Black Hole Temperature and Entropy

AI Thread Summary
Black holes emit radiation that is nearly thermal, with their temperature inversely proportional to their mass, meaning smaller black holes are hotter. The power radiated by a black hole can be calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, leading to a formula that shows the energy loss corresponds to mass loss over time. The lifetime of a black hole is proportional to the cube of its mass, resulting in extremely long evaporation times for larger black holes. The discussion also connects black hole thermodynamics to classical thermodynamic principles, suggesting that a black hole's entropy is related to its surface area. Overall, these calculations provide a framework for understanding black hole radiation and its implications in physics education.
George Jones
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
7,643
Reaction score
1,601
A given body of knowledge can often be presented in a number of orders. What follows is one order for black hole temperature and entropy.

Black holes radiate via https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=620350&postcount=4".

The relative intensities of the different parts of the spectrum of a hot body depends on its temperature. For example, the colour of a glowing metal (think stove element) depends on its temperature. The spectrum of a radiating black hole is (almost) thermal, so relative intensities give the temperture of a black hole.

Small black holes are hotter than large black holes because tidal forces are larger near the event horizon of a small black hole than they are near the horizon of a large black hole. The temperature T, as measured by an observer far from the black hole, of a black hole is inversely proportional to its mass M, with
T = \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi k G M},
where k is Boltzmann's constant.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation by black bodies is
P = \sigma A T^4,
where P is the power (energy per unit time) radiated, \sigma is Stefan's constant, and A is the radiating surface area.

Putting these together gives that a black hole radiates power according to
P = \frac{dE}{dt} = \sigma A \left( \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi k G M} \right)^4.
Both of Wald's technical books say that the Stefan-Boltzmann formula holds only approximately. A more accurate calculation sums over the modes radiated. As the temperature of black hole increases, species of particles with higher and higher masses come into play, as do the effects of the particles' energies and masses on curvature. I think Page, starting in the mid-seventies, published realistic calculations.

Assume that Stefan-Boltzmann holds.

The r-coordinate in Schwarzschild spacetime is defined such that for r > 2GM/c^2, the proper surface area of a sphere of constant r is given by A = 4 \pi r^2.

Assume that for a black hole A = 4 \pi r_S^2, where r_S = 2GM/c^2 is the Schwarzschild radius. (Wald, however, says that, due to light bending, the effective radius of a radiating black hole is 3^{3/2} GM/c^2.)

Using this in the above radiation radiation formula for black holes gives
P = \frac{dE}{dt} = \sigma 4 \pi \left( \frac{2GM}{c^2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi k G M} \right)^4.
Now, the rate at which the black hole emits energy equals the rate at which the black hole loses mass times c^2. Thus, after simplifying,
\frac{dM}{dt} c^2 = -\frac{\sigma c^{8}\hbar ^{4}}{256\pi ^{3}k^{4}G^{2}}\frac{1}{M^{2}}
Suppose that the black hole has initial mass M, and that after a time \tau the black hole has evaporated completely. After rearranging the above, this is expressed in terms of integrals as
<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \int_M^0 m^2 dm &amp;= - \alpha \int_0^\tau dt,\\<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}<br />
which gives
\tau = \frac{1}{3\alpha} M^3,
where
\alpha = \frac{\sigma c^{6}\hbar ^{4}}{256\pi ^{3}k^{4}G^{2}}.
The lifetime of a black hole is proportional to the cube of its mass, so realistically sized black holes (even ignoring infalling radiation and matter) take a long, long time to evaporate.

If I have done the calculations correctly, this gives
<br /> \tau = 10^{76} \left( \frac{M}{M_\mathrm{Sun}} \right)^3 \mathrm{ seconds} = 10^{68} \left( \frac{M}{M_\mathrm{Sun}} \right)^3 \mathrm{ years}<br />
Carroll says the real calculation, which he doesn't show, gives
<br /> \tau = 10^{71} \left( \frac{M}{M_\mathrm{Sun}} \right)^3 \mathrm{ seconds}<br />
The nice thing about this calculation is that it can be included as an application of the Stefan- Boltzmann formula in calculus-based first and second-year physics courses.

