sfmonster said:
Ya I'm with you on all that but you did nothing but explain what we KNOW right now. What we KNOW right now is really not any closer to an explanation than what they new 2000 years ago so odd are we won't KNOW anything else before you and I die. With that simply logic I am willing to risk a little bit and say there was a creator, probably not what everyone thinks but something nonetheless and run with it.
When I took Astronomy in 1992 the super massive black hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy was just a hypothesis, now there is enough evidence that it is generally accepted in the scientific community.
How much of this was known 2000 years ago and this is a simplistic wikipedia article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
A black hole is an object with a gravitational field so powerful that a region of space becomes cut off from the rest of the universe – no matter or radiation, including visible light, that has entered the region can ever escape. The lack of escaping electromagnetic radiation renders the inside of black holes (beyond the event horizon) invisible, hence the name. However, black holes can be detectable if they interact with matter, e.g. by sucking in gas from an orbiting star. The gas spirals inward, heating up to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of light, X-rays and Gamma rays in the process while still outside of the event horizon.[2][3][4] Black holes are also thought to emit a weak form of thermal energy called Hawking radiation.[5][6][7]
While the idea of an object with gravity strong enough to prevent light from escaping was proposed in the 18th century, black holes as presently understood are described by Einstein's theory of general relativity, developed in 1916. This theory predicts that when a large enough amount of mass is present within a sufficiently small region of space, all paths through space are warped inwards towards the center of the volume. When an object is compressed enough for this to occur, collapse is unavoidable (it would take infinite strength to resist collapsing into a black hole). When an object passes within the event horizon at the boundary of the black hole, it is lost forever (it would take an infinite amount of effort for an object to climb out from inside the hole). Although the object would be reduced to a singularity, the information it carries is not lost (see the black hole information paradox).
While general relativity describes a black hole as a region of empty space with a pointlike singularity at the center and an event horizon at the outer edge, the description changes when the effects of quantum mechanics are taken into account. The final, correct description of black holes, requiring a theory of quantum gravity, is unknown.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Sizes of black holes
* 2 What makes it impossible to escape from black holes?
* 3 Do black holes have "no hair"?
* 4 Types of black holes
* 5 Major features of non-rotating, uncharged black holes
o 5.1 Event horizon
o 5.2 Singularity at a single point
o 5.3 A photon sphere
o 5.4 Accretion disk
* 6 Major features of rotating black holes
o 6.1 Two event horizons
o 6.2 Two photon spheres
o 6.3 Ergosphere
o 6.4 Ring-shaped singularity
o 6.5 Possibility of escaping from a rotating black hole
* 7 What happens when something falls into a black hole?
o 7.1 Spaghettification
o 7.2 Before the falling object crosses the event horizon
o 7.3 As the object passes through the event horizon
o 7.4 Inside the event horizon
o 7.5 Hitting the singularity
* 8 Formation and evaporation
o 8.1 Formation of stellar-mass black holes
o 8.2 Formation of larger black holes
o 8.3 Formation of smaller black holes
o 8.4 Evaporation
* 9 Techniques for finding black holes
o 9.1 Accretion disks and gas jets
o 9.2 Strong radiation emissions
o 9.3 Gravitational lensing
o 9.4 Objects orbiting possible black holes
* 10 Black hole candidates
o 10.1 Supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies
o 10.2 Intermediate-mass black holes in globular clusters
o 10.3 Stellar-mass black holes in the Milky Way
o 10.4 Micro black holes
* 11 History of the black hole concept
o 11.1 Newtonian theories (before Einstein)
o 11.2 Theories based on Einstein's general relativity
* 12 Black holes and Earth
o 12.1 Black hole wandering through our solar system
o 12.2 Micro black hole escaping from a particle accelerator
* 13 Alternative models
* 14 More advanced topics
o 14.1 Entropy and Hawking radiation
o 14.2 Black hole unitarity
* 15 Mathematical theory
* 16 References
* 17 Further reading
o 17.1 Popular reading
o 17.2 University textbooks and monographs
o 17.3 Research papers
* 18 External links
[edit] Sizes of black holes
Black holes can have any mass. Since gravity increases in inverse proportion to volume, any quantity of matter that is sufficiently compressed will become a black hole. However, when black holes form naturally, only a few mass ranges are realistic.
