What would happen if a black hole swallowed an anti-matter black hole?

[padren]

Pretty much just what the title suggests:

 

What would happen if two black holes collided and one of them was anti-matter?

[THX-1138]

Speculating here..

 

I think they'd annihilate each other. With the radiation initially unable to escape the event horizon.. hmm. I think they would turn into a single kugelblitz. All issues of initial approach velocity and rotation aside, of course.

[Mr Skeptic]

If there's still matter/antimatter inside the black holes, that should annihilate. However, the light cannot escape the event horizon, so all you would see would be a bigger black hole.

[Sisyphus]

Pretty sure black holes aren't "matter" or "antimatter" in that sense. That would require them to still be made up of all the individual particles that went into them, right? But black holes just have mass, charge, and spin, monolithically.

[padren]

If there's still matter/antimatter inside the black holes, that should annihilate. However, the light cannot escape the event horizon, so all you would see would be a bigger black hole.

 

My main quandary was whether or not a black hole could be destroyed with an equal amount of anti-matter, but I guess that could never happen due to time dilation, and at most it would collide with matter that was also heading towards the center.

 

Is that a fair assessment? Or does matter normally get pulled in and actually become part of the singularity at the center?

[ajb]

How would you decide between black hole and "anti-black hole" in view of the no hair theorem (assuming we are working in 4d space-time, with all the usual standard assumptions)?

 

The obvious answer (but is really a classical problem) is that an black hole anti-black hole pair have opposite but equal electric changes and equal but anti-aligned angular momentum.

 

This would give a "classical analogue" of matter and anti-matter for black holes (or other objects in general relativity).

 

As an aside, I was at a talk by Garry Gibbons last week on similar issues.

[THX-1138]

My main quandary was whether or not a black hole could be destroyed with an equal amount of anti-matter, but I guess that could never happen due to time dilation, and at most it would collide with matter that was also heading towards the center.

 

I don't think time dilation would enter into it. If by 'destroyed' you mean that after the collision there'd be zero instead of two black holes.. I don't think so.

 

A black hole is a system from which radiant energy cannot escape, right? (Layman's terms.) Matter plus antimatter results in radiant energy, yes? The [math]m[/math] may have converted to [math]E[/math], but it still can't escape the event horizon.

 

I'm assuming that the gravitational effect would be the same whether the entity were [math]m[/math] or [math]E[/math], which may not be a valid assumption.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How would you decide between black hole and "anti-black hole" in view of the no hair theorem (assuming we are working in 4d space-time, with all the usual standard assumptions)?

 

Hmm. What if the box in which Schrödinger's cat is ensconced is, in fact, a black hole's event horizon? If we can never open the box, what's the state of the cat? (Just noodling here, triggered by the text at the no-hair link. Ignore as appropriate.)

[padren]

I don't think time dilation would enter into it. If by 'destroyed' you mean that after the collision there'd be zero instead of two black holes.. I don't think so.

 

A black hole is a system from which radiant energy cannot escape, right? (Layman's terms.) Matter plus antimatter results in radiant energy, yes? The [math]m[/math] may have converted to [math]E[/math], but it still can't escape the event horizon.

 

I'm assuming that the gravitational effect would be the same whether the entity were [math]m[/math] or [math]E[/math], which may not be a valid assumption.

 

Don't we already distinguish between "super black holes" and black holes and see a growth in the event horizon as black holes gain more mass?

 

Also, if the black hole exists because of the gravitational force of the matter in the singularity, if anti-matter annihilated enough of that matter, would it still be a black hole, and if not wouldn't radiant energy then be able to escape?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Pretty sure black holes aren't "matter" or "antimatter" in that sense. That would require them to still be made up of all the individual particles that went into them, right? But black holes just have mass, charge, and spin, monolithically.

 

Black holes may "just have" those attributes in terms of detectable attributes from outside the event horizon, but can that really be said about their interiors? As far as I know, you can't really convert a quark to an anti-quark, etc so wouldn't the interior makeup have to be different? Wouldn't that upset the conservation of energy between matter and anti-matter if they were indistinguishable?

