Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The Schwarzschild radius from general relativity is given to be $r = \frac{2GM}{c^2}$.

One can obtain the same answer using classical calculations. That is, the escape velocity of a particle is given by $v = \sqrt\frac{2GM}{r}$, which can be arranged to give $r = \frac{2GM}{v^2}$, which can be interpreted as the maximum radius for which a particle travelling at velocity $v$ cannot escape. By treating light as simply a particle travelling at velocity $c$ and substituting in the above equation, one arrives at the Schwarzschild radius.

Is it just a coincidence that the classical approach gives the same result as the general relativity result, or is there some merit to the classical approach?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

It's just a coincidence that the factor of 2 comes out right, as the kinetic energy of the photon doesn't have a denominator. If you use isotropic coordinates, the "radius" of the black hole becomes M/2 instead of 2M (in natural units), where the "radius" in isotropic coordinates is the value of $\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$ on the horizon. The coincidence is dependent on Schwarzschild coordinates, and has no deeper significance.

But the dependence on GM and r is demanded by dimensional analysis, and is not coincidental.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.