Are Black Holes Cold? - Ask an Astrophysicist

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether black holes can be considered cold, exploring various aspects of black hole thermodynamics, Hawking radiation, and the implications of mass on temperature. Participants engage in theoretical reasoning and speculative ideas related to astrophysics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that black holes are generally cold, as their temperature is inversely related to their mass, with smaller black holes potentially being hotter than larger ones.
  • Others argue that the concept of temperature in the context of black holes is complicated by the nature of spacetime near the event horizon, where conventional physical laws may not apply.
  • A participant raises a question about the kinetic energy of matter that is accreted into black holes, suggesting that this energy could contribute to thermal energy, implying that black holes may not be as cold as previously thought.
  • There is mention of Hawking radiation as a theoretical concept that suggests black holes can emit radiation, but its applicability and the conditions near the event horizon remain debated.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of energy and temperature at scales beyond the Planck length, questioning the validity of measurements in such extreme conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether black holes can be classified as cold. There are multiple competing views regarding the relationship between mass, temperature, and the nature of energy within black holes.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved questions about the behavior of energy and temperature in highly curved spacetime, as well as the implications of Hawking radiation and the nature of measurements at Planck scales.

conan
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi,

new here, my first post. Like many people here, I'm no astrophysist, but I have an active interest in our solar system, cosmology in general and I guess astrophysics. Here's my first question.

"Are black holes cold?".

Given my amateur understanding, I would say yes, they are near absolute zero (they leak very slowly). But if light can't escape it, then I don't see how other wave forms can escape it. Or am I missing something?

Thanks for any opinions.

conan
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The temperature of a black hole is inversely related to its mass. But generally speaking, yes, black holes are cold, as it takes a less than stellar mass BH to have a temp greater than even the Cosmic Background radiation.
 
This is an application of the first law of thermodynamics, energy in is energy out. The black hole doesn't 'suck' in heat the same as it 'sucks' in matter.
 
Janus said:
The temperature of a black hole is inversely related to its mass. But generally speaking, yes, black holes are cold, as it takes a less than stellar mass BH to have a temp greater than even the Cosmic Background radiation.

Assuming Hawking's quantum black holes exist, what about temperature in that realm?
I do not see how anything near Planck Length in size can have measurable properties like that.

It just seems odd to me that someone would postulate being able to measure temperature inside a region of highly curved spacetime, where the other physical laws on which we base the concept of temperature (here in flat spacetime) are inapplicable. Since this is clearly not my field I would appreciate some correction.
 
Last edited:
The Hawking radiation is a speculative theoretical derivation. Hawking considered what happens to light radiation before, during and after creation of a black hole from gravitationally collapsing body. The light rays that escape after the BH formation almost glazed the forming and expanding event horizon but never got inside so there is no contradiction with the idea that nothing can escape from inside an even horizon. The result of the calculation was that after the BH formation, the rays that manage to glaze the horizon and escape back to infinity will have a thermal spectrum characterized by a temperature that is inversely proportional to the BH mass. I think there is still controversy going on because close to the horizon, the photons were very high in energy (blue shift), even above Planck's scale, and we can't be sure as you said that the laws we know at lower energies still apply.Also I've seen statements in the literature that the classical eternal black hole of GR that exists forever, never created or destroyed, is symmetric in time therefore it doesn't radiate like a BH formed from gravitational collapse. They say that the eternal black hole has another natural choice of vacuum for the radiation which doesn't produce Hawking radiation.
 
Last edited:
where is kenetic energy of accreted matter?

the black hore is formed by accreted matter from second star. the speed of accreted matter can reach the light speed at the last orbit R_g\sffamily\approx \sqrt{\frac{G M}{c^2}}. After this limit neither light no matter can escape from the system , my question where is passed the kenitic energy of the matter accreted at this high speed?
 
the matter is accreted with its energy into black hole, and no things can escape from there after this moment. logicaly the black is not so cold. matter cross the horizon limit with a high speed and consequently its kenitic energy is very high and will be converted to thermal energy.

thanks
 
I think there is still controversy going on because close to the horizon, the photons were very high in energy (blue shift), even above Planck's scale, and we can't be sure as you said that the laws we know at lower energies still apply.

I guess I don't understand - I thought anything "operating" beyond Planck's scale was considered either impossible or dismissed as an artifact. Therefore, a photon with wavlength shorter than Planck's length either could not be observed or doesn't exist? Or maybe we cannot describe it...
 
tarbag said:
the matter is accreted with its energy into black hole, and no things can escape from there after this moment. logicaly the black is not so cold. matter cross the horizon limit with a high speed and consequently its kenitic energy is very high and will be converted to thermal energy.

thanks
yes i agree....black holes could be a lot warmer than previously thought
 
  • #10
conan said:
Hi,

new here, my first post. Like many people here, I'm no astrophysist, but I have an active interest in our solar system, cosmology in general and I guess astrophysics. Here's my first question.

"Are black holes cold?".

Given my amateur understanding, I would say yes, they are near absolute zero (they leak very slowly). But if light can't escape it, then I don't see how other wave forms can escape it. Or am I missing something?

Thanks for any opinions.

conan

a black holes event horizon bares an inverse ratio with its temperature. the bigger the event horizon the less the temp it has.this says that smaller black holes are red hot while large black holes are cooler as compared to the small ones.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K