Students are already familiar with E=mc^2, and easily buy that the "radius" of a black hole is proportional to its mass. The inverse relationship between temperature and mass can be explained by tidal effects.

The whole presentation takes, at most, one lecture. However, finding space for an extra lecture in this already packed course can be difficult.

The thermal spectrum and non-zero temperature of a radiating black hole suggest a connection with thermodynamics. Consider the "surface area" (limit of proper surface areas as r \rightarrow r_S) of a spherical black hole:
<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> A &amp;= 4 \pi r_S^2 \\<br /> &amp;= 4 \pi \left( \frac{2GM}{c^2} \right)^2 \\<br /> &amp;= \frac{16 \pi G^2}{c^4} M^2 \\<br /> dA &amp;= \frac{32 \pi G^2}{c^4} M dM. \\<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}<br />
Using this with the energy content E=Mc^2 of a black hole gives
<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> dE &amp;= c^2 dM\\<br /> &amp;= \frac{c^6}{32 \pi G^2 M} dA\\<br /> &amp;= \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi k G M} \frac{c^3 k}{4 \hbar G} dA\\<br /> &amp;= T \frac{c^3 k}{4 \hbar G} dA.<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}<br />
This together with the first law of thermodynamics with no work terms, dE=TdS, suggest the identification of the entropy of a black hole with its surface area:
S=\frac{c^3 k}{4 \hbar G} A.
Historically, results happened in a different order.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
That's a nice exposition and it would, as you say, make an interesting lecture to illustrate thermodynamics, in a first or second year general physics course. key formulas not to complicated, and it is an impressive illustration of how far reaching things like Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law can be. Special thanks for adding it to the PF Astro stewpot!
Something we can link to. (as I think you already may have done.)
 
George Jones said:
If I have done the calculations correctly, this gives

\tau = 10^{76} \frac{M}{M_Sun} seconds = 10^{68} \frac{M}{M_Sun} years.

Carroll say the real calculation, which he doesn't show, gives

\tau = 10^{71} \frac{M}{M_Sun} seconds.

Hi George,

I second those thanks from marcus, however is there an explanation for the above discrepancy of 105?

Or is it simply that Carroll has got it wrong?

Garth
 
Garth said:
Hi George,

I second those thanks from marcus, however is there an explanation for the above discrepancy of 105?

Or is it simply that Carroll has got it wrong?

Garth

At first I thought Carroll was giving the result of a more careful calculation, but after looking more carefully at Carroll and at Wald's General Relativity (which gives the same number), I realized that this isn't so.

Wald gives essentially the same argument that I did, but he neglects all constants by writing proportionality statements instead of equalities, with final result

\tau \sim M^3.

He gives his argument in units such that c = G =\hbar =1. Conventional units are restored by writing

\tau_\mathrm{Sun} \sim \left( \frac{M_\mathrm{Sun}}{m_P} \right)^3 t_P \medspace \mathrm{seconds},

where m_P and t_P are the Planck mass and time.

Taking M_\mathrm{Sun}= 1.989 \times 10^{30} \medspace \mathrm{kg}, m_P = 2.177 \times 10^{-8} \medspace \mathrm{kg}, and t_P = 5.391 \times 10^{-44} \medspace \mathrm{s} gives their result.
 
Last edited:
Thats a nice approach George. In a normal ThermoD class these things would be approached by analogy.
 
George Jones said:
A given body of knowledge can often be presented in a number of orders. What follows is one order for black temperature and entropy.

Black holes radiate via https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=620350&postcount=4".

The relative intensities of the different parts of the spectrum of a hot body depends on its temperature. For example, the colour of a glowing metal (think stove element) depends on its temperature. The spectrum of a radiating black hole is (almost) thermal, so relative intensities give the temperture of a black hole.

Small black holes are hotter than large black holes because tidal forces are larger near the event horizon of a small black hole than they are near the horizon of a large black hole. The temperature T, as measured by an observer far from the black hole, of a black hole is inversely proportional to its mass M, with

T = \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi k G M},

where k is Boltzmann's constant.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation by black bodies is

P = \sigma A T^4,

where P is the power (energy per unit time) radiated, \sigma is Stefan's constant, and A is the radiating surface area.

