Mixing
Are black holes indistinguable?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
In standard model of particles it is understood that besides characteristics like momentum, spin, etc two electrons are indistinguable.
Are in the same sense two black holes indistinguable given they have same mass, momentum, etc?
black-holes identical-particles
edited 59 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
97.3k121631044
asked 1 hour ago
Marco
234
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
In standard model of particles it is understood that besides characteristics like momentum, spin, etc two electrons are indistinguable.
Are in the same sense two black holes indistinguable given they have same mass, momentum, etc?
black-holes identical-particles
edited 59 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
97.3k121631044
asked 1 hour ago
Marco
234
1
Location, location, location ! On a macroscopic scale (i.e. away from quantum level effects) location distinguishes two black holes. You can't generally say that about e.g. electrons in an atom.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Perfect! But i meant the nature of matter and the resulting geometry of black hole
– Marco
57 mins ago
@StephenG, what do you mean? (The answer was fun but maybe leaves many people in the dark? : )
– Helen
41 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
In standard model of particles it is understood that besides characteristics like momentum, spin, etc two electrons are indistinguable.
Are in the same sense two black holes indistinguable given they have same mass, momentum, etc?
black-holes identical-particles
edited 59 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
97.3k121631044
asked 1 hour ago
Marco
234
In standard model of particles it is understood that besides characteristics like momentum, spin, etc two electrons are indistinguable.
Are in the same sense two black holes indistinguable given they have same mass, momentum, etc?
black-holes identical-particles
black-holes identical-particles
edited 59 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
97.3k121631044
asked 1 hour ago
Marco
234
edited 59 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
97.3k121631044
asked 1 hour ago
Marco
234
edited 59 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
97.3k121631044
edited 59 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
97.3k121631044
edited 59 mins ago
Qmechanic♦
97.3k121631044
97.3k121631044
asked 1 hour ago
Marco
234
asked 1 hour ago
Marco
234
asked 1 hour ago
Marco
234
234
1
Location, location, location ! On a macroscopic scale (i.e. away from quantum level effects) location distinguishes two black holes. You can't generally say that about e.g. electrons in an atom.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Perfect! But i meant the nature of matter and the resulting geometry of black hole
– Marco
57 mins ago
@StephenG, what do you mean? (The answer was fun but maybe leaves many people in the dark? : )
– Helen
41 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
Location, location, location ! On a macroscopic scale (i.e. away from quantum level effects) location distinguishes two black holes. You can't generally say that about e.g. electrons in an atom.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Perfect! But i meant the nature of matter and the resulting geometry of black hole
– Marco
57 mins ago
@StephenG, what do you mean? (The answer was fun but maybe leaves many people in the dark? : )
– Helen
41 mins ago
1
1
Location, location, location ! On a macroscopic scale (i.e. away from quantum level effects) location distinguishes two black holes. You can't generally say that about e.g. electrons in an atom.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Location, location, location ! On a macroscopic scale (i.e. away from quantum level effects) location distinguishes two black holes. You can't generally say that about e.g. electrons in an atom.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Perfect! But i meant the nature of matter and the resulting geometry of black hole
– Marco
57 mins ago
Perfect! But i meant the nature of matter and the resulting geometry of black hole
– Marco
57 mins ago
@StephenG, what do you mean? (The answer was fun but maybe leaves many people in the dark? : )
– Helen
41 mins ago
@StephenG, what do you mean? (The answer was fun but maybe leaves many people in the dark? : )
– Helen
41 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
The answer to this question is not technically known. The theorem that applies to this question is the "No-Hair Theorem" which states that a black hole is described by only 3 externally observable properties - mass, charge, and angular momentum - and that's it. The No Hair Theorem implies then that two black holes which have the same mass, charge, and angular momentum are identical to each other no matter the actual matter that was used to create them. E.g. if you create one black hole using a bunch of atoms vs you create another black hole using neutrinos only - the no hair theorem says as long as the two black holes end up with the same mass, charge, and angular momentum, one could not tell the two apart. One could not say which one was the one created by neutrinos and which one was the one created by ordinary atomic matter.