 

I really am out of my depths on this so it's just a guess, but the only answers that jump to mind is either A) the anti-matter or anti-matter singularity entering a black hole would never be able to interact with the normal singularity's core, or B) the two would have to react (even if it could never be observed unless it - if possible - destroyed the singularity and thus it's event horizon) in some sort of fashion that was consistent with a matter/anti-matter collision, even if those rules were very different due to the extremely unusual conditions within the black hole.

 

Matter and anti-matter exist as a result of a massive amount of energy, and their collision results in that energy being released. It's not like the "anti" attribute is information that can be corrupted or lost without that energy coming into play somehow. (as far as I know)

[Sisyphus]

The singularity would be where all the "stuff" is, all of the mass in an infinitely dense mathematical point. I'm also out of my depth, but I just don't see how individual particles could have any independent existence. However, the properties that make antimatter different from matter surely would be conserved. Or charge would, at least.

 

I would also ask what "energy being released" would actually mean in this context. Converted to photons? The singularity can't emit photons. What's the difference between matter and energy, when speaking about a black hole?

[Mr Skeptic]

My main quandary was whether or not a black hole could be destroyed with an equal amount of anti-matter, but I guess that could never happen due to time dilation, and at most it would collide with matter that was also heading towards the center.

 

I don't think time dilation has anything to do with it. Also, I don't think time is "frozen" inside the black hole as it is at the infinitesimal limit of the event horizon. It's just that even if converted into photons, all the energy is still there, and it's not coming out. You can't "pop" a black hole like that.

 

Is that a fair assessment? Or does matter normally get pulled in and actually become part of the singularity at the center?

 

As far as current theories go, anything inside a black hole gets pulled in toward the singularity at superluminal speeds. But, many of us don't believe in singularities and think there has to be an alternate explanation without a singularity. I suppose it doesn't really matter, since nothing inside is coming back out.

[THX-1138]

I really don't know from relativity at all, so I'm still speculating here. However,

from Wikipedia:

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, once an event horizon has formed, the type of mass-energy that created it no longer matters.

So from this I speculate that the event horizons will intersect, the singularities will be drawn together, and -- if there actually is a distinction between normal- and anti-matter in such a case -- the matter and anti-matter will annihilate each other, and the mass-energy quantity within the event horizon will be represented by energy rather than mass.

 

But from the observer's point of view, the objects would merge into a single, somewhat larger object.

[padren]

I really don't know from relativity at all, so I'm still speculating here. However,

from Wikipedia:

According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, once an event horizon has formed, the type of mass-energy that created it no longer matters.

So from this I speculate that the event horizons will intersect, the singularities will be drawn together, and -- if there actually is a distinction between normal- and anti-matter in such a case -- the matter and anti-matter will annihilate each other, and the mass-energy quantity within the event horizon will be represented by energy rather than mass.

 

But from the observer's point of view, the objects would merge into a single, somewhat larger object.

 

Okay, I wasn't sure about that but good to know. Still, if black holes can grow over time, would anti-matter make them shrink? If their radius grows with the more mass they consume, would they grow, shrink, or stay the same with anti-matter?

[Mr Skeptic]

Like matter, antimatter has positive energy. It would, as we said, make it grow.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Pretty much just what the title suggests:

 

What would happen if two black holes collided and one of them was anti-matter?

 

Assuming the two black holes are large, and exactly the same size, I think you've come up with the perfect definition of Hell.

[toastywombel]

Well since it is believed that black holes release radiation, because they separate anti-particle and particle pairs. When the black hole absorbs an anti-particle pair it is believed that it decreases its mass, like adding a negative 1 to a positive 10.

 

I think they would annihilate each other. But another problem is how would they ever approach each other. It seems that you are assuming that an anti-matter black hole could even form, but how? they have negative mass don't they? Even if anti-matter was formed into a singularity it would be a collection of negative mass. Negative mass does not create gravity does it?

[Moontanman]

Well since it is believed that black holes release radiation, because they separate anti-particle and particle pairs. When the black hole absorbs an anti-particle pair it is believed that it decreases its mass, like adding a negative 1 to a positive 10.