Black holes can be divided into several size categories:
* Supermassive black holes that contain millions to billions of times the mass of the sun are believed to exist in the center of most galaxies, including our own Milky Way.
* Intermediate-mass black holes, whose size is measured in thousands of solar masses, may exist. Intermediate-mass black holes have been proposed as a possible power source for ultra-luminous X ray sources.
* Stellar-mass black holes have masses ranging from about 1.5-3.0 solar masses (the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit) to 15 solar masses. These black holes are created by the collapse of individual stars. Stars above about 20 solar masses may collapse to form black holes; the cores of lighter stars form neutron stars or white dwarf stars. In all cases some of the star's material is lost (blown away during the red giant stage for stars that turn into white dwarfs, or lost in a supernova explosion for stars that turn into neutron stars or black holes).
* Micro black holes, which have masses at which the effects of quantum mechanics are expected to become very important. This is usually assumed to be near the Planck mass. Alternatively, the term micro black hole or mini black hole may refer to any black hole with mass much less than that of a star. Black holes of this type have been proposed to have formed during the Big Bang (primordial black holes), but no such holes have been detected as of 2007.
Astrophysicists expect to find stellar-mass and larger black holes, because a stellar mass black hole is formed by the gravitational collapse of a star of 20 or more solar masses at the end of its life, and can then act as a seed for the formation of a much larger black hole.
Micro black holes might be produced by:
* The Big Bang, which produced pressures far larger than that of a supernova and therefore sufficient to produce primordial black holes without needing the powerful gravity fields of collapsing large stars.
* High-energy particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), if certain non-standard assumptions are correct (typically, an assumption of large extra dimensions). However, any black holes produced in such a manner will evaporate practically instantaneously, thus posing no danger to Earth.
[edit] What makes it impossible to escape from black holes?
General relativity describes mass as changing the shape of spacetime, and the shape of spacetime as describing how matter moves through space. For objects much less dense than black holes, this results in something similar to Newton's laws of gravity: objects with mass attract each other, but it's possible to define an escape velocity which allows a test object to leave the gravitational field of any large object. For objects as dense as black holes, this stops being the case. The effort required to leave the hole becomes infinite, with no escape velocity defined.
There are several ways of describing the situation that causes escape to be impossible. The difference between these descriptions is how space and time coordinates are drawn on spacetime (the choice of coordinates depends on the choice of observation point and on additional definitions used). One common description, based on the Schwarzschild description of black holes, is to consider the time axis in spacetime to point inwards towards the center of the black hole once the horizon is crossed.[8] Under these conditions, falling further into the hole is as inevitable as moving forward in time. A related description is to consider the future light cone of a test object near the hole (all possible paths the object or anything emitted by it could take, limited by the speed of light). As the object approaches the event horizon at the boundary of the black hole, the future light cone tilts inwards towards the horizon. When the test object passes the horizon, the cone tilts completely inward, and all possible paths lead into the hole.[9]
[edit] Do black holes have "no hair"?
The "No hair" theorem states that black holes have only 3 independent internal properties: mass, angular momentum and electric charge. It is impossible to tell the difference between a black hole formed from a highly compressed mass of normal matter and one formed from, say, a highly compressed mass of anti-matter, in other words, any information about infalling matter or energy is destroyed. This is the black hole information paradox.
The theorem only works in some of the types of universe which the equations of general relativity allow, but until the the late 1990s it appeared that the universe in which we live belongs to one of the types in which the theorem works. However astronomical observations from 1999 onwards suggest that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. One of the most widely-supported explanations for the acceleration is that the cosmological constant in Einstein's general relativity equations is not zero, and the "no hair" theorem does not work if the cosmological constant is not zero.[citation needed]
[edit] Types of black holes
Despite the uncertainty about whether the "No Hair" theorem applies to our universe, astrophysicists currently classify black holes according to their angular momentum (non-zero angular momentum means the black hole is rotating) and electric charge:
Non-rotating Rotating
Uncharged Schwarzschild Kerr
Charged Reissner-Nordström Kerr-Newman
(All black holes have non-zero mass, so mass cannot be used for this type of "yes" / "no" classification)
Physicists do not expect that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature, because the electromagnetic repulsion which resists the compression of an electrically charged mass is about 40 orders of magnitude greater (about 1040 times greater) than the gravitational attraction which compresses the mass. So this article does not cover charged black holes in detail, but the Reissner-Nordström black hole and Kerr-Newman metric articles provide more information.
