Reference for Oppenheimer Snyder Collapse Paper

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gnnmartin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Collapse Reference
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse, specifically seeking references to the original paper by Oppenheimer and Snyder and any subsequent works that might reflect a more modern understanding of the topic. Participants explore the evolution of the model and its representation in contemporary literature.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks the original Oppenheimer-Snyder paper and questions whether there are later papers that align with a modern summary found on a wiki.
  • Another participant asserts that the 1939 paper is the only one authored by Oppenheimer and Snyder on this topic, noting the historical context of its publication coinciding with the outbreak of World War II.
  • This participant also suggests that the summary on the wiki is based on a more contemporary understanding of black hole spacetimes developed in later decades.
  • A third participant provides a link to a document that discusses the Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse from a modern perspective, indicating that it contains detailed sections relevant to the topic.
  • A fourth participant expresses gratitude for the clarification regarding the absence of later papers by Oppenheimer and Snyder and mentions finding a way to print a lengthy document more efficiently.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the 1939 paper is the only significant work by Oppenheimer and Snyder on the collapse. However, there is no consensus on the existence of a later paper that reflects the modern understanding of the model, with differing views on the sources of contemporary summaries.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of available references and the dependence on modern interpretations of the Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse, as well as the historical context affecting the publication of related works.

gnnmartin
Messages
86
Reaction score
5
I want to make a comment on the Oppenheimer Snyder collapse, and before doing so want to read the original Oppenheimer Snyder paper. All I have been able to find is the paper "On continued gravitational contraction" in the Sept '39 Physical Review, but I get the impression that to most people 'Oppenheimer Snyder collapse' means something considerably more evolved and simplified: as for example in http://grwiki.physics.ncsu.edu/wiki/Oppenheimer-Snyder_Collapse.

Is there a later paper by Oppenheimer & Snyder that more closely reflects the grwiki summary? I would appreciate a reference, and if it is accessible online without a paywall, a url.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gnnmartin said:
Is there a later paper by Oppenheimer & Snyder that more closely reflects the grwiki summary?

AFAIK the 1939 paper is the only one Oppenheimer and Snyder ever wrote in this topic. Since the date of publication was the same as the date on which World War II broke out, that's not too surprising.

The summary you linked to appears to be based on a more modern understanding of the model, which draws on the more modern understanding of black hole spacetimes in general that was developed in the 1950s and 1960s. I'm not aware of any particular paper that discusses it, but at least some textbooks, including MTW, do.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gnnmartin
Thanks to both of you. Good to know I'm not missing something later by Oppenheimer & Snyder. The summary that PAllen gives is useful: it's a pity it is so print unfriendly (61 pages).

Ah, I've discovered how to print it 4 pages per physical page. That's better.
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
24K
  • · Replies 382 ·
13
Replies
382
Views
48K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
18K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K