Falling into a charged black hole

lark
Messages
157
Reaction score
0
Wald says (paraphrased)
"Let us attempt to destroy a black hole and create a naked singularity. Kerr-Newman black holes satisfy the relation M^2\ge Q^2 + (J/M)^2, where M,Q,J are the mass, charge and angular momentum of the black hole (and G and c are taken to be 1).

Let us start with a black hole with M=Q and J=0. If we drop in a charged particle of mass m and charge q satisfying m<q, we will destroy the black hole. There is, however, one problem with this. If m<q, the Coulomb electrostatic repulsion on the particle becomes greater than the gravitational attraction. Thus, if we let go of such a particle, it will not fall into the black hole; rather, it will fly away from it! So this doesn't work.

However, we can throw such a particle toward the black hole with great enough speed so that it will go in. But when we do this, we increase the energy of the particle and hence the mass increment it gives to the black hole by just the right amount so that when the black hole captures it, the inequality M\ge Q will be maintained. Thus, the attempt to create a naked singularity fails."

Can you help me understand this? What he's saying is that if the particle is thrown in with kinetic energy E>q-m, then the trajectory of the particle takes it into the black hole. The trajectory of the particle wouldn't be a geodesic, because it's being acted on by Coulomb forces. But somehow, if you give the particle this extra kinetic energy, it ends up in the same place as if it had mass m^\prime=m+E, and charge q?

Is there some way of making sense of this, so it doesn't look like a strange coincidence?
Laura
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lark said:
The trajectory of the particle wouldn't be a geodesic, because it's being acted on by Coulomb forces.

That's correct. But it would still end up inside the hole.

lark said:
But somehow, if you give the particle this extra kinetic energy, it ends up in the same place as if it had mass ##m^\prime=m+E##, and charge ##q##?

I'm not sure what you mean by "in the same place". The trajectories in the two cases won't be the same. But they will both end up inside the hole.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...

Similar threads

Back
Top