4.4 Review

The many definitions of a black hole

Journal

NATURE ASTRONOMY
Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 27-34

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0602-1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. John Templeton Foundation
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [CU 338/1-1 AOBJ 628412]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although black holes are objects of central importance across many fields of physics, there is no agreed upon definition for them, a fact that does not seem to be widely recognized. Physicists in different fields conceive of and reason about them in radically different, and often conflicting, ways. All those ways, however, seem sound in the relevant contexts. After examining and comparing many of the definitions used in practice, I consider the problems that the lack of a universally accepted definition leads to, and discuss whether one is in fact needed for progress in the physics of black holes. I conclude that, within reasonable bounds, the profusion of different definitions is in fact a virtue, making the investigation of black holes possible and fruitful in all the many different kinds of problems about them that physicists consider, although one must take care in trying to translate results between fields.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available