## Re: black hole originated from anti-matter colliding with black hole

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article &lt;20040330132339.17770.00000281@mb-m21.aol.com&gt;,\nKefka G &lt;kefkag@aol.com&gt; wrote:\n\n&gt;Question for someone who knows more than I do - is it expected that in a full\n&gt;theory of quantum gravity (not just QM on a GR background) we will retain the\n&gt;no hair theorem, or will something more complicated come out instead?\n\nOpinions vary widely here; this is a key open problem in\nquantum gravity, without much to guide us. It\'s called the\n"black hole information loss problem":\n\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/info_loss.html\n\nSometimes really frustrated physicists call it the black hole\ninformation loss "paradox", but it\'s not really a logical paradox.\n\nHere\'s a copy of the bet that Preskill made with Hawking and Thorne\nabout this puzzle in 1997:\n\nhttp://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/info_bet.html\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <20040330132339.17770.00000281@mb-m21.aol.com>,
Kefka G <kefkag@aol.com> wrote:

>Question for someone who knows more than I do - is it expected that in a full
>theory of quantum gravity (not just QM on a GR background) we will retain the
>no hair theorem, or will something more complicated come out instead?

Opinions vary widely here; this is a key open problem in
quantum gravity, without much to guide us. It's called the
"black hole information loss problem":

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...info_loss.html

Sometimes really frustrated physicists call it the black hole

Here's a copy of the bet that Preskill made with Hawking and Thorne

http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people.../info_bet.html

 PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com >> A quantum simulator for magnetic materials>> Atomic-scale investigations solve key puzzle of LED efficiency>> Error sought & found: State-of-the-art measurement technique optimised


In article <3f96fbb1.0403290526.3765c2ee@posting.google.com>, jdff wrote: >> [Moderator's note: They would form a larger black hole. There's an >> old saying, "Black holes have no hair," which means that black holes >> don't have any properties other than their mass, charge, and spin, >> that make them behave any differently from each other. So an >> antimatter black hole would behave indistinguishably from an >> antimatter black hole$. -TB]$ >Does "no hair" imply any other conserved quantities? Obviously, you >have left out linear momentum from the above list. People tend to leave that out because they tend to imagine working in the rest frame of the black hole... but that's the ONLY ONE that Ted left out. >What about e.g. colour? Nope. >Presumably an accelerated observer very,very >close to the horizon (< 1 fm) would see virtual Hawking radiation >"red" quarks promoted to real red quarks. So that observer would say >that the black holes "hair" included colour, although for all other >observers obviously the black hole would be colourless like everything >else. This insane observer would see Hawking radiation containing all sorts of crud, but no lone quarks (color is confined) and more importantly, the character of this radiation would be independent of everything but the mass, angular momentum and charge of the black hole $- we$ think. >Not sure about lepton number conservation. A conserved quantity "hair" >or not? There seems to be no way to tell the lepton number of a black hole, so this does not count as hair either, and it seems that lepton number is not conserved when the hole evaporates away. Ditto for baryon number. This is why the no hair theorem is interesting.



baez@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message news:... > > This insane observer would see Hawking radiation containing all > sorts of crud, but no lone quarks (color is confined) and more > importantly, the character of this radiation would be independent > of everything but the mass, angular momentum and charge of the > black hole $- we$ think. But that is only presuming black hole information loss, right ? If some string theory explanation correct (black hole final state, which Libus Motl explaned some time ago in this ng) then the the character of this radiation will depend on the matter falling into black hole, am I understand it right ?

## Re: black hole originated from anti-matter colliding with black hole

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no,location=no, scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>John Baez wrote:\n&gt; jdff &lt;jdff1001@hotmail.com&gt; wrote:\n&gt;\n&gt;&gt;&gt;[Moderator\'s note: They would form a larger black hole. There\'s an\n&gt;&gt;&gt; old saying, "Black holes have no hair," which means that black holes\n&gt;&gt;&gt; don\'t have any properties other than their mass, charge, and spin,\n&gt;&gt;&gt; that make them behave any differently from each other. So an\n&gt;&gt;&gt; antimatter black hole would behave indistinguishably from an\n&gt;&gt;&gt; antimatter black hole. -TB]\n&gt;\n&gt;&gt;Does "no hair" imply any other conserved quantities? Obviously, you\n&gt;&gt;have left out linear momentum from the above list.\n&gt;\n&gt; People tend to leave that out because they tend to imagine working\n&gt; in the rest frame of the black hole... but that\'s the ONLY ONE that\n&gt; Ted left out.\n\nWell, it isn\'t a *conserved* quantity, but every blak hole *does* have one\nmore property not on the list. It isn\'t left off because it is obscure, but\nbecause it is obvious.\n\nEvery black hole has a Position!\n\nRalph Hartley\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>John Baez wrote:
> jdff <jdff1001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>[Moderator's note: They would form a larger black hole. There's an
>>> old saying, "Black holes have no hair," which means that black holes
>>> don't have any properties other than their mass, charge, and spin,
>>> that make them behave any differently from each other. So an
>>> antimatter black hole would behave indistinguishably from an
>>> antimatter black hole$. -TB]$

>
>>Does "no hair" imply any other conserved quantities? Obviously, you
>>have left out linear momentum from the above list.

