I Radiatively efficient accretion onto BHs

zviz
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
It is said that accretion disk around compact objects like black hole can convert up to 40% of the mass of an infalling material into energy.
This means, to my understanding, that if we throw 1kg of matter onto a BH through an accretion disk, during the accretion 0.4kg worth of energy in the form of radiation would be emitted, and the BH would increase its mass by only 0.6kg.

My question is: where did the rest of the mass go? My confusion arises from thinking about the problem in the atomic level. We throw X atoms of hydrogen (totaling 1kg) into the BH. The same X atoms reach the BH, and yet the BH increases its mass by the mass equivalent of only 0.6X atoms of hydrogen. Phrased differently, I wonder what would have happened if I would've stopped the X atoms just before they entered the event horizon, and measured their mass by some experiment, what would I have found? Would the mass be X or 0.6X?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zviz said:
It is said
Where? Please give a reference.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and dextercioby
zviz said:
where did the rest of the mass go?
The term "mass" is confusing you here because it has two different meanings.

The locally measured mass of an individual hydrogen atom, let's say, does not change, whether you measure it far away from the hole, just above the horizon, or inside the hole.

The mass of the hole, OTOH, is a global quantity, not the same kind of thing as a locally measured mass. Objects falling into the hole that emit radiation become more tightly bound gravitationally to the hole; in other words, the gravitational binding energy of the hole + object, considered as a system, becomes more negative, which is another way of saying that the total energy of the hole + object system decreases (by the amount of energy contained in the radiation that is emitted and escapes to infinity).
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and dextercioby
zviz said:
where did the rest of the mass go?
It went out with the radiation.

This is the famous mass deficit. A bound system has less mass than an unbound system with the same constituents. The mass deficit is not attributable to any specific sub-part of the system. It is a deficit of the system as a whole.

zviz said:
My confusion arises from thinking about the problem in the atomic level.
At the atomic level there is nothing to think about here. This feature only exists at the system level.

Measurements made on bound systems cannot identify a specific component where the binding energy came from. It came from the system as a whole, not some specific part of the bound system.

Note, this is not specific to black holes. It applies equally to any bound system. Planets bound to stars, electrons bound to nuclei, protons bound to a nucleus.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix, PeterDonis and dextercioby
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
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...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top