bored_teen Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Black holes suck in enormous amounts of energy; not even light can escape the pull. What happens to the energy once the black hole collapses? Due to the Law of Conservation of Energy, it can't simply disappear, so where does it go?
bob000555 Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 The energy is emited via Hawking Radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Klaynos Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 How does a black hole collapse? Something can collapse into one, but our understanding currently is that it is a singularity, which surely cannot collapse? Of course our understanding is incomplete and we don't really knows what happens close to the singularity...
bob000555 Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 How does a black hole collapse? Something can collapse into one, but our understanding currently is that it is a singularity, which surely cannot collapse? Of course our understanding is incomplete and we don't really knows what happens close to the singularity... I think he was talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation
Primordial Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Black holes suck in enormous amounts of energy; not even light can escape the pull. What happens to the energy once the black hole collapses? Due to the Law of Conservation of Energy, it can't simply disappear, so where does it go? There are several concepts out there about what happens, one such concept has been presented by one of Mr. Hawking's friends, a Mr. Kipp Thorne. His concept has the mass of the black hole being converted into energy in the form of increased space-time curvature, simply stated, into gravity. Another concept has the mass (or energy) conveyed to alternate universe. Still there are others that think the mass is tranfered to another part of our own universe. Hope this helps.
Ugouka Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Hawking radiation is a large portion of the loss of substance in the black hole, but there are also the jets that occasionally erupt from the poles of the black hole. These travel near the speed of light and contain incredible amounts of energy. As I haven't researched these fully, I cannot tell you exactly what causes them, but my thoughts are as follows: Because matter is largely empty space (something like 99.999%), the black hole's gravity is able to compress atoms to ridiculously small particles. Our current understanding of subatomic particles suggests that there is antimatter attached to one of the subatomic particles (and to the opposite particle in a positron) in the atom. The reaction between matter and antimatter is among the most violent and efficient processes known to man. There is a 100% energy return-nothing is wasted, both particles are completely converted into pure energy. Because atoms possess incredible amounts of energy, this process is violent and explosive. When this reaction happens in the black hole, the jets are launched outward. I can only assume these jets are ejected from outside the event horizon, or they find some way to weaken or overpower the gravity at their exit point. Again, I haven't researched this fully, so this might be, and probably is, all wrong, but these are just my thoughts on the matter.
Royston Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Hawking radiation is a large portion of the loss of substance in the black hole, but there are also the jets that occasionally erupt from the poles of the black hole. These travel near the speed of light and contain incredible amounts of energy. Bipolar jets are emitted from the accretion disk, outside the event horizon, so will not contribute to any loss from within the black hole, as you said... I can only assume these jets are ejected from outside the event horizon The same with quasars, other jets include GRB's (gamma ray bursts) which are emitted during the formation of a black hole.
Airbrush Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Bipolar jets are emitted from the accretion disk, outside the event horizon, so will not contribute to any loss from within the black hole, as you said... The same with quasars, other jets include GRB's (gamma ray bursts) which are emitted during the formation of a black hole. This is very interesting. The most energetic things we know about (GRB, supernovas, quasars, bipolar jets, etc) involve black holes. This must mean that when gas, dust, and other matter gets compressed into a black hole, just before it enters it is crushed into such high temperatures that whatever is outside the event horizon is accelerated away at near light speed, making the hydrogen bomb look like a tiny spark. I don't know about matter and antimatter reacting. If there was any antimatter around it would have been annihilated immediately on contact with matter, before approach to the black hole. From Wikipedia: "Because of the enormous amount of energy needed to launch a relativistic jet, some jets are thought to be powered by spinning black holes. There are two competing theories for how the energy is transferred from the black hole to the jet. "Blandford-Znajek process - This is the most commonly agreed theory for the extraction of energy from the central black hole. The magnetic fields around the accretion disk are dragged by the spin of the black hole. The relativistic material is possibly launched by the tightening of the field lines. Penrose mechanism - This extracts energy from a rotating black hole by frame dragging. This theory was later proven to be able to extract relativistic particle energy,[7] and subsequently shown to be a possible mechanism for the formation of jets." Edited January 22, 2009 by Airbrush
NowThatWeKnow Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I don't know about matter and antimatter reacting. If there was any antimatter around it would have been annihilated immediately on contact with matter, before approach to the black hole. I agree. If matter and antimatter can not coexist, where in the universe would you find antimatter and what produced it? Welcome.
