Can an electron escape a charged black hole after crossing its event horizon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanleykorn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole Hole
stanleykorn
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Consider the following thought experiment. Electrons are propelled into an ordinary (nonrotating) black hole until the black hole has a sufficient electrostatic charge so that the electrostatic repulsive force on the next electron is greater than the gravitational attractive force. Since both the electrostatic force and gravity vary inversely with the square of the distance from the black hole, this next electron will experience a net inverse square repulsive force. Now suppose that this next electron is propelled towards the black hole with sufficient initial velocity so that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole. While an observer on this electron would observe the electron cross the event horizon in a finite amount of time, an infinite amount of time will have elapsed in the outside universe. Once inside the event horizon, the electron cannot fall into the singularity due to the net repulsive force, but must at some point be propelled away from the singularity until it recrosses the event horizon. Meanwhile, an infinite amount of time will have gone by in the outside universe into which the electron has re-entered, while the observer on the electron will have experienced the elapse of only a finite amount of time. Is that possible?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not an expert, but don't your electrons have mass? as you pump more and more electrons into the black hole the the repulsive force may grow, but the gravitational force is also growing and will always be stronger. that's what makes it a black hole after all
 
stanleykorn said:
Since both the electrostatic force and gravity vary inversely with the square of the distance from the black hole, this next electron will experience a net inverse square repulsive force.
In Newtonian gravity, gravitational force is proportional to the inverse square of the distance, but obviously you can't assume the same in general relativity, since if this was true in GR then you could always escape a black hole's pull by applying a sufficiently large force, and there'd be no such thing as an 'event horizon'. GR doesn't express gravity in terms of a 'force' at all, although I guess in the Newtonian limit you should be able to approximate it that way.
 
stanleykorn said:
Consider the following thought experiment. Electrons are propelled into an ordinary (nonrotating) black hole until the black hole has a sufficient electrostatic charge so that the electrostatic repulsive force on the next electron is greater than the gravitational attractive force. Since both the electrostatic force and gravity vary inversely with the square of the distance from the black hole, this next electron will experience a net inverse square repulsive force. Now suppose that this next electron is propelled towards the black hole with sufficient initial velocity so that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole. While an observer on this electron would observe the electron cross the event horizon in a finite amount of time, an infinite amount of time will have elapsed in the outside universe. Once inside the event horizon, the electron cannot fall into the singularity due to the net repulsive force, but must at some point be propelled away from the singularity until it recrosses the event horizon. Meanwhile, an infinite amount of time will have gone by in the outside universe into which the electron has re-entered, while the observer on the electron will have experienced the elapse of only a finite amount of time. Is that possible?

To be honest, this is a far more complicated problem than you probably realize. The first part of that starts with the fact that gravity is NOT a force in GR. You're using Newtonian gravity in a GR regime, which does not work, at all. Not even as an approximation. Its Ptolemy's sphere's to Kepler's orbits (ok, its not that bad, but the analogy to their relative usefulness is...well, useful).

That said, a particle cannot cross back over the event horizon, such a path is not allowed with a timelike (less that the speed of light) trajectory.

Also, such a black hole would not remain charged for long, it would radiate electrons via hawking radiation (essentially absorbing positive charge from quantum vacuum fluctuations, leaving electrons produced by the fluctuations free to escape. It is believed that a charged black hole will not exist "in the wild" because of this (although, that does not affect the question at hand).
 
stanleykorn said:
Consider the following thought experiment. Electrons are propelled into an ordinary (nonrotating) black hole until the black hole has a sufficient electrostatic charge so that the electrostatic repulsive force on the next electron is greater than the gravitational attractive force. Since both the electrostatic force and gravity vary inversely with the square of the distance from the black hole, this next electron will experience a net inverse square repulsive force.

Your model is already too simplistic. What you need to do to get an accurate analysis for the path of a charged particle is to use the geodesic equation, modified to include the electrostatic force

This is

<br /> m \left( \frac{d^2 r}{d \tau^2} + \Gamma^r{}_{tt} \left(\frac{dt}{d\tau}\right)^2 + \Gamma^r{}_{rr} \left(\frac{dr}{d\tau}\right)^2 \right) = e E_r<br />

I've omitted a number of terms which turn out to be zero from the general geodesic eq.

The charged BH is described by a Reissner-Nordstrom metric.

ds^2 = f(r) dt^2 - \frac{dr^2}{f(r)} - r^2 d\theta^2 - r^2 sin^2 \theta d\phi^2 \hspace{.25 in}f(r) = (1-\frac{2M}{r}+ \frac{Q^2}{r^2})

This gives

\Gamma^r{}_{tt} = \frac{(r^2-2 M r+Q^2)(M r - Q^2)}{r^5}
\Gamma^r{}_{rr} = -\frac{M r - Q^2}{r (r^2-2 M r+Q^2)}

E_r does turn out to be Q/r^2

Howver, gravity is not of the simple form you propose - the static field is due to \Gamma^r{}_{tt} via a much more complex expression than 1/r^2, and there is an additional quadratic term \Gamma^r{}_{rr} that has no interpreation as a "force".

Alternatively to using the geodesic equations, one could use some of the conserved quantities for this metric - this is computationally more convenient, but doesn't give as much insight.

Now suppose that this next electron is propelled towards the black hole with sufficient initial velocity so that it crosses the event horizon of the black hole. While an observer on this electron would observe the electron cross the event horizon in a finite amount of time, an infinite amount of time will have elapsed in the outside universe. Once inside the event horizon, the electron cannot fall into the singularity due to the net repulsive force, but must at some point be propelled away from the singularity until it recrosses the event horizon. Meanwhile, an infinite amount of time will have gone by in the outside universe into which the electron has re-entered, while the observer on the electron will have experienced the elapse of only a finite amount of time. Is that possible?

While your analysis above is much too simplistic, strange things do happen with charged black holes (much stranger than even those strange things that happen with uncharged black holes).

An observer can never pass back through the event horizon of a black hole, but under certain circumstances, such as the idealized geometry I gave above, it is possible for an observer to enter such a charged black hole through one event horizon, and leave it through a different event horizion to "another universe".

However, the above simple geometry, while valid outside the event horizon of a charged black hole, is probably NOT valid inside the event horizon of a black hole, so this is probably not realistic for an actual charged black hole.

The best paper I know about on the topic of what really happesn to someone falling through a charged BH of the sort likely to form in nature is

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9902008
 
Last edited:
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top