If Black holes slowly evaporate over time is there a point where they stop being a black hole?

[MSC]

If black holes slowly loss mass over time; is there a point where they stop being black holes and devolve into something more like a neutron star? 

Quote

A collaboration of researchers including UBC scientists have observed gravitational waves from the collision of what is most likely a neutron star and an object likely to be a light black hole, 650 million light-years from Earth.

The mass of the black hole is 2.5 to 4.5 times the mass of Earth’s sun, meaning it falls in the so-called ‘mass gap’: heavier than heaviest known and theorized neutron stars but lighter than the lightest black holes in our galaxy.

https://news.ubc.ca/2024/04/05/new-gravitational-wave-signal-neutron-stars-and-black-holes/#:~:text=The 'mass gap'%2C spanning,theory than an empty gap.

If so; would that explain the potential existence of objects falling within the mass gap between small black holes and neutrons stars? Objects that may have been detected in gravitational wave data? Incredibly old ex-black holes? Dying Holes. 

If there is a singularity at the center of a black hole, a point of near infinite density, would that same point also be a point of near infinite pressure? All that mass trying to explode outward while the gravitational force of itself keeps everything packed in.

Extra question; is the idea a theory or a hypothesis? Explain that one like I'm 5.

[MigL]

Black Holes have entropy, and therefore, temperature,
This temperature is inversely proportional to its size.
A solar mass Black Hole has a temperature 60 Billionths of a degree K.
All other Black Holes are even colder.
That means almost all Black Holes larger than a solar mass are net absorbers of mass/energy ( the CMB is at 2.7^O K )
I would think that this Black Hole involved in the collision is a relatively 'new' Black Hole that hasn't been very 'active' ( injesting mass/energy ).
Maybe Mordred can shed some light on this; I believe it's in his 'back yard'.

As Black Holes evaporate they get smaller and hotter, and radiate copious amounts of energetic radiation ( possibly encoding information ? ) before they lose their Event Horizon and explode back into normal space-time.
This can only happen far in the future when the universe has cooled enough for stellar Black Holes to be net emitters of radiation, or, if primordial microscopic Black Holes ( formed in the high energy densities shortly after the Big Bang ) are reaching the end of their lives,
None have ever been detected.

My thinking has aklways been that no paticle can be constrained to a point, because that would imply ( By the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ) that its momentum  ( and speed ) could be infinite, and it could escape the Black Hole.
So I, and most people don't believe a central singularity is possible; it simply means our theory ( GR ) is not applicable at these energies and scales.

I suppose this depends on your definition of 'theory' and 'hypothesis', but the theory does make some testable predictions.

Edited April 27 by MigL

[MSC]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

That means almost all Black Holes larger than a solar mass are net absorbers of mass/energy ( the CMB is at 2.7^O K )

What about those regions where the CMB isn't evenly distributed? Could Dying black holes exist earlier in these places?

13 hours ago, MigL said:

before they lose their Event Horizon and explode back into normal space-time.

In what state will the leftover matter contained within the black hole be after this Black Nova? Will this event kickstart the creation of a new generation of stars?

13 hours ago, MigL said:

My thinking has aklways been that no paticle can be constrained to a point, because that would imply ( By the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ) that its momentum  ( and speed ) could be infinite, and it could escape the Black Hole.
So I, and most people don't believe a central singularity is possible; it simply means our theory ( GR ) is not applicable at these energies and scales.

Yeah I've always had a problem with the singularity explanation just not enough mathematical ability to ever be able to explain why, just feels wrong based on what I I've been taught of physics. I'd imagine there are a number of different theories and hyopotheses around the core state of a black hole beyond the event horizon. Maybe they are just really big neutron stars cloaked in the event horizon. 

[Mordred]

25 minutes ago, MSC said:

What about those regions where the CMB isn't evenly distributed? Could Dying black holes exist earlier in these places?

Blackholes could exist at the time of the CMB but the blackbody temperature Migl mentioned would still be far lower than the blackbody temperature at that same time period. So they would be growing and not dying. 

29 minutes ago, MSC said:

 

In what state will the leftover matter contained within the black hole be after this Black Nova? Will this event kickstart the creation of a new generation of stars?

