Black holes and their guts

  • Thread starter photon
  • Start date
  • #1
123
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

I've been doing some writing in my physics journal about black holes and baby universes. I'm stuck with near nothing because of a lack of ideas. I have quite a few questions, but would like some other opinions on the matter.
What happens to the matter in a black hole after it has evaporated? I was thinking something like it all going to another universe like our own. (Even though I don't belong in the same universe as most people here. )
So, post away!
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
turin
Homework Helper
2,323
3
Are you talking about this Hawking radiation?

I don't know very much about it, but I've gotten the impression that it is indicatrive of one of those situations where QM wins against GR. That is, the gravity won't even allow light to escape, classically, but the uncertainty allows for a finite probability of a trapped photon being found outside the black hole (a very "red" photon).

Another thing that I'm not sure about but have understood to be the case is that, when stuff (i.e. matter) gets trapped by the black hole, it no longer exists in our universe as matter, but it still contributes to the curvature of space-time in our univserse. So, I conclude from this (in a very simple-minded way) that the matter becomes energy, and that all the "stuff" in a black hole looks like energy to our universe. It is this energy (I conjecture) that fuels the Hawking radiation.
 
  • #3
841
1
What happens to the matter in a black hole after it has evaporated?
Assuming the black hole has matter in it, and that the black hole evaporates, then we might suppose that the matter in the black hole gets converted to Hawking radiation in the process of evaporation. More likely, the matter will hit the singularity before the hole evaporates, and we don't know at all what happens to it then.

I was thinking something like it all going to another universe like our own.
Some people have proposed that the matter that reaches the singularity goes into another universe, but nobody has any idea.
 
  • #4
841
1
Originally posted by turin
Another thing that I'm not sure about but have understood to be the case is that, when stuff (i.e. matter) gets trapped by the black hole, it no longer exists in our universe as matter, but it still contributes to the curvature of space-time in our univserse. So, I conclude from this (in a very simple-minded way) that the matter becomes energy, and that all the "stuff" in a black hole looks like energy to our universe.
The matter or radiation ("energy") that falls into a black hole doesn't have to continue to exist in for the black hole itself to exist. So we don't know whether anything continues to exist in any form once it hits the singularity.

It is this energy (I conjecture) that fuels the Hawking radiation.
Hawking radiation isn't produced by anything that fell into a black hole; it's a vacuum effect.
 
  • #5
I'd always just assumed that any matter entering a black hole is spat into another time and or universe depending on it characteristics.
I'm leaning towards a definite relationship with Kaluza-Klein Theory here and his mention of a fifth dimension. It is in this dimension that the sieve/filter type processing of matter in the black hole determines how and where matter/energy is transferred to. Perhaps the Hawkins radiation is simply matter of the observable universe being ejected back into that same universe, i.e. not processed or transported within the black hole and which might include matter transported by the black holes dimensional twin.

I haven't fully got my head around how a black hole might treat matter at the subatomic level and whether atoms are pulled apart or if they remain stream like i.e. retain their topographical shape. I'm inclined to think at the very minimum that the topographical signature of any matter entering the black hole is not compromised. My reasoning behind this is that otherwise we would have far to many anomalies (a bit like the Fly film) and physics would not be able to maintain it's consistency. Just as a side note I suspect that a black hole can only be closed once it's corresponding piece of space-time (it's lid) enters into the black hole. This lid I suspect is unique in its topographical, dimensional nature and is the lid that allows our universe to shape shift and cross over into other dimensions when needed or appropriate. The big bang would be a good example of this phenomenon at work.

Silvershadow
 
Last edited:
  • #6
jimmy p
Gold Member
358
31
Well i would also assume that the mass would be converted to energy and emitted... but then that leads to the problem that if light cant escape a black hole, how does any emissions? i know that black holes emit x-rays so that how we know where they are, but them thar waves must be very (as in EXTREMELY) energised. im prob wrong then.
 
  • #7
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
Originally posted by jimmy p
Well i would also assume that the mass would be converted to energy and emitted... but then that leads to the problem that if light cant escape a black hole, how does any emissions? i know that black holes emit x-rays so that how we know where they are, but them thar waves must be very (as in EXTREMELY) energised. im prob wrong then.
Light can't escape from WITHIN the black hole's event horizon, but it can escape when it's very close (but outside) the event horizon.

