←back to thread

360 points Eduard | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
BurningFrog ◴[] No.44565671[source]
I've always thought the event horizon for a black hole has to be spherical.

But my physics intuition tells me that as two of them merge, the resulting BH should have a "peanut" shape, at least initially.

And maybe it can keep having an irregular shape, depending on the mass distribution inside it?

replies(9): >>44565698 #>>44565706 #>>44565738 #>>44568728 #>>44568876 #>>44569143 #>>44569232 #>>44569508 #>>44571532 #
itishappy ◴[] No.44565698[source]
It's only spherical in a Schwarzschild (non-rotating) black hole. A rotating black hole is called a Kerr black hole, and stuff gets weird, such as there being an oblate event horizon, a weird outer horizon called an ergosphere where spacetime gets dragged along such that it's impossible to stand still and you can accelerate objects using the black hole, a weirder inner horizon called the Cauchy horizon where time travel is possible, and a singularity in the shape of a ring. Your intuition is correct that during a merger it would be weirder still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0622

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy_horizon

Edit: Updated the bit about about horizons as I research a bit more. It's complicated, and I'm still not positive I have it exactly right, but I think it's now as good as I can get it.

replies(3): >>44565849 #>>44565896 #>>44566444 #
TMEHpodcast ◴[] No.44566444[source]
No matter how chaotic the merger looks, the event horizon must asymptotically become either spherical (Schwarzschild) or oblate (Kerr). The mass distribution inside doesn’t change this, general relativity doesn’t allow static “lumpy” horizons.

It’s wild how much happens in those milliseconds though. Numerical relativity papers like the one you shared from arxiv.org show the horizon “sloshing” before it stabilizes.

replies(2): >>44566732 #>>44569805 #
pavel_lishin ◴[] No.44566732[source]
Is it even sensible to talk about a "mass distribution" inside of an event horizon?
replies(2): >>44567586 #>>44570565 #
1. mr_toad ◴[] No.44570565{3}[source]
Because having some observational knowledge of the inside is impossible, in a sense it doesn’t matter.