I From our reference frame, how would a black hole ever form?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the perception of black hole formation from an external reference frame, particularly using Kruskal diagrams. It is debated whether, from this perspective, a black hole can ever be observed to form, as time appears to slow down for the mass collapsing into the black hole. The conversation highlights that while some coordinate systems may suggest a black hole never forms, others can account for its formation through gravitational collapse. The Schwarzschild solution is noted as an unrealistic model since it describes a black hole that always exists, contrasting with real black holes that form from collapsing matter. Ultimately, the complexity of time and observation in relation to black holes is emphasized, suggesting that our understanding is limited by the chosen coordinate systems.
msumm21
Messages
247
Reaction score
28
TL;DR
From what I understand, from "our" reference frame a black hole would never form
Looking at Kruskal diagrams, it seems to me we should not be able to see evidence of black holes. Assuming our frame is a hyperbola of roughly constant ##r## in such a diagram, as the black hole's constituent mass comes together time slows (from our POV) to the extent that it never crosses the horizon or forms a black hole.

I realize that, in the frame of a constituent mass, the block hole forms, but my question is from the POV of someone at a roughly constant ##r## outside the black hole.

EDIT: I think my first sentence is mistaken: presumably we could "see evidence" by "watching" the acceleration of an object close to, but outside, the horizon.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends what you mean but our POV. It's true that some events cannot be directly observed. And that there are systems of coordinates in which no time can be assigned to a given event. That, however, is a deficiency in the coordinate system. You are free to choose another coordinate system that does include the event under discussion.
 
PeroK said:
It depends what you mean but our POV. It's true that some events cannot be directly observed. And that there are systems of coordinates in which no time can be assigned to a given be event. That, however, is a deficiency in the coordinate system. You are free to choose another coordinate system that does include the event under discussion.
Copy, thanks. I am thinking in our proper time, so in our proper time the BH never forms, right.

Understand your point with some time coordinates it does form.
 
msumm21 said:
I am thinking in our proper time, so in our proper time the BH never forms, right.
"In our proper time" isn't meaningful - better to ask whether an event is or will eventually be in our past light cone, in which case we can reasonably say that "it has happened".

The eternal black hole of the Schwarzschild solution isn't physically realizable, as it describes a black hole that has always existed. A real black hole will have formed by gravitational collapse, and although we cannot directly observe events at the horizon, we can observe that there is a black hole where before there had been some uncollapsed matter..
 
msumm21 said:
TL;DR Summary: From what I understand, from "our" reference frame a black hole would never form

Looking at Kruskal diagrams, it seems to me we should not be able to see evidence of black holes.
Note that the Kruskal diagram that you posted is for a Schwarzschild black hole. Indeed, you would never see a Schwarzschild black hole form because it does not form. It is pre-existing.

Instead, what you need is the equivalent of a Kruskal diagram for an Oppenheimer Snyder spacetime. The only one I have found is here: https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bh/collapse.html

msumm21 said:
in our proper time the BH never forms
Proper time only covers the worldline of the object. So that doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
  • Like
Likes Orodruin and PeroK
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
788
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
3K