The general description of Hawking radiation is that a virtual pair of particles is spontaneously created very close to the event horizon. One falls in, the other flies escapes. It is as if the black hole created the escaping particle, and thus evaporated.

- Warren
 
  • #8
turin
Homework Helper
2,323
3
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
The matter or radiation ("energy") that falls into a black hole doesn't have to continue to exist in for the black hole itself to exist. So we don't know whether anything continues to exist in any form once it hits the singularity.
Doesn't there need to be stress-energy to curve space-time? Are you saying that, once space-time curves enough to make a black hole, that the curvature will support itself? That would be some new level of understanding for me. Also, I wasn't talking about the matter being at the singularity, just inside the event horizon. Would that make a difference?




Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Hawking radiation isn't produced by anything that fell into a black hole; it's a vacuum effect.
Does it happen here on earth? What are the requirements?
 
  • #9
123
0
The general description of Hawking radiation is that a virtual pair of particles is spontaneously created very close to the event horizon. One falls in, the other flies escapes. It is as if the black hole created the escaping particle, and thus evaporated.
If I remember correctly, the particle that falls into the hole will have negative mass/energy causing the black hole to shrink. Both particles then become real particles because they can no longer turn into energy.
 
  • #10
841
1
Originally posted by turin
Doesn't there need to be stress-energy to curve space-time?
No; there are plenty of curved solutions to the vacuum Einstein equations; the Schwarzschild solution is one of them.

Are you saying that, once space-time curves enough to make a black hole, that the curvature will support itself?
Yes, exactly: general relativity is a nonlinear theory in which gravity gravitates.

That would be some new level of understanding for me. Also, I wasn't talking about the matter being at the singularity, just inside the event horizon. Would that make a difference?
Any matter inside the horizon ends up at the singularity very quickly --- in most cases, and maybe always, before the hole can evaporate.

Does it happen here on earth? What are the requirements?
Hawking radiation needs an event horizon to be produced. You could produce something analogous to it on Earth, namely Unruh radiation, merely by accelerating (which results in a Rindler horizon) --- but it is too weak to detect.
 
  • #11
What are the properties of a singlarity?
 
  • #12
841
1
What are the properties of a singlarity?
A singularity doesn't really have meaningful physical properties. That's why people don't like them when they appear in their theories; the theory can't predict what happens after you hit one.
 
  • #13
turin
Homework Helper
2,323
3
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
No; there are plenty of curved solutions to the vacuum Einstein equations; the Schwarzschild solution is one of them.
I read on John Baez' website that GR shows that the vacuum has very close to zero energy.

I assumed that was because the vacuum is very close to being flat, and so there cannot be very much stress-energy in it, or else it would not be flat.

Am I jumping to the wrong conclusion? I know this is the other side of the coin, but that new revelation made me second-guess my assumption.
 
  • #14
841
1
I read on John Baez' website that GR shows that the vacuum has very close to zero energy.
Well, as you will also see on Baez's website, there are many different ways of speaking of the energy of the vacuum in quantum field theory.

I assumed that was because the vacuum is very close to being flat, and so there cannot be very much stress-energy in it, or else it would not be flat.
It's not at all clear right now what relation the vacuum energy has to the curvature of spacetime: this is part of the famous cosmological constant problem.
 
  • #15
turin
Homework Helper
2,323
3
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
Well, as you will also see on Baez's website, there are many different ways of speaking of the energy of the vacuum in quantum field theory.
Don't get deffensive, I'm just trying to resolve the conflict in my mind. I don't see why QFT should enter into the discussion.




Originally posted by Ambitwistor
It's not at all clear right now what relation the vacuum energy has to the curvature of spacetime: this is part of the famous cosmological constant problem.
So does GR just say that the vacuum has almost zero energy as a postulate? That doesn't seem right. From what in GR is almost zero vacuum energy concluded?
 
  • #16
841
1
So does GR just say that the vacuum has almost zero energy as a postulate? That doesn't seem right. From what in GR is almost zero vacuum energy concluded?
In classical physics (not just GR), the vacuum never has energy: energy arises from particles, fields, etc. Vacuum energy is a quantum phenomenon.
 
