Black hole growth and evaporation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between black hole size, growth, and evaporation rates, particularly in relation to Hawking radiation. It highlights that a Schwarzschild black hole of one solar mass takes approximately 10^67 years to evaporate, and smaller black holes evaporate faster. A black hole will grow if its size exceeds a certain threshold, specifically when its Hawking temperature is lower than the surrounding temperature of 2.7 K from the Cosmic Microwave Background. If a black hole's mass is less than the equivalent of 4.6 x 10^22 kg, it will shrink due to higher Hawking temperatures. The conversation emphasizes the balance between black hole growth from accretion and evaporation through Hawking radiation.
egcavalcanti
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
What is the maximum approximate black hole size that would have negative growth rate as a function of average local mass density (and/or any other relevant parameters)? In other words, when does an evaporating black hole become a growing black hole and vice-versa?

Cheers
Eric
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Blackholes evaperation is an incredibly slow process, for a Schwarzschild black hole of 1 solar mass
the evaperation process by Hawking radiation is 1067 years. Thats for an uncharged non rotating black hole. I have no idea on the rates of Kerr black holes. Some key points on Hawking radiation which is a blackbody temperature. The smaller the BH the faster it will evaperate. So micro black holes will evaperate faster. Also evaperation does not occur unless the blackbody temperature is greater than the surrounding temperature. So the blackbody temperature must be greater than 2.7 kelvin. For growth rate that depends on its feeding rates of infalling materials , I know of no limit on BH size.

If your interested in the accretion disk and jet measurements and structure this article has a large collection of formulas for measurements etc. There is some discussion on portions of the accretion disk and it does have a brief mention of Hawking radiation including the formula. Its near the beginning of the 91 page article. Its math intensive however.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499

by the way welcome to the forum
 
Expanding on the 2.7 k point:

Suppose a black hole is completely isolated from everything except the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation at 2.7 K. Let's find the Schwarzschild radius r for a black hole that is in equilibrium with the CMB, i.e., that has a Hawking temperature of 2.7 K. If a black hole is larger than this, its Hawking temperature will be less 2.7, and the black hole will grow and keep growing (neglecting the drop in the CMB temperature caused by the expansion of the universe), because it will absorb energy from the CMB. If a black hole is smaller than this, its Hawking temperature will be more than 2.7, and the black hole will shrink and keep shrinking, because it will radiate energy.

The Schwarzschild radius of a black is given by r =2GM/c^2. Combining this with its Hawking temperature

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

r = \frac{\hbar c}{4 \pi k T}
Using T = 2.7 K gives a radius of 0.000067 metres and a mass of 4.6 \times 10^{22} kg (a little less than the mass of the Moon).

This is much smaller than black holes formed from astrophysical processes.
 
  • Like
Likes DDH
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
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...
Back
Top