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

msumm21
Messages
247
Reaction score
28
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. 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 this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Back
Top