1

If I have a mass that gets accelerated to a near the speed of light, before it gets I would think its relativistic mass would expand its Schwarzschild radius enough to turn it into a black hole. I have read on the internet that this is not actually the case and that relativistic mass shouldn't actually be interpreted as increasing mass.

the Wikipedia page mentions that relativistic mass is often misunderstood. what is typically misunderstood about this? (I think I am one of the ones that misunderstands it)

I also read that the Schwarzschild radius wont expand due to relativistic mass because if that were the case one observer may see the mass as a BH while a co-moving observer wont, and this cant be?

Why couldn't one observer see a BH while the other doesn't? I feel like that would make sense in relativity.

Joe
  • 1,346
  • 13
  • 29
  • Hi Joe. I've linked what seems an obvious duplicate. If you don't think it answers your question comment here and I'll withdraw my close vote. – John Rennie Oct 09 '15 at 16:21
  • a lot of the answers to the "duplicate" mention that to a co-moving observer the object wouldn't "see" a BH therefore it cant turn into a BH. I am wondering why that matters. Also, why wouldn't the Schwarzschild radius expand? – Joe Oct 09 '15 at 16:25
  • See also Can a black hole form due to Lorentz contraction?. That goes a bit deeper into the maths. – John Rennie Oct 09 '15 at 16:27
  • 2
    The concept of relativistic mass causes more problems than it solves. The theory doesn't need the concept. In my opinion, the concept should be thrown in the trash bin. If you are learning the topic of relativity, and you run across a book or webpage that uses it, or even mentions it (other than to say that it's an out-moded concept), move on to a different source. – garyp Oct 09 '15 at 18:07

0 Answers0