On the other hand astrophysicists expect that almost all black holes will rotate, because the stars from which they are formed rotate. In fact most black holes are expected to spin very rapidly, because they retain most of the angular momentum of the stars from which they were formed but concentrated into a much smaller radius. The same laws of angular momentum make skaters spin faster if they pull their arms closer to their bodies.
This article describes non-rotating, uncharged black holes first, because they are the simplest type.
[edit] Major features of non-rotating, uncharged black holes
[edit] Event horizon
This is the boundary of the region from which not even light can escape. An observer at a safe distance would see a dull black sphere if the black hole was in a pure vacuum but in front of a light background such as a bright nebula. The event horizon is not a solid surface, and does not obstruct or slow down matter or radiation which is traveling towards the region within the event horizon.
The event horizon is the defining feature of a black hole - it is black because no light or other radiation can escape from inside it. So the event horizon hides whatever happens inside it and we can only calculate what happens by using the best theory available, which at present is general relativity.
The gravitational field outside the event horizon is identical to the field produced by any other spherically symmetric object of the same mass. The popular conception of black holes as "sucking" things in is false: objects can maintain an orbit around black holes indefinitely provided they stay outside the photon sphere (described below).
[edit] Singularity at a single point
According to general relativity, a black hole's mass is entirely compressed into a region with zero volume, which means its density and gravitational pull are infinite, and so is the curvature of space-time which it causes. These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole. So physicists call the zero-volume, infinitely dense region at the center of a black hole a "singularity".
The singularity in a non-rotating, uncharged black hole is a point, in other words it has zero length, width and height.
But there is an important uncertainty about this description: quantum mechanics is as well-supported by mathematics and experimental evidence as general relativity, and does not allow objects to have zero size - so quantum mechanics says the center of a black hole is not a singularity but just a very large mass compressed into the smallest possible volume. At present we have no well-established theory which combines quantum mechanics and general relativity; and the most promising candidate, string theory, also does not allow objects to have zero size.
The rest of this article will follow the predictions of general relativity, because quantum mechanics deals with very small-scale (sub-atomic) phenomena and general relativity is the best theory we have at present for explaining large-scale phenomena such as the behavior of masses similar to or larger than stars.
[edit] A photon sphere
A non-rotating black hole's photon sphere is a spherical boundary of zero thickness such that photons moving along tangents to the sphere will be trapped in a circular orbit. For non-rotating black holes, the photon sphere has a radius 1.5 times larger than the radius of the event horizon. No photon is likely to stay in this orbit for long, for two reasons. First, it is likely to interact with any infalling matter in the vicinity (being absorbed or scattered). Second, the orbit is dynamically unstable; small deviations from a perfectly circular path will grow into larger deviations very quickly, causing the photon to either escape or fall into the hole.
Other extremely compact objects such as neutron stars can also have photon spheres.[10] This follows from the fact that light "captured" by a photon sphere does not pass within the radius that would form the event horizon if the object were a black hole of the same mass, and therefore its behavior does not depend on the presence of an event horizon.
[edit] Accretion disk
Space is not a pure vacuum - even interstellar space contains a few atoms of hydrogen per cubic centimeter. The powerful gravity field of a black hole pulls this towards and then into the black hole. The gas nearest the event horizon forms a disk and, at this short range, the black hole's gravity is strong enough to compress the gas to a relatively high density. The pressure, friction and other mechanisms within the disk generate enormous energy - in fact they convert matter to energy more efficiently than the nuclear fusion processes that power stars. As a result, the disk glows very brightly, although disks around black holes radiate mainly X-rays rather than visible light.
Accretion disks are not proof of the presence of black holes, because other massive, ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars and white dwarfs cause accretion disks to form and to behave in the same ways as those around black holes.