  • #17
turin
Homework Helper
2,323
3
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
In classical physics (not just GR), the vacuum never has energy: energy arises from particles, fields, etc. Vacuum energy is a quantum phenomenon.
I guess I need to get straight on what the vacuum is. I have been thinking of it as empty (absent of mass) space-time. I thought that, for instance, E&M radiation propogated through the vacuum, but that it was still vacuum. What do you have to say about this?
 
  • #18
841
1
I guess I need to get straight on what the vacuum is. I have been thinking of it as empty space-time.
Classically, that's fine. (Quantum mechanically, it can be debated whether the vacuum is "empty", or seething with virtual particles and fluctuations of spacetime foam.)
 
  • #19
turin
Homework Helper
2,323
3
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
general relativity is a nonlinear theory in which gravity gravitates.
OK, maybe you can straighten me out on this one. When I first say Einstein's equation (not too long ago, in case you haven't noticed), I thought that the nonlinearity was the diff. eq. being nonlinear in the sense that, if the metric is gμν, and Einstein's tensor is Gμν, then if the metric is Ag(1)μν + g(2)μν, then Einstein's tensor is not necessarily AG(1)μν + G(2)μν. Then, after some forum chat, I thought that I began to realize the nonlinearity was the fact that Rμν (or gμν, or something else related to the curvature) contributed to Tμν, in which case, Tμν would not be zero, even though there was no mass or energy from anything (other than the curvature), sort of like recursion. I am not at all clear why there is a contribution, though.
 
  • #20
841
1
Originally posted by turin
When I first say Einstein's equation (not too long ago, in case you haven't noticed), I thought that the nonlinearity was the diff. eq. being nonlinear in the sense that, if the metric is gμν, and Einstein's tensor is Gμν, then if the metric is Ag(1)μν + g(2)μν, then Einstein's tensor is not necessarily AG(1)μν + G(2)μν.
Yes, that's what it means.


Then, after some forum chat, I thought that I began to realize the nonlinearity was the fact that Rμν (or gμν, or something else related to the curvature) contributed to Tμν,
I'm not sure in what sense the Riemann tensor can be said to contribute to the stress-energy tensor.

The nonlinearity means that gravity can gravitate, but that doesn't mean that the stress-energy tensor is nonzero. You can have curved spacetimes that gravitate (such as the Schwarzschild solution), but the stress-energy tensor is everywhere zero.
 
  • #21
Is there such a thing as an 'anti-black-hole'?
 
  • #22
turin
Homework Helper
2,323
3
Originally posted by Ambitwistor
I'm not sure in what sense the Riemann tensor can be said to contribute to the stress-energy tensor.
I had been given the impression that curving space-time was a lot like disturbing a system from its equilibrium point.

As an extremely simple example, I was trying to think about it like a spring. Flat space-time is like a spring neither compressed nor stretched. Curved space-time is like a spring either compressed or stretched. Then, there should be some energy associated with the curved space-time (at least with respect to the flat space-time).

In other words, I had the impression that empty space-time "wants" to be flat (like "a body in motion 'wants' to stay in motion..."), and that space-time with stress-energy in it curves just so under the influence of the stress-energy (like "unless there is an inhomogeneity").

Alright, so we're getting more specific: Is curved space-time at a higher energy than flat space-time, because it is curved?

Sorry, this stuff just takes a while to sink in (and I am paranoid of nuance).




Originally posted by Ambitwistor
You can have curved spacetimes that gravitate (such as the Schwarzschild solution), but the stress-energy tensor is everywhere zero.
Everywhere? Even at the singularity?
 
  • #23
841
1
Originally posted by turin
Everywhere? Even at the singularity?
The stress-energy tensor is zero everywhere in spacetime in the Schwarzschild solution. The singularity, technically speaking, is not a point in spacetime; no physical quantities, including stress-energy, can be defined there.
 
  • #24
841
1
Originally posted by S = k log w
Is there such a thing as an 'anti-black-hole'?
It depends on what you mean by an "anti-black-hole". There is a theoretical construct called a "white hole", but it's not regarded as physically realistic since there's no way for one to form if it didn't already exist.
 

Related Threads for: Black holes and their guts

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
8K
Top