- #36
Dale
Mentor
- 35,443
- 13,725
Also, “evenly distributed” is inherently frame variant for dynamic scenarios
Dale said:“evenly distributed” is inherently frame variant for dynamic scenarios
PeterDonis said:The best way to view it is to consider the "mass" of the hole as a global property of the spacetime geometry, not something that is localized to any particular region. So of your choices, (e) is probably the best.
sweet springs said:I would like this view be in accordance with the view of observers who are far away from BH so whose space time is almost Minkowsy, that rest energy or mass of BH is localized at BH or at the region nearby BH at least.
No, certainly not plausible, but not that far fetched either. Incidentally the wiki article give a lot of referenced of scale. It even bother to compute the Schwarzschild radius for the "observable universe" that is (probably not coincidentally) 13.7 Billion ...quite like the age of the universe (at light speed without inflation).PeterDonis said:There is no plausible scenario where galaxies just happen to "superpose" so that a superdupermassive black hole gets created "in an instant" as they all reach just the right positions.
Got it.PeterDonis said:It's not a matter of scale, it's a matter of spacetime geometry. The concept of "Schwarzschild radius" only applies to the spacetime geometry of an isolated object or system of objects surrounded by vacuum. It does not apply to the universe as a whole since the universe as a whole is not an isolated system surrounded by vacuum.
The radius of the observable universe is 46billion (if I remember correctly).Boing3000 said:It even bother to compute the Schwarzschild radius for the "observable universe" that is (probably not coincidentally) 13.7 Billion ...quite like the age of the universe (at light speed without inflation).
I find the connection with 13.7 quite bizarre. I don't believe in coincidence. I don't even think black-matter has been factored in.martinbn said:The radius of the observable universe is 46billion (if I remember correctly).
Boing3000 said:certainly not plausible, but not that far fetched either
Boing3000 said:some rough computation got me that you'll only need +- 500 identical Milky-way on top of each other, so they "became" a Black Hole (given that there is enough empty space around).
Boing3000 said:now I am wondering if you could "unwind" a BH but changing the curvature outside of it
Boing3000 said:It even bother to compute the Schwarzschild radius for the "observable universe"
not that far fetched. And I am carefull, minds you.PeterDonis said:And you think this is not "far fetched"?
No I didn't, the very reason is that it is *I* that put them in the scenario.PeterDonis said:Apart from anything else, you are failing to take into account that 500 Milky Ways,
That's, of course, irrelevant. Nobody, especially me, said that it is was likely of even plausible, nor that the dynamic would be "simple"PeterDonis said:each composed of a few hundred billion stars, plus clouds of gas and dust, would have a very complicated dynamics.
It is, but not that far fetched. The universe is a big place Peter, we happens to live in a Galaxy that is on a collision course with another. 500 is just 2 order of magnitude away from 2. Beside there are denser clusters than ours. And some cluster (500 ?) are bound enough by gravity so that they should survive the tearing appart from expansion.PeterDonis said:The idea that they could somehow just end up "all on top of each other" in an instant and form a black hole at that instant is indeed far-fetched.
OK, let me explain (beware, that scenario is really far fetched).PeterDonis said:I have no idea what you mean by this.
Boing3000 said:not that far fetched
Boing3000 said:What does GR predicts for what would happens inside that volume of space
Boing3000 said:Does that added curvature outside the hole, change the radius of the horizon ?
Fair enough. I could add that all galaxies are parallel, that half the galaxies are rotating one way, and they come equally from all direction. The goeal is to have an average momentum(and angular momentum) of 0.PeterDonis said:You haven't specified the scenario precisely enough to tell. You say the dynamics are irrelevant, but unless you know the dynamics you don't know what GR predicts.There is certainly no idealized, highly symmetric model like Schwarzschild spacetime that will let you extract qualitative answers for this case without having to do detailed computations of the dynamics.
Indeed, and I have another scenario in mind. Maybe I'll start another thread with it.PeterDonis said:I was only saying that you can't just compute the "density" (using the physically meaningless formula described in the OP of this thread) and expect that to give you a simple rule for exactly when the black hole forms. It doesn't work that way; the dynamics is complicated, whether you want to think about them or not, and that means the criteria for when a black hole is formed are also complicated.
Well, I cannot be more precise. I give some diameter of choices (not too far fetched), I don't see what I can add to that (maybe the Earth BH is non-rotating and uncharged)PeterDonis said:You haven't specified the scenario precisely enough to tell (because it's possible that the sphere could be close enough to the hole that it would be forced to fall in, increasing the hole's mass).
