Why does a star's gravitational force increase when it becomes a black hole?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jasc15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black holes Holes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why a star's gravitational force appears to increase when it collapses into a black hole. Participants explore concepts related to gravitational force, density, and the implications of general relativity versus Newtonian gravity, as well as the behavior of objects in proximity to black holes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why the gravitational force seems to increase when a star collapses into a black hole, noting that gravitational force is proportional to mass, not density.
  • Others argue that the perception of increased gravitational force is due to the ability to approach the center of the collapsed star more closely, which alters the gravitational field experienced.
  • A participant emphasizes that if a star could collapse without catastrophic effects, the orbits of its planets would remain unchanged, suggesting that gravitational force does not increase in a way that affects distant objects.
  • Another participant raises the point that black holes do not "start swallowing everything around them," and that objects must be very close to experience significant gravitational effects.
  • Some participants discuss gravitational radiation and its role in energy loss for objects near black holes, which could lead to spiraling into the black hole under certain conditions.
  • One participant provides a Newtonian perspective, explaining how compressing an object increases surface gravity, while acknowledging that relativity would provide a more accurate description.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the gravitational force increases upon the formation of a black hole. While some assert that it does not, others explore the implications of gravitational effects in proximity to black holes, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of gravitational force and the distinction between Newtonian and relativistic perspectives. The discussion also highlights the complexity of gravitational interactions near black holes, which may not be fully captured by simplified models.

jasc15
Messages
162
Reaction score
5
when a star collapses and becomes a black hole, why does its gravitational force become so much greater? since gravitational force is proportional to mass, not density, why would the black holes suddenly become so much more powerful than the star they once were??
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
This is only the case if you consider Newtonian Gravitation. If you view gravity as in general relativity - as the curvature of space time it become more apparent why a black hole occurs.

~H
 
Speaking roughly, the gravitational force does not increase at a fixed distance away. The difference is that you can get much closer to the center once the star has collapsed (Note that burrowing through an intact star wouldn't be the same. The gravitational field would reach its maximum at the surface.).
 
but why does its gravitational force increase? (i.e., why does its distortion of space-time increase?) unless space-time curvature is not a function of mass/energy alone.
 
As the previous responders noted, the gravitational force does not increase. If a star could non-catastrophically collapse into a black hole, its planets would remain in orbit just as if nothing had happened. While what you said about gravitational force being dependent upon mass rather than density is true, the shape of the field is density reliant. Remember that the force is a function of the distance between the centres of the involved masses, not the surfaces, and follows the inverse square law. Stingray's explanation of being able to get much closer to the centre of a black hole than a full star is the correct one.
 
Last edited:
thanks. i hate to keep pestering about this, but if the gravitational attraction does not increase, then why do black holes start swallowing everything around them. if the planets of the star weren't close enough to get sucked in when it was a star, then they would be outside the event horizon and not get sucked in when it becomes a black hole, unless of course they are involved in the catastrophic collapse.
 
It's quite possible that there are black holes out there with planets around them. They wouldn't be habitable, of course. Even if they had been to start with, the red giant phase or nova explosion would have altered the neighbourhood significantly. I don't know of a gentle way for a star to collapse to BH stature.
If you're thinking of the pictures often shown of a BH in a binary system devouring its companion, I suspect that it's because the companion's expansion due to normal stellar evolution moved its surface closer to the BH. That's about as far as I can go. Someone with more knowledge of the field will have to take over.
 
Black holes don't "start swallowing everything around them."

As a partial caveat, objects that happen to get very close (much much closer than they ever could when the star was intact) will start to emit gravitational radiation. This carries away energy, which could allow the object to spiral into the hole. But this is a very extreme scenario. If a star could "quietly" collapse into a black hole, the orbits of its planets wouldn't be affected at all.
 
Stingray said:
Black holes don't "start swallowing everything around them."

As a partial caveat, objects that happen to get very close (much much closer than they ever could when the star was intact) will start to emit gravitational radiation. This carries away energy, which could allow the object to spiral into the hole. But this is a very extreme scenario. If a star could "quietly" collapse into a black hole, the orbits of its planets wouldn't be affected at all.

What's gravitational radiation?
 
  • #10
Basically it's space rippling. When you drop a stone into a pond, ripples spread out from the point where the stone hits the water. When something moves through space it does a similar thing, it sends out a wave through space. For most things the ripples are extremely weak. I think I read somewhere that the Earth gives off about 1000W of gravitational radiation. When an entire star collapses into a black hole (or even more powerful, two black holes collide) much more gravitational radiation is given off. Someone in another thread said that if two black holes the mass of the Sun (each) merged 0.59 solar masses of energy would be given off. That's many many times more powerful than a supernova, but all through gravity waves. The forces that would produce would shred any nearby planets to pieces (if you're seen 'Star Trek - Generations' it'd be akin the when the planet gets destoyed at the end, you'd just never see the wave of energy coming!).
jasc15 said:
when a star collapses and becomes a black hole, why does its gravitational force become so much greater?
The gravitational acceleration on the surface of an object is [tex]g = \frac{GM}{R}[/tex]. If you keep M constant (and G is constant anyway) but compress the object to make R smaller, say compressing a star into a black hole, then the gravity field on the surface increases enormously. For instance, g = 9.81 on Earth's surface, and R = 6,400,000 metres. If you compress the Earth into the size of a match box, it'd be a black hole. Then R = 0.05m. That's about a value of R 100,000,000 times smaller, so the surface gravity on the 'surface' would have got 100,000,000 times stronger all because you made the object more compact.

That's just using Newtonian gravity. Relativity would be required to do it properly, but you get the general idea.
 
  • #11
Rameusb5 said:
What's gravitational radiation?

It is analogous to the creation of electromagnetic radiation (light) when an electric charge is accelerated.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
10K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K