Supermassive black hole, surface gravity and tidal forces

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter haushofer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

A light black hole exhibits stronger surface gravity and tidal forces just outside its event horizon compared to a supermassive black hole. However, the required thrust for an observer to remain stationary just outside the horizon of a supermassive black hole is significantly greater than for a light black hole. The concept of "surface gravity" is misleading, as it refers to a redshifted proper acceleration measured by an observer at infinity, rather than a local acceleration. This discussion highlights the complexities of gravitational effects near black holes, particularly the differences in measurements and interpretations of surface gravity.

PREREQUISITES
  • General Relativity (GR) fundamentals
  • Understanding of black hole metrics
  • Familiarity with Newtonian gravity concepts
  • Knowledge of Christoffel symbols and curvature tensors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Schwarzschild metric and its implications for black hole physics
  • Explore the concept of tidal forces in general relativity
  • Investigate the relationship between surface gravity and black hole thermodynamics
  • Learn about the mathematical treatment of black hole horizons in advanced GR texts
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and students of general relativity seeking to deepen their understanding of black hole dynamics and gravitational effects near event horizons.

  • #61
PAllen said:
They are geodesics.
When I do the computation in Painleve coordinates, I don't get that result.

A purely radial curve in Painleve coordinates with unit tangent has tangent vector ##U = \partial_r## (since ##g_{rr} = 1##), i.e., its components are ##(0, 1, 0, 0)##. The path curvature of this curve is:

$$
a = \sqrt{g_{ab} a^a a^b}
$$

where ##a^a = U^b \nabla_b U^a## is the path curvature 4-vector. It turns out to have two nonzero components, which, taking into account that all partial derivatives of ##U## are zero and using the above components of ##U##, are:

$$
a^t = \Gamma^t_{rr} = \frac{M}{r^2} \sqrt{\frac{r}{2M}}
$$

$$
a^r = \Gamma^r_{rr} = - \frac{M}{r^2}
$$

Plugging in these and the relevant metric coefficients into the formula above, I get

$$
a = \sqrt{\frac{M}{2r^3}}
$$

which is nonzero.

PAllen said:
This is most easily seen by looking at the variation in Lemaitre coordinates
I'll take a look at this when I get a chance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
PeterDonis said:
PAllen said:
This is most easily seen by looking at the variation in Lemaitre coordinates

I'll take a look at this when I get a chance.
I took another look. I mis-handled the time dependence of the Lemaitre metric. Done right, the variation says the constant raindrop time lines are not geodesics of the spacetime - they are, indeed, only geodesics of the time slice.

It is still true that can get a wide range of values from just above zero (by using geodesics that asymptotically approach a forward going radial inward light path) to measuring back to horizon start by choice of geodesic that intersects horizon. Presumably, one of these would produce r-R, but it would not likely have any other distinguishing property.
 
  • #63
PAllen said:
they are, indeed, only geodesics of the time slice.
Ok, good, thanks for checking again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K