 

We really do not know what occurs beyond the Event horizon so any statement made would be nothing more than guess work

31 minutes ago, MSC said:

 

Yeah I've always had a problem with the singularity explanation just not enough mathematical ability to ever be able to explain why, just feels wrong based on what I I've been taught of physics. I'd imagine there are a number of different theories and hyopotheses around the core state of a black hole beyond the event horizon. Maybe they are just really big neutron stars cloaked in the event horizon. 

 

There has been some research papers suggesting this as one possibility. They have even developed tests for this possibility. One of those tests directly relates to the article you posted concerning GW wave data.  

[MSC]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

We really do not know what occurs beyond the Event horizon so any statement made would be nothing more than guess work

Are there things we can say about it with any degree of certainty aside from the obvious? For example the actual physical state of the matter; Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, some kind of condensate or super dense solid?

If an evaporating black hole will eventually lose it's event horizon and explode as MigL said; would that lead to the potential for more star formation?

If a neutron star could go supernova; what sort of elements or particles would it scatter from what was formed in the core?

I suppose I'm just trying to understand black holes in relation to the Hawking information paradox. If I understand it correctly, if information cannot be destroyed or preserved indefinitely inside a black hole, then a future state change of the black hole seems the most likely soultion. For every half of a particle pair that forms just beyond the event horizon and escapes, the partner particle that falls into the black hole should theoretically be contained within until this hypothetical state change takes place within the aging black hole, allowing the information stored within it to be released. 

I won't take it personally if I'm way off base. Just trying to understand.

[Halc]

On 4/28/2024 at 10:37 AM, MSC said:

If an evaporating black hole will eventually lose it's event horizon and explode as MigL said; would that lead to the potential for more star formation

The end might produce a few grams of actual matter in a brief burst of radiation. "Explode" makes it sound bigger than a wink.

The vast majority of the original mass radiates away as massless particles, mostly photons and gravitons, neither of which is a building material for stars.

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, Halc said:

The end might produce a few grams of actual matter in a brief burst of radiation. "Explode" makes it sound bigger than a wink.

The vast majority of the original mass radiates away as massless particles, mostly photons and gravitons, neither of which is a building material for stars.

A few grams?

[MSC]

11 hours ago, Halc said:

The end might produce a few grams of actual matter in a brief burst of radiation. "Explode" makes it sound bigger than a wink.

The vast majority of the original mass radiates away as massless particles, mostly photons and gravitons, neither of which is a building material for stars.

I thought gravitons were hypothetical and that gravity doesn't need a particle to carry force as it's an effect of mass on space-time.

Also how does the vast majority of mass radiate away if only massless particles are formed just before the event horizon? Is Hawking radiation not made up of any particles with mass? 

Also I just don't see how an object or class of objects that vary greatly in size and mass, the mass of which is reducing slowly over time, will be able to keep a strong enough gravitational pull to keep all the matter crushed down below it's Schwarzchild radius if the reaction at the core is so energetic, why wouldn't it be able to break free of the blackholes gravity once it ceases to be one?

 

[Mordred]

30 minutes ago, MSC said:

I thought gravitons were hypothetical and that gravity doesn't need a particle to carry force as it's an effect of mass on space-time.

Also how does the vast majority of mass radiate away if only massless particles are formed just before the event horizon? Is Hawking radiation not made up of any particles with mass? 

Also I just don't see how an object or class of objects that vary greatly in size and mass, the mass of which is reducing slowly over time, will be able to keep a strong enough gravitational pull to keep all the matter crushed down below it's Schwarzchild radius if the reaction at the core is so energetic, why wouldn't it be able to break free of the blackholes gravity once it ceases to be one?

 

You have to understand that Hawking radiation is a thermodynamic process it's radiation equates to photons as the mediator for the EM spectrum which is used also for blackbody  temperature. All equations involving blackbody temperature uses the photon as the mediator for its radiation terms.

 The other detail to recognize is that any object of any mass can be a blackhole if it's mass is contained  in  less than Schwarzschild  radius.  The Smaller the volume of the EH means the rate of Hawking radiation produced increases as the EH shrinks due to mass loss.

The smaller the EH the greater the Hawking radiation. The singularity or as  close to singularity as possible ie near infinite density would still have sufficient gravity as well as other related forces to maintain an EH even if that EH is smaller than a soccer ball etc. 

 

 

[MSC]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

You have to understand that Hawking radiation is a thermodynamic process it's radiation equates to photons as the mediator for the EM spectrum which is used also for blackbody  temperature. All equations involving blackbody temperature uses the photon as the mediator for its radiation terms.

