Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Strange Black Hole Question

  1. Oct 30, 2003 #1

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    According to SR, a photon has an equivalent mass of
    h / c λ
    where h is plank's constant, c is the speed of light, and lambda is the photon's wavelength.

    So, at some point the equivalent mass of the photon should be sufficient to cause a black hole. (Using the simplified formula I got something like a 10^ -35m wavelength.)

    Questions:
    1. Can a solitary photon have sufficient energy to become a black hole in GR?

    2. If the answer to 1 is yes, is it possible to have frames of reference where the photon is not a black hole -- for example red shifting the photon to reduce it's energy? If so, how does that frame of reference experience hawking radiation associated with the black hole?

    3. If the answer to 1 is no, is there some limit to the maximum energy that a photon can have, and can a black hole be disolved by spontaneous massive energy to matter conversion inside the Schwartzchild radius?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 31, 2003 #2
    Well, what is the difference between energy's matter form and energy form? It has been suggested that the properties of mass are caused by a particle called Higgs' boson. This particle would cause the inertia. Could it also be the fundamental reason to gravity? I suppose it could. Actually, I think that inertia is caused by the bending of space-time. An accelerating object forms a shockwave (I can't describe it by any other word, sorry for that) which is actually the bending speed of the space changing when the object accelerates. That causes a "drag" to acceleration. Note: an object moving with default speed doesn't meet any drag in empty space.

    This also explains why massless objects cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, c. If an object would accelerate to c, it would drop its gravitational effects behind it, and that's of course impossible.

    So. The photon may have (and has, otherwise it wouldn't exist)energy, but it doesn't have the Higgs' boson in it, so it doesn't have the effects of mass. It just goes on with the speed of light, straight(shortest)line between two points. Thus, it cannot form a black hole. And there is no limit for the energy of a single photon. But i suppose thet most energetic photons would be created in annihilation reactions. I can't think of any reactions more powerful...
     
  4. Oct 31, 2003 #3

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What you have actually calculated (roughly anyway, as h-bar is preferred to h in Planck units these days) is the Planck length ~10-35.

    1) Your not the first person to think of this, but the answer to this question is almost certainly 'no'. For example a neutron star that is travelling at relativistic speeds will not collaspe into a black hole, as it only matters what's going on in the rest frame of the object (though a phton doesn't have one).

    2) see above.

    3) Some think that the maximum energy a phton can have is the one associated with the wavelength calculated, but it is not known what happens at the Planck scale, so thisa is more idle speculation. No a blackhole can't be dissolved by a sponateous converison of mass to energy within it's radius.
     
  5. Oct 31, 2003 #4

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Re: Re: Strange Black Hole Question

    Yeah, but I googled for it, and got no real answers. I'll go look up the plank length now.



    I don't understand: According to your answer to 1, what is necessary for black hole formation is rest mass, but if a black hole converts to energy, there should be a reduction in rest mass - so it should be possible to dissolve it.
     
  6. Oct 31, 2003 #5
    Re: Re: Re: Strange Black Hole Question

    It's basically the same as this question:

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html

    I don't know what it means for a black hole to "convert to energy"; there is no matter or radiation inside a black hole -- it is vacuum. (Or rather, any matter or radiation inside the hole quickly gets eradicated at the singularity.)

    Anyway, there isn't any clear distinction between rest mass and energy, because of E=mc2. We know that energy contributes to rest mass.
     
  7. Oct 31, 2003 #6
    What we have here is the classic Hawking Area function of Blackholes.

    The first thing to understand is how a photon approaches a Blackhole Horizon, at a precise location it gets trapped between 'shells',(I will only define these as being:
    1) 3-DIMENSIONAL OUTERSHELL.
    2) 2-DIMENSIONAL CENTRALSHELL.
    3) 1-DIMENSIONAL INNERSHELL.

    There are some complicated Holographic details, but the basis is that the photon can rebound between the outershell and centralshell, thus one gets emmited virtual particles that dance around the 3-dimensional surface area, this adds to the surface-tension of a blackhole, and as with the corona around our Sun, can have thermal variations.

    Any photon that has entered/crossed the 2-dimensional barrier will never return, it must continue onwards and it is now forever part of an opposing Entropy, it cannot pass information backwards in time(out into our Galaxy for instance), but it's thermal arrow has some interesting properties!

    The 1-dimensional singularity/Gravity realm is really interesting! Im in no doubt you understand E=MC2, but let me give you a lesson in deep-field-exchange consequences of the famous equation.

