Effect of Black Hole Spin on Gravity

In summary: But it’s not. Ideas like mass and density and volume and velocity that have easy natural meanings in locally flat spacetime become slippery when curvature effects are significant. Often the hardest part of a GR question is framing it unambiguously.It doesn’t help. Another way of phrasing @PeterDonis' comment is that you've implicitly specified that the far-field regions of the two holes be negligibly different and then asked if the only non-negligible differences are in the near field. Well, yeah, because that's a tautology.The problem here, really, is that concepts like "mass" from Newtonian gravity don't always
  • #1
BWV
1,455
1,769
Not sure how to mark the level, I know what the math in the Einstein field equations represents (stress energy tensor, Riemann curvature etc), but have no facility in doing anything with that math.

so take 2 black holes, with say 100 solar masses. A is not spinning, B is spinning at relativistic speed. At a point far enough away where the space can be treated as flat, where the Newtonian gravity applies

1660056109521.png

is the gravitational force is the same for A and B, or does the spin rate of B increase the mass number you would use for the Newton formula?

Tried to look at the Schwarzschild metric vs the Kerr (which is difficult as the units seem to be all different), and notice that the Kerr contains the Schwarzschild radius, rs as an input, which implies that the Schwarzschild radius is the same for A and B? (from the wiki article)

1660056635551.png

then the only difference between a spinning and non spinning black hole would be the curvature effects surrounding the event horizon?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
BWV said:
take 2 black holes, with say 100 solar masses
Right here you have prejudged the answer to your questions. You are stipulating that both holes have the same mass, so therefore they have the same mass. :wink: So asking whether they have the same mass is pointless; you already stipulated the answer.

Try rethinking the question you want to ask to avoid this issue. More generally, try to think about this: if I have a hole that is not spinning and another hole that is spinning, how can I compare the two? How can I say that anything about the two holes is "the same", since they're not the same kind of hole to begin with? What does "the same" even mean here?

I think you will find doing this instructive.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50, BWV and vanhees71
  • #3
PeterDonis said:
Right here you have prejudged the answer to your questions. You are stipulating that both holes have the same mass, so therefore they have the same mass. :wink: So asking whether they have the same mass is pointless; you already stipulated the answer.

Try rethinking the question you want to ask to avoid this issue. More generally, try to think about this: if I have a hole that is not spinning and another hole that is spinning, how can I compare the two? How can I say that anything about the two holes is "the same", since they're not the same kind of hole to begin with? What does "the same" even mean here?

I think you will find doing this instructive.
OK, changed the OP to specify rest mass, which was what I was trying to say
 
  • #4
BWV said:
OK, changed the OP to specify rest mass, which was what I was trying to say
You don’t quite mean that either, I think. How do you define the rest mass of a black hole? Maybe you are considering two black holes both formed by the collapse of the same amount of matter, but one with more angular momentum than the other?

These non-answers may seem to be quibbling…. But it’s not. Ideas like mass and density and volume and velocity that have easy natural meanings in locally flat spacetime become slippery when curvature effects are significant. Often the hardest part of a GR question is framing it unambiguously.
 
  • #5
BWV said:
OK, changed the OP to specify rest mass, which was what I was trying to say
It doesn’t help. Another way of phrasing @PeterDonis' comment is that you've implicitly specified that the far-field regions of the two holes be negligibly different and then asked if the only non-negligible differences are in the near field. Well, yeah, because that's a tautology.

The problem here, really, is that concepts like "mass" from Newtonian gravity don't always map cleanly on to relativity. I think that what you want to do is something like set up two identical non-rotating holes, then spin one up. The problem with that is that any spin-up method involves exchanging energy with the hole, even if you don't just drop mass into it. So are you sure that you didn't mess with whatever you think the hole's mass is?

As @Nugatory says, it's really difficult to pin down exactly what question you want to ask here, so you end up trying to compare apples to pears. Either you can shrug and say it isn't really a meaningful comparison, or you can chop off all the bits of the pear that don't look like an apple and then ask if the difference is in the bits you chopped off.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis
  • #6
Nugatory said:
You don’t quite mean that either, I think. How do you define the rest mass of a black hole? Maybe you are considering two black holes both formed by the collapse of the same amount of matter, but one with more angular momentum than the other?

