Answers to black hole evolution beyond the horizon?

Jan 19, 2011

One of the most important predictions of Einstein's theory of General Relativity is the existence of black holes. The dynamics of these systems are not yet fully understood, but researchers from Queen Mary, University of London have now provided a rigorous way of determining the evolutionary stage of a black hole by analysing the region outside where matter cannot escape, the event horizon.

Dr Thomas Bäckdahl and Dr Juan A. Valiente Kroon at Queen Mary's School of Mathematical Sciences have developed a method based on properties of the Kerr solution, a time-independent solution to the equations of General Relativity.

The Kerr solution is one of the few exact solutions to the equations of General Relativity, and describes a rotating, stationary (time-independent) black hole. It is also proposed that it describes the final evolutionary stage of any dynamical (time-dependent) black hole.

General Relativity provides a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time. The theory predicts the existence of as regions in which the space and time are distorted so that nothing can escape them.

Dr Valiente Kroon, an EPSRC Advanced Research Fellow, said: "By looking at the region outside the black hole we have shown how to ascertain how much a dynamical black hole differs from the Kerr solution. There are very strong indications that the end state of the evolution of a black hole is described by this solution." The findings are reported in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

The ideas developed in the article may be of relevance in developing numerical simulations of black holes, an area of research that has experienced a great development in recent years. Due to the complexity of the equations of , these simulations are the only way of systematically exploring the theory in realistic scenarios.

Explore further: Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision

More information: The paper "The 'non-Kerrness' of domains of outer communication of black holes and exteriors of stars", Thomas Bäckdahl and Juan A. Valiente Kroon will appear in Proceedings of the Royal Society A on 19 January. arxiv.org/abs/1010.2421

Related Stories

The Edge of a Black Hole

Aug 18, 2009

The existence of black holes is one of the most amazing and bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity. Despite his original misgivings about their reality, massive black hole holes are today believed ...

Can you hear black holes collide?

Jun 11, 2008

A team of gravitational-wave researchers from four universities has been selected to exhibit at the prestigious Royal Society Summer Science Exhibition.

Recommended for you

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

Sep 19, 2014

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 24

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Moebius
1 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2011
I believe this is one of our fundamental misunderstandings of physics. Gravity does not distort time. It affects the benchmarks we use to determine or measure time only. I'm not a physicist but I think we have some entrenched fallacies regarding the nature of time. That entrenchment also manifests itself by getting comments like this low marks from those who are in the trench.
fmfbrestel
5 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2011
Nice job Moebius, way to set it up so that even if someone disagrees with you they are only "proving" you right. Slightly cowardly, but at least you are upfront about it.
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2011
...I'm not a physicist...


Correct!

Let me clear things up for you. Spacetime is a coordinate system. In addition, you should know the rule of inertia - an object will always travel in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.

Now combine the implications of proofs that show "relative time" being affected by both relative motion and by gravity. This strongly suggests that gravity is not a "force" per se.

Now, look at inertia again. Objects like to travel in straight lines. Therefore, if a beam of light is deflected around a gravitational object, that means that the light is still traveling in a straight line - the coordinate system is warped!
lengould100
not rated yet Jan 19, 2011
book "Reinventing Gravity", John Moffat, physicist, U Toronto.

Opinions?
Mr_Man
not rated yet Jan 19, 2011

Correct!

Let me clear things up for you. Spacetime is a coordinate system. In addition, you should know the rule of inertia - an object will always travel in a straight line unless acted upon by a force.

...

Now, look at inertia again. Objects like to travel in straight lines. Therefore, if a beam of light is deflected around a gravitational object, that means that the light is still traveling in a straight line - the coordinate system is warped!


This makes perfect sense to me. But it also makes sense logically that you can't think of space time as having just a 3D property (X,Y & Z axis), there would have to be another dimension to allow light bent by gravity to still be considered moving along a "straight line" if space-time uses an X,Y and Z axis. This is also assuming that gravity isn't the result of a compressed area of space time, in which case you could get away with using the X,Y & Z axis to explain this.
Mr_Man
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2011

This makes perfect sense to me. But it also makes sense logically that you can't think of space time as having just a 3D property (X,Y & Z axis), there would have to be another dimension to allow light bent by gravity to still be considered moving along a "straight line" if space-time uses an X,Y and Z axis. This is also assuming that gravity isn't the result of a compressed area of space time, in which case you could get away with using the X,Y & Z axis to explain this.