    In its early form Einstein knew the consequences for the equation as it stood in 3+1 dimensions, but when you transform the equation into inter-dimensional area's, there is a lot more to it than meets the eye! for instance Exchanging Mass for hv energy, is dimensional bound into 4-dimensional space. The moment you transend into another dimension, the E=MC2 has a quite different effect.

    As a photon goes from 4-d >>> 3-d >> 2-d >.....the exchnage paramiter of the Equation also alters..for a simplistic view it ends up just as a Gravity function..+ or -....:wink:

    Just see that Blackholes hold Galaxies together as the Spacetime of General Relativity, the space(the intervening space between Galaxies)is not Spacetime!...its a whole new ballgame, a sort of Negative Spacetime! opposing in everyway.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2003
  8. Oct 31, 2003 #7

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    ranyart, Nate was asking a serious question, ther is a forum on the boards for the nonsense you've posted and this is not it.
     
  9. Oct 31, 2003 #8

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Let's say that I have a black hole with mass equal to about 10^-9 kilograms. Let's assume that the matter inside the Schwartzschild radius has not formed a singularity (AFAIK singulatities are not acutally necessary for black holes to form.) If all of the matter inside the black hole was then converted to a small number of photons, how would the black hole continue to exisrt?
     
  10. Oct 31, 2003 #9
    Define the nonesense in my post, you can start by showing me a Three-Dimensional Blackhole.
     
  11. Oct 31, 2003 #10

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There's always a singularity associated with a black hole, remeber nothing whatsover that's going on inside the black hole will affect anything outside the event horizon (or indeed futher away from the singularity than the event).
     
  12. Oct 31, 2003 #11
    The singularity theorems say otherwise.

    No change in the configuration of matter or radiation inside the black hole can produce an effect that propagates outwards as far as the event horizon, let alone outside of it -- that's what it means for something to be a black hole: nothing that happens inside of it can ever influence anything outside of it. Once the black hole forms, it holds itself together by its own gravitation, regardless of what happens to the matter or radiation that went into forming it.
     
  13. Oct 31, 2003 #12

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    First line: "what we have here is the classic Hawking Area function of Blackholes"; total nonsense, you might be referring to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a black hole (which is related to to the surface area of a BH), but a) it's semi-classical and b) completely irrelavent.

    Also what the hell are these shell's, you might possibly be refrring to the event horizon and phtonsphere, but it's still nonsensical esp. as Scwarzchild space is has three spatial dimensions.

    I could go on, it's diffcult to pick out anything in your post that wasn't nonsense.
     
  14. Oct 31, 2003 #13
    Just for starters I may refer you to this:http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:gr-qc/9310026

    If you bother to read any pre-prints at all that is, there will be more.
     
  15. Oct 31, 2003 #14
    Then:http://ernie.ecs.soton.ac.uk/opcit/cgi-bin/pdf?id=oai:arXiv.org:hep-th/9803131
     
  16. Oct 31, 2003 #15

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ranyart, these papers do not really relate to the topic at all and they do not much relate to what you have said either, furthermore they are both of a speculative nature rather than dealing with well-known theory.
     
  17. Oct 31, 2003 #16

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    A massless particle can't form a black hole because event horizons are null hypersurfaces and the world-lines of gravitational singularities can't intersect their event horizons.
     
  18. Oct 31, 2003 #17
    You do not have to tell me that you do not understand that a photon bounces around matter in 4-dimensional space, and E=mC2 is the transformation equation that governs our understanding of this reality.

    But the same E=mC2 has significant variations with compacted dimensional analysis. Firstly the energy we are used to in measure terms, becomes invisible, you cant use photons to measure effects in a 2-dimensional zone, why?..because the are 3-Dimensional quantities themselves, thats why we see things, they give substance to distance of objects (3-dimensional objects).

    Havn't you heard of Dark-photons? Go back and study Realitivity and seek out the E=mC2, and place this in a non-three-dimensional field, you may learn something.
     
  19. Oct 31, 2003 #18
    I'm not sure that I understand this argument. Two questions:

    Does your argument imply that black holes can't form from electromagnetic radiation?

    What is the "worldline of a singularity"? Are you talking about timelike black hole singularities?
     
  20. Oct 31, 2003 #19

    jeff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No. I was careful to specify a single massless particle. (Note also that the original question specified a "solitary" photon).

    In the context of the original question, do you know of technical qualifications that must be made in describing the motion of gravitational singularities that invalidate the basic geometrical point of my argument?
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2003
  21. Oct 31, 2003 #20
    I still don't really understand the point of your argument, and I don't quite know what it has to do with black hole singularities. The black hole singularities I'm familiar with are spacelike, so I'm not sure what it means to describe their motion.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Strange Black Hole Question
Loading...