Exploring the Merger of 2 Black Holes: A 4th Dimensional Perspective

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the merger of two black holes from a 4th-dimensional perspective, focusing on the implications for external observers and the nature of event horizons during such mergers. Participants examine theoretical aspects, observational consequences, and the mathematical framework surrounding black hole mergers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that an external observer would see two black holes approach each other's event horizons but never cross them in finite time, suggesting a 4th-dimensional aspect to the merger.
  • Others argue that the concept of "finite time" must be approached with caution, as it implies an absolute time that does not exist in the context of general relativity.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about their understanding of the equations governing black holes, specifically the Einstein Field Equations (EFEs), and questions whether they should abandon their inquiry.
  • Another participant describes the merger process, stating that the two black holes eventually form a single larger black hole, with the entire process occurring rapidly once they touch.
  • Some participants discuss the behavior of normal matter approaching a black hole, noting that it appears to slow down and never actually crosses the event horizon, drawing parallels to the behavior of merging black holes.
  • One participant highlights the distinction between black holes and other objects, emphasizing that the event horizon is not a physical surface but a boundary beyond which nothing can return.
  • Another participant uses an analogy involving liquid mercury to illustrate the merger process, suggesting a visual representation of the event horizons approaching each other.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of time dilation and redshift for external observers, particularly regarding the perception of event horizons and the transmission of information about changes in mass.
  • Some participants question whether information about the change in mass of a black hole can travel faster than the light that an external observer uses to observe such changes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of event horizons, the implications of time dilation, and the observational consequences of black hole mergers. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on these complex topics.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the mathematical framework involved, as well as the complexities of relativistic effects near event horizons. There are also unresolved questions about the nature of information transfer in the context of black hole mergers.

  • #61
Nugatory said:
If it were a particular location, then you could draw a timelike worldline for it in a spacetime diagram. Try this with a Kruskal diagram and you'll quickly see the problem.
Ah, that's a good hint. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
timmdeeg said:
Is it correct that this statement is true for both, "idealized" and "real" (containing stress energy) black holes?

You keep saying "real (containing stress-energy)". Can you clarify the distinction you are making?

timmdeeg said:
it seems to me that the "mass distribution" is "spread out" in the center of the black hole in order to avoid the singularity

No. In the models @kimbyd is referring to, there are quantum field effects that come into play when spacetime curvature gets sufficiently large; those effects can be thought of, in the classical approximation, as creating an effective stress-energy that violates the energy conditions on which the classical GR singularity theorems are based. But this effective stress-energy isn't anything like a "mass distribution" (because it violates the energy conditions).

timmdeeg said:
isn't the center a "particular location"?

No. A "location", in geometric GR terms, means "a timelike worldline" (or a set of closely spaced timelike worldlines). The singularity at ##r = 0## in the Schwarzschild geometry is spacelike, not timelike. The closest intuitive concept to such a thing is a moment of time, not a location in space.
 
  • #63
PeterDonis said:
You keep saying "real (containing stress-energy)". Can you clarify the distinction you are making?
I referred to your post 36 " A realistic solution would contain a region of nonzero stress-energy, joined by a boundary to a vacuum region with Schwarzschild or Kerr geometry. An example of such a solution (still idealized, but less so than the pure vacuum solutions) is the Oppenheimer-Snyder model of a spherically symmetric collapsing object. Even in such a solution, an observer falling through the event horizon long after the collapse of the object will not pass through any region of nonzero stress-energy; that was the scenario I was describing in my previous post."
and am recognizing now (very late), that you implicitely said that there is no timelike worldline into the region of "nonzero stress-energy". This clarifies my misconception in this matter and I think one should avoid to talk about "mass distribution" in this context at all. Thanks for your efforts.
 
  • #64
timmdeeg said:
I referred to your post 36

Ok. But just to clarify, in the model I was describing in that post, all of the stress-energy is far in the past. It is not "inside the black hole" except in a very limited sense. It certainly cannot be thought of as spread out through the interior of the black hole and providing its mass, the way it would in an ordinary object like a planet or star.

timmdeeg said:
you implicitely said that there is no timelike worldline into the region of "nonzero stress-energy".

Not if you fall into the hole after it forms, no. If you happened to be sitting inside the star that originally collapsed to form the black hole, you could fall in and be inside the region of nonzero stress-energy. But not after the hole is formed.
 
  • #65
PeterDonis said:
Ok. But just to clarify, in the model I was describing in that post, all of the stress-energy is far in the past. It is not "inside the black hole" except in a very limited sense. It certainly cannot be thought of as spread out through the interior of the black hole and providing its mass, the way it would in an ordinary object like a planet or star.
Yes, important point, thanks for clarifying. And after rereading your posts it seems that the Oppenheimer-Snyder model is more realistic that the Schwarzschild black hole.
 
  • #66
timmdeeg said:
it seems that the Oppenheimer-Snyder model is more realistic that the Schwarzschild black hole.

A better way of putting this would be that the Oppenheimer-Snyder model is more realistic that the maximally extended Schwarzschild geometry (where "maximally extended" means the spacetime is vacuum everywhere, no stress-energy anywhere, and the black hole is "eternal", with both a future and a past singularity--as in the Kruskal diagram). The vacuum region of the Oppenheimer-Snyder model is a "piece" of the Schwarzschild geometry; it just doesn't contain all of it.
 
  • #67
PeterDonis said:
The vacuum region of the Oppenheimer-Snyder model is a "piece" of the Schwarzschild geometry; it just doesn't contain all of it.
According to this source
http://www.aei.mpg.de/~rezzolla/lnotes/mondragone/collapse.pdf
the interior "piece" resembles a collapsing FRW-universe with constant positive curvature. I was perhaps erroneously thinking that the Oppenheimer-Snyder model avoids the singularity, but the radius of the dust shell goes to zero in finite time. So, GR should break down an ##R=0## also here. But I'm not sure, kindly correct.
 
  • #68
timmdeeg said:
the interior "piece" resembles a collapsing FRW-universe with constant positive curvature

That's correct. More precisely, it's a portion of such a universe (because the matter region stops at the surface of the collapsing star and does not cover the entire "universe" of the FRW model).
 
  • #69
timmdeeg said:
I was perhaps erroneously thinking that the Oppenheimer-Snyder model avoids the singularity, but the radius of the dust shell goes to zero in finite time.

That's correct, the O-S model does have a singularity, so it is subject to all the concerns about singularities in GR.
 
  • #70
PeterDonis said:
That's correct, the O-S model does have a singularity, so it is subject to all the concerns about singularities in GR.
Which clarifies that there is stress energy only during the collapse, thanks for new insights.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K