B Is a Black Hole Really Just a Spherical Structure?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of black holes, questioning whether they should be considered "holes" or spherical structures resulting from imploding stars. Participants argue that while the term "hole" implies an empty space, black holes are better described as spherical due to their event horizons, which are detectable yet prevent any causal connection to the universe beyond gravity. The conversation also touches on the concept of black holes as distortions in spacetime rather than physical openings, emphasizing that they do not "suck" objects in like a vacuum but can be orbited safely if one remains outside the event horizon. Additionally, the potential for black holes to grow indefinitely without an upper mass limit is highlighted, alongside discussions about their size and the implications of Hawking radiation. Ultimately, the terminology and conceptualization of black holes remain complex and nuanced.
  • #31
What's beyond the event horizon of a Black Hole?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Marquael Sartor said:
What's beyond the event horizon of a Black Hole?
At the center is the "singularity". We don't KNOW what it is, which is why it's called a singularity (singularity = "the place where the math model breaks down and we don't know WHAT is going on")
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #33
Labguy said:
and the other is that once a certain small size is reached, the remaining matter of the entire BH "explodes".
Masswise, is there a minimum? (other than zero, which is realized after evaporation)
My guess is that if there is it will depend on the size of explosion (i.e. the size of the hole at which explosion happens). Anyone knows details? Is there a handy equation?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Stavros Kiri said:
Masswise, is there a minimum? (other than zero, after evaporation)
My guess is that if there is it will depend on the size of explosion. Anyone knows details? Is there a handy equation?
Yes; the equation would be:
"Minimum Mass = No Black Hole Anymore = (Mass=0)"...:biggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes hsdrop
  • #35
Labguy said:
Yes; the equation would be:
"Minimum Mass = No Black Hole Anymore = (Mass=0)"...:biggrin:
That's based on the first option (pure evaporation - no explosion). I am looking for the critical mass right before burst (or explosion). Drakkith seems to have an idea.
Drakkith said:
It's not an explosion that blasts apart the black hole, it's a rapid increase in hawking radiation generated by the black hole during the final moments of its life. Since hawking radiation reduces the mass of the black hole, this final burst of energetic radiation ends with the complete "evaporation" of the black hole.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Caution: I re-edited (a bit) my "Masswise" question after Labguy answered.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Stavros Kiri said:
That's based on the first option (pure evaporation - no explosion). I am looking for the critical mass right before burst (or explosion). Drakkith seems to have an idea.
From:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html in part reads:
"Evaporation of a mini black hole
Black holes get the energy to radiate Hawking radiation from their rest mass energy. So if a black hole is not accreting mass from outside, it will lose mass by Hawking radiation, and will eventually evaporate. For astronomical black holes, the evaporation time is prodigiously long - about 1061 times the age of the Universe for a 30 solar mass black hole. However, the evaporation time is shorter for smaller black holes (evaporation time t is proportional to M3), and black holes with masses less than about 1011 kg (the mass of a small mountain) can evaporate in less than the age of the Universe. The Hawking temperature of such mini black holes is high: a 1011 kg black hole has a temperature of about 1012 Kelvin, equivalent to the rest mass energy of a proton. The gravitational pull of such a mini black hole would be about 1 g at a distance of 1 meter.

It is not well established what an evaporating mini black hole would actually look like in realistic detail. The Hawking radiation itself would consist of fiercely energetic particles, antiparticles, and gamma rays. Such radiation is invisible to the human eye, so optically the evaporating black hole might look like a dud. However, it is also possible that the Hawking radiation, rather than emerging directly, might power a hadronic fireball that would degrade the radiation into particles and gamma rays of less extreme energy, possibly making the evaporating black hole visible to the eye. Whatever the case, you would not want to go near an evaporating mini black hole, which would be a source of lethal gamma rays and energetic particles, even if it didn't look like much visually
."
I don't think an actual size can be calculated yet since we don't yet know anything about "singularity mass", The Hawking Radiation comes from the Event Horizon and not from the singularity. The BH temperature calculations are shown on the link but how do we connect a temperature with an EH size to get a size at evaporation, or explosion?
 