 The other detail to recognize is that any object of any mass can be a blackhole if it's mass is contained  in  less than Schwarzschild  radius.  The Smaller the volume of the EH means the rate of Hawking radiation produced increases as the EH shrinks due to mass loss.

The smaller the EH the greater the Hawking radiation. The singularity or as  close to singularity as possible ie near infinite density would still have sufficient gravity as well as other related forces to maintain an EH even if that EH is smaller than a soccer ball etc. 

 

 

And do I discount what someone else said about gravitons? 

I'm still confused as to where the mass goes as a blackhole evaporates. Is it better to think of it as losing energy? 

Couldn't the EH be classified as a perfect black body at some point in the black holes lifetime? 

Not trying to make any particular point with these questions. Just what's coming up into my mind as I research.

[Mordred]

gravitons are still a viable possibility you don't need them to describe a BH or the effects of Hawking radiation on a BH but its also not incorrect to do so.

here is the thing about Hawking radiation a virtual particle pair must form outside the event horizon. Due to conservation laws all particles pop into existence as particle pairs primarily but not restricted to conservation of charge. (matter , antimatter for example) which Hawking radiation uses. the matter particle escapes to infinity while the antimatter particle falls in. Its a rather simplistic descriptive but the mass loss is due to being the anti particle of the pair. A photon is its own antiparticle. The difference between them isn't charge but rather its polarity. As a wave it obeys constructive and destructive interference. So anti-photons will annihilate with matter photons. Now this may or may not cause interference with other particles as all particles also have wave and particle like characteristics. However that is moot as the only thing needed is the antiparticle of the pair formed to fall into the BH regardless of what particle is involved. you would get a reduced mass through mass energy equivalence regardless if it is anti photons or some other particle type.

As far s I know Hawking never did specify which particle was involved. His original paper simply had particle antiparticle pairs. As photons are generally used with blackbody radiation its the most common treatment. However you also have methods using entropy but entropy in particle physics related to effective degrees of freedom ie spin. charge , flavor, color, energy momentum etc.

for example see here

"Then Hawking’s black hole emission calculation [9, 10] for free fields gives the expected number of particles of the jth species with charge qj emitted in a wave mode labeled by frequency or energy ω, spheroidal harmonic l, axial quantum number or angular momentum m, and polarization or helicity p as Njωlmp = Γjωlmp{exp[2πκ−1 (ω − mΩ − qjΦ)] ∓ 1} −1 . (5) Here the upper sign (minus above) is for bosons, and the lower sign (plus above) is for fermions, and Γjωlmp is the absorption probability for an incoming wave of the mode being considered."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0409024

Edited May 3 by Mordred

[MigL]

Energy and mass are equivalent properties of a system.
IOW, a Black Hole can radiate away massless but energetic photons and lose mass.
When the remaining mass is no longer able to support an Event Horizon, and it can be quite a large mass, it explodes back into normal space-time, with a gamma ray burst.

There is a problem with this scenario, and it's at the forefront of research.
A certain property of Quantum Mechanics dictates that information must be preserved.
Black Holes, in effect, swallow information and randomize it by re-emitting it as non-specific Hawking radiation and a final gamma ray burst.
So we know we are missing vital knowledge about the process.
This is likely because S Hawking's theory was a 'crude' combining of GR and QM; a self-consistent Quantum Gravity model is needed.
( and ther are questions as to whether that is even possible )

Edited May 3 by MigL

[Halc]

On 5/2/2024 at 7:36 AM, Genady said:

A few grams?

Yes. A black hole near end of life has almost no mass remaining.

15 hours ago, MSC said:

I thought gravitons were hypothetical and that gravity doesn't need a particle to carry force as it's an effect of mass on space-time.

Gravitons as in gravitational waves, not any sort of force carrier. Gravitational waves carry information about changes to spacetime geometry, and an evaporating black hole is such a thing, so it has to generate such waves, whether or not those waves can be broken down into quanta.

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Also how does the vast majority of mass radiate away if only massless particles are formed just before the event horizon?

Light is energy. Any radiation reduces the mass of the thing radiating it. Light also has momentum.

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Is Hawking radiation not made up of any particles with mass? 

