Black Hole Binding Energy Radiation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the behavior of binding energy when an object falls into a black hole. It explores whether the added mass from the object increases Hawking radiation or if it decreases it, with participants noting that the overall energy of the falling object contributes to the black hole's mass. The conversation highlights that energy must be dissipated to prevent the object from escaping, typically through heat radiation, which does not occur in black holes. The relationship between kinetic energy, binding energy, and the probability of escape is also examined, emphasizing that if the binding energy is exceeded, the object may escape. The complexities of energy transformation and the implications for black hole physics are underscored throughout the discussion.
valjok
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I don't know whether this is more appropriate forum than the astrophysics as far as the black holes are conserned... Anyway

I would like to know what happens to the binding energy when a black hole eats an object? It is necessary to radiate it in order the object would not escape. However, everybody reports that nothing besides the Hawking radiation (temperature is inverse proportional to mass) escapes the black hole. Is it right to think that the added mass increases the Hawking radiation (the linear drop in temperature is compensated by the larger hole square) and the binding enerty escapes in this form?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I would like to know what happens to the binding energy when a black hole eats an object? It is necessary to radiate it in order the object would not escape.
Why is it necessary?
Is it right to think that the added mass increases the Hawking radiation
Added mass decreases the Hawking radiation.
 
mathman said:
Why is it necessary?

Why binding energy is necessary?
 
valjok said:
Why binding energy is necessary?

According to standard theory, any energy that falls into a black hole simply ends up contributing to its overall energy (and the corresponding mass). The overall energy of the falling object includes any internal energy corrections (such as positive thermal energy or negative binding energy) within a composite object.
 
Despite my failure to understand Jonathan's writing, I think I understand the process now. As some object falls onto a massive body, it accelerates until the center of attraction. The potential energy of gravity is transformed into kinetic energy of speed. The body then flies away while slows down (kinetic-to-potential back transform). In order to prevent the fly away, the falling object must be bound (smashed) to the planet. Normally, this is done by dissipating the kinetic energy, which is later radiated in the form of heat. As long as Hawking is not concerned, it is not radiated in case of BH. That's simple.
 
The kinetic theory tells that the particles in thermal motion occasionally get enaugh energy to escape the attractor. The probability is proportional to the ratio between the internal kinetic energy (the temperature) and the binding potential energy: P = exp(W/kT). When the ratio is positive, the probability is higher than 1 - the particle must escape the potential hole.

The object attracted by a planet is accelerated and has the right energy to escape the planet when it hits it. Even if does not escape, it adds to the planet temperature, thus reducing its binding energy. The extra energy contributed might be so high that the binding energy of the planet is exceeded -- something must fly away. So is with the planet = BH.

BTW, even the fact that a BH particle cannot escape from BH to infinity does not mean it cannot show up at any distance behind the BH radius.
 
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...
Today at about 4:30 am I saw the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, where they were about the width of the full moon, or one half degree apart. Did anyone else see it? Edit: The moon is 2,200 miles in diameter and at a distance of 240,000 miles. Thereby it subtends an angle in radians of 2,200/240,000=.01 (approximately). With pi radians being 180 degrees, one radian is 57.3 degrees, so that .01 radians is about .50 degrees (angle subtended by the moon). (.57 to be more exact, but with...
Back
Top