SR forbides BHs and GR demands them

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnny R
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gr Sr
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies that Special Relativity (SR) forbids the existence of Black Holes (BHs) due to its foundational principles, while General Relativity (GR) demands their existence. The poster, referred to as P, suggests that a Lorentzian spacetime conformal to Minkowski spacetime does not permit event horizons. It is emphasized that SR does not address gravitation, which is the primary focus of GR, and that understanding these concepts requires a solid background in physics and mathematics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity (SR) principles
  • Familiarity with General Relativity (GR) and Einstein's field equations
  • Knowledge of Lorentzian manifolds and their geometric properties
  • Basic grasp of kinematics and spacetime concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Einstein's field equations in General Relativity
  • Explore the concept of event horizons in the context of Black Holes
  • Learn about the differences between Special Relativity and General Relativity
  • Investigate the geometry of Lorentzian manifolds and their applications in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, researchers in theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the fundamental principles of relativity and gravitation.

Johnny R
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I read a statement on another message board the SR forbides BHs and GR demands them.

Does SR forbide Black Holes, if so, why?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Beware of boards!

Hi, Johnny R,

Johnny R said:
I read a statement on another message board the SR forbides BHs and GR demands them.

Does SR forbide Black Holes, if so, why?

Did you ask for clarification from the poster, call him P, in this "other board"?

The first guess which occurred to me was that P meant that a Lorentzian spacetime conformal to Minkowski spacetime won't admit event horizons. That probably won't make sense :rolleyes: but never mind, because I think the more important point is this:

P's remark should be tempered by observing that gravitation is not treated by str, which arises as the relativistic theory of kinematics, i.e. relations between time and distance measurements for observers in different states of motion ("kineo" is a Greek root suggesting "motion"). Early attempts to model the gravitational interaction using various types of force law or classical relativistic fields in Minkowski spacetime failed; this was part of the motivation for Einstein's exploration down the path which eventually led to gtr. It's also important to be aware that str is the foundation for gtr in a precise sense: gtr models spacetime as a Lorentzian manifold, subject to conditions encapsulated in the Einstein field equation (EFE), and the tangent spaces of a Lorentzian manifold have the same geometry/trigonometry used in str, which basically means that kinematics is infinitesimally equivalent in gtr and str, and also that Minkowksi spacetime can be viewed as just a particular vacuum solution of the EFE. Unfortunately, it takes a fair amount of background in physics/math to understand what I just said!

If you're worried that you might be obtaining contradictory information in different "boards" or from different posters in said "boards", you might see my remarks near the top of http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/HTML/more.html
See also the cautionary remarks by myself, Moonbear, ZapperZ, and some others in the PF thread at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=168397&highlight=Google+Wikipedia?
The discussion there focuses on Wikipedia, but all of these posters seem to agree that the local public library is still your best bet for obtaining reliable information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
6K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K