Why don't merging black holes disprove the no-hair theorem?












4












$begingroup$


The no-hair theorem of black holes says they're completely categorised by their charge and angular momentum and mass.



But imagine two black holes colliding. At some point their event horizons would merge and I imagine the combined event horizon would not be spherical.



You could even imagine 50 black holes merging. Then the combined event horizon would be a very odd shape.



Why does this not disprove the no-hair theorem? Since the information about the shape of the event horizon is surely more than just charge, angular momentum and mass?






general-relativity black-holes collision event-horizon no-hair-theorem







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    The no-hair theorem of black holes says they're completely categorised by their charge and angular momentum and mass.



    But imagine two black holes colliding. At some point their event horizons would merge and I imagine the combined event horizon would not be spherical.



    You could even imagine 50 black holes merging. Then the combined event horizon would be a very odd shape.



    Why does this not disprove the no-hair theorem? Since the information about the shape of the event horizon is surely more than just charge, angular momentum and mass?






    general-relativity black-holes collision event-horizon no-hair-theorem







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$


      The no-hair theorem of black holes says they're completely categorised by their charge and angular momentum and mass.



      But imagine two black holes colliding. At some point their event horizons would merge and I imagine the combined event horizon would not be spherical.



      You could even imagine 50 black holes merging. Then the combined event horizon would be a very odd shape.



      Why does this not disprove the no-hair theorem? Since the information about the shape of the event horizon is surely more than just charge, angular momentum and mass?






      general-relativity black-holes collision event-horizon no-hair-theorem







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      The no-hair theorem of black holes says they're completely categorised by their charge and angular momentum and mass.



      But imagine two black holes colliding. At some point their event horizons would merge and I imagine the combined event horizon would not be spherical.



      You could even imagine 50 black holes merging. Then the combined event horizon would be a very odd shape.



      Why does this not disprove the no-hair theorem? Since the information about the shape of the event horizon is surely more than just charge, angular momentum and mass?






      general-relativity black-holes collision event-horizon no-hair-theorem




      general-relativity black-holes collision event-horizon no-hair-theorem






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 58 mins ago









      David Z♦

      63.4k23136252




      63.4k23136252










      asked 5 hours ago









      zoobyzooby

      1,389514




      1,389514






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          No. The no-hair conjecture applies to stable solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. In the case of merging black holes, it applies to the end state of the merger into a single quiescent black hole, after the “ringdown” has stopped.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            It's an odd theorem because most black holes aren't stable, their either evaporating or each particles from the background space.
            $endgroup$
            – zooby
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            those processes are slow enough that a black hole that is evaporating or accreting gas (not planets or other big objects) can be considered stable.
            $endgroup$
            – niels nielsen
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            Black hole evaporation is a quantum effect. The no-hair conjecture is a conjecture in classical General Relativity since we don’t have any consensus about quantum gravity. Quantum black holes probably do have some kind of hair that encodes all of the information that fell into them. Physicists are trying to figure out how that might work.
            $endgroup$
            – G. Smith
            4 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f460041%2fwhy-dont-merging-black-holes-disprove-the-no-hair-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          6












          $begingroup$

          No. The no-hair conjecture applies to stable solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. In the case of merging black holes, it applies to the end state of the merger into a single quiescent black hole, after the “ringdown” has stopped.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            It's an odd theorem because most black holes aren't stable, their either evaporating or each particles from the background space.
            $endgroup$
            – zooby
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            those processes are slow enough that a black hole that is evaporating or accreting gas (not planets or other big objects) can be considered stable.
            $endgroup$
            – niels nielsen
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            Black hole evaporation is a quantum effect. The no-hair conjecture is a conjecture in classical General Relativity since we don’t have any consensus about quantum gravity. Quantum black holes probably do have some kind of hair that encodes all of the information that fell into them. Physicists are trying to figure out how that might work.
            $endgroup$
            – G. Smith
            4 hours ago
















          6












          $begingroup$

          No. The no-hair conjecture applies to stable solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. In the case of merging black holes, it applies to the end state of the merger into a single quiescent black hole, after the “ringdown” has stopped.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            It's an odd theorem because most black holes aren't stable, their either evaporating or each particles from the background space.
            $endgroup$
            – zooby
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            those processes are slow enough that a black hole that is evaporating or accreting gas (not planets or other big objects) can be considered stable.
            $endgroup$
            – niels nielsen
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            Black hole evaporation is a quantum effect. The no-hair conjecture is a conjecture in classical General Relativity since we don’t have any consensus about quantum gravity. Quantum black holes probably do have some kind of hair that encodes all of the information that fell into them. Physicists are trying to figure out how that might work.
            $endgroup$
            – G. Smith
            4 hours ago














