Timeline for What is the difference between a black hole and a point particle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2011 at 9:07 | vote | accept | Rajesh D | ||
| Jul 20, 2011 at 1:19 | comment | added | user4552 | @Zassounotsukushi, you've phrased this in terms of QM, but the answer is really classical. Say we have a thoroughly classical object like a rock. In its own rest frame, it has some mass-energy density. Transform into another frame, and its mass-energy goes up by a factor of gamma, while its volume goes down by gamma, increasing its density of mass-energy by gamma^2. But this doesn't make it a black hole. The definition of a black hole can be stated in language that is independent of the frame of reference, so an object that isn't a b.h. in one frame can't be a b.h. in another. | |
| Jul 19, 2011 at 16:33 | comment | added | Alan Rominger | I am tempted to infer from your answer that with sufficient energy the wave function for a particle could become compact enough to become a black hole. I imagine this is wrong, but I would like a sense of why. | |
| Jul 18, 2011 at 18:19 | history | edited | BebopButUnsteady | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2011 at 17:24 | history | answered | BebopButUnsteady | CC BY-SA 3.0 |