Detecting Black Holes: Is It Possible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of detecting black holes, specifically focusing on the theoretical aspects of radiation detection, such as Hawking radiation, and the conditions necessary for the formation of black holes. Participants explore detection methods, the faintness of Hawking radiation compared to cosmic background radiation, and the factors that contribute to the existence of black holes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that detecting radiation from black holes could be possible if there is a method to detect radiation from far distances.
  • Another participant argues that while telescopes can detect radiation, Hawking radiation from black holes is too faint to be detected due to its low temperature compared to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).
  • A follow-up post clarifies that telescopes can detect various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, not just optical light.
  • It is noted that while Hawking radiation is undetectable, black holes can be observed indirectly through x-ray radiation emitted by matter falling into them.
  • A new participant raises questions about the important factors that define a black hole, including total mass and mass density, and mentions the role of supernova explosions in black hole formation.
  • Another participant responds by stating that a black hole forms when a mass is compressed into a specific volume, indicating that density is a crucial factor, with a mathematical expression provided to illustrate this relationship.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that Hawking radiation is too faint to detect against the CMBR, but there is no consensus on the specific conditions or factors that define a black hole, as different viewpoints are presented regarding mass and density.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions involve assumptions about the detectability of radiation and the conditions under which black holes form, which may depend on specific definitions and theoretical frameworks.

RebelRiver
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello, this is my first topic. but i was thinking,

Theoretically if you have a way to detect radiation from far distances, couldn't you detect the radiation from black holes?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
We do have a way to detect radiation from far distances...they are called telescopes. The (theoretical) Hawking radiation given off by astronomical black holes is far far far far far far far too faint for us to detect though. The temperature of such a black body would be far less than the temperature of the CMBR...and therefore any signals from these objects would be covered by the CMBR.
 
Matterwave said:
We do have a way to detect radiation from far distances...they are called telescopes. The (theoretical) Hawking radiation given off by astronomical black holes is far far far far far far far too faint for us to detect though. The temperature of such a black body would be far less than the temperature of the CMBR...and therefore any signals from these objects would be covered by the CMBR.

So your saying that the way we use to find radiation is by sight with a telescope?
 
RebelRiver said:
So your saying that the way we use to find radiation is by sight with a telescope?

Yes. Note that you should not think of telescope in the scrict optical sense, as the term generally encompasses any object which aids in detecting any wavelength of electromagnetic radiation.

As the above post mentions, the only EM radiation emitted by a lonely black hole is hawking radiation, and is much much too weak to detect. If, however there is matter falling into the black hole it will emit lots of x-ray radiation and we see this all the time.
 
Agreed with Nabeshin, Hawking radiation is fainter that the CMB background, hence undetectable.
 
About black hole.
What is important factor to be a black hole?
Total mass, mass density(mass/ volume) or any step to be a black hole, which one is the important factor to be a black hole?
I've heard supernova explosion makes a black hole.
And then, which size or density black hole is minimum?
 
Well you get a black hole when a mass M is compressed into a volume with characteristic size 2M, so roughly the criterion is (units where c=G=1):
\rho \gtrsim \frac{1}{8M^2}
So the deciding parameter is the density, but the density scales like the inverse square of the mass.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K