The problem though is that the No Hair theorem is not technically a theorem in that it hasn't been proven yet. It's more of a conjecture or hypothesis at this point. There are motivating factors which seem to imply the No Hair Theorem is true, but alas there is no clear proof using GR that it is.
answered 1 hour ago
enumaris
2,3231317
1
There are also some special cases in which it fails: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Counterexamples
– J.G.
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
To expand on the answer of enumaris, there are four types of black holes based on their mass, charge, and angular momentum. Uncharged non-rotating black holes are called Schwarzschild black holes. These can be different only y mass. Rotating uncharged black holes are called Kerr black holes. Charged non-rotating black holes are called Reissner–Nordstrom black holes. And finally rotating charged black holes are called Kerr–Newman black holes. Physics of different types of black holes is quite different. While all of them contain a singularity, they may have a different number of event horizons of different types and shapes. For example, a charged black hole has a Cauchy horizon inside the Schwarzschild horizon.
The No-Hair conjecture was proven for the Schwarzschild black holes for the simplified case of the uniqueness in 1967. The result since has been expanded to charged and rotating black holes. The general uncharged case has been partially resolved under the additional hypothesis of non-degenerate event horizons and the assumption of real analyticity of the space-time continuum. However there still is no rigorous proof of the general case.
answered 48 mins ago
safesphere
6,58111238
Sources, please?
– N. Steinle
33 mins ago
@N.Steinle The source for the information on the No-Hair theorem is in the link in the answer by enumaris (or here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem). The source for the types of black holes is Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole
– safesphere
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
The answer to this question is not technically known. The theorem that applies to this question is the "No-Hair Theorem" which states that a black hole is described by only 3 externally observable properties - mass, charge, and angular momentum - and that's it. The No Hair Theorem implies then that two black holes which have the same mass, charge, and angular momentum are identical to each other no matter the actual matter that was used to create them. E.g. if you create one black hole using a bunch of atoms vs you create another black hole using neutrinos only - the no hair theorem says as long as the two black holes end up with the same mass, charge, and angular momentum, one could not tell the two apart. One could not say which one was the one created by neutrinos and which one was the one created by ordinary atomic matter.
The problem though is that the No Hair theorem is not technically a theorem in that it hasn't been proven yet. It's more of a conjecture or hypothesis at this point. There are motivating factors which seem to imply the No Hair Theorem is true, but alas there is no clear proof using GR that it is.
answered 1 hour ago
enumaris
2,3231317
1
There are also some special cases in which it fails: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Counterexamples
– J.G.
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The answer to this question is not technically known. The theorem that applies to this question is the "No-Hair Theorem" which states that a black hole is described by only 3 externally observable properties - mass, charge, and angular momentum - and that's it. The No Hair Theorem implies then that two black holes which have the same mass, charge, and angular momentum are identical to each other no matter the actual matter that was used to create them. E.g. if you create one black hole using a bunch of atoms vs you create another black hole using neutrinos only - the no hair theorem says as long as the two black holes end up with the same mass, charge, and angular momentum, one could not tell the two apart. One could not say which one was the one created by neutrinos and which one was the one created by ordinary atomic matter.
The problem though is that the No Hair theorem is not technically a theorem in that it hasn't been proven yet. It's more of a conjecture or hypothesis at this point. There are motivating factors which seem to imply the No Hair Theorem is true, but alas there is no clear proof using GR that it is.
answered 1 hour ago
enumaris
2,3231317
1
There are also some special cases in which it fails: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Counterexamples
– J.G.