[edit] Major features of rotating black holes
Main article: Rotating black hole
Two important surfaces around a rotating black hole. The inner sphere is the static limit (the event horizon). It is the inner boundary of a region called the ergosphere. The oval-shaped surface, touching the event horizon at the poles, is the outer boundary of the ergosphere. Within the ergosphere a particle is forced (dragging of space and time) to rotate and may gain energy at the cost of the rotational energy of the black hole (Penrose process).
Two important surfaces around a rotating black hole. The inner sphere is the static limit (the event horizon). It is the inner boundary of a region called the ergosphere. The oval-shaped surface, touching the event horizon at the poles, is the outer boundary of the ergosphere. Within the ergosphere a particle is forced (dragging of space and time) to rotate and may gain energy at the cost of the rotational energy of the black hole (Penrose process).
Rotating black holes share many of the features of non-rotating black holes - inability of light or anything else to escape from within their event horizons, accretion disks, etc. But general relativity predicts that rapid rotation of a large mass produces further distortions of space-time in addition to those which a non-rotating large mass produces, and these additional effects make rotating black holes strikingly different from non-rotating ones.
[edit] Two event horizons
If two rotating black holes have the same mass but different rotation speeds, the inner event horizon of the faster-spinning black hole will have a larger radius and its outer event horizon will have a smaller radius than in the slower-spinning black hole. In the most extreme case the two event horizons have zero radius, the region hidden by them has zero size and therefore the object is not a black hole but a naked singularity. Many physicists think that some principle which has not yet been discovered prevents the existence of a naked singularity and therefore prevents a black hole from spinning fast enough to create one.
[edit] Two photon spheres
General relativity predicts that a rotating black hole has two photon spheres, one for each event horizon. A beam of light traveling in a direction opposite to the spin of the black hole will circularly orbit the hole at the outer photon sphere. A beam of light traveling in the same direction as the black hole's spin will circularly orbit at the inner photon sphere. This beam will then split itself in two. Both pieces will move into the Hole
[edit] Ergosphere
A large, ultra-dense rotating mass creates an effect called frame-dragging, so that space-time is dragged around it in the direction of the rotation.
Rotating black holes have an ergosphere, a region bounded by:
* on the outside, an oblate spheroid which coincides with the event horizon at the poles and is noticeably wider around the "equator". This boundary is sometimes called the "ergosurface", but it is just a boundary and has no more solidity than the event horizon. At points exactly on the ergosurface, space-time is dragged around at the speed of light.
* on the inside, the outer event horizon.
Within the ergosphere space-time is dragged around faster than light - general relativity forbids material objects to travel faster than light (so does special relativity), but allows regions of space-time to move faster than light relative to other regions of space-time.
Objects and radiation (including light) can stay in orbit within the ergosphere without falling to the center. But they cannot hover (remain stationary as seen by an external observer) because that would require them to move backwards faster than light relative to their own regions of space-time, which are moving faster than light relative to an external observer.
Objects and radiation can also escape from the ergosphere. In fact the Penrose process predicts that objects will sometimes fly out of the ergosphere, obtaining the energy for this by "stealing" some of the black hole's rotational energy. If a large total mass of objects escapes in this way the black hole will spin more slowly and may even stop spinning eventually.
[edit] Ring-shaped singularity
General relativity predicts that a rotating black hole will have a ring singularity which lies in the plane of the "equator" and has zero width and thickness - but remember that quantum mechanics does not allow objects to have zero size in any dimension (their wavefunction must spread), so general relativity's prediction is only the best idea we have until someone devises a theory which combines general relativity and quantum mechanics.
[edit] Possibility of escaping from a rotating black hole
Penrose diagrams of various Schwarzschild solutions. Time is the vertical dimension, space is horizontal, and light travels at 45° angles. Paths less than 45° to the horizontal are forbidden by special relativity, but rotating black holes allow for travel to future "universes"
Penrose diagrams of various Schwarzschild solutions. Time is the vertical dimension, space is horizontal, and light travels at 45° angles. Paths less than 45° to the horizontal are forbidden by special relativity, but rotating black holes allow for travel to future "universes"
Kerr's solution for the equations of general relativity predicts that:
* The properties of space-time between the two event horizons allow objects to move only towards the singularity.
