A black hole collides with antimatter...
- Thread starter A. BETTIK
- Start date
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Raydog is the resident expert on zero point energy... so I leave most of that to him, that said, there are a lot of ways to skin the matter -> energy -> matter cat.
The thing to consider with the energy to matter transition is the pesky c² part of the equation. That requires that you have a tremendous amount of energy in a single place to even get the smallest particles. That said, once that energy is in place in our universe, there will be particles without further cajoling. This is the theory behind the super colliders, just get the energy there and the rest takes care of itself. Once the energy is confined into a small enough area, it turns itself into matter. Energy falling into a black hole is forced into incredible density BEFORE reaching the bottom of the hole... that is plenty to get it to condense.
Transitioning the other way takes a little bit of finesse since matter is the less energetic state. Typically it requires the addition of enough energy to rip the particles apart, but not necessarily. In the matter/antimatter interaction the particles turn to energy with 100% efficiency upon introduction without the requirement of additional energy.
As to your specific post... energy condenses into matter in accordance with entropy. Matter is the less energetic state. That all energy will eventually and permanently become matter is what is referred to when cosmologists refer to "heat death".
As to the issue of temperature of the black hole core... well, no man can say for certain, but I tend to side with you that it would be very cold (absolute zero) at the heart of a black hole. This is not against modern convention, however. You are correct it is easier to achieve extreme cold in a vacuum, that is not the only way it can happen. Your home air conditioning and your refrigerator both work under the assumption that things get colder under pressure. The achievement of reducing the noble gasses into liquid ALL occurred under pressure, not vacuum.
Which is to say, energy condensing to matter within the hole is the likely outcome. That the core would be cold AND under pressure is in accord with observation. That said, specifically what is occurring requires a bit of a guess... that amount of gravitational pressure in that tight of a location confounds our current understanding of the universe.
The thing to consider with the energy to matter transition is the pesky c² part of the equation. That requires that you have a tremendous amount of energy in a single place to even get the smallest particles. That said, once that energy is in place in our universe, there will be particles without further cajoling. This is the theory behind the super colliders, just get the energy there and the rest takes care of itself. Once the energy is confined into a small enough area, it turns itself into matter. Energy falling into a black hole is forced into incredible density BEFORE reaching the bottom of the hole... that is plenty to get it to condense.
Transitioning the other way takes a little bit of finesse since matter is the less energetic state. Typically it requires the addition of enough energy to rip the particles apart, but not necessarily. In the matter/antimatter interaction the particles turn to energy with 100% efficiency upon introduction without the requirement of additional energy.
As to your specific post... energy condenses into matter in accordance with entropy. Matter is the less energetic state. That all energy will eventually and permanently become matter is what is referred to when cosmologists refer to "heat death".
As to the issue of temperature of the black hole core... well, no man can say for certain, but I tend to side with you that it would be very cold (absolute zero) at the heart of a black hole. This is not against modern convention, however. You are correct it is easier to achieve extreme cold in a vacuum, that is not the only way it can happen. Your home air conditioning and your refrigerator both work under the assumption that things get colder under pressure. The achievement of reducing the noble gasses into liquid ALL occurred under pressure, not vacuum.
Which is to say, energy condensing to matter within the hole is the likely outcome. That the core would be cold AND under pressure is in accord with observation. That said, specifically what is occurring requires a bit of a guess... that amount of gravitational pressure in that tight of a location confounds our current understanding of the universe.
johnny chimpo
500+ Posts
I almost moved this thread to the West Mall, as I thought it was going to be about the United States economy.
I find it interesting that physicists would blindly agree that energy would coalesce into matter inside a black hole, yet reject such a process in free space.
The light into matter question is particularly interesting, given that a photon is comprised of both matter and anti-matter, an electron-positron pair (hence no "gravity"). Given enough energy you can get pair production, followed by annihilation as the positron hits an electron someplace. You cannot get net matter left over from pair production. Otherwise, the photon energy is absorbed and becomes kinetic energy, not mass, unless you are talking relativistic mass, which may be what they mean.