For small black holes, sure, but for larger ones, the odds of something like a positron escaping is incredibly low. Most would fall right back in due to gravity. Gravity can't pull back light if it's going in the correct direction (straight up).

15 hours ago, MSC said:

Also I just don't see how an object or class of objects that vary greatly in size and mass, the mass of which is reducing slowly over time, will be able to keep a strong enough gravitational pull to keep all the matter crushed down below it's Schwarzchild radius if the reaction at the core is so energetic, why wouldn't it be able to break free of the blackholes gravity once it ceases to be one?

There's no matter in a black hole. A Schwarzchild black hole is a vacuum solution. Nothing gets squished in there. Things falling in actually get pulled apart.

The singularity is not a location in space where there is matter squished together unreasonably. It's a line/plane/fuzzy region where time just ends.

14 hours ago, Mordred said:

The singularity or as  close to singularity as possible ie near infinite density would still have sufficient gravity as well as other related forces to maintain an EH even if that EH is smaller than a soccer ball etc. 

This comment suggests dense material in there somewhere. This is a misconception.

12 hours ago, MSC said:

I'm still confused as to where the mass goes as a blackhole evaporates. Is it better to think of it as losing energy? 

Yes, better. Energy & mass are equivalent. The mass doesn't exit the black hole, but is created outside by separation of virtual particles, with the one with negative energy falling in and adding that much negative energy to the BH. The vast majority of the time, both virtual particles are thus pulled in, netting zero energy to the BH. The odds of one escaping becomes larger with the small holes.

8 hours ago, MigL said:

When the remaining mass is no longer able to support an Event Horizon, and it can be quite a large mass,

I don't know where the limit is, and what it means for mass to not be able to support an EH. I think a unified theory would really help give real answers to this. My statement of 'a few grams' might be way off, but classically there is no minimum mass, and at sufficiently low mass, the radiation becomes significant enough to qualify as an explosion. There is still nothing actually from inside the black hole escaping. There is no matter in there.

[Genady]

47 minutes ago, Halc said:

A black hole near end of life has almost no mass remaining.

Sure. I thought rather that it is in micro-grams.

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Halc said:

 

This comment suggests dense material in there somewhere. This is a misconception.

 

How so no one knows what goes o  beyond the EH however the equations do lead to the infinite density singularity which everyone agrees is the issue regarding the singularity condition.

Edited May 3 by Mordred

[MigL]

The 'end of life' scenario of a Black Hole is complicated, as it is based on semi-classical/quantum assumptions by S Hawking and later D Page.
Calculations suggest a Black Hole ( Schwarzschild ) to be a net emitter of radiation at the current CMB temperature, it would be about the mass of the moon.
From this point, the BH's temperature will increase dramatically, and its size would shrink from millimeter size until radiation is being released explosively.
The mass is no longer able to contain the radiation, as it did when the BH was much larger.
The actual 'shedding' of the Event Horizon would happen at microscopic scales approaching Planck, but this would happen almost instantly, as temperature ( and output mass energy ) increase exponentially.

The Wiki entry on Hawking radiation               Hawking radiation - Wikipedia

more specifically, the section on Black Hole evaporation has a good explanation with simple-to-follow math

 

[Genady]

As mentioned in the link given above, 

Quote

A complete description of this dissolution requires a model of quantum gravity, however, as it occurs when the black hole's mass approaches 1 Planck mass ...

Since 1 Planck mass is approximately 21.76 micro-grams, I've posted this:

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I thought rather that it is in micro-grams.

 

[Halc]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

however the equations do lead to the infinite density singularity which everyone agrees is the issue regarding the singularity condition

The equations are how everybody knows. No links were provided, so I googled the question and the first 8 hits (NASA, Smithsonian, various you-tubes, reddit) all suggest matter is compressed without bound. Much of this list of bad hits is due to my search terms of "black hole infinite density".

First correct answer came from of all places Quora, a site known for severe wrongness of replies.  Question was: Do black holes have infinite density?  Answer by Toth:

"The equations that describe some of the simplest black hole solutions, including the Schwarzschild black hole are (drum roll, please)… equations of general relativity in the vacuum.

Yes, that’s right. The vacuum. There is no matter. The density is zero everywhere. The Schwarzschild solution is the simplest, spherically symmetric, static vacuum solution of Einstein’s field equations."