* But the properties of space-time within the inner event horizon allow objects to move away from the singularity, pass through another set of inner and outer event horizons, and emerge out of the black hole into another universe or another part of this universe without traveling faster than the speed of light.
* Passing through the ring shaped singularity may allow entry to a negative gravity universe.[11]
If this is true, rotating black holes could theoretically provide the wormholes which often appear in science fiction. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the internal properties of a rotating black hole are exactly as described by Kerr's solution[12] and it is not currently known whether the actual properties of a rotating black hole would provide a similar escape route for an object via the inner event horizon.
Even if this escape route is possible, it is unlikely to be useful because a spacecraft which followed that path would probably be distorted beyond recognition by spaghettification.
[edit] What happens when something falls into a black hole?
This section describes what happens when something falls into a non-rotating, uncharged black hole. The effects of rotating and charged black holes are more complicated but the final result is much the same - the falling object is absorbed (unless rotating black holes really can act as wormholes).
[edit] Spaghettification
An object in any very strong gravitational field feels a tidal force stretching it in the direction of the object generating the gravitational field. This is because the inverse square law causes nearer parts of the stretched object to feel a stronger attraction than farther parts. Near black holes, the tidal force is expected to be strong enough to deform any object falling into it; this is called spaghettification.
The strength of the tidal force depends on how gravitational attraction changes with distance, rather than on the absolute force being felt. This means that small black holes cause spaghettification while infalling objects are still outside their event horizons, whereas objects falling into large, supermassive black holes may not be deformed or otherwise feel excessively large forces before passing the event horizon.
[edit] Before the falling object crosses the event horizon
An object in a gravitational field experiences a slowing down of time, called gravitational time dilation, relative to observers outside the field. The observer will see that physical processes in the object, including clocks, appear to run slowly. As a test object approaches the event horizon, its gravitational time dilation (as measured by an observer far from the hole) would approach infinity.
From the viewpoint of a distant observer, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow down, approaching but never quite reaching the event horizon: and it appears to become redder and dimmer, because of the extreme gravitational red shift caused by the gravity of the black hole. Eventually, the falling object becomes so dim that it can no longer be seen, at a point just before it reaches the event horizon. All of this is a consequence of time dilation: the object's movement is one of the processes that appear to run slower and slower, and the time dilation effect is more significant than the acceleration due to gravity; the frequency of light from the object appears to decrease, making it look redder, because the light appears to complete fewer cycles per "tick" of the observer's clock; lower-frequency light has less energy and therefore appears dimmer.
From the viewpoint of the falling object, distant objects may appear either blue-shifted or red-shifted, depending on the falling object's trajectory. Light is blue-shifted by the gravity of the black hole, but is red-shifted by the velocity of the infalling object.
[edit] As the object passes through the event horizon
From the viewpoint of the falling object, nothing particularly special happens at the event horizon (apart from spaghettification due to tidal forces, if the black hole has relatively low mass). A falling observer would measure a non-infinite amount of time (in their reference frame) needed to fall past the point where the event horizon is supposed to be.
An outside observer, however, will never see an infalling object cross this line. The object appears to halt just above the horizon, due to gravitational time dilation, fading from view as its light is red-shifted and the rate at which it emits photons drops to approach zero. This doesn't mean that the object never crosses the horizon; instead, it means that light from the horizon-crossing event is delayed by a time that approaches infinity as the object approaches the horizon. The time of crossing depends on how the outside observer chooses to define space and time axes on spacetime near the horizon.
In practice, additional effects are expected to occur as an object approaches the event horizon of a black hole. Hawking radiation is expected to grow brighter, approaching the Planck temperature as an infalling object approaches to within the Planck length of the horizon.[citation needed] Both relativistic and quantum mechanical effects may present a backwards pressure that approaches infinite strength near the horizon, making the fate of infalling objects unclear. This type of back-pressure may cause the region near or within the event horizon to be at very high temperature.[13] As of 2007, there is no scientific consensus about what happens as objects fall into black holes, beyond the fact that it's expected to differ from the picture described by general relativity.