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The answer to this question is not technically known. The theorem that applies to this question is the "No-Hair Theorem" which states that a black hole is described by only 3 externally observable properties - mass, charge, and angular momentum - and that's it. The No Hair Theorem implies then that two black holes which have the same mass, charge, and angular momentum are identical to each other no matter the actual matter that was used to create them. E.g. if you create one black hole using a bunch of atoms vs you create another black hole using neutrinos only - the no hair theorem says as long as the two black holes end up with the same mass, charge, and angular momentum, one could not tell the two apart. One could not say which one was the one created by neutrinos and which one was the one created by ordinary atomic matter.
The problem though is that the No Hair theorem is not technically a theorem in that it hasn't been proven yet. It's more of a conjecture or hypothesis at this point. There are motivating factors which seem to imply the No Hair Theorem is true, but alas there is no clear proof using GR that it is.
answered 1 hour ago
enumaris
2,3231317
The answer to this question is not technically known. The theorem that applies to this question is the "No-Hair Theorem" which states that a black hole is described by only 3 externally observable properties - mass, charge, and angular momentum - and that's it. The No Hair Theorem implies then that two black holes which have the same mass, charge, and angular momentum are identical to each other no matter the actual matter that was used to create them. E.g. if you create one black hole using a bunch of atoms vs you create another black hole using neutrinos only - the no hair theorem says as long as the two black holes end up with the same mass, charge, and angular momentum, one could not tell the two apart. One could not say which one was the one created by neutrinos and which one was the one created by ordinary atomic matter.
The problem though is that the No Hair theorem is not technically a theorem in that it hasn't been proven yet. It's more of a conjecture or hypothesis at this point. There are motivating factors which seem to imply the No Hair Theorem is true, but alas there is no clear proof using GR that it is.
answered 1 hour ago
enumaris
2,3231317
answered 1 hour ago
enumaris
2,3231317
answered 1 hour ago
enumaris
2,3231317
answered 1 hour ago
enumaris
2,3231317
2,3231317
1
There are also some special cases in which it fails: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Counterexamples
– J.G.
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1
There are also some special cases in which it fails: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Counterexamples
– J.G.
1 hour ago
1
1
There are also some special cases in which it fails: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Counterexamples
– J.G.
1 hour ago
There are also some special cases in which it fails: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem#Counterexamples
– J.G.
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
To expand on the answer of enumaris, there are four types of black holes based on their mass, charge, and angular momentum. Uncharged non-rotating black holes are called Schwarzschild black holes. These can be different only y mass. Rotating uncharged black holes are called Kerr black holes. Charged non-rotating black holes are called Reissner–Nordstrom black holes. And finally rotating charged black holes are called Kerr–Newman black holes. Physics of different types of black holes is quite different. While all of them contain a singularity, they may have a different number of event horizons of different types and shapes. For example, a charged black hole has a Cauchy horizon inside the Schwarzschild horizon.
The No-Hair conjecture was proven for the Schwarzschild black holes for the simplified case of the uniqueness in 1967. The result since has been expanded to charged and rotating black holes. The general uncharged case has been partially resolved under the additional hypothesis of non-degenerate event horizons and the assumption of real analyticity of the space-time continuum. However there still is no rigorous proof of the general case.
answered 48 mins ago
safesphere
6,58111238
Sources, please?
– N. Steinle
33 mins ago
@N.Steinle The source for the information on the No-Hair theorem is in the link in the answer by enumaris (or here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem). The source for the types of black holes is Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole
– safesphere
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
To expand on the answer of enumaris, there are four types of black holes based on their mass, charge, and angular momentum. Uncharged non-rotating black holes are called Schwarzschild black holes. These can be different only y mass. Rotating uncharged black holes are called Kerr black holes. Charged non-rotating black holes are called Reissner–Nordstrom black holes. And finally rotating charged black holes are called Kerr–Newman black holes. Physics of different types of black holes is quite different. While all of them contain a singularity, they may have a different number of event horizons of different types and shapes. For example, a charged black hole has a Cauchy horizon inside the Schwarzschild horizon.