But the if is known to be false. I though that Newton shell theorem would not apply anyway (due to strong enough curvature).PeterDonis said:But here is a general statement that might help: if you have a static (meaning it won't collapse), spherically symmetric shell of matter with vacuum inside, the shell has no effect on spacetime curvature in the region inside. That means that whatever is inside is the sole determinant of the curvature inside.
Boing3000 said:the if is known to be false.
Boing3000 said:I though that Newton shell theorem would not apply anyway
Boing3000 said:a local measuring device on the interior of the sphere would notice a change in the horizon local radius,
Boing3000 said:do you have any opinion on the coincidence between the "physically meaningless formula" that nonetheless happens to give 13.7 Bly radius for a pseudo BH with the mass of the observable universe ?
As already pointed out it is meaningless, but what exactly is the coincidence? The radius of the observable universe is a lot more than 13.7bly.Boing3000 said:Also, do you have any opinion on the coincidence between the "physically meaningless formula" that nonetheless happens to give 13.7 Bly radius for a pseudo BH with the mass of the observable universe ?
Ho, I thought you were jesting there. OK, you've made up quite a new definition of vacuum (we both know its not, there is at least a singularity, and there is mass anyway). You got me there.PeterDonis said:(Remember that a black hole is vacuum.)
Then I'll start the new thread, a new scenario is comingYou are wrong. The shell theorem, as I stated it, holds in GR.
Not as such, but we surely can measure the change of the horizon by shooting a laser and seeing if it hit a detector somewhere or elsewhere (or no more).There is no such thing as "horizon local radius". The radius of the horizon is a global, not a local, property. There is no way to locally measure where the horizon is or what its radius (more precisely, its area) is.
PeterDonis said:I already gave my opinion: it's meaningless.
OK fine. That's bizarre. We just can compute that all the particle of the universe seems to be at the center of a singularity 13.7 by old. And that's actually confirmed somehow by observation.martinbn said:As allready pointed out it is meaningless, but what exactly is the coincidence? The radius of the observable universe is a lot more than 13.7bly.
Boing3000 said:OK, you've made up quite a new definition of vacuum (we both now its not, there is at least a singularity, and there is mass anyway)
Boing3000 said:we surely can measure the change of the horizon by shooting a laser and seeing if it hit a detector somewhere or elsewhere
Boing3000 said:We just can compute that all the particle of the universe seems to be at the center of a singularity 13.7 by old.
Boing3000 said:I think I heard once Susskind say something like that (kind of: that's like if we are inside a BH)
OK. The question become, does this global measurement will detect a change inside that shell ? The answer seems to be no.PeterDonis said:This is not a local measurement. It's a global one.
I didn't miss that point because your explanations are perfectly clear.PeterDonis said:You're missing the point. The spacetime geometry of the universe as a whole is not the Schwarzschild geometry. It's not even close to that geometry.
More like having a formula to compute the surface of the oceans, and obtaining, by coincidence, the age of the ocean. My only point is that is is bizarre.PeterDonis said:It's like saying the point on Earth where the prime meridian meets the equator is "somehow the same" as the origin of a Euclidean plane, because they both happen to have coordinates ##(0, 0)##.
In geometric units, the Schwarzschild radius is 2M. Taking your word for the fact that this is the same as the age of the universe, T, you are saying 2M=T. Either this is just a coincidence (we just happen to be around at the time when T=2M, which happens at some point for a very large range of possible relationships between M and T), or this holds for all times (i.e., the mass of the observable universe is directly proportional to its age). I'm not sure, but I do not believe the latter is correct.Boing3000 said:Actually it is more like having a formula to compute the surface of the oceans in some metric, and obtaining the volume of the ocean in another one.
I may very well have made a mistake I used this formula ##r_s= \frac{2GM}{c^2}##. That gave me this code that you could check in your browser javascript console (F12)Ibix said:In geometric units, the Schwarzschild radius is 2M. Taking your word for the fact that this is the same as the age of the universe, T, you are saying 2M=T.
(function(c,G,yearS,solarMass){ console.log("Mass:"+(((Math.pow(c,2) * ((13.7e+9)*yearS*c)) / (2*G))/1/*solarMass*/).toExponential()+"kg");})(299792458, 6.674e-11, 365 * 24 * 60 * 60, 1.98847e+30)
I don't either, that's why I am surprised.Ibix said:Either this is just a coincidence (we just happen to be around at the time when T=2M, which happens at some point for a very large range of possible relationships between M and T), or this holds for all times (i.e., the mass of the observable universe is directly proportional to its age). I'm not sure, but I do not believe the latter is correct.
Boing3000 said:does this global measurement will detect a change inside that shell ?