71–79 of 79 posts
But it would be super nice to find the ones with masses that are unexplainable in the current framework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens when an antimatter black hole collides with a matter black hole? We'd see gravitational waves but no photons, right? Would the grav waves reflect the tremendous energy release somehow?
No. The "no hair theorem" states that black holes preserve exactly three numbers: mass, charge, and angular momentum. Baryon number, lepton number (as you would see in antimatter) are not conserved, the information is lost. And, no, antimatter does not have negative mass, in any of the three contexts (mass-energy equivalence, inertia, and gravitational). Therefore, a black hole fed entirely by antimatter would be ind…
For example some resonances that could expell enough energy through gravitational waves to make it unstable and explode into a version of a big bang.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incorrect. Any matter within about three Schwarzschild radii will never escape the black hole - i.e. will be carried along with it - even if the black hole passes you at the speed of light. And if the black hole passes you at a velocity lower than the speed of light, then the radius grows. That matter will begin orbiting the black hole and will leave your body just as fast as the black hole left.
What's the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole the size of an atom? Or would something that size evaporate before it got a chance to snatch any of my leg?
I'm just a layman on the topic, and would greatly appreciate any insights by physicists in audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's charge would be negated, since charge is one of the parameters, no? Not sure it affects anything tho.
Not necessarily. You could load up one black hole with electrons and the other black hole with anti-protons ... both would have negative charge, -Q ... but the latter would have a much greater mass, since anti-protons are much heavier than electrons, despite having equal charges. "Antimatter" is really only "anti" in a few respects. First, the lepton or baryon number has the sign flipped. An electron has a positive l…
> one black hole with electrons and the other black hole with anti-protons
But electrons and anti-protons are not equivalent. Positrons are.
That's what I meant -- if the same energy of electrons and positrons are used, the black holes would not be indistinguishable, their charges would be different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. You could load up one black hole with electrons and the other black hole with anti-protons ... both would have negative charge, -Q ... but the latter would have a much greater mass, since anti-protons are much heavier than electrons, despite having equal charges. "Antimatter" is really only "anti" in a few respects. First, the lepton or baryon number has the sign flipped. An electron has a positive l…
> would be indistinguishable from a black hole fed entirely by the equivalent matter > one black hole with electrons and the other black hole with anti-protons But electrons and anti-protons are not equivalent. Positrons are. That's what I meant -- if the same energy of electrons and positrons are used, the black holes would not be indistinguishable, their charges would be different.
Sometimes I think the "anti-" prefix has done more harm than good to communicate what's going, like the choice of assigning "negative" to electrons.
I believe that most black holes in the universe are primordial. Even most of the star sized ones. And definitely the supermassive ones. But it would be super nice to find the ones with masses that are unexplainable in the current framework.
I believe that most black holes in the universe are primordial. Even most of the star sized ones. And definitely the supermassive ones. But it would be super nice to find the ones with masses that are unexplainable in the current framework.
Why would you believe this? Stars collapse into black holes all the time as long as they're over the threshold mass.
I know that in the frame of reference of infalling object everything seems like business as usual but for far away observer (us) nothing ever crossed any event horizon.
You can't do away with this problem without dismissing the notion of any well defined simultaneity altogether (which people do, but I believe it's a cop out).
As far as I'm concerned there just wasn't enough time since the beginning of the universe for any blackhole to form, from our point of view, because of the infinite time dilatation. And I think our (remote observer) point of view is what counts because most places in the universe are remote observers.
If you are interested in the rest of my cosmological beliefs I believe that black holes are primary form of matter, the rest is just a dust between them.
I believe that big bang wasn't the beginning of time and space but rather highly energetic event caused by collision of two superdense clusters of trillions of supermassive balckholes. What inflates space is the kinetic energy imparted on the dust by this collision. The mass flies away in all direction with random velocities and the spacetime is "dragged" by it.
We all came from the dust swirling between them that got heated by the event to the energies of quark gluon plasma and higher.
We are also possibly under the influence of very strong, very long wavelength gravity waves originating from outside of observable universe. Larger remaining chunks of the objects that collided to give birth to our universe might be the source.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330726290_Confirmat...
I really want primordial black holes to turn out to be the missing antimatter from the Big Bang, but I don’t think that could ever be tested. And of course a mechanism for this would probably need new physics since antimatter interacts the same as normal matter wrt gravity.
What happens when an antimatter black hole collides with a matter black hole? We'd see gravitational waves but no photons, right? Would the grav waves reflect the tremendous energy release somehow?
In a black hole, all you see from the outside is total mass. This is actually mass-energy - a release of energy inside the black hole doesn't change the total mass-energy inside.
I really want primordial black holes to turn out to be the missing antimatter from the Big Bang, but I don’t think that could ever be tested. And of course a mechanism for this would probably need new physics since antimatter interacts the same as normal matter wrt gravity.