The No-Hair conjecture was proven for the Schwarzschild black holes for the simplified case of the uniqueness in 1967. The result since has been expanded to charged and rotating black holes. The general uncharged case has been partially resolved under the additional hypothesis of non-degenerate event horizons and the assumption of real analyticity of the space-time continuum. However there still is no rigorous proof of the general case.
answered 48 mins ago
safesphere
6,58111238
Sources, please?
– N. Steinle
33 mins ago
@N.Steinle The source for the information on the No-Hair theorem is in the link in the answer by enumaris (or here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem). The source for the types of black holes is Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole
– safesphere
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
To expand on the answer of enumaris, there are four types of black holes based on their mass, charge, and angular momentum. Uncharged non-rotating black holes are called Schwarzschild black holes. These can be different only y mass. Rotating uncharged black holes are called Kerr black holes. Charged non-rotating black holes are called Reissner–Nordstrom black holes. And finally rotating charged black holes are called Kerr–Newman black holes. Physics of different types of black holes is quite different. While all of them contain a singularity, they may have a different number of event horizons of different types and shapes. For example, a charged black hole has a Cauchy horizon inside the Schwarzschild horizon.
The No-Hair conjecture was proven for the Schwarzschild black holes for the simplified case of the uniqueness in 1967. The result since has been expanded to charged and rotating black holes. The general uncharged case has been partially resolved under the additional hypothesis of non-degenerate event horizons and the assumption of real analyticity of the space-time continuum. However there still is no rigorous proof of the general case.
answered 48 mins ago
safesphere
6,58111238
To expand on the answer of enumaris, there are four types of black holes based on their mass, charge, and angular momentum. Uncharged non-rotating black holes are called Schwarzschild black holes. These can be different only y mass. Rotating uncharged black holes are called Kerr black holes. Charged non-rotating black holes are called Reissner–Nordstrom black holes. And finally rotating charged black holes are called Kerr–Newman black holes. Physics of different types of black holes is quite different. While all of them contain a singularity, they may have a different number of event horizons of different types and shapes. For example, a charged black hole has a Cauchy horizon inside the Schwarzschild horizon.
The No-Hair conjecture was proven for the Schwarzschild black holes for the simplified case of the uniqueness in 1967. The result since has been expanded to charged and rotating black holes. The general uncharged case has been partially resolved under the additional hypothesis of non-degenerate event horizons and the assumption of real analyticity of the space-time continuum. However there still is no rigorous proof of the general case.
answered 48 mins ago
safesphere
6,58111238
answered 48 mins ago
safesphere
6,58111238
answered 48 mins ago
safesphere
6,58111238
answered 48 mins ago
safesphere
6,58111238
6,58111238
Sources, please?
– N. Steinle
33 mins ago
@N.Steinle The source for the information on the No-Hair theorem is in the link in the answer by enumaris (or here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem). The source for the types of black holes is Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole
– safesphere
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sources, please?
– N. Steinle
33 mins ago
@N.Steinle The source for the information on the No-Hair theorem is in the link in the answer by enumaris (or here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem). The source for the types of black holes is Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole
– safesphere
29 mins ago
Sources, please?
– N. Steinle
33 mins ago
Sources, please?
– N. Steinle
33 mins ago
@N.Steinle The source for the information on the No-Hair theorem is in the link in the answer by enumaris (or here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem). The source for the types of black holes is Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole
– safesphere
29 mins ago
@N.Steinle The source for the information on the No-Hair theorem is in the link in the answer by enumaris (or here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem). The source for the types of black holes is Wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charged_black_hole
– safesphere
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f431139%2fare-black-holes-indistinguable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Location, location, location ! On a macroscopic scale (i.e. away from quantum level effects) location distinguishes two black holes. You can't generally say that about e.g. electrons in an atom.
– StephenG
1 hour ago
Perfect! But i meant the nature of matter and the resulting geometry of black hole
– Marco
57 mins ago
@StephenG, what do you mean? (The answer was fun but maybe leaves many people in the dark? : )
– Helen
41 mins ago