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 26 mins ago









      David Z♦

      63.4k23136252




      63.4k23136252










      asked 4 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

          Knooppunt Holsloot

          Image
          Knooppunt Holsloot Kenmerken Wegen A37 × N34 Type knooppunt klaverblad Portaal     Verkeer & Vervoer Knooppunt Holsloot is een verkeersknooppunt op de kruising van de autosnelweg A37 en de N34 in Drenthe, tussen Emmen en Coevorden. Oorspronkelijk was deze aansluiting een afritconstructie van het type Haarlemmermeeraansluiting, zoals bij Knooppunt Hooipolder. Sinds 2002 is het knooppunt omgebouwd tot een volledig klaverblad. Als noviteit werd hier voor het eerst gebruikgemaakt van dimbare verlichting in plaats van de normale vaste tijden waarop de verlichting aan en uit gaat, wat een grote kostenbesparing opleverde. [1] Dat Holsloot als volwaardig knooppunt is uitgevoerd, waarbij alle verkeersstromen en afbuigingen ononderbroken kunnen doorgaan, is uitzonderlijk. Het betreft hier namelijk een aansluiting tussen een autosnelweg en niet-snelweg. Een vergelijkbare situatie treft men nabij Hoensbroek bij het knooppunt Ten Esschen.     Aa
          Read more

          Altaar (religie)

          Image
          Deel van de serie over kerkelijk gerei waaronder paramenten en liturgisch vaatwerk gebruikt in de liturgie Liturgisch vaatwerk Vasa sacra Miskelk · Pateen Kelklepeltje Ciborie · Monstrans Pyxis · Custodiale Vasa non sacra Ampullen · Wijwatervat Olievaatje Wierookvat · Ablutievat Paramenten Amict · Albe · Baarkleed · Cingel Tuniek · Dalmatiek · Fanon Kazuifel · Manipel · Stola Gremiale · Benedictievelum Mijter Koorkledij Rochet · Superplie Koorkap · Cappa magna Kovel Kelkgerei Bursa · Kelkvelum Ciborievelum Kerklinnen Corporale · Kelkdoekje Lavabodoekje · Palla Altaardwaal Kerkinterieur Altaar · Ambo Biechtstoel · Communiebank Doksaal · Doopvont Faldistorium Godslamp · Hoogaltaar Heilig Kruisaltaar Katheder · Preekstoel Sedilia Tabernakel · Volksaltaar Liturgische boeken Altaarmissaal Benedictionale · Brevier Evangeliarium · Evangelistarium Graduale · Kyriale Lectionarium Psalter · Rituaal Sacramentarium · Volksmissaal Overige Flambou
          Read more

          Gregoriusmis

          Image
          Een afbeelding van de Gregoriusmis uit een getijdenboek gemaakt in de zuidelijke Nederlanden tussen 1500 en 1525 Gregoriusmis, Meester van het Akense Altaar, ca. 1500-1525. Collectie Museum Catharijneconvent De Gregoriusmis of de Mis van Sint Gregorius is een motief in katholieke kunst, dat het eerst verscheen in de late Middeleeuwen en dat nog steeds werd gebruikt tijdens de contrareformatie. Paus Gregorius I (ca. 540-604) is afgebeeld, de H. Mis opdragend, terwijl Christus als de Man van Smarten verschijnt op het altaar dat voor Sint Gregorius staat. Volgens de legende had St. Gregorius gebeden om een teken voor een betwijfelaar van de transsubstantiatieleer, waarop de lijdende Christus tijdens het opdragen van de Mis verscheen om hem te overtuigen en waarbij zijn bloed in de altaarkelk liep. Vaak zijn ook de passiewerktuigen afgebeeld. Zie de categorie Mass of Saint Gregory van Wikimedia Commons voor mediabestanden over dit onderwerp. This page is onl
          Read more