[edit] Inside the event horizon
The object reaches the singularity at the center within a finite amount of proper time, as measured by the falling object. An observer on the falling object would continue to see objects outside the event horizon, blue-shifted or red-shifted depending on the falling object's trajectory. Objects closer to the singularity aren't seen, as all paths light could take from objects farther in point inwards towards the singularity.
The amount of proper time a faller experiences below the event horizon depends upon where they started from rest, with the maximum being for someone who starts from rest at the event horizon. A study in 2007 examined the effect of firing a rocket pack with the black hole, showing that this can only reduce the proper time of a person who starts from rest at the event horizon. However, for anyone else, a judical burst of the rocket can extend the life time of the faller, but over doing it will again reduce the proper time experienced. However, this cannot prevent the inevitable collision with the central singularity.[14]
[edit] Hitting the singularity
As an infalling object approaches the singularity, tidal forces acting on it approach infinity. All components of the object, including atoms and subatomic particles, are torn away from each other before striking the singularity. At the singularity itself, effects are unknown; a theory of quantum gravity is needed to accurately describe events near it. Regardless, as soon as an object passes within the hole's event horizon, it is lost to the outside world. An observer far from the hole simply sees the hole's mass, charge, and angular momentum change to reflect the addition of the new object's matter.
[edit] Formation and evaporation
[edit] Formation of stellar-mass black holes
Stellar-mass black holes are formed in two ways:
* As a direct result of the gravitational collapse of a star.
* By collisions between neutron stars.[15] Although neutron stars are fairly common, collisions appear to be very rare. Neutron stars are also formed by gravitational collapse, which is therefore ultimately responsible for all stellar-mass black holes.
Stars undergo gravitational collapse when they can no longer resist the pressure of their own gravity. This usually occurs either because a star has too little "fuel" left to maintain its temperature, or because a star which would have been stable receives a lot of extra matter in a way which does not raise its core temperature. In either case the star's temperature is no longer high enough to prevent it from collapsing under its own weight (Charles's law explains the connection between temperature and volume).
The collapse transforms the matter in the star's core into a denser state which forms one of the types of compact star. Which type of compact star is formed depends on the mass of the remnant, i.e. of the matter left to be compressed after the supernova (if one happened - see below) triggered by the collapse has blown away the outer layers.
Only the largest remnants, those exceeding 5 solar masses, generate enough pressure to produce black holes, because singularities are the most radically transformed state of matter known to physics (if you can still call it matter) and the force which resists this level of compression, neutron degeneracy pressure, is extremely strong. Remnants exceeding 5 solar masses are produced by stars which were over 20 solar masses before the collapse (the rest of the mass is usually blown into space by the supernova triggered by the collapse).
In stars which are too large to form white dwarfs, the collapse releases energy which usually produces a supernova, blowing the star's outer layers into space so that they form a spectacular nebula. But the supernova is a side-effect and does not directly contribute to producing a compact star. For example a few gamma ray bursts were expected to be followed by evidence of supernovae but this evidence did not appear,[16][17] and one explanation is that some very large stars can form black holes fast enough to swallow the whole star before the supernova blast can reach the surface.
[edit] Formation of larger black holes
There are two main ways in which black holes of larger than stellar mass can be formed:
* Stellar-mass black holes may act as "seeds" which grow by absorbing mass from interstellar gas and dust, stars and planets or smaller black holes.
* Star clusters of large total mass may be merged into single bodies by their members' gravitational attraction. This will usually produce a supergiant or hypergiant star which runs short of "fuel" in a few million years and then undergoes gravitational collapse, produces a supernova or hypernova and spends the rest of its existence as a black hole.
[edit] Formation of smaller black holes
No known process currently active in the universe can form black holes of less than stellar mass. This is because all present black hole formation is through gravitational collapse, and the smallest mass which can collapse to form a black hole produces a hole approximately 1.5-3.0 times the mass of the sun (the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit). Smaller masses collapse to form white dwarf stars or neutron stars.
There are still a few ways in which smaller black holes might be formed, or might have formed in the past:
* By evaporation of larger black holes. If the initial mass of the hole was stellar mass, the time required for it to lose most of its mass via Hawking evaporation is much longer than the age of the universe, so small black holes are not expected to have formed by this method yet.
* By the Big Bang, which produced sufficient pressure to form smaller black holes without the need for anything resembling a star. None of these hypothesized primordial black holes have been detected.
