The paradox of Hawking radiation - is matter infinitely compressible?

[Duda Jarek]

The event horizon has to evolve in a continuous way - it cannot just emerge in nonzero radius. See for example: http://mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm

[swansont]

But if baryons are destructible, they should not survive this infinite compression - should be destroyed earlier, creating pressure inside and temporarily preventing the collapse ...

 

I'm still not seeing how this requires the destruction of baryons. First of all, infinite compression is from GR, and we know that the singularity is probably not a physical result, so we need a quantum theory of gravity. Destruction of the mass would violate conservation of energy, so I don't understand why the identity as a baryon is of a particular problem. Is it a contention that leptons can be infinitely compressed?

[Duda Jarek]

By destruction of baryons I mean e.g. proton decay - that they turn mainly into gammas (nearly complete matter->energy conversion).

Such huge explosion in the center should temporarily prevent collapse and finally high energy gammas should leave the star in bursts.

 

If proton decay is possible, in some extreme temperature below infinity it should become statistically essential - neutron star should start "burning its baryons" in the center before start forming the event horizon ...

[TrappedLight]

It doesn't make sense to think of a point taking up all the density of the universe, yet we often believe the standard model of the big bang, that being that all the energy in the universe was condensed into a single point. Not sure if this can be the case physically. Mind you, massless radiation doesn't follow the same rules as the Dirac statistics which govern fermion particles, which means that photons may occupy the same space. However the only constraint is that the radiation all have the same energy states.

 

Hawking once called the singular state, as a state in which matter is all

 

''stacked up to infinity''

 

He made this statement really as a simplification of very complicated physics.

Edited September 26, 2013 by TrappedLight

[Duda Jarek]

I am not sure what do you mean by "a point taking up all the density of the universe"? In an infinitesimal volume in the center on neutron star there would be relatively small mass, but just infinitely compressed - the question about GRT doesn't bother about is if matter can be indeed infinitely compressed.

 

Indeed Big Bang is another suspicious assumption, especially that it would definitely exceed the condition of being inside event horizon, what means that the only direction anything could travel is toward the center ...

It is one of reasons I prefer Big Bounce scenario, in which we don't need a singularity .... but it is for a different discussion: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62644-what-about-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics-in-cyclic-universe-model/

[TrappedLight]

I am not sure what do you mean by "a point taking up all the density of the universe"?

 

The OP asks whether matter can be infinitely compressible? This is the same as the interior of a black hole. In fact, there are many features of black holes which resemble the beginning of the universe.

 

Asking whether matter can be infinitely compressible, is the same as asking whether the mass of the universe can be compressed into a gravitational singularity.

Mind you, there should be a limited amount of observable mass in the universe, to a magnitude of [math]10^{80}[/math] atoms in the universe. Not exactly infinite, but the the strange facet of big bang, is that as the universe expands, more energy is released in the universe. We don't know if the universe even has an omega point, there could be an infinite amount of energy as far as we are concerned.

[MigL]

From everything I've read ( ie. I could be wrong ), Baryon number conservation is not 'written in stone'. There may be cause for violation of this rule. After all we do know that the universe consists primarily of matter. Where is the anti-matter ? At some point in its history the universe had to preferentially create matter or destroy anti-matter. How does this preserve baryon number ?

[swansont]

From everything I've read ( ie. I could be wrong ), Baryon number conservation is not 'written in stone'. There may be cause for violation of this rule. After all we do know that the universe consists primarily of matter. Where is the anti-matter ? At some point in its history the universe had to preferentially create matter or destroy anti-matter. How does this preserve baryon number ?

Yes, there is some symmetry breaking somewhere. But it's not in GR, or Hawking radiation.