Airbrush Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Hello NTWK. I heard the jets were caused by extremely high temperatures outside the event horizon, but wikipedia has a couple of other explanation of these extreme phenomena called "relativistic jets". "Because of the enormous amount of energy needed to launch a relativistic jet, some jets are thought to be powered by spinning black holes. There are two competing theories for how the energy is transferred from the black hole to the jet. "Blandford-Znajek process - This is the most commonly agreed theory for the extraction of energy from the central black hole. The magnetic fields around the accretion disk are dragged by the spin of the black hole. The relativistic material is possibly launched by the tightening of the field lines. Penrose mechanism - This extracts energy from a rotating black hole by frame dragging. This theory was later proven to be able to extract relativistic particle energy,[7] and subsequently shown to be a possible mechanism for the formation of jets."
Royston Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 This is very interesting. The most energetic things we know about (GRB, supernovas, quasars, bipolar jets, etc) involve black holes. This must mean that when gas, dust, and other matter gets compressed into a black hole, just before it enters it is crushed into such high temperatures that whatever is outside the event horizon is accelerated away at near light speed, making the hydrogen bomb look like a tiny spark. There's basically a pay off, between the gravitational potential energy (which decreases the closer matter gets to the black hole) and an increase in pressure...the energy has to go somewhere, and as observed, not into a black hole. Jets aren't confined to black holes, so maybe it's worth looking up neutron stars, especially collisions. You can only apply thermal dynamics outside of the event horizon, as for the interior of a black hole...that's way beyond my scope.
Ugouka Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I agree. If matter and antimatter can not coexist, where in the universe would you find antimatter and what produced it? Welcome. Well, from what I've read, there is anti-matter in every atom. I do not remember which source I got this from, but it stated that electrons are made of matter, and protons are made of a neutron and a positron. Although I do not know why the positron wouldn't react with the neutron if that was the case, so I may have to disregard this source unless I find valid evidence to support it.. I imagine that a slight magnetic field could keep it separate to prevent the reaction, but I don't know. As I am still fairly new to the world of cosmology and quantum mechanics, I am green around the edges and don't know a whole lot. The disadvantage to being a sponge is that sometimes you absorb incorrect information .
Klaynos Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Well, from what I've read, there is anti-matter in every atom. I do not remember which source I got this from, but it stated that electrons are made of matter, and protons are made of a neutron and a positron. Although I do not know why the positron wouldn't react with the neutron if that was the case, so I may have to disregard this source unless I find valid evidence to support it.. I imagine that a slight magnetic field could keep it separate to prevent the reaction, but I don't know. As I am still fairly new to the world of cosmology and quantum mechanics, I am green around the edges and don't know a whole lot. The disadvantage to being a sponge is that sometimes you absorb incorrect information . It's wrong. We all have to learn and can only rely (at least early on) on the information we're given. I'd recommend hyperphysics... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/hph.html Atoms are made of matter, the nucleus is made of protons and neutrons and then there are electrons as well. All of which are normal matter. -1
Reaper Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 To add on to what Klaynos said, all available evidence points to there being much more normal matter then anti-matter. Anti-matter usually results from radioactive decay, or from very high energy fields (think particle accelerators) where there is a very good chance of matter-antimatter pairs coming into existence
Ugouka Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Yes. I do know that evidence points towards an abundance of matter and the scarcity of anti-matter, but that could be explained by complex probability. In the Big Bang, the matter may have been equal to the antimatter, thus resulting in the release of energy. But, according to E=mc^2, Energy is a form of matter and can be changed back and forth. So, using logic and probability, there is bound to eventually be a scenario when the energy converts into a dominant form, while the smaller form reverts back into energy again, but not all of the dominant matter is wasted this time. This process could occur multiple times, and will eventually result in what we have now. This could, of course, go the other way as well. Probability could lead to energy reverting to primarily anti-matter with every reaction, leading to the opposite matter being dominant.
Airbrush Posted January 27, 2009 Posted January 27, 2009 I was in Costco reading from a book about the universe that the immense power coming from quasars may have something to do with matter and antimatter coming into contact, which was new to me.
Ugouka Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 I have read a similar article, Airbrush. It is entirely plausible, the reaction does release tons of energy, and has a high chance of happening in these high energy areas.
Royston Posted January 29, 2009 Posted January 29, 2009 (edited) I was in Costco reading from a book about the universe that the immense power coming from quasars may have something to do with matter and antimatter coming into contact, which was new to me. AFAIK, this was proposed back in the 60's, early 70's, afterwhich *blackholes were considered as a source. Possibly why it's 'news to you', as that idea died sometime ago. It maybe possible (I'll do a search) that matter, anti-matter pairs are created in the event. This is pure speculation (i.e it doesn't really belong in this forum) unless I find something to back it up. *super massive blackholes Maybe this is what you were referring to Airbrush... http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080111-antimatter-space.html Note, the jets aren't quasars, but that's the closest I could find. Edited January 29, 2009 by Snail added link, comments
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now