 

Next hit was probably the most respectable forum I can name.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/246061/are-black-holes-very-dense-matter-or-empty

Rennie (I think) replies specifically about the Schwarzschild metric, which wasn't technically the question:

"The archetypal black hole is a mathematical object discovered by Karl Schwarzschild in 1915 - the Schwarzschild metric. The curious thing about this object is that it contains no matter. Technically it is a vacuum solution to Einstein's equations. There is a parameter in the Schwarzschild metric that looks like a mass, but this is actually the ADM mass i.e. it is a mass associated with the overall geometry."

The Kerr metric is also a vacuum solution, which differs only by a nonzero angular momentum.

There is an Oppenheimer Snyder metric that is an 'unrealistically simplified' solution to the formation of a black hole, but it fails to describe conditions at the singularity. I was hoping at least for some indication of the whole compression vs. tension distinction.

None of these metrics seem to include Hawking radiation, so they describe black holes that exist for infinite coordinate time.

 

Rennie continues:

"[Observers falling with the star collapse] see the singularity form in a finite (short!) time, but ... the Oppenheimer-Snyder metric becomes singular at the singularity, and that means it cannot describe what happens there. So we cannot tell what happens to the matter at the centre of the black hole. This isn't just because the OS metric is a simplified model, we expect that even the most sophisticated description of a collapse will have the same problem. The whole point of a singularity is that our equations become singular there and cannot describe what happens.

All this means that there is no answer to your question, but hopefully I've given you a better idea of the physics involved. In particular matter doesn't mysteriously cease to exist in some magical way as a black hole forms."

 

So my post seems to be based on information about static metrics (Schwarzschild, Kerr, others), the geometry of which shows an end to time and no matter at all, but neither do those metrics show the end to the matter that made them since these kinds of black holes are not 'made'. They exist for eternity. So Op-Sny is probably a better metric despite being 'unrealistically simplified'.

A coordinate system that isn't singular at the event horizon (like Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates) shows worldlines of infalling particles just ending in time at the singularity, not persisting with the other matter persisting there. The worldline of compressed matter would not end, but only join all together with the worldlines of other particles.

As you (as an observer) fall into one, tidal forces pull you apart, not compress you. This doesn't stop at the EH. So compression ever happens, then the naive description would be when you smack into that physical singularity there where everything else has gathered. None of the metrics describe that. At best they just don't answer the question at all, and on those grounds, I am reneging on the authoritarian tone of my prior replies without suggesting that the 'high density matter' description is a better description.

 

Learned stuff today, which makes this a win topic. I hope we all have.

 

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

Calculations suggest a Black Hole ( Schwarzschild ) to be a net emitter of radiation at the current CMB temperature, it would be about the mass of the moon.

Yes, I've seen places that compute that mass. A moon mass is still going to take an awfully long time to radiate away at CMB temperatures. Infinite time actually, at least until the CMB radiation stops adding mass as fast as HR bleeds it off.

[Mordred]

Vacuum can have an energy density ta da lol. That energy density can easily approach infinity keep in mind my original statement had "as close as possible " that allows a QM interpretation on Planck units for cutoff though Gravity has no effective UV cutoff for the mass term. That's a large part of why gravity isn't renormalizable. The IR cutoff is already established.

For the record I've had numerous discussions with some mistakes he has made in other articles of his. Sometimes I'm correct other times he is just didn't explain something accurately enough with regards to Victor Toth. Cool character though he's friendly and easily talked to.

Edited May 3 by Mordred

[Carrock]

57 minutes ago, Mordred said:

How so no one knows what goes o  beyond the EH however the equations do lead to the infinite density singularity which everyone agrees is the issue regarding the singularity condition.

 

3 hours ago, Halc said:

The singularity is not a location in space where there is matter squished together unreasonably. It's a line/plane/fuzzy region where time just ends.

 

On 4/27/2024 at 7:46 PM, MSC said:

If there is a singularity at the center of a black hole, a point of near infinite density, would that same point also be a point of near infinite pressure?

Just a note on singularities: in physics they are places/situations where the currently used theory is not valid.

If "the equations do lead to the infinite density singularity" the equations fail where they predict a singularity i.e. fail to predict anything.

"Singularity science" is as scientific as Scientology.

There may or may not be an unknown theory of black holes with no singularity but that theory or any other will not change what goes on in black holes. Saying they contain a singularity is no more meaningful than saying there is a singularity in Donald Trump's brain.

