The discussion centers around the fate of black holes as they approach the end of their existence, exploring concepts such as Hawking radiation, information loss, and the implications of black hole evaporation. Participants engage with theoretical aspects, potential outcomes, and the nature of singularities, with a focus on both conceptual and speculative reasoning.
Participants express a range of views on the fate of black holes, with no consensus reached on the specifics of their evaporation, the implications of Hawking radiation, or the nature of singularities. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing hypotheses.
Some claims depend on specific definitions of terms like "Hawking radiation" and "Chandrasekhar limit," and there are unresolved questions about the mechanisms of particle behavior near black holes. The discussion also touches on speculative ideas about the universe's fate and the nature of singularities.
Actually you have it backwards. If a black hole disappears, its EVAPORATING, not condensing. There is simply nothing left.Originally posted by Rashid
Yeah, because I was thinking, if a black hole was to let loose the Hawkin Radiation, would that radiation not fly all over the universe? And, what would be left behind? Would the singularity expand since it had condensed all that matter over the billions of years? Thanks for the reply. =)
Isn't one a particle and one an anti-particle or virtual particle? I can't remember and I don't have my copy of ABHOT on me.Originally posted by kyle_soule
Now, I always thought that when a black hole collapsed or evaporated all the information inside (could be) released, wouldn't it be impossible for a black hole to evaporate through Hawking radiation, as Hawking radiation always leaves particles inside, while one escapes?
Originally posted by russ_watters
Isn't one a particle and one an anti-particle or virtual particle? I can't remember and I don't have my copy of ABHOT on me.
I can't remember exactly how it works, but if something emits energy, it MUST be getting less massive because of the equivalence of matter and energy.
Actually both are created outside the eventOriginally posted by kyle_soule
An anti-particle is created outside of the event horizon, while the original particle is on the inside, therefore the inside particle stays and the anti-particle escapes, this continual division of particles would never equal zero.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
An anti-particle is created outside of the event horizon, while the original particle is on the inside, therefore the inside particle stays and the anti-particle escapes, this continual division of particles would never equal zero.
You are mostly right on this except that the Chandrasekhar Limit is for White Dwarf stars. The low limit for a BH is ~3.2 Sm on formatiom. That applies to formation, not disentigration. The BH can radiate away enough energy (mass) and still fall far below 3.2 Sm until it "explodes" as described below.Originally posted by LURCH
But it would, eventually, produce a mass that is less than the Chandrasacre Limit, leaving an object without enough mass to be a black hole. According to Hawking and some others, the universe is not old enough for any black holes to have reached this critical point yet. I would imagine that once this threshold is reached, the black hole would end rather violently. At the center of a black hole is (theoretically) a mass much more dense than a nuetron star, because the structural resistance of atomic nueclei to compression has been overpowered by gravity. Once the force of gravity is no longer strong enough to keep these nuclei "crushed", it seems to me they should begin to expand. This expansion would accelerate rapidly as the expanding matter gets further from the center of gravitational pull.
Originally posted by LURCH
But it would, eventually, produce a mass that is less than the Chandrasacre Limit, leaving an object without enough mass to be a black hole. According to Hawking and some others, the universe is not old enough for any black holes to have reached this critical point yet. I would imagine that once this threshold is reached, the black hole would end rather violently. At the center of a black hole is (theoretically) a mass much more dense than a nuetron star, because the structural resistance of atomic nueclei to compression has been overpowered by gravity. Once the force of gravity is no longer strong enough to keep these nuclei "crushed", it seems to me they should begin to expand. This expansion would accelerate rapidly as the expanding matter gets further from the center of gravitational pull.
Originally posted by Loren Booda
What happens when the increasing charge density of gravitational collapse causes the electronic energy to approach surpassing the local rest energy of that quark soup, i. e., when the average charge-charge radius might go beneath that of a corresponding electronic black hole? Is the electronic black hole a quantum limit to black hole structure?
Well, you have a lot of questions here that have been addressed already, but to sum up:Originally posted by New-Prototype
I never knew that black holes could actually die, because aren't they usually made up of a large amount of gravity? but where does the gravity acutally come from? Is it because there's acutally magnetic fields within these black holes, or maybe there's acutally "negative mass" in these things?
I know questions like these probably seem awkward and strange but I'm still a child trying to figure things out and trying to get my questions answered. So i'll really appreciate it if u can provide me some info in terms that I can understand.
But how exactly do black holes die out? Because the Black Holes are actually absorbing things while they're around, doesn't this prove the theory that our universe is flat false? I also remember reading from somewhere that within the black holes there is no such thing as time, why is that?
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, you have a lot of questions here that have been addressed already