* By very powerful particle accelerators. In principle, a sufficiently energetic collision within a particle accelerator could produce a micro black hole. In practice, this is expected to require energies comparable to the Planck energy, which is vastly beyond the capability of any present, planned, or expected future particle accelerator to produce. Some variant models of the unification of the four fundamental forces allow the formation of black holes at much lower energies. This would allow production of extremely short-lived black holes in terrestrial particle accelerators. No conclusive evidence of this type of black hole production has been presented as of 2007.
[edit] Evaporation
Hawking radiation is a theoretical process by which black holes can evaporate into nothing. As there is no experimental evidence to corroborate it and there are still some major questions about the theoretical basis of the process, there is still debate about whether Hawking radiation can enable black holes to evaporate.
Quantum mechanics says that even the purest vacuum is not completely empty but is instead a "sea" of energy which has wave-like fluctuations. We cannot observe this "sea" of energy directly because there is no lower energy level with which we can compare it. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle also dictates that it is impossible to know the exact value of anything. This is more relevant when dealing with small values. The fluctuations in this sea produce pairs of particles in which one is made of normal matter and the other is the corresponding antiparticle (special relativity proves mass-energy equivalence, i.e. that mass can be converted into energy and vice versa). Normally each would soon meet another instance of its antiparticle and the two would be totally converted into energy, restoring the overall matter-energy balance as it was before the pair of particles was created. The Hawking radiation theory suggests that, if such a pair of particles is created just outside the event horizon of a black hole, one of the two particles may fall into the black hole while the other escapes, because the two particles move in slightly different directions after their creation. From the point of view of an outside observer, the black hole has just emitted a particle and therefore the black hole has lost a minute amount of its mass.
If the Hawking radiation theory is correct, only the very smallest black holes are likely to evaporate in this way. For example a black hole with the mass of our Moon would gain as much energy (and therefore mass - mass-energy equivalence again) from cosmic microwave background radiation as it emits by Hawking radiation, and larger black holes will gain more energy (and mass) than they emit. To put this in perspective, the smallest black hole which can be created naturally at present is about 5 times the mass of our sun, so most black holes have much greater mass than our Moon.
Over time the cosmic microwave background radiation becomes weaker. Eventually it will be weak enough so that more Hawking radiation will be emitted than the energy of the background radiation being absorbed by the black hole. Through this process, even the largest black holes will eventually evaporate. However, this process may take nearly a googol years to complete.
[edit] Techniques for finding black holes
[edit] Accretion disks and gas jets
Formation of extragalactic jets from a black hole's accretion disk
Formation of extragalactic jets from a black hole's accretion disk
Most accretion disks and gas jets are not clear proof that a stellar-mass black hole is present, because other massive, ultra-dense objects such as neutron stars and white dwarfs cause accretion disks and gas jets to form and to behave in the same ways as those round black holes. But they can often help by telling astronomers where it might be worth looking for a black hole.
On the other hand, extremely large accretion disks and gas jets may be good evidence for the presence of supermassive black holes, because as far as we know any mass large enough to power these phenomena must be a black hole.
[edit] Strong radiation emissions
Steady X-ray and gamma ray emissions also do not prove that a black hole is present but can tell astronomers where it might be worth looking for one - and they have the advantage that they pass fairly easily through nebulae and gas clouds.
But strong, irregular emissions of X-rays, gamma rays and other electromagnetic radiation can help to prove that a massive, ultra-dense object is not a black hole, so that "black hole hunters" can move on to some other object. Neutron stars and other very dense stars have surfaces, and matter colliding with the surface at a high percentage of the speed of light will produce intense flares of radiation at irregular intervals. Black holes have no material surface, so the absence of irregular flares round a massive, ultra-dense object suggests that there is a good chance of finding a black hole there.
Intense but one-time gamma ray bursts (GRBs) may signal the birth of "new" black holes, because astrophysicists think that GRBs are caused either by the gravitational collapse of giant stars[18] or by collisions between neutron stars,[19] and both types of event involve sufficient mass and pressure to produce black holes. But it appears that a collision between a neutron star and a black hole can also cause a GRB,[20] so a