Volume of a black hole using the Schwarzschild metric

Click For Summary
Calculating the volume of a black hole using the Schwarzschild metric presents challenges due to the nature of the coordinates involved. The integral derived for volume diverges at the upper bound, and the coordinates within the black hole (specifically, ##r < r_s##) do not represent spatial dimensions, complicating the definition of volume. Instead, the Schwarzschild metric indicates that inside the black hole, the concept of volume becomes non-meaningful, as the timelike coordinate ##t## behaves differently than in Euclidean space. The discussion emphasizes that traditional geometric intuition does not apply in general relativity, and any attempt to define volume must consider the unique properties of spacetime in this context. Ultimately, the exercise of calculating volume may serve to illustrate the complexities of black hole physics rather than yield a straightforward answer.
  • #31
happyparticle said:
I think this is what I'm looking for

No you're not. And again: from wich textbook did you get this exercise? Autors name, and the name of the book please.
 
  • Like
Likes martinbn and PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
weirdoguy said:
No you're not. And again: from wich textbook did you get this exercise? Autors name, and the name of the book please.
I didn't get this exercise from a textbook. This exercise is one of multiple exercises I found to get used with the Scharwarzshield metric. I tought this problem would be a good practice. However, it is possible that I just don't understand the question.

It is possible that the density of the black hole is $$\rho = \frac{3}{32 \pi} \frac{c^6}{G^3 M^2}$$ as explained [link to vixra removed], meaning that the volume is "simply" $$V = \frac{4 \pi}{3 r_s^3}$$. Which makes sense in my opinion. ##r_s## is the radius of Scharwarzshield, which is the radius at the horizon of the black hole. Hence, $$V = \frac{4 \pi}{3 r_s^3}$$ would be the volume of the black hole. However, I'm not sure how to get this expression from the Scharwarzshield metric.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Sad
Likes PeroK and weirdoguy
  • #33
happyparticle said:
This exercise is one of multiple exercises I found to get used with the Scharwarzshield metric. I tought this problem would be a good practice.
But where precisely was it "found"? Or did you invent the exercise yourself?
 
  • #34
happyparticle said:
I didn't get this exercise from a textbook. This exercise is one of multiple exercises I found to get used with the Scharwarzshield metric. I tought this problem would be a good practice. However, it is possible that I just don't understand the question.

It is possible that the density of the black hole is $$\rho = \frac{3}{32 \pi} \frac{c^6}{G^3 M^2}$$ as explained [vixra link], meaning that the volume is "simply" $$V = \frac{4 \pi}{3 r_s^3}$$. Which makes sense in my opinion. ##r_s## is the radius of Scharwarzshield, which is the radius at the horizon of the black hole. Hence, $$V = \frac{4 \pi}{3 r_s^3}$$ would be the volume of the black hole. However, I'm not sure how to get this expression from the Scharwarzshield metric.
ViXra is a well-known crackpot site. You should not trust material posted there. Correspondingly, what you just said is nonsense.

A black hole has no density per se. The Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution to the EFEs. There is no stress-energy anywhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
happyparticle said:
as explained here,
It would have saved a lot of time if you had given this reference at the start of the thread--as you're supposed to do anyway for a homework thread.

As @Orodruin has said, your reference is nonsense. A black hole does not have a well-defined volume. Depending on how you pick a spacelike hypersurface in the hole's interior, you can get pretty much any finite answer you like, or an infinite answer, when integrating over the surface. But none of those answers have any physical meaning that's anything like the "volume" of an ordinary object. In short, the question is not well-defined.

Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K