Just to clarify, if we are thinking of space-time as being a coordinate system, and there is an X,Y & Z axis, then the extra dimension that I am referring to would cause the coordinate system to be a X,Y,Z & G system where the "G" dimension allows the warping of the X,Y,Z coordinates without actually compressing or expanding the "grid" where light is bent. We all know that gravity warps space-time but it seems to me that this would actually this would be considered another dimension.
axemaster
4 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2011
Fair enough... It's hard to visualize it, but yes, spacetime is indeed a 4 dimensional construct. Unfortunately, it's hard to describe without using math (which would be tedious and maybe not so enlightening here).

I guess a better way might be to invoke the equivalence principle, which states that the gravitational force is the same as the "fake" force felt in an accelerating frame of reference (like an accelerating rocket). Basically doing that gives you:

(gravitational acceleration) x (gravitational mass) = (acceleration) x (inertial mass)

In other words, if you are standing on the ground, you are actually NOT motionless - you are in fact accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2. The straight line trajectory of your body is bent inwards, so the ground must constantly bend it upwards.

It's hard to explain succinctly, I suggest you read up on it.
Mr_Man
not rated yet Jan 19, 2011
Fair enough... It's hard to visualize it, but yes, spacetime is indeed a 4 dimensional construct.


I've often thought of gravity as being the result of mass "displacing" space-time. I had a wild thought once of gravity working by matter displacing space-time so that it is compressed around the massive object. The compressed space-time is actually the gravitational field, the field is a result of a more "dense" region of space-time that gets exponentially denser as the gravity strengthens. If a particle functions as a probability wave (such as a photon or electron, and possible other particles), when it comes in contact with the compressed space-time it has a higher probability of "appearing" in the field. That probability increases exponentially the closer it gets to the source of the gravity since there is more space-time there. Objects are caught in a gravitational pull because of an average of probabilities. Its like playing slot machines a million times, you WILL lose.
OregonWind
not rated yet Jan 19, 2011
"book "Reinventing Gravity", John Moffat, physicist, U Toronto."

Nice book but keep in mind Moffat's ideas are still controversial.
Mr_Man
not rated yet Jan 19, 2011
I don't expect my idea to be "correct" by any means, but I felt it was an interesting concept.
OregonWind
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2011
Mr Man,

If you did not expect your idea to be "correct" by any means how then did you find it interesting?
ekim
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011
Hawking Radiation causes black holes to evaporate.
Any particle falling into a black hole will eventually contribute to this radiation in time.
Since black holes cause dilation of time, this conversion into radiation seems instantaneous to the particle.
An observer, positioned further away, would view this event as taking longer.
Why is an infinite singularity necessary?
Moebius
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2011
Nice job Moebius, way to set it up so that even if someone disagrees with you they are only "proving" you right.


I wasn't setting it up, I just know that people who consider themselves physicists do not like their values questioned and my opinion would get 1's from them. The book on time hasn't been written yet and its exact nature isn't known by anyone. Speculating on it is just as valid for a philosopher as it is a physicist. I happen to think that physicists haven't got it right. The fact that many of them think time travel is possible is proof. It goes back to my statement that infinity only exists in our minds. Time travel not only involves infinity, but an infinity of infinities. It is impossible for that reason alone, never mind the paradoxes. Time will tell who is right.

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011
I believe this is one of our fundamental misunderstandings of physics. Gravity does not distort time. It affects the benchmarks we use to determine or measure time only. I'm not a physicist but I think we have some entrenched fallacies regarding the nature of time. That entrenchment also manifests itself by getting comments like this low marks from those who are in the trench.
Space and time are a single entity. To distort one, distorts the other in all fundamental calculations since the introduction of relativity.
ekim
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011
I believe this is one of our fundamental misunderstandings of physics. Gravity does not distort time. It affects the benchmarks we use to determine or measure time only. I'm not a physicist but I think we have some entrenched fallacies regarding the nature of time. That entrenchment also manifests itself by getting comments like this low marks from those who are in the trench.
Space and time are a single entity. To distort one, distorts the other in all fundamental calculations since the introduction of relativity.

Quantum physics seems to allow "spooky actions" seemingly violating the rules of space. Could this also be applied to the time dimension? Experiments involving "weak quantum measurements" seem to imply that time might not be a linear as it seems.
Time will tell.
LarsKristensen
not rated yet Jan 20, 2011
A relative time is not actual physical time, since elementary particles can not exist in a relative time, only in an actual physical time.

