Did Einstein Disagree With Black Holes?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on Einstein's views regarding the existence of black holes, particularly whether he accepted the predictions stemming from his own theory of general relativity. Participants explore historical perspectives, theoretical implications, and the evolution of thought surrounding black holes from Einstein's time to later developments in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Einstein never accepted the existence of black holes, citing his arguments against the physical realizability of the Schwarzschild solution.
  • Others highlight that Einstein published papers in the late 1930s arguing that no real physical system could exist with a radius smaller than certain limits, which he believed would lead to unphysical scenarios.
  • A participant mentions that Einstein was skeptical about the singularity at the event horizon, suggesting he thought the theory would fail before reaching such a singularity.
  • There is a discussion about how the understanding of black holes evolved, noting that many physicists were skeptical of their existence until the 1960s, despite earlier theoretical developments.
  • References are made to the Oppenheimer-Snyder model and the mass limits for white dwarfs and neutron stars, which contributed to the eventual acceptance of black holes.
  • Several participants express appreciation for the historical context and the evolution of ideas surrounding black holes, with mentions of Kip Thorne's book as a valuable resource.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that Einstein had reservations about black holes and their physical implications, but there is no consensus on the extent of his disagreement or the reasons behind it. Multiple competing views remain regarding his acceptance of the predictions of general relativity related to black holes.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on interpretations of Einstein's papers and the historical context of black hole research, which may involve assumptions about his views and the understanding of physics at the time. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on the implications of general relativity and the nature of singularities.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying the history of physics, the development of general relativity, or the conceptual challenges associated with black holes and singularities.

nitsuj
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
98
Not sure where best to post.

Local paper has had a couple of articles about the black hole image over the past couple of days. They quote Walter Isaacson “Einstein did not believe, then or later, that these results actually corresponded to anything real,” .

Is that true? I couldn't imagine Einstein disagreeing with a prediction of his own theory (except for once).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nitsuj said:
Is that true?

Yes. Einstein never accepted that black holes could actually exist. He knew the mathematical properties of the Schwarzschild solution, but he did not think they were physically realizable for radial coordinates close enough to the Schwarzschild radius. He actually published two papers in the late 1930s where he attempted to show that no real physical system could exist whose radius was small enough. The basic arguments of the two papers were:

(1) A stationary system consisting of objects all in orbits about their common center of mass cannot have a radius smaller than 3/2 times the Schwarzschild radius for its total mass; if it did, the orbital velocities would have to exceed the speed of light.

(2) A static system consisting of matter held up against its own gravity by pressure cannot have a radius smaller than 9/8 times the Schwarzschild radius for its total mass; if it did, the pressure at the center of the object would have to be infinite.

Both of these arguments are correct. However, they both deal with systems that are assumed to be stationary, i.e., they consist of matter that is in some kind of equilibrium that does not change with time. But black holes are not formed from such systems: they are formed from objects that cannot maintain themselves in a stationary configuration and collapse under their own gravity. Einstein simply never considered this possibility.

Ironically, in the same issue of Physical Review in which one of Einstein's papers described above was published (the 1 September 1939 issue, which was also the date on which Germany invaded Poland to start World War II), Oppenheimer and Snyder published their model of gravitational collapse of a massive object, which predicted that such a collapse would indeed result in what we now call a black hole.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: kith, nsaspook, SiennaTheGr8 and 10 others
Yes, he disagreed with the prediction, or at least the predicted singularity at the event horizon.

When the Schwarzschild solution was first discovered (by Schwarzschild, of course) it was not clear that there was no real singularity at the event horizon, just a coordinate singularity. Confronted with a prediction of a real physical singularity at the horizon, Einstein took the quite reasonable position that the theory would somehow stop working before the singularity was reached.
This is similar to the way that we think about the singularity in the Newtonian ##F=GMm/r^2## at ##r=0## and the way many physicists today think about the predicted (real, not coordinate) singularity at ##r=0## in the Schwarzschild spacetime: some other physics comes into play at sufficiently small values of ##r## so these singularities don't happen.

Even after the discovery of coordinate systems that eliminated the singularity at the horizon, there were serious questions about how a black hole could actually form. Oppenheimer and Snyder published their general relativistic treatment of a collapsing shell of matter shortly before the second world war, but it wasn't until the mid-1960s that Wheeler coined the phrase "black hole" and pulled these various strains of thought into the modern view of black holes. By then Einstein was gone, but had he still been around, I'd expect that he would have approved.

You might be interested in https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-reluctant-father-of-black-holes-2007-04/
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: martinbn, russ_watters, cnh1995 and 5 others
It's worth noting, btw, that Einstein was by no means the only physicist who had trouble with the idea of black holes. In fact, most physicists did not believe they were possible until the 1960s, even though the two key pieces of the puzzle were already in place by the end of the 1930s. One was the Oppenheimer-Snyder model referred to in my last post, which showed a consistent picture of how a black hole could form from gravitational collapse; the other was the fact that white dwarfs and neutron stars, the two known types of compact stable objects, both have a maximum mass limit. Chandrasekhar had established this for white dwarfs by 1934; Oppenheimer and Volkoff established it for neutron stars in 1938 (this result was what got Oppenheimer interested in developing the model of gravitational collapse that was published the following year). But it took until the 1960s for these results to be developed and strengthened to the point where they were generally accepted.

Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps gives a very good presentation of how physicists' understanding of black holes evolved (and it is actually a major source of my knowledge of the subject).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, PeroK and Nugatory
Wow!

Thank you both for the very informative posts!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
PeterDonis said:
Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps gives a very good presentation of how physicists' understanding of black holes evolved (and it is actually a major source of my knowledge of the subject).

Looks like a good size! So I ordered it :D
joking aside I hope it's "accessible" to me. the review that inclined me to think at least part of it maybe said "A non-scientist should enjoy the first half, but might get bogged down well before the end. "
31cfN48NSVL.jpg
 
PeterDonis said:
Kip Thorne's Black Holes and Time Warps gives a very good presentation of how physicists' understanding of black holes evolved (and it is actually a major source of my knowledge of the subject).

omg this is actually a really "big" book! And flipping through it I didn't see a whole bunch of math ( i can't read that) and did see hand drawn diagrams (I can totally read that!) yay! thanks for noting the book in your reply.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
18K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K