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

          How to make a Squid Proxy server?

          Image
          1 I want to set up squid proxy server for monitoring user activity in a network and Internet Web URL filtering for user. I also want to configure the user login, user log, user access group, and block unwanted web sites in my network. Please help me and guide me the full process to do this. server proxy squid share | improve this question edited Jul 31 '12 at 14:45 Jorge Castro 37.1k 107 422 617 asked Jul 31 '12 at 5:16 Goivind Tiwari Goivind Tiwari ...
          Read more

          Is this a new Fibonacci Identity?

          Image
          6 1 $begingroup$ I have found the following Fibonacci Identity (and proved it). If $F_n$ denotes the nth Fibonacci Number, we have the following identity begin{equation} F_{n-r+h}F_{n+k+g+1} - F_{n-r+g}F_{n+k+h+1} = (-1)^{n+r+h+1} F_{g-h}F_{k+r+1} end{equation} where $F_1 = F_2 = 1$ , $r leq n$ , $h leq g$ , and $n, g, k in mathbb{N}$ . It is not too hard to show that this identity subsumes Cassini's Identity, Catalan's Identity, Vajda's Idenity, and d'Ocagne's identity to name a few. I have done a pretty thorough literature review, and I have not found anything like this, but I am still wondering if anyone has seen this identity before? I found this by accident after noticing some patterns in some analysis work I was doing, so if this is already known I would be curious to see w...
          Read more

          19世紀

          Image
          この記事は検証可能な参考文献や出典が全く示されていないか、不十分です。 出典を追加して記事の信頼性向上にご協力ください。 （ 2012年3月 ） 千年紀: 2千年紀 世紀: 18世紀 - 19世紀 - 20世紀 十年紀: 1800年代 1810年代 1820年代 1830年代 1840年代 1850年代 1860年代 1870年代 1880年代 1890年代 19世紀に君臨した大英帝国。 19世紀 （じゅうきゅうせいき）は、西暦1801年から西暦1900年までの100年間を指す世紀。 目次 1 19世紀の歴史 1.1 国民国家の成立 1.2 帝国主義の興隆 1.3 列強の植民地争奪戦 2 できごと 2.1 1800年代 2.2 1810年代 2.3 1820年代 2.4 1830年代 2.5 1840年代 2.6 1850年代 2.7 1860年代 2.8 1870年代 2.9 1880年代 2.10 1890年代 2.11 1900年代 3 文化 3.1 文学 3.2 音楽 3.3 思想 3.4 科学 3.5 技術 4 人物 4.1 ヨーロッパ 4.1.1 政治家・王族 4.1.1.1 フランス 4.1.1.2 オーストリア＝ハンガリー 4.1.1.3 ロシア 4.1.1.4 イギリス 4.1.1.5 ドイツ（プロイセンほかドイツ領邦を含む） 4.1.1.6 北欧 4.1.1.7 イタリア 4.1.1.8 スペイン 4.1.1.9 ベルギー 4.1.1.10 ギリシア 4.1.2 軍人 4.1.3 実業家 4.1.4 科学と技術 4.1.5 思想と哲学・人文諸学 4.1.6 宗教 4.1.7 文学 4.1.8 美術 4.1.9 音楽 4.1.10 社会事業家 4.1.11 探検家・旅行家 4.1.12 料...
          Read more