Relative time is therefore only a time resulting in an observation image and do not affect the observed and the actual physical time the observed find themselves in.
71STARS
1 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
I can only question. If Black Holes are the hypothetical objects re Einstein's theory which predicts "collapsed stars" (which is natural for the end of the life of a star) (Russian scientists in the 30s called it a Frozen Star), then how can this dead/dying star maintain, and even increase its "gravitational pull" (they warp space) on anything? Dead/dying means energy loss. Where in this collapsed star is a whirlwind of energy coming from? The star is dead.

Dead stars will abound in the Universe. But a dead star in the middle of the Milky Way or any galaxy should mean a mass of dead matter, shrinking to eventual nothingness. Nature lets nothing go to waste. Where is the energy in a dead star? What is giving it energy? Will all stars become a vortex and gain energy, with no light showing, but yet feeding on anything that comes in sight because it now has an enormous gravitational pull? What part of dead is not dead?
eachus
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
Look at Sirius. Sirius A is a bright main sequence star about 2.1 times the mass of the Sun. Sirius B started life as a main sequence star with about 5 times the mass of the sun. It became a red giant, and then a white dwarf, with mass about that of the sun, and size about equal to Earth.

When Sirius A becomes a red giant some of its mass will be drawn off by Sirius B. Given what we know the longer it takes Sirius A to become a red supergiant the more of its mass will be devoured by Sirius B. (Of course, some of that mass came from Sirius B to begin with.)

Worst case, Sirius B will become massive enough to become a Ia supernova. But don't worry about that, if it happens the sun will be a lot further away.

All that is interesting, but on the subject of distorted space time, Sirius B swims in it. With a large enough telescope you can see the distortion caused by Sirius B. Or you can just look at the spectral lines from Sirius B, they are red-shifted.
Walter_Mrak
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
Einstein was an obsessive compulsive personality whose mind turned on very specific issues, very deeply, for a greatly extended period of time. There is no cause to pay extra respect to Einstein or Hawking or anyone else for that matter. Everyone makes mistakes, just as each of them have made. The most compelling truths and conversely, immature misappreciations of fact, can turn out to be valid depending upon many things. An infintessimally small "singularity" became and is now, an ever expanding universe. An "atom" is indivisible. Blah, Blah Blah. We can only strive for equations to make use of knowledge and in that knowledge take solace, but " will/can " never really understand or make sense of that knowledge completely. OOPS… Maybe we could if we were obsessive compulsive, focussed, and chose to devote enough time?!
Walter_Mrak
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
Einstein was an obsessive compulsive personality whose mind turned on very specific issues, very deeply, for a greatly extended period of time. There is no cause to pay extra respect to Einstein or Hawking or anyone else for that matter. Everyone makes mistakes, just as each of them have made.

The most compelling truths and conversely, immature misappreciations of fact, can turn out to be valid depending upon many things. An infintessimally small "singularity" became and is now, an ever expanding universe. An "atom" is indivisible. Blah, Blah Blah. We can only strive for equations to make use of knowledge and in that knowledge take solace, but " will/can " never really understand or make sense of that knowledge completely. OOPS… Maybe we could if we were obsessive compulsive, focussed, and chose to devote enough time?!
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
Einstein was an obsessive compulsive personality whose mind turned on very specific issues, very deeply, for a greatly extended period of time. There is no cause to pay extra respect to Einstein or Hawking or anyone else for that matter.
_You_ don't see any cause - I do.
An infintessimally small "singularity"
as opposed to a big singularity?
became and is now, an ever expanding universe.
A model you confuse with reality.
An "atom" is indivisible. Blah, Blah Blah.
It was a revolutionary philosophical _concept_ to explain the world on the level of knowledge 2500 years ago.
We can only strive for equations to make use of knowledge and in that knowledge take solace, but " will/can " never really understand or make sense of that knowledge completely.
So what? Making sense is an individual joy not granted to everyone.
Maybe we could if we were obsessive compulsive, focussed, and chose to devote enough time?!
At least, then we could avoid double posts.
Bob_Kob
not rated yet Jan 24, 2011
At least, then we could avoid double posts.


Straw man.
Walter_Mrak
1 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
Cute.
hush1
not rated yet Jan 28, 2011
@71STAR
...What part of dead is not dead?


The 'frozen' part! :)

I like to imagine myself convincing you, after you have successfully thawed me out after a deep freeze, that I am still the same old me.

Everyone will notice I have sidestepped the 'physical' here at hand, and have taken refuge in the consciousness.

A subliminal cope out to express my desire to see the physical and consciousness as one.