From Halc quoting Rennie

"The whole point of a singularity is that our equations become singular there and cannot describe what happens."

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

A photon is its own antiparticle. The difference between them isn't charge but rather its polarity. As a wave it obeys constructive and destructive interference. So anti-photons will annihilate with matter photons.

Maybe some confusion?

Photons produced from matter or antimatter interactions can have the same or different polarity etc.

Photons can (rarely) interact with each other but not annihilate each other (except by creating a matter/antimatter pair etc.

A photon can destructively interfere with itself but this only affects its observed location, not its existence.

 

Some cross posting...

[Mordred]

Correct its best to think of singularity as a point where the math used breaks down. 

[MigL]

8 minutes ago, Halc said:

The equations are how everybody knows. No links were provided, so I googled the question and the first 8 hits (NASA, Smithsonian, various you-tubes, reddit) all suggest matter is compressed without bound.

Correct. We know of no force which can resist gravity once Neutron degeneray is exceeded in a neutron star,
This is according to GR and QFT.
Both of which have specific areas of applicability.
When outside those areas they 'fai' by throwing up infinities; like at the center/future of a BH.
IOW, points of infinite density are non-sensical predictions of badly applied models/theories.

Also keep in mind that the central singularity, while being the event where geodesics end ( akin to latitude/longitude at the Earth's poles ), is not a location in space, but an event in time, and an infalling observer would be 'running into other stuff' at the end of time, not at the center.

X-posted with others

[Mordred]

15 minutes ago, Carrock said:

 

Photons can (rarely) interact with each other but not annihilate each other (except by creating a matter/antimatter pair etc.

A photon can destructively interfere with itself but this only affects its observed location, not its 

Not quite destructive interference you can have full annihilation if the two wavefunctions are equal but opposite its realistically no different between matter and antimatter colliding with its opposite. Think of all particles are field excitations under QFT. You can get full annihilation with matter why would photons as a boson be different the antiparticle is asymmetric to the photon.

Keep in mind that doesn't apply to probability wavefunctions.

You have to look at the creation/annihilation operators specifically for each using QFT.

Course you could further consider baryogensesis and leptogenesis which we cannot explain as that also relates.

Edited May 3 by Mordred

[Carrock]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Not quite destructive interference you can have full annihilation if the two wavefunctions are equal but opposite its realistically no different between matter and antimatter colliding with its opposite. Think of all particles are field excitations under QFT. You can get full annihilation with matter why would photons as a boson be different the antiparticle is asymmetric to the photon

With e.g. electron/positron annihilation photons are normally produced.

Photons with sufficient energy colliding could become an electron/positron pair etc as I said.

 

24 minutes ago, Carrock said:

Photons can (rarely) interact with each other but not annihilate each other (except by creating a matter/antimatter pair etc

Gravitons are the only possibility I see for low energy photons.

 

A longer quote to show what I find problematic:

17 hours ago, Mordred said:

the matter particle escapes to infinity while the antimatter particle falls in. Its a rather simplistic descriptive but the mass loss is due to being the anti particle of the pair. A photon is its own antiparticle. The difference between them isn't charge but rather its polarity. As a wave it obeys constructive and destructive interference. So anti-photons will annihilate with matter photons.

"A photon is its own antiparticle." .... "anti-photons will annihilate with matter photons."

How do photons distinguish between anti-photons and matter photons? Presumably if two high energy matter photons collide it is impossible for them to create a matter/antimatter pair.

 

If you have a reference to there being both anti-photons and matter photons please share it.

 

17 hours ago, Mordred said:

the matter particle escapes to infinity while the antimatter particle falls in. Its a rather simplistic descriptive but the mass loss is due to being the anti particle of the pair.

It can be the particle or anti particle which falls in. It has, loosely speaking, negative energy which reduces the energy/mass of the black hole.

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Carrock said:

 

How do photons distinguish between anti-photons and matter photons? Presumably if two high energy matter photons collide it is impossible for them to create a matter/antimatter pair.

How particles scatter, or form new particles etc etc always depends on their cross sections . That uses the Breit Wigner equations along with the Feymann  golden rules.   It not some case of a photon knowing anything. When it encounters another particle the cross sections and Feymann golden rules are used to determine the end results. Granted we also have a table that is helpful . 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Clebsch–Gordan_coefficients

 

 

Edited May 3 by Mordred