          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          No. The no-hair conjecture applies to stable solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. In the case of merging black holes, it applies to the end state of the merger into a single quiescent black hole, after the “ringdown” has stopped.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          No. The no-hair conjecture applies to stable solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations. In the case of merging black holes, it applies to the end state of the merger into a single quiescent black hole, after the “ringdown” has stopped.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          G. SmithG. Smith

          6,97611123




          6,97611123












          • $begingroup$
            It's an odd theorem because most black holes aren't stable, their either evaporating or each particles from the background space.
            $endgroup$
            – zooby
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            those processes are slow enough that a black hole that is evaporating or accreting gas (not planets or other big objects) can be considered stable.
            $endgroup$
            – niels nielsen
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            Black hole evaporation is a quantum effect. The no-hair conjecture is a conjecture in classical General Relativity since we don’t have any consensus about quantum gravity. Quantum black holes probably do have some kind of hair that encodes all of the information that fell into them. Physicists are trying to figure out how that might work.
            $endgroup$
            – G. Smith
            4 hours ago


















          • $begingroup$
            It's an odd theorem because most black holes aren't stable, their either evaporating or each particles from the background space.
            $endgroup$
            – zooby
            5 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            those processes are slow enough that a black hole that is evaporating or accreting gas (not planets or other big objects) can be considered stable.
            $endgroup$
            – niels nielsen
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            Black hole evaporation is a quantum effect. The no-hair conjecture is a conjecture in classical General Relativity since we don’t have any consensus about quantum gravity. Quantum black holes probably do have some kind of hair that encodes all of the information that fell into them. Physicists are trying to figure out how that might work.
            $endgroup$
            – G. Smith
            4 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          It's an odd theorem because most black holes aren't stable, their either evaporating or each particles from the background space.
          $endgroup$
          – zooby
          5 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          It's an odd theorem because most black holes aren't stable, their either evaporating or each particles from the background space.
          $endgroup$
          – zooby
          5 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          those processes are slow enough that a black hole that is evaporating or accreting gas (not planets or other big objects) can be considered stable.
          $endgroup$
          – niels nielsen
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          those processes are slow enough that a black hole that is evaporating or accreting gas (not planets or other big objects) can be considered stable.
          $endgroup$
          – niels nielsen
          4 hours ago




          5




          5




          $begingroup$
          Black hole evaporation is a quantum effect. The no-hair conjecture is a conjecture in classical General Relativity since we don’t have any consensus about quantum gravity. Quantum black holes probably do have some kind of hair that encodes all of the information that fell into them. Physicists are trying to figure out how that might work.
          $endgroup$
          – G. Smith
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Black hole evaporation is a quantum effect. The no-hair conjecture is a conjecture in classical General Relativity since we don’t have any consensus about quantum gravity. Quantum black holes probably do have some kind of hair that encodes all of the information that fell into them. Physicists are trying to figure out how that might work.
          $endgroup$
          – G. Smith
          4 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f460041%2fwhy-dont-merging-black-holes-disprove-the-no-hair-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

          Image
          0 The contact form does not work, and affects loading after one try. The chrome console shows the error message: POST http://example.com/wp-json/contact-form-7/v1/contact-forms/50/feedback 404 (Not Found) send @ jquery.js?ver=1.12.4:4 ajax @ jquery.js?ver=1.12.4:4 wpcf7.submit @ scripts.js?ver=5.0.3:346 (anonymous) @ scripts.js?ver=5.0.3:53 dispatch @ jquery.js?ver=1.12.4:3 r.handle @ jquery.js?ver=1.12.4:3 How to solve this issue? thanks in advance javascript wordpress contact-form-7 share | improve this question edited Jul 17 '18 at 5:39 Kiran Shahi 4,745 3 16 43 ...
          Read more

          How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

          Image
          1 I would like to know if and how is it possible to know if a AD user can login interactively (on a server) in a domain. I need to know if I can find it out using a LDAP search. Thanks. windows active-directory login user-permissions user-profile share | improve this question edited 1 hour ago yagmoth555 ♦ 11.6k 3 17 42 asked 1 hour ago Luigi Luigi 6 1 New contributor ...
          Read more

          Refactoring coordinates for Minecraft Pi buildings written in Python

          Image
          0 $begingroup$ I'm fairly new to coding and I wrote this script in Python for a house with a roof in Minecraft Pi. I've found different ways to write the coordinates to make the code base shorter, but I'm wondering if it is possible for me to refactor it any further so I don't have to list each coordinate line by line. import mcpi.minecraft as minecraft import mcpi.block as block mc = minecraft.Minecraft.create() p = mc.player.getTilePos() mc.setBlocks(p.x+1, p.y, p.z+1, #Main structure starting coordinates (DO NOT ALTER) p.x+19, p.y+4, p.z+6, #Structure size/coordinates (Alters cube size) block.STONE_BRICK) mc.setBlocks(p.x+2, p.y+1, p.z+2, #Hollowing out main structure interior p.x+18, p.y+3, p.z+5, block.AIR) mc.setBlocks(p.x, p.y...
          Read more