Can Black Holes Swallow Quantum Numbers? Investigating the Entropy Problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter danAlwyn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the theoretical implications of black holes potentially swallowing quantum numbers, particularly in the context of nanoscopic black holes and Hawking radiation. Participants explore the nature of black holes, quantum mechanics, and the conservation of quantum numbers, with a focus on speculative scenarios and theoretical frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant speculates on the possibility of nanoscopic black holes produced at the LHC swallowing electrons, questioning the conservation of quantum numbers in such scenarios.
  • Another participant argues that Hawking radiation is a fundamental aspect of black holes and asserts that nothing escapes a black hole, including Hawking radiation itself.
  • A different participant acknowledges the speculative nature of the original question, suggesting that the evaporation time of miniature black holes would typically be too short for them to swallow anything.
  • Concerns are raised about treating particles inside black holes as quantum mechanical objects, with implications for the conservation of quantum numbers.
  • One participant mentions theoretical objections to the existence of black hole radiation, referencing a specific paper for further exploration.
  • Another participant highlights the relationship between the loss of quantum numbers and entropy in black hole systems, suggesting that this is a significant aspect of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of Hawking radiation and its implications for black holes. There is no consensus on whether quantum numbers are conserved when particles enter black holes, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the theoretical underpinnings of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding and the speculative nature of the scenarios discussed, particularly regarding the behavior of particles in black holes and the implications for quantum mechanics and entropy.

danAlwyn
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
The first question I've dared to post on this forum, and unfortunately it's pretty horrible. I also don't know if it belongs in this section.

My friends and I were speculating a while back about what would happen if nanoscopic black holes were produced (as possibly theorized) in the first run of the LHC, and Hawking radiation didn't work right, so the black holes stuck around for a while. The question came up about whether such a black hole could swallow an electron. Classically it could not, since the electron is a fundamental particle and the radius of the black holes is much, much smaller than the radius of the electron. Someone pointed out that the electron is a point particle in quanum mechanics, but that still makes sense because the wave function of an electron is sufficiently dispersed that it would be larger than the black hole. Even if it were somehow "trapped", it should be able to tunnel out immediately.

However, if a black hole eats quantum numbers, then this might not be true. An electron would go in, and something else might be able to pop out. I know that the setup is totally unrealistice, but does anybody know of any proposed tests for whether quantum numbers are conserved by black holes (I think it might be testable at the LHC, but I can't think of how)? Where would I look to find a brief explanation of the current state of theory on this subject?

Thanks,
-dA
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know what you mean about Hawking radiation not working. The HR is derived from the nature of spacetime around a BH and if you deny that, there's not much basis for answering other questions.

When an electron position is observed in QM, it is a definite point, the wave function is "collapsed". So I would say that even a tiny BH would have no problem swallowing an electron. And nothing would "pop out"! Hawking radiation happens near the event horizon, not right down on it. Nothing, not even HR, escapes a BH.
 
selfAdjoint said:
I don't know what you mean about Hawking radiation not working. The HR is derived from the nature of spacetime around a BH and if you deny that, there's not much basis for answering other questions.

I admit, I don't expect this to be true. It was a silly little digression from reality. What it comes down to is that normally the evaporation time of a miniature BH should be too short for it to swallow anything. We were wondering what would happen if that was not the case.

From what you're saying I suspect that my flaw was treating particles inside a black hole as QM objects, just as if they were inside an infinite well. If the BH really does swallow particles like that whole, than it also probably does not conserve most quantum numbers-and that's a conjecture I feel a bit uncomfortable making without a better theoretical background.

Hopefully we'll be able to poke around at these BHs and see what they actually do conserve.

Thanks,
 
selfAdjoint said:
The HR is derived from the nature of spacetime around a BH and if you deny that, there's not much basis for answering other questions.

This may be a little too strong a statement, as though HR follows very naturally from GR and QFT. As long as we have not observed directly radiation from black holes we cannot assume it has to exist.

I've also recently come across theoretical objections to the existence of black hole radiation. See, for instance:

Adam D Helfer 2003 Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 943-1008

I've not read thru the paper myself, but perhaps more knowledgeable people here can comment on it?
 
This all comes down to the problem of entropy in black hole system, really. 'Loss' of quantum numbers = decrease in entropy. Hawking (and others) have a lot to say on this - search for papers!
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K