Photon pressure within a black hole

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of photon pressure within a black hole, particularly in the context of black hole formation from matter and antimatter collisions. Participants explore the implications of photon behavior, gravitational forces, and the nature of singularities, touching on theoretical models and the effects of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that a black hole formed from matter and antimatter collisions would consist of photons and suggests that photon pressure could eventually overcome gravitational forces, potentially leading to an explosion as the black hole evaporates.
  • Another participant argues that once antimatter falls into a black hole, it does not affect the black hole's properties and that photons would be trapped and fall toward the singularity, losing their identity in the process.
  • A different participant challenges the notion of a black hole as a "container" of photons, asserting that if photon pressure were sufficient to overcome gravity, a black hole would not form in the first place.
  • This participant also outlines three theoretical possibilities regarding the formation of black holes and the role of quantum effects, emphasizing that none allow for photon pressure to overcome gravitational forces.
  • Another participant corrects a misunderstanding about the "no hair" theorem, clarifying that it applies to the black hole itself as seen from outside, not to individual particles that fall inside.
  • One participant expresses confusion over the implications of the "no hair" theorem as described in a Wikipedia article, indicating a need for clarification on the distinction between the black hole's properties and those of individual particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of photon pressure, the behavior of particles within a black hole, and the implications of quantum mechanics. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the key points raised.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding related to the definitions of black holes, the implications of quantum effects, and the interpretations of the "no hair" theorem. These factors contribute to the complexity of the discussion.

bcrelling
Messages
69
Reaction score
2
If a large mass of matter and anti-matter collided to form a black hole, I assume they would anihilate and you would have a black hole made of photons. Now considering the black hole as a container of photon, there must be a net pressure pushing against the confines of the gravity.
The force of gravity increases with the inverse square of the radius, however the photon pressure increases with the inverse cube, meaning at a certain distance from the singularity the photon pressure with overcome the gravity. Also as far as I can see from the maths, if a black hole shrinks through evaporation, there will come a point when the photon pressure will supersede the event horizon, and boom would the black hole simply explode?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If antimatter fell into the black hole nothing special would happen other than the hole gets a little larger.

Once it's past the event horizon it's not coming out. So basically you won't see any photons even if it did collide with matter on the way in.

When anything falls into a black hole it follows a trajectory toward the singularity but never reaches it. It basically squished and stretched out as it falls. There is no matter at the center of the singularity.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

With respect to your question, it seems if the black hole formed the photons would be trapped inside falling toward the singularity. They would lose their sense of being photons as only their properties of mass, charge, and angular momentum are preserved...

Black holes do evaporate and go out in a flash of light. I can't comment on the photon pressure though I couldn't find any reference for it.
 
Last edited:
bcrelling said:
considering the black hole as a container of photon

It isn't. A black hole isn't a "container" of anything. Everything inside a black hole is falling into the singularity. See further comments below.

bcrelling said:
there must be a net pressure pushing against the confines of the gravity

A blob of photons that forms a black hole will have pressure, yes; but if the photons have formed a black hole, the pressure can't have been sufficient to overcome the gravity of the photons. If it were, a black hole would never form in the first place. Once the hole forms, the pressure of the photons will never overcome their gravity, and all the photons will fall into the singularity and be destroyed. (At least, that's what happens in the purely classical model of black holes; if we throw in quantum effects like evaporation, things become more complicated--see below.)

bcrelling said:
at a certain distance from the singularity the photon pressure with overcome the gravity

No, because, as above, if pressure is sufficient to overcome gravity, the photons will never form a black hole in the first place, so what's at the center won't be a singularity; it will just be the center of an ordinary blob of photons whose contraction will be stopped by the pressure of the photons, and which will then start expanding again.

bcrelling said:
if a black hole shrinks through evaporation, there will come a point when the photon pressure will supersede the event horizon

No, there won't. Adding quantum effects like evaporation does make things more complicated, as I said above, but it doesn't make the inside of a black hole any more like an ordinary "container" of photons or anything else.

There are basically three possibilities for what happens when we take the classical model of a black hole, in which the hole is "eternal" and can never lose mass or evaporate away, and add quantum effects like Hawking radiation.

(1) Quantum effects prevent a black hole from ever forming in the first place; no actual event horizon ever forms. Compact objects that look, from the outside, very much like a black hole might still form (in more technical language, an "apparent horizon", where radially outgoing light no longer moves outward, might still form), but they would not actually be black holes (for example, any apparent horizon that did form would eventually disappear, so there would be no permanent boundary preventing light or other things from escaping). What we call "black hole evaporation" on this model would actually be generated by apparent horizons, not event horizons, and would tend to eventually make them disappear, allowing objects that fell inside those apparent horizons to escape out again.

(2) Quantum effects allow an actual black hole to form (i.e., they allow actual event horizons to form, so that objects inside them never escape), but do not allow a singularity to form at the center. Thus, objects that fall through the event horizon, although they can never actually escape back out, do not get destroyed in a singularity. On some versions of this kind of model, the objects that fall in enter a new "baby universe" that gets spawned when the hole is created; on other versions, it's not entirely clear what happens to them (and that is one reason why this group of models is probably not workable). A black hole that forms can eventually evaporate, and the radiation that comes out during the evaporation can, at least in some versions of this kind of model, contain all the information about objects that fell in, even though the objects themselves can't escape back out (they don't even come out if the hole finally evaporates away completely).

(3) Quantum effects allow an actual black hole to form (i.e., they allow actual event horizons to form), and a singularity forms at the center of each black hole. A black hole can eventually evaporate, but anything that fell into it while it existed gets destroyed in the singularity. On some versions of this kind of model, the radiation emitted during the evaporation process somehow contains all the quantum information that was in the objects that fell in (but in highly scrambled form so it's practically impossible to reconstruct the objects from the information). On other versions, that quantum information is lost when the objects hit the singularity and are destroyed.

Possibility #1 makes the whole question we are discussing here moot. Possibilities #2 and #3, as you can see, do not allow anything like photon pressure overcoming the hole's gravity, and do not make the hole anything like an ordinary container or object.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bcrelling
jedishrfu said:
if the black hole formed the photons would be trapped inside falling toward the singularity. They would lose their sense of being photons as only their properties of mass, charge, and angular momentum are preserved...

That's not correct. The "no hair" theorem only applies to the hole itself, as seen from outside. It doesn't apply to individual objects that fall inside. Those objects might get destroyed in the singularity (depending on which model we are talking about--see my previous post), but until they do, they retain all the properties (like what kind of particles they are) that they had outside the hole.
 
jedishrfu said:
the wiki article that says once they fall past the event horizon the theorem applies

The article says that the holes themselves are indistinguishable "to an observer outside the event horizon". Such an observer can't see anything inside the horizon anyway, so he can't tell whether there's matter or antimatter there falling into the singularity (or what kinds of matter or antimatter particles are there). I don't see anywhere that the article says the individual particles that form the hole "lose their identity" inside the hole; it only talks about the global characteristics of the hole itself, as seen from outside the horizon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K