2
$\begingroup$

I have been interested in black holes for some time, and am still trying to wrap my head around some of their more obscure properties.

Now I know that the Schwarzschild radius is $r= \frac{2GM}{c^2}$, and my knowledge of orbital mechanics tells me that the orbital velocity at the Schwarzschild radius is $v= \sqrt\frac{GM}{r} = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}c$ .

This would also suggest that the time dilation and compression of space at the Schwarzschild radius is $\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}$ compared to flat spacetime, using $t'=t(\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$

This compression of space would then suggest that the surface area at the Schwarzschild radius is actually $A_s=2\pi r^2$, or half of the surface of a sphere for the same radius without a singularity in the centre.

Playing with this idea of compression of space, I wanted to know if there is a way to work out the "surface area" of spacetime at a given distance from the singularity. The best I could come up with was $A_s=(4-\frac{2r_s^2}{r^2})\pi r^2$ .

What I found interesting about this is it made 2 "predictions":

At the radius $\frac{r_s}{\sqrt2}$, the surface area is 0.

As you approach the singularity, it predicts a negative surface area, which approaches the inverse of the Schwarzchild surface area as the radius tends towards 0.

Am I just clutching at straws trying to work on this or is there something to my equation?

It seems to suggest a black hole is actually an inverse sphere contained in a sphere, and that the "singularity" is acually a sphere with no surface located at the radius $\frac{r_s}{\sqrt2}$.

Can someone show me where I went wrong in my understanding?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You're using the Newtonian expression for the period of the orbit, but this does not work in curved spacetime. In fact there are no stable orbits for $r \le 6GM/c^2$. $\endgroup$ – John Rennie Jul 8 '15 at 4:57
4
$\begingroup$

The Schwarzschild radius $r$ is not simply the distance to the centre of the black hole. If you measured that distance by letting down a tape measure you'd find the distance was substantially greater than $r$. See for example my answer to How much extra distance to an event horizon?, where I do this calculation.

We actually define $r$ to be the circumference of a circle centred on the black hole divided by $2\pi$ (i.e. the circumference is $2\pi r$). That means the area of a sphere of radius $r$ centred on the black hole is $4\pi r^2$ by definition. So the surface area doesn't go to zero then go negative. Sorry :-)

The time dilation at the distance $r$, compared to an observer at infinity is:

$$ \frac{t_r}{t_\infty} = \sqrt {1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2}} $$

Note that this goes to zero at the event horizon i.e. time slows to a stop there. You'll find lots of Q/As on this site that discuss this further.

Finally, your analysis of the orbital period is flawed because you're using the Newtonian expression for the orbital velocity:

$$ v_{Newt} = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}} $$

and this doesn't apply to the curved spacetime around a black hole. Calculating the orbits in curved spacetime is a rather more involved procedure. For massive objects there are no stable orbits closer than three times the Schwarzschild radius i.e.

$$ r \lt \frac{6GM}{c^2} $$

Even light cannot maintain a stable orbit for $r \lt 3GM/c^2$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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