B Understanding Black Hole Equations Conceptually

Ryan Jackson
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I get how to derive black hole equations mathematically. But conceptually, how does it make sense that the radius of a black hole is 2MG/c^2, for example?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A conceptual, albeit incomplete way to understand why the radius of a black hole can be considered as what you stated is by considering that if nothing can escape a black hole (not really!), then the escape velocity of any particle from a black hole must be the speed of light which is the limiting speed. With this in mind the calculation is not very difficult to derive and can be done using familiar concepts in Newtonian mechanics.
 
Ryan Jackson said:
I get how to derive black hole equations mathematically.

Do you? The actual field equations are incredibly difficult to solve even for the simplest examples. Just look at this derivation of the Schwarzschild solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deriving_the_Schwarzschild_solution

Ryan Jackson said:
But conceptually, how does it make sense that the radius of a black hole is 2MG/c^2, for example?

As far as I understand, Schwarzschild found a solution to Einstein's field equations that gave the gravitational field surrounding a non-rotating, spherically symmetric body. One of the terms of this solution has the form ##\frac{1}{2m-r}## where ##m=\frac{GM}{c^2}## and ##r## is the distance from the center of the body.
The Schwarzschild radius is the value for ##r## such that this term becomes singular (undefined). This occurs when ##r=\frac{2GM}{c^2}## and the terms on the bottom of the fraction subtract to zero.

That's about the best I can do to explain why the Schwarzschild radius is what it is.
 
Ryan Jackson said:
I get how to derive black hole equations mathematically. But conceptually, how does it make sense that the radius of a black hole is 2MG/c^2, for example?

The derivation of any equation is the way you make sense of that equation. In other words, if you claim you understand the derivation that implies you understand the result. If you don't understand the result it's not possible to have understood the derivation because the result is part of the derivation!
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
Ryan Jackson said:
I get how to derive black hole equations mathematically. But conceptually, how does it make sense that the radius of a black hole is 2MG/c^2, for example?

R=2GM/c^2 makes perfect conceptual sense. For instance, if you work out the units GM/c^2 has the proper units to be a length. (Type G*kg/c^2= into Google, for instance, which brings up Google Calculator and computes the units for you). I suppose you're saying you don't understand the equation - fair enough, but your question isn't specific enough for me to figure out what you don't understand, what your concerns are, or even what your background is, so I don't see how I can give a more helpful answer.

Interpreting R as a "radius" isn't quite right though, unfortunately. 2*pi*R can be interpreted as a circumference, though.
 
  • Like
Likes PeterDonis
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
592
Replies
40
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
57
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
999
Back
Top