>have two blacks holes of equal mass
>first black hole was made from matter (protons, neutrons, etc)
>second black hole was made from antimatter (antiprotons, antineutrons, etc)
>two black holes approach each other and merge
what happens next?
>the same thing that happens when two black holes made from matter merge
or
>the matter and antimatter of the black holes react, turning the mass of the two black holes into energy
then there are two more possible outcomes.
either:
>the energy release is pulled back into the black holes since it can't escape, and this continues "forever" (until the black holes evaporate)
or
>the energy release is pulled back into the black holes since it can't escape, and either the matter or antimatter dominates, resulting in one black hole only made of matter or antimatter
which of these outcomes is correct Veeky Forums?
Antimatter black hole thought experiment
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
a black hole isnt made of matter/antimatter dumbshit
Your stupidity is only matched by your lack of proper grammar.
Are you fucking retarded?
Problem is, black holes have already broken down matter into more fundamental particles that those annualization rules no longer apply. Indeed, the singularity at the core doesn't fall under the category of matter at all. All matter that formed the initial singularity has lost its identity.
However, black holes can still have electrostatic charges.
The only issue at stake, then, is the bulk electrostatic potential energy as the two black holes approach each other. If the holes are oppositely charged, then potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy, and presumably some of this will get radiated away during the collision, resulting in a slightly lower mass for the resulting black hole. If the black holes are of like charge, then it will require more work to bring them together, and this work will probably end up reflected as a slightly larger mass of the resulting black hole.
As a practical matter, however, the fractional difference in mass will be minute. All objects of astrophysical-scale masses, including black holes, will be found to have negligible net charge, due to the abundant presence of free electrons and ions in interstellar space. Any object in space with a large net charge will rapidly accrete free charged particles, neutralizing itself.
So, basically, the same thing when you stick any two black holes together - a bigger black hole.
nothing to add to this.
>a black hole isnt made of matter
what
A black hole isn't made of matter.
If you speak a different language we can try to tell you in that language instead.
>ll objects of astrophysical-scale masses, including black holes, will be found to have negligible net charge, due to the abundant presence of free electrons and ions in interstellar space. Any object in space with a large net charge will rapidly accrete free charged particles, neutralizing itself.
It is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature for this reason... However, it might yield some interesting mechanics in Kugelblitzed black holes, where you can create the black hole, and determine both spin and charge.
Granted, Kugelblitzed black holes are so tiny, and thus shoot out so much radiation, that getting them to stick together maybe a problem, even if they are of opposite charges. The problem with a black hole with the mass of a mountain, like these are proposed to be, is that it's decaying so quickly, it actually puts out enough energy to overcome its own gravitational attraction. Anything larger would probably rapidly lose its charge.
I dunno if there's some equilibrium you could reach, between size and energy output, where charge could remain a factor. You might be able to work up a system where two same-charged black holes electrostatically orbit each other at insane speeds for centuries for, god knows what. ...Though two oppositely charged ones would just merge and get you a bigger black hole.
the latest theories -by hawking nonetheless- suggest that matter doesn't ever actually fall into the black hole but orbits it forever, so upon bringing the antimatter accretion disk to a matter accretion disk might result in a violent reaction, though most antimatter is not stable and will probably decay to matter before any of these can happen
They are formed from matter or energy, but singularities are not matter as we know it, and event horizons are just warped space. Black holes are essentially just huge masses of gravity, with an infinitely small point of weirdness in their center, infinitely far in the future.
Even Neutron Stars are technically not matter - or they are at least exotic matter. They are macro quantum objects, no longer subject to atomic rules. Quark Stars, should they exist (and this looks increasingly likely), doubly so. Neither can hold the status of matter/anti-matter.
but a black hole isnt made of matter/antimatter
>neutron stars
>technically not matter
>neutron
>matter
you should brush up on your standart model buddy
stop spewing diarrhea
That's a frame of reference thing. From our perspective, the matter never crosses the event horizon. From the perspective of the matter at the horizon, it goes in just fine - and indeed, it has to, it's an inevitable transformation. Albeit, shit gets weird as fuck on the other side, as the spacial dimensions inside become time like, with the spacial coordinates of the singularity representing the forward clock of the inevitable future.
