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 43 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
            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






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            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
            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






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            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
            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






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            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 4 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
            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






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            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
            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






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            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
          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
          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




          $begingroup$
          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




          4




          4




          $begingroup$
          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

          Fluorita

          Image
          Fluorita Fluorita (blau) amb pirita (daurat). Fórmula química CaF 2 Epònim fluor Localitat tipus Jáchymov Classificació Categoria Halurs Nickel-Strunz 10a ed. 3.AB.25 Nickel-Strunz 9a ed. 3.AB.25 Nickel-Strunz 8a ed. III/A.08 Dana 9.2.1.1 Heys 8.4.7 Propietats Sistema cristal·lí Cúbic Hàbit cristal·lí Sol presentar cubs; menys freqüentment dodecaedres. De vegades hexaoctaedres i tetrahexaedres. Per la combinació d'aquestes formes, les arestes dels cubs són sovint modificades. De vegades els cristalls poden presentar diferències de creixement entre les cares. Sovint s'observen cristalls compostos per sobrecreixement. Pot ser massiva, compacta, terrosa, columnar (poc freqüent), globular en agregats o botroïdal. Estructura cristal·lina a = 5.4626Å Simetria Classe (H-M): m 3 m (4/ m 3 2/ m ) - Hexoctaèdric; Grup espacial: Fm 3 m Color Blanc, groc, verd, violeta, vermell, rosa, blau o negre Mac...
          Read more

          Hulsita

          Image
          Hulsita Hulsita de la localitat tipus Fórmula química Fe 2+ 2 Fe 3+ O 2 BO 3 Epònim Alfred Hulse Brooks Localitat tipus mont Brooks, península de Seward, Nome Borough, Alaska, Estats Units Classificació Categoria borats Nickel-Strunz 10a ed. 6.AB.45 Nickel-Strunz 9a ed. 6.AB.45 Nickel-Strunz 8a ed. V/G.03 Dana 24.2.3.1 Heys 9.6.4 Propietats Sistema cristal·lí monoclínic Estructura cristal·lina a = 10,68Å; b = 3,09Å; c = 5,43Å; β = 94,15° Color negre Macles en [001]; un membre de la macla es troba girat 120° en relació a l'altre Exfoliació bona en {110} Duresa 3 Lluïssor vítria, submetàl·lica Densitat 4,28 g/cm 3 (mesurada); Més informació Estatus IMA mineral heretat (G) i mineral heretat (G) Any d'aprovació 1908 Referències [1] La hulsita és un mineral de la classe dels borats, que pertany al grup de la pinakiolita. Rep el seu nom en honor del nord-americà ...
          Read more

          Península de Txukotka

          Image
          Península de Txukotka Tipus Península Ubicació 66° N, 172° O  /  66°N , 172°O  / 66; -172 Mar mar dels Txuktxis La península de Txukotka a l'extrem oriental de Sibèria La península de Txukotka o península dels Txuktxis (en rus Чуко́тский полуо́стров , Txukotski poluóstrov ) és una península que es troba a l'extrem oriental d'Euràsia. Contingut 1 Descripció 2 Població 3 Vegeu també 4 Bibliografia Descripció L'estret de Bering, entre la península de Txukotka i la península de Seward a Alaska Foto de satèl·lit de la zona amb la península de Txukotka a l'esquerra El seu punt més extrem és el cap Dezhnev a la vora del nucli d'Uelen, un dels poquíssims llocs habitats de la zona. Al nord limita amb el mar dels Txuktxis i amb el mar de Bering al sud i amb l'estret de Bering a l'est. A la costa sud es troben la badia de Sant Lawrence i la badia de Kresta. La penínsu...
          Read more