4

Does the mass variable $M$ in the Schwarzschild radius equation $R = 2GM/c^2$ refer to rest mass or relativistic mass?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
cowlinator
  • 845
  • 6
  • 15
  • Related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/3436/123208 Also see https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/133395/123208 – PM 2Ring Oct 14 '22 at 06:28
  • A Schwarzschild black hole is at rest while relativistic mass refers to moving with a high speed. Your question doesn’t seem to make sense. – safesphere Oct 14 '22 at 14:05

5 Answers5

8

Relativistic mass is pretty much a deprecated concept. Essentially any reference to mass in modern physics refers to rest mass, because it is invariant regardless of the situation.

To elaborate a little, perhaps the first statement of "relativistic mass" can be found in Einstein's 1905 paper,* which somewhat naively takes Newton's 2nd law in a stationary reference frame:

$$F_x=ma_x$$

$$F_y=ma_y$$

and transforms it to a reference frame moving with velocity $v$ in the $x$ direction with respect to the first, to obtain:

$$F_x = m \gamma^3 a_{x'}$$

$$F_y = m \gamma^2 a_{y'}$$

where the gamma factor $\gamma = (1-(v/c)^2)^{-1/2}$. Using the $F=ma$ formula produces an "x direction mass" of

$$ m (1-(v/c)^2)^{-3/2}$$

and a "y direction mass" of

$$ m (1-(v/c)^2)^{-1}$$

($m$ being the rest mass).

So there is not even really a consistent definition of "relativistic mass," as it is different depending on the direction the force is applied. The difficulty here is resolved by observing that $F=ma$ cannot be applied to relativistic objects consistently.

Still a third possible definition of relativistic mass, the one most commonly seen, comes from the formula for total energy (rest + kinetic) of a moving particle:

$$E=\gamma mc^2=m_{rel}c^2$$

which is useful for certain calculations, but modern physicists would use the $\gamma mc^2$ formula, which separates out the invariant mass $m$ and the relativistic factor $\gamma$. This formula shows clearly that $m_{rel}$ is simply the total energy $\frac E {c^2}$ within a constant factor, and so is a redundant concept.

*On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Sec. 10

RC_23
  • 9,096
  • It can be informative to show that the last equation is not $E=(\gamma m)c^2$ but $E=m(\gamma c)c$ instead. Another linked misconception leading to "relativistic mass" is that momentum is $p=(\gamma m)v$. However, it actually is $p=m(\gamma v)$. $\gamma$ in these equations is transforming the speed, not the mass! – J. Manuel Oct 14 '22 at 10:06
  • Or perhaps the full formula is best $E^2=(mc^2)^2+(\gamma mvc)^2$, as it explicitly separates the invariant energy from the energy due to motion. Lots of formulas. – RC_23 Oct 14 '22 at 12:58
  • This post explains the issues with the concept of relativistic mass, but doesn’t answer the actual question if the mass of a black hole is relativistic. – safesphere Oct 14 '22 at 14:12
  • My intent was the first paragraph answers the direct question. – RC_23 Oct 14 '22 at 15:24
  • 1
    I see, but the Schwarzschild solution is over a century old and unchanged. So referring to modern physics in relation to the Schwarzschild solution doesn’t really clarify what Karl Schwarzschild and others may’ve meant by mass over a century ago. Furthermore, the concept of invariant mass is from special relativity and refers to the length of the 4-momentum of a local object. This concept is not applicable to a black hole that is not local and whose stress-energy tensor (and thus 4-momentum) is zero. Mass in GR is a property of the geometry of the spacetime, not of anything in this spacetime. – safesphere Oct 14 '22 at 23:56
8
  1. Firstly, the Schwarzschild mass $M$ is a parameter with dimension of mass in the Schwarzschild solution.

  2. Secondly, the physical meaning of the mass $M$ is that

    • for a small mass probe $m$ far away the gravitational attraction matches Newton's non-relativistic gravitational formula, cf. e.g. my Phys.SE answer here.

    • it is the ADM mass.

    • The corresponding Schwarzschild energy $E=Mc^2$ can in principle be given an interpretation as the sum of the total energies of infinitely many, initially well-separated, infinitesimally small masses, infalling from spatial infinity. (More precisely, let us consider infinitely many, initially well-separated, concentric, infinitesimally thin mass shells, infalling from spatial infinity, to preserve spherical symmetry, in keeping with Refs. 1-2. Be aware that building a black hole from scratch is easier said than done, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.)

  3. Usually we describe a Schwarzschild black hole in a coordinate system, where the black hole is at rest. As far as trying to boost the black hole solution, the parameter $M$ should be though as an invariant mass, cf. OP's title question.