I said *technically* - there are no matter/anti-matter neutron pairs and are not molecules. The neutron stars are not bound by any classical mechanics aside from gravity, and sustained only by degenerate energy and uncertainty. Thus "exotic matter".
Granted, there's (probably) a thin shell of iron on the outside with protons and classical matter that's yet to collapse into that state.
Enlighten me.
quarks in the neutrons have charges and the whole neutron density is held under the attraction of momentary dipole charges as well as the quantum exchange interaction lowering the total energy of the system, of course gravity too
but neutron is without question matter
it doesn't matter if it can be classified as a molecule or not
Alright, fine, it's really wierd matter where quantum mechanics get writ large, but they all have the same charge. You can't have an anti-matter neutron star. If anti-matter collapsed into a neutron star, it'd be indistinguishable from one collapsed from matter, and sticking two such opposing stars together would have the same effect as sticking any other two together (ie. a lot of ruckus, and a black hole).
>antineutrons
>neutrons
>neutral
Oh shit...
they still annihilate
>the latest theories -by hawking nonetheless- suggest that matter doesn't ever actually fall into the black hole but orbits it forever
i was wondering about this. as matter falls towards the black hole, it WILL enter, but never from the perspective of outside the black hole. From outside the black hole matter will slow down until it comes to a stop outside of it.
so what happens to the matter once it enters the black hole? does it become pure information?
we don't know and it doesn't matter as far as relativity goes
There's no process to create event horizon, a collapsar exponentially approaches the state of a black hole, but never develops event horizon, it just contracts slower and slower because of time dilation.
i think it can time travel to arbitary locations and dates
we Interstellar now
Acceleration/gravity slow time, they don't speed it up. If you enter a black hole feet first, your head will experience time faster than your feet because of the tidal force.
from perspective of exterior observer, matter will never actually reach event horizon, correct?
matter becoming so dense that the gravity becomes so high that lightwaves can no longer escape, forming the illusion of a black hole. where is the magic/mystic about these things gone again?
you couldn't say you didn't understand black holes more than with this comment.
It's not an illusion, spacetime is diving towards the singularity faster than the speed of light inside the black hole.
To an external observer, time stops at the event horizon, so things appear to freeze there. In fact, the term 'frozen star' was used before 'black hole.' To the object falling into the black hole, time passes normally and it goes on its merry way.
how to slow sth down that doesnt exist?
You forgot to add "...and I'm an engineer!!!" Go back to your psych ward. The meds aren't working again.
We don't know for sure, physics kinda goes fuzzy at this point. Part of it depends as to whether Cosmic Censorship is a thing or not...
What happens in Event Horizonland, stays in Event Horizonland, but aside from that, some similarly weird stuff should happen:
youtube.com
...and other such stuff, such as witnessing the nearly the entire existence of the universe go by in a flash.
Linked wrong guy.
what
you're retarded
> spacetime is diving
tell me more
There is no evidence, black holes are made of particles.
Go dig a hole in the ground.
What is the hole made out of?
imagine you're paddling on a stream of water and you approach a big ass cascade.
No matter how hard you paddle, past a certain point you can't beat the current dragging you.
Same thing with spacetime inside a black hole, where spacetime itself is dragging you at faster than the speed of light below the black hole's horizon. If you're not destroyed, you could still keep moving but you wouldn't cover enough spacetime to ever escape.
It's not about dense matter anymore, it's about geometry and curvature.
air
It's mass doesn't come from Higgs
>1-hour long video
summarize please
it's already at the correct timestamp
He means 42 minutes, for those of you who use Veeky Forums's buggy youtube embed.
Though Leonard doesn't really explain why, he just makes the same statement and goes on to explain how fermions get mass from the higgs field.
In anycase, it's a singularity, so particle physics do not really apply directly to it anyways.
My lay understanding is that, if you drop material into a black hole and watch it from far away, that material will never cross the event horizon from your perspective. Therefore, I'm gonna go with
>the same thing that happens when two black holes made from matter merge
and guess that the material from one black hole never actually crosses the event horizon of the other, and so no reaction takes place.