  • Like
Likes stoomart, Stavros Kiri and phinds
  • #38
Labguy said:
From:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html in part reads:
"Evaporation of a mini black hole
Black holes get the energy ... or explosion?
Thanks! That helps. It seems there is no exact quantitative model yet for these sort of things, that would lead to a direct equation, yet.
 
  • #39
Stavros Kiri said:
That's based on the first option (pure evaporation - no explosion). I am looking for the critical mass right before burst (or explosion). Drakkith seems to have an idea.

I doubt there's a hard line between "explosion" and "right before the explosion" like there is in a bomb.
 
  • #40
Drakkith said:
I doubt there's a hard line between "explosion" and "right before the explosion" like there is in a bomb.
But if the mass is already zero before burst there would be no burst ... (and no black hole) , while there is indeed a bomb right before an explosion ...

When the size is critically small for burst, there must be a critical mass, but perhaps it's hard to calculate.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
The theoretical minimum for black hole mass is the Planck mass, which is about 22 micrograms. This has a mass energy equivalence of roughly 470 kilograms of TNT or about 1.22e+19 GeV.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #42
Chronos said:
The theoretical minimum for black hole mass is the Planck mass, which is about 22 micrograms. This has a mass energy equivalence of roughly 470 kilograms of TNT or about 1.22e+19 GeV.
Now you are talking. I had forgotten that! ...
 
  • Like
Likes rootone
  • #43
Thus Mcritical = Planck mass , and then ... Booom to zero!
At the same time the critical size runs down to the atomic scale.
So basically applying the uncertainty principle to calculate those, but correct me if I am wrong.
 
  • #44
Stavros Kiri said:
Thus Mcritical = Planck mass , and then ... Booom to zero!
At the same time the critical size runs down to the atomic scale.
So basically applying the uncertainty principle to calculate those, but correct me if I am wrong.
If that's the conclusion, it seems that PF cooperation brought some results here ...
 
  • #45
And one perhaps can go even further to interpret that "mysterious" dissapearence (complete evaporation) of the black hole as connected somehow to the uncertainty principle +/ the things we know about Hawking radiation ...
 
  • #46
ΔEΔt ~ h/2π to estimate the small lifetime of that atomic scale black hole [E calculated from Planck mass, etc.] ..., but perhaps there is more.
 
  • #47
Thus we get an idea how and why black holes die: once they get down to atomic scale (by Hawking radiation evaporation mechanism), they are bound to die fast, as dictated by the uncertainty principle ...
(+ thanks to Drakkith, Chronos, Labguy, Phinds, hsdrop, stoomart, Simon Peach etc.)
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Stavros Kiri said:
Thus we get an idea how and why black holes die: once they get down to atomic scale (by Hawking radiation evaporation mechanism), they are bound to die fast, as dictated by the uncertainty principle ...
(+ thanks to Drakkith, Chronos, Labguy, Phinds, hsdrop, stoomart, Simon Peach etc.)
Where did you get this? What does the HUP have to do with the final black hole evaporation/explosion/whatever ?
 
  • #49
The Compton wavelength might be more familiar
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #51
phinds said:
Where did you get this? What does the HUP have to do with the final black hole evaporation/explosion/whatever ?
In other words, you can't confine a black hole in atomic scale and with the relevant energy levels and have it live long at the same time! ... It will be unstable and will collapse within a matter of 0.1sec (as stootmart [based on Hawking (1974)] said earlier https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/black-hole-question.897685/page-2#post-5648676), and perhaps it's not just the Hawking radiation (evaporation) at this final stage of the BH (there may be another extra final mechanism [for the atomic scale] not clear yet ... (that brings the burst) [whose profound role, action, function and connection to the Uncertainty principle (HUP) could perhaps be explained with hidden variables, but I am not sure at this point] ).
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Stavros Kiri said:
... within a matter of 0.1sec (as stootmart [based on Hawking (1974)] said earlier ...

stoomart said:
My understanding according to Stephen Hawking's 1974 letter to Nature is it's both: the black hole evaporates and then explodes in the last 0.1 second.

That shows perhaps there must be two mechanisms ...
 
Last edited:
  • #53
There is only one mechanism. Hawking merely says that in the final 0.1 seconds of its life a black hole would release about 1 million megatons of energy. He could have easily said how much energy was lost in the last 0.5 seconds or 1 nanosecond or some other amount of time.
 
  • Like
Likes stoomart

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K