 

I think they would annihilate each other. But another problem is how would they ever approach each other. It seems that you are assuming that an anti-matter black hole could even form, but how? they have negative mass don't they? Even if anti-matter was formed into a singularity it would be a collection of negative mass. Negative mass does not create gravity does it?

 

Antimatter does not have negative mass, therefore the hypothetical antimatter black hole would not have negative mass and would indeed attract a matter black hole.

[toastywombel]

Ah. I learn something new everyday. I am sorry I came to the false conclusion of anti-matter having negative mass. I figured as much since anti-matter being sucked into a matter black hole decreases the mass of the black hole because it annihilates some of the matter inside the black hole.

 

Are anti-matter atoms made up of the same quarks as regular matter? or are there such a thing as anti-quarks?

 

I know the higgs-boson is the hypothetical particle which has only been observed in computer simulations and that is the hypothetical particle that gives atoms there mass, but could there be an anti-higgs-boson?

[THX-1138]

Ah. I learn something new everyday. I am sorry I came to the false conclusion of anti-matter having negative mass. I figured as much since anti-matter being sucked into a matter black hole decreases the mass of the black hole because it annihilates some of the matter inside the black hole.

 

But the annihilation results in the release of the equivalent amount of energy. A concentration of energy can result in a black hole just as a concentration of mass can.

 

If mass quantity [math]m[/math] is sufficient to form a black hole, then (I believe) that the equivalent energy ([math]mc^2[/math]) can also. (See kugelblitz.)

 

So if the matter is turned into energy, it shouldn't matter -- the mass-energy in the black hole remains the same, so it remains a black hole. Nothing's being lost; it's just changing from one form to another. Mass-energy is conserved.

[toastywombel]

What about the theorized hawking radiation? this states that the mass of a black hole decreases through this process. Causing it to eventually evaporate.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

also are there any ideas involving an anti-light particle. I know about destructive/constructive interference involving waves, but light shows wave properties and particle properties. Could it possibly have an anti-particle?

Edited October 18, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[Moontanman]

What about the theorized hawking radiation? this states that the mass of a black hole decreases through this process. Causing it to eventually evaporate.

 

The evaporation is so slow in a large black hole it takes many billions of years for it to evaporate. A tiny black evaporates much faster than large one and a tiny black hole would give off huge amounts of gamma rays and like a continuous nuclear explosion and finally as it evaporated down to less than enough mass to maintain it's event horizon it would explode in a huge explosion of energy, much like a multi-million megaton nuclear explosion.

 

also are there any ideas involving an anti-light particle. I know about destructive/constructive interference involving waves, but light shows wave properties and particle properties. Could it possibly have an anti-particle?

 

The photon is it's own anti-particle.

[devrimci_kürt]

is there an anti-matter black hole in the universe?

[Moontanman]

is there an anti-matter black hole in the universe?

 

While it would be foolish to say absolutely not, it would seem that if what we currently understand about the universe is true then an anti-matter black hole would be improbable to say the least.

[toastywombel]

 

The evaporation is so slow in a large black hole it takes many billions of years for it to evaporate. A tiny black evaporates much faster than large one and a tiny black hole would give off huge amounts of gamma rays and like a continuous nuclear explosion and finally as it evaporated down to less than enough mass to maintain it's event horizon it would explode in a huge explosion of energy, much like a multi-million megaton nuclear explosion.

 

 

 

The photon is it's own anti-particle.

 

Okay if the photon is its own anti-particle through wave interference, quantum physics views all particles as waves-particle dualities, then would not all particles be there own anti-particle?

[Moontanman]

 

Okay if the photon is its own anti-particle through wave interference' date=' quantum physics views all particles as waves-particle dualities, then would not all particles be there own anti-particle?[/quote']

 

No.

[Mr Skeptic]

 

Okay if the photon is its own anti-particle through wave interference' date=' quantum physics views all particles as waves-particle dualities, then would not all particles be there own anti-particle?[/quote']

 

Nope. An antiparticle also has opposite charge, for example. Opposite everything except mass-energy. A way to think about it, is an antiparticle looks like a particle would if you reversed time.

 

But as you noted, particles can interfere with themselves. But antimatter doesn't just interfere, it cancels.