physics. (Except that KE increase faster with v in relativity, indeed blows up as v \rightarrow 1.)

erocket said:
could a moving object become a black hole, when the speed is large enough?:confused:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html
 
thx very much.
I am reading the articles u proposed to me ...

I think I come to the right place ...here i can see and learn much things that I like//
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top