It could be that if an electron absorbed enough kinetic energy it could become a muon with higher mass. That would be interesting if it could occur. I've always felt that a muon was likely the same fundamentally as an electron but higher order configuration of some sort.
Otherwise, you have a photon being converted solely to matter. In free space at least there is a lot of resistance to this idea, even though there are experiments that suggest it is possible. Doubters usually suggest experimental error.
I agree with an above post that gravitons don't make a lot of sense with regard to the gravitational potential of a black hole. I don't care for the graviton theory any other way either, or GR for that matter.
The light into matter question is particularly interesting, given that a photon is comprised of both matter and anti-matter, an electron-positron pair (hence no "gravity"). Given enough energy you can get pair production, followed by annihilation as the positron hits an electron someplace. You cannot get net matter left over from pair production. Otherwise, the photon energy is absorbed and becomes kinetic energy, not mass, unless you are talking relativistic mass, which may be what they mean.
It could be that if an electron absorbed enough kinetic energy it could become a muon with higher mass. That would be interesting if it could occur. I've always felt that a muon was likely the same fundamentally as an electron but higher order configuration of some sort.
Otherwise, you have a photon being converted solely to matter. In free space at least there is a lot of resistance to this idea, even though there are experiments that suggest it is possible. Doubters usually suggest experimental error.
I agree with an above post that gravitons don't make a lot of sense with regard to the gravitational potential of a black hole. I don't care for the graviton theory any other way either, or GR for that matter.
Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
I've been reading this and now that I have some time maybe I can shed a little light on some of these subjects:
Mass is not a conserved quantity. When you want to do relativity you have to deal with invariants, which are quantities that are the same in every reference frame (like the speed of light). The energy momentum 4-vector of a system is what is conserved and invariant. It describes the correct way to track energy, mass, and momentum with relativity. E=mc2 means mass and energy interchange all the time.
Mass is not a conserved quantity. When you want to do relativity you have to deal with invariants, which are quantities that are the same in every reference frame (like the speed of light). The energy momentum 4-vector of a system is what is conserved and invariant. It describes the correct way to track energy, mass, and momentum with relativity. E=mc2 means mass and energy interchange all the time.
Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
The interactions should be the same regardless of gravity. Electrons and positrons coupling to gravity is so small that it can be considered non-existent.
A photon's coupling to gravity is in fact non-existent and it can't escape a singularity. So the electrons and positrons collapse into energy... then what, where does the energy go? Can energy be held in place, would the black hole evaporate (spectacularly, I would imagine), or would a certain amount of the energy condense back into matter (as is its want) so quickly that even though the black hole is functionally destroyed, it is reborn before the gravity well can dissipate?
Functionally does BH + anti-BH = 2BH or 0BH?
Functionally does BH + anti-BH = 2BH or 0BH?
Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
I think you would just get a bigger black hole. Particle + antiparticle doesn't always just give you photons, you can get all kinds of stuff depending on the collision energy, and I imagine stuff would be moving pretty fast after getting sucked into a black hole.
But trying to say what's going on inside the event horizon is kinda tough in any case.
But trying to say what's going on inside the event horizon is kinda tough in any case.
Math Mudrat
250+ Posts
Hi
The Link
I used to think the same thing about neutrinos but the experimental evidence is pretty solid (esp now that they have Super K and can measure oscillations). I was at Brookhaven National Lab today and they have a big exhibit in the Chemistry building with a lot of Davis's old stuff. Pretty cool.
The Link
I used to think the same thing about neutrinos but the experimental evidence is pretty solid (esp now that they have Super K and can measure oscillations). I was at Brookhaven National Lab today and they have a big exhibit in the Chemistry building with a lot of Davis's old stuff. Pretty cool.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