Putting these together gives that a black hole radiates power according to

P = \frac{dE}{dt} = \sigma A \left( \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi k G M} \right)^4.

Both of Wald's technical books say that the Stefan-Boltzmann formula holds only approximately. A more accurate calculation sums over the modes radiated. As the temperature of black hole increases, species of particles with higher and higher masses come into play, as do the effects of the particles' energies and masses on curvature. I think Page, starting in the mid-seventies, published realistic calculations.

Assume that Stefan-Boltzmann holds.

The r-coordinate in Schwarzschild spacetime is defined such that for r &gt; 2M, the proper surface area of a sphere of constant r is given by A = 4 \pi r^2.

Assume that for a black hole A = 4 \pi r_S^2, where r_S = 2GM/c^2 is the Schwarzschild radius. (Wald, however, says that, due to light bending, the effective radius of a radiating black hole is 3^{3/2} GM/c^2.)

Using this in the above radiation radiation formula for black holes gives

P = \frac{dE}{dt} = \sigma 4 \pi \left( \frac{2GM}{c^2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi k G M} \right)^4.

Now, the rate at which the black hole emits energy equals the rate at which the black hole loses mass times c^2. Thus, after simplifying,

\frac{dM}{dt} c^2 = -\frac{\sigma c^{8}\hbar ^{4}}{256\pi ^{3}k^{4}G^{2}}\frac{1}{M^{2}}

Suppose that the black hole has initial mass M, and that after a time \tau the black hole has evaporated completely. After rearranging the above, this is expressed in terms of integrals as

<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \int_M^0 m^2 dm &amp;= - \alpha \int_0^\tau dt,\\<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}<br />

which gives

\tau &amp;= \frac{1}{3\alpha} M^3,

where

\alpha = \frac{\sigma c^{6}\hbar ^{4}}{256\pi ^{3}k^{4}G^{2}}.

The lifetime of a black hole is proportional to the cube of its mass, so realistically sized black holes (even ignoring infalling radiation and matter) take a long, long time to evaporate.

If I have done the calculations correctly, this gives

\tau = 10^{76} \frac{M}{M_Sun} seconds = 10^{68} \frac{M}{M_Sun} years.

Carroll say the real calculation, which he doesn't show, gives

\tau = 10^{71} \frac{M}{M_Sun} seconds.

The nice thing about this calculation is that it can be included as an application of the Stefan- Boltzmann formula in calculus-based first and second-year physics courses.

Students are already familiar with E=mc^2, and easily buy that the "radius" of a black hole is proportional to its mass. The inverse relationship between temperature and mass can be explained by tidal effects.

The whole presentation takes, at most, one lecture. However, finding space for an extra lecture in this already packed course can be difficult.

Carroll says the real calculation, which he doesn't show, gives

\tau = 10^{71} \frac{M}{M_Sun} seconds.

The thermal spectrum and non-zero temperature of a radiating black hole suggest a connection with thermodynamics. Consider the "surface area" (limit of proper surface areas as r \rightarrow r_S) of a spherical black hole:

<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> A &amp;= 4 \pi r_S^2 \\<br /> &amp;= 4 \pi \left( \frac{2GM}{c^2} \right)^2 \\<br /> &amp;= \frac{16 \pi G^2}{c^4} M^2 \\<br /> dA &amp;= \frac{32 \pi G^2}{c^4} M dM. \\<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}<br />

Using this with the energy content E=Mc^2 of a black hole gives

<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> dE &amp;= c^2 dM\\<br /> &amp;= \frac{c^6}{32 \pi G^2 M} dA\\<br /> &amp;= \frac{\hbar c^3}{8 \pi k G M} \frac{c^3 k}{4 \hbar G} dA\\<br /> &amp;= T \frac{c^3 k}{4 \hbar G} dA.<br /> \end{split}<br /> \end{equation*}<br />

This together with the first law of thermodynamics with no work terms, dE=TdS, suggest the identification of the entropy of a black hole with its surface area:

S=\frac{c^3 k}{4 \hbar G} A.

Historically, results happened in a different order.

can you give me an expression for the emission of hawking radiation from a black hole
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top