Skip to main content
Physics

Return to Question

added 269 characters in body; edited tags
Source Link
Qmechanic ♦
Qmechanic ♦
  • 212.7k
  • 48
  • 589
  • 2.3k

I know that the Israel theorem accounts for only non-rotating, non-electrically charged black holes, but as I understand the theorem was then generalized for rotating and charged black holes. And, as I understand the no-hair theorem would basically implies that every static black hole solution to Einstein Equations cam be completely caracterized by the mass, charge and the absolute value of its intrinsic angular momentum. But the no-hair theorem is usually called a conjecture, so what assumptions are necessary in the generalized Israel theorems that must be overcome so that they can become the full no-hair theorem? (Spherical symmetry? Perturbed spherical symmetry? full analiticityanalyticity of the space time?)

References: The original theorem is in https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.164.1776 but it is only valid for non-rotating, non-electrically charged black holes, the generalization is in https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4470/15/10/021

I know that the Israel theorem accounts for only non-rotating, non-electrically charged black holes, but as I understand the theorem was then generalized for rotating and charged black holes. And, as I understand the no-hair theorem would basically implies that every static black hole solution to Einstein Equations cam be completely caracterized by the mass, charge and the absolute value of its intrinsic angular momentum. But the no-hair theorem is usually called a conjecture, so what assumptions are necessary in the generalized Israel theorems that must be overcome so that they can become the full no-hair theorem? (Spherical symmetry? Perturbed spherical symmetry? full analiticity of the space time?)

I know that the Israel theorem accounts for only non-rotating, non-electrically charged black holes, but as I understand the theorem was then generalized for rotating and charged black holes. And, as I understand the no-hair theorem would basically implies that every static black hole solution to Einstein Equations cam be completely caracterized by the mass, charge and the absolute value of its intrinsic angular momentum. But the no-hair theorem is usually called a conjecture, so what assumptions are necessary in the generalized Israel theorems that must be overcome so that they can become the full no-hair theorem? (Spherical symmetry? Perturbed spherical symmetry? full analyticity of the space time?)

References: The original theorem is in https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.164.1776 but it is only valid for non-rotating, non-electrically charged black holes, the generalization is in https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0305-4470/15/10/021

added 49 characters in body
Source Link
Qmechanic ♦
Qmechanic ♦
  • 212.7k
  • 48
  • 589
  • 2.3k

I know that the Israel theorem accounts for only non-rotating, non-electrically charged black holes, but as I understand the theorem was then generalized for rotating and charged black holes. And, as I understand the no-hair theoremno-hair theorem would basically implies that every static black hole solution to Einstein Equations cam be completely caracterized by the mass, charge and the absolute value of its intrinsic angular momentum. But the no-hair theorem is usually called a conjecture, so what assumptions are necessary in the generalized Israel theorems that must be overcome so that they can become the full no-hair theorem? (Spherical symmetry? Perturbed spherical symmetry? full analiticity of the space time?)

I know that the Israel theorem accounts for only non-rotating, non-electrically charged black holes, but as I understand the theorem was then generalized for rotating and charged black holes. And, as I understand the no-hair theorem would basically implies that every static black hole solution to Einstein Equations cam be completely caracterized by the mass, charge and the absolute value of its intrinsic angular momentum. But the no-hair theorem is usually called a conjecture, so what assumptions are necessary in the generalized Israel theorems that must be overcome so that they can become the full no-hair theorem? (Spherical symmetry? Perturbed spherical symmetry? full analiticity of the space time?)

I know that the Israel theorem accounts for only non-rotating, non-electrically charged black holes, but as I understand the theorem was then generalized for rotating and charged black holes. And, as I understand the no-hair theorem would basically implies that every static black hole solution to Einstein Equations cam be completely caracterized by the mass, charge and the absolute value of its intrinsic angular momentum. But the no-hair theorem is usually called a conjecture, so what assumptions are necessary in the generalized Israel theorems that must be overcome so that they can become the full no-hair theorem? (Spherical symmetry? Perturbed spherical symmetry? full analiticity of the space time?)

Source Link
Felipe Dilho
Felipe Dilho
  • 296
  • 1
  • 10

What is the qualitative difference between the (generalized) Israel theorem and the no-hair theorem?

I know that the Israel theorem accounts for only non-rotating, non-electrically charged black holes, but as I understand the theorem was then generalized for rotating and charged black holes. And, as I understand the no-hair theorem would basically implies that every static black hole solution to Einstein Equations cam be completely caracterized by the mass, charge and the absolute value of its intrinsic angular momentum. But the no-hair theorem is usually called a conjecture, so what assumptions are necessary in the generalized Israel theorems that must be overcome so that they can become the full no-hair theorem? (Spherical symmetry? Perturbed spherical symmetry? full analiticity of the space time?)