Re: Polarizability of a Schwarzschild black hole
ande452_at_attglobal.net
Date: 11/29/04
- Next message: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: Small fusion bombs for energy production"
- Previous message: ben ito: "light 420"
- In reply to: Crown-Horned Snorkack: "Polarizability of a Schwarzschild black hole"
- Next in thread: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Polarizability of a Schwarzschild black hole"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:29:03 -0800
Crown-Horned Snorkack wrote:
>
> Suppose that a strictly Schwarzschild black hole (zero electric
> monopole charge, zero spin) is subjected to electrostatic or
> magnetostatic field.
>
> A black hole has no hair. Does it mean that its electric and magnetic
> dipole moments must be exactly zero and remain exactly zero in
> presence of howsoever strong external static fields?
>
> Now suppose that there is a slowly changing electromagnetic field,
> such that its wavelength is far in excess of the Schwarzschild radius,
> and its phase relationships are such that it is linearly rather than
> elliptically polarized, thus it carries no angular momentum and cannot
> convert the Schwarzschild black hole into a Kerr one even if absorbed.
>
> How can a black hole remove energy from an electromagnetic field
> unless it has internal electric and magnetic dipole moments?
>
> Obviously, if the wavelength of the field were much less than the
> Schwarzschild radius, the hole would have to absorb quite specific
> rays and gravitationally deflect the others in quite specific manner.
A Schwarzschild black hole will absorb EM radiation and it doesn't
need to have internal charges to do it. The light just crosses
the event horizon from outside and then once inside, there are no
null outgoing geodesics for the light to travel back out on.
The explanation is kinematic, not dynamic. If an EM wave
crosses some imaginary plane in space, and doesn't
get totally reflected back through the plane, then it's
gone forever. It doesn't get absorbed on the other side
of the plane, it just keeps moving away from it.
John Anderson
- Next message: G. R. L. Cowan: "Re: Small fusion bombs for energy production"
- Previous message: ben ito: "light 420"
- In reply to: Crown-Horned Snorkack: "Polarizability of a Schwarzschild black hole"
- Next in thread: Mark Fergerson: "Re: Polarizability of a Schwarzschild black hole"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