References:

  1. Eric Poisson, A Relativist's Toolkit, 2004; Section 3.9 eq. (3.70).

  2. Eric Poisson, An Advanced course in GR; Section 3.9 eq. (3.9.3).

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • 2
    Why is this the lowest voted answer? This is the correct answer to this question. – Zo the Relativist Oct 14 '22 at 14:54
  • @Qmechanic “I updated the answer.” - The update on infinitely many infinitely separated particles is correct, but you did not remove the “potential energy” term from the formula, so the result is incorrect. If we assume a zero initial kinetic energy at infinity and no other energy (e.g. the thermal energy is already included in the test energy), then the correct formula is that the resulting mass is simply a sum of all masses with no “potential energy” contribution. This is one of the most tangible differences between GR and Newtonian Gravity. – safesphere Oct 15 '22 at 16:02
  • 1
    @Qmechanic Furthermore, GR reveals the true nature of what the Newtonian potential energy actually is. It is simply a mass defect of the gravitational interaction. Because the defect is small in the weak field, it is ignored in Newtonian Gravity, but is important in GR. For example, if we set the “gravitational potential” as zero at the horizon, then the “potential energy” at infinity is simply the mass of the object. So the Newtonian potential energy (set to zero at the horizon) corresponds in GR to the mass of the falling object in the Schwarzschild coordinates (mass is not invariant in GR). – safesphere Oct 15 '22 at 16:20
  • I updated the answer. – Qmechanic Oct 15 '22 at 16:54
6

This is basically covered in the question If a mass moves close to the speed of light, does it turn into a black hole? If $M$ were the relativistic mass we could make things turn into black holes just by making them move fast. Since this isn't the case $M$ has to be the rest mass, sometimes called the invariant mass.

I would echo RC_23's point - no physicist working today would refer to the relativistic mass as it's a misleading concept that was abandoned decades ago. For more on this see Why is there a controversy on whether mass increases with speed?

Just to add further confusion, the Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes actually contain no matter at all. They are both vacuum solutions. In these cases the parameter $M$ is actually the ADM mass and this is a geometrical property of the spacetime.

John Rennie
  • 355,118
  • This is easy to see with one mass, but the answer would be more useful if you explain what happens if you start with two ultrarelativistic particles colliding with one another. In concept, could they generate enough mass to create a black hole per some of the more fanciful LHC paranoia? – Mike Serfas Oct 14 '22 at 22:56
1

I believe that the answer posted by @Qmechanic is the most accurate answer to this question. I would further like to add that while $M$ is just a parameter in the Schwarzschild metric, its physical interpretation will depend on the definition of mass one uses to calculate this quantity from the metric itself. The notion of mass in general relativity is not a well understood concept and this due to the fact that the gravitational energy is non-local. For instance, it can be shown that outgoing gravitational radiation from a source will decrease its mass [3]. However, that gravitational radiation has no stress-energy tensor of it's own (i.e. non-local). So, rather than depending on local densities, the parameter $M$ of the source will depend on certain global properties of space-time and this is where ambiguities and non-uniqueness in the definition of mass arises (see [1] for more details).

One could interpret $M$ to be the ADM mass, Komar mass, Bondi mass (in the case of outgoing/incoming radiation) or even as a quasi-local mass , e.g. in Penrose's definition of quasi-local momentum-angular momentum definition. In Penrose's construction, one could write the "mass" in a way that it appears to be a relativistic invariant mass (i.e. of the form $M=P^aP_a$, where $P$ is calculated from definition of conserved charges (see [2])). However, if you use the same definition for a charged black hole metric, you will get $M_{NR}=M-\frac{e^2}{2r}$. On outer horizon this is $M_{NR}=\frac{1}{2}r_+$, i.e. the irreducible mass. For Schwarzschild, $e=0$, thus $r_+=r_s=2M$. So, in this sense, the Schwarzschild mass $M$ can be interpreted as the irreducible mass.

[1] Szabados, L.B. Quasi-Local Energy-Momentum and Angular Momentum in General Relativity. Living Rev. Relativ. 12, 4 (2009). https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2009-4

[2]Chapter 13 from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624018

[3] https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1962.0161

KP99
  • 1,684
0

In my understanding, the mass $M$ in Schwarzschild's radius definition is the sum of all rest masses of material objects that created black hole. Accordingly, it refers to rest mass.

JanG
  • 1,831
  • 1
    More precisely, "the sum of all rest masses" at infinity (as opposed to the masses measured near a black hole). In addition, these masses must be initially well separated in a spherically symmetric arrangement. See the answer of Qmechanic (where the "total energy" does not include the potential energy). – safesphere Oct 21 '22 at 07:13
  • Quite important precising, thanks. – JanG Oct 21 '22 at 11:01