These non-answers may seem to be quibbling…. But it’s not. Ideas like mass and density and volume and velocity that have easy natural meanings in locally flat spacetime become slippery when curvature effects are significant. Often the hardest part of a GR question is framing it unambiguously.
but to use the Kerr metric , you need the angular momentum, correct? and there are terms where the mass is separate from J, such as: (again from the Wiki article)

1660063647482.png


Also mentioned the Schwarzschild radius, using M not J as an input in the OP
 
  • #7
BWV said:
but to use the Kerr metric , you need the angular momentum, correct? and there are terms where the mass is separate from J, such as: (again from the Wiki article)
Sure. But in that case you're defining mass to mean the mass you get in the Newtonian far field approximation, so tautologically that's what you get in the Newtonian far field approximation.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis and BWV
  • #8
OK thanks for the responses, so in practice for a observed black hole, you would measure M in the Newtonian far field approximation, infer J from the local curvature effects and that would be your inputs to Kerr?

and you only need Kerr for relativistic angular momentum, which only occurs with black holes?
 
  • #9
BWV said:
OK thanks for the responses, so in practice for a observed black hole, you would measure M in the Newtonian far field approximation, infer J from the local curvature effects and that would be your inputs to Kerr?
Pretty much, yes, or you could use the close-in effects to measure both. I don't know if either method is necessarily more precise - it may depend what test particles you happen to have to work with.
BWV said:
and you only need Kerr for relativistic angular momentum, which only occurs with black holes?
Depends how precise you want to be. Kerr-like frame dragging effects have been measured around Earth (Gravity Probe B), but it was a heroic effort.
 
  • Informative
Likes BWV
  • #10
BWV said:
OK thanks for the responses, so in practice for a observed black hole, you would measure M
There is no M. (There is no Dana, only Zuul). You could measure g, or brtter still dg/dr as a function of position. But there is no way to measure here what a mass is there.
 
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
You could measure g, or brtter still dg/dr as a function of position.
That's more or less what I think @Ibix was referring to as the Newtonian far field approximation. This approach is similar to what is done with the ADM mass.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #12
BWV said:
you only need Kerr for relativistic angular momentum, which only occurs with black holes?
It's kind of the other way around. Strictly speaking, you only use Kerr for black holes, since those are the only objects for which the Kerr spacetime geometry is an exact description. The vacuum region outside of an ordinary rotating object like a planet or star is not Kerr; there is no analogue for rotating objects of Birkhoff's theorem, which is what guarantees that the vacuum region outside of a non-rotating, spherically symmetric object is Schwarzschild, regardless of what the object itself is (planet, star, rock, black hole, etc.). The angular momentum of a Kerr black hole does not need to be "relativistic" (if by that you mean significant compared to the mass), but an object that does have significant angular momentum compared to its mass is more likely to be a black hole than anything else since other types of objects will have difficulty holding themselves together for large angular momenta.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes PeroK and BWV
  • #13
PeterDonis said:
The vacuum region outside of an ordinary rotating object like a planet or star is not Kerr; there is no analogue for rotating objects of Birkhoff's theorem, which is what guarantees that the vacuum region outside of a non-rotating, spherically symmetric object is Schwarzschild, regardless of what the object itself is (planet, star, rock, black hole, etc.).
Possibly off topic, but does the stuff about stability of Kerr spacetime referenced recently in another thread mean that we're more certain that spacetime outside a rotating planet (etc) is "near" a Kerr solution even if it's not exact? Or is that unrelated? I must admit I have not even tried to wade through the 960-odd pages...
 
  • #14
Ibix said:
does the stuff about stability of Kerr spacetime referenced recently in another thread mean that we're more certain that spacetime outside a rotating planet (etc) is "near" a Kerr solution even if it's not exact?
I don't think so. The issue with the Kerr exterior not describing the vacuum region outside of rotating bodies like planets and stars has to do with higher multipole moments being nonzero for those bodies; for Kerr all higher multipole moments ("higher" meaning of higher order than the angular momentum) are zero.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix
  • #15
PeterDonis said:
That's more or less what I think @Ibix was referring to as the Newtonian far field approximation.
But.

If you have a rotating BH such that L is not negligibly smaller than M, g(r) (bolded because its the vector here) is not spherically symmetric. So if you say M = gr2 you would conclude that the BH mass varies with angle.

Thus the mass you get by that recipe is not what you want.
 
  • #16
Vanadium 50 said:
If you have a rotating BH such that L is not negligibly smaller than M, g(r) (bolded because its the vector here) is not spherically symmetric.
Yes, that's because in this case the spatial variation of ##g## is not just telling you about ##M##, it's telling you about both ##M## and ##J##. So you have to deal with both in a unified way. There is no way to just calculate ##M## independently of calculating ##J##.
 
  • #17
It's late here, but I think for ##r\gg a## you recover the Schwarzschild metric from Kerr whatever ##m## is. Doesn't that mean that Kerr is negligibly non-spherical at large distances? So if you are detecting angular dependence, you are too close. (Bumper sticker?)
 
  • #18
Ibix said:
Doesn't that mean that Kerr is negligibly non-spherical at large distances?
It depends on what you mean by "negligibly". The same argument, if taken at face value, could be used to prove that a Schwarzschild black hole has "negligible" mass at large distances, because the metric becomes indistinguishable from Minkowski at large enough distances. But that amounts to claiming that the ADM mass of any Schwarzschild black hole is zero. Which of course is not the case.

In fact, the ADM approach that leads to the ADM mass was developed precisely in order to give a more rigorous definition of what does not become "negligible" at large distances, at least as far as mass is concerned. That is done, heuristically, by taking limits as ##r \to \infty## and looking at how that limit for the actual spacetime in question differs from the corresponding limit for Minkowski spacetime.

AFAIK there is not a similar rigorous definition of "ADM angular momentum" that does for ##J## in the Kerr case what the ADM mass does for ##M## in the Schwarzschild case. But the general idea should be the same: by looking at limits as ##r \to \infty## and seeing how that limit for the actual spacetime (in this case, Kerr) differs from the corresponding limit for MInkowski spacetime, we should be able to see the effects of ##M## and ##J##.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and Ibix
  • #19
PeterDonis said:
There is no way to just calculate M independently of calculating J

Which gets us back to the starting point that "two black holes of identical mass, one spinning and one not" is not well defined.

Ibix said:
It's late here, but I think for r >> a you recover the Schwarzschild metric
And for r really, really big, you recover flat spacetime!

I think we've answered the question. One can tell the difference between a BH of mass M and angular momentum 0 and one with angular momentum L by looking at the T00 term/quasi-Newtonian limit. The latter hole gravitates as if it had mass M + L2/2I.

If the response is "No, no, that's not I meant. M1 = M2 + L2/2I. That's what I meant by equal masses." OK, an odd definition of "equal", but sort of understandable. And here the answer is still yes. One can experience the non-T00 terms.

If the next objection is "But these can be small and hard to see if very far away", I would say "Sure, We can't measure L for any BH that we observe. Even M can be problematic." But that's "how long is a piece of string" - that's a question about how good our instrumentation is and how fast the BH is spinning. It's not fundamental.
 

1. What is a black hole spin?

A black hole spin refers to the rotation or angular momentum of a black hole. Just like any other object in the universe, black holes can spin on their axis.

2. How does black hole spin affect gravity?

Black hole spin affects gravity by altering the curvature of spacetime around the black hole. The faster a black hole spins, the more it distorts the fabric of spacetime, leading to stronger gravitational effects.

3. Can black hole spin change over time?

Yes, black hole spin can change over time. As matter and energy fall into a black hole, it can increase its spin. However, once a black hole reaches its maximum spin, it cannot spin any faster.

4. How does the spin of a black hole impact its surrounding environment?

The spin of a black hole can impact its surrounding environment in several ways. It can influence the shape and orientation of the accretion disk, as well as the jets of matter and energy that are ejected from the black hole.

5. What are the implications of black hole spin for our understanding of gravity?

The study of black hole spin can provide valuable insights into our understanding of gravity, particularly in the extreme conditions near a black hole. It can also help us test and refine theories such as general relativity, which governs the behavior of gravity.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
251
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
977
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
974
Back
Top