>
> People tend to leave that out because they tend to imagine working
> in the rest frame of the black hole... but that's the ONLY ONE that
> Ted left out.

Well, it isn't a *conserved* quantity, but every blak hole *does* have one
more property not on the list. It isn't left off because it is obscure, but
because it is obvious.

Every black hole has a Position!

Ralph Hartley



baez@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message news:... snip > >Presumably an accelerated observer very,very > >close to the horizon (< 1 fm) would see virtual Hawking radiation > >"red" quarks promoted to real red quarks. So that observer would say > >that the black holes "hair" included colour, although for all other > >observers obviously the black hole would be colourless like everything > >else. > > This insane observer would see Hawking radiation containing all > sorts of crud, but no lone quarks (color is confined) and more > importantly, the character of this radiation would be independent > of everything but the mass, angular momentum and charge of the > black hole $- we$ think. But I deliberately chose an observer so small & close to the horizon that from their point-of-view colour is _not_ confined. Colour is only confined on distance scales longer than that where the energy (rising linearly with distance) is less than the creation of a quark-antiquark pair. So I still think that this observer should observe a BH which is colourless on average but with fluctuations. Every time the observer sees the Hawking radiation containing a "red" quark ("crud") the BH is temporarily "anti-red". Until some considerable time later $(~10^-23$ secs later) they see an "anti-red" quark emitted. In fact, just like when they observe a normal proton. I don't know why that observer is "insane". Since when have fundamental laws of the universe, such as which quantities are conserved, depended on the size of the person who wrote the textbook? Similarly, on lepton number. An observer very close to the horizon should observe "all sorts of crud". Including for example electrons and anti-protons. Now, if lepton-number really isn't conserved, then this observer will say that if the BH remains charge-neutral then for every electron observed there should be exactly one anti-proton or positron. But it would only be statistically true that the number of electrons equalled the number of positrons. But if lepton-number is conserved, the number of leptons emitted exactly equals anti-leptons. These are actually two genuinely distinguishable statistical distributions. If we took a histogram of number of leptons emitted then: if lepton number not conserved, then leptons minus antileptons on average diverges as $n^1/2$ as number of particles detected increases. But if lepton number is conserved then it doesn't diverge quite as much (put your hand into bag of 100 red & 100 green balls, after you have withdrawn 60 red & 40 green, what are the odds you draw a red one next time). So this is a scientifically valid, falsifiable question, albeit very difficult experiment. Observe all the particles emitted by Hawking radiation from a BH over at least half of its lifetime, and histogram over time.



In message , John Baez writes >In article , >Daniel wrote: > >>i am aware of that theorem. i wonder though whether the matter in a >>black hole is crushed out of existence, or whether it forms a new >>state of matter. >>I know that GR predicts a singularity of infinite density, but i >>wonder if QM prevents this from happening, and that there is a new >>state of matter at the center of a black hole. > >You're not the only one who wonders about this. $We *all*$ do. > >Figure out the answer, prove it's right, and win a Nobel prize. >But, don't give up your day job. Here's a suggestion that doesn't qualify as a "figured out" answer... and so is perhaps more properly "enthusiastic speculation"... The hidden dimensions in string theory usually seem to be thought of as fixed in size... suppose their extents are also variables. As the energy density rises in the creation of a black hole, as we approach a "classical singularity" the smallest distance one can probe rises, in effect causing/being equivalent to the expansion of the curled up dimensions (as the "normal" dimensions shrink?); as they expand (collectively, sequentially, according to some topological constraint ordering?) they tend towards equality: space expands, avoiding the singularity. [Energy partitioned between massive particles and the space itself which they effectively "open up"?] Time reverse this and one might then see the Big Bang as the result of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the original $10/11$ dimensional space; and perhaps, if such things are topologically constrained, inflation might be the result of a particular transition in the sequence of e.g. Calabi-Yau? spaces - though why 3 big and 6/7 small dimensions should be a stable end-point, I don't know... Ignorance is bliss when it comes to speculation... Julian Moore - all email to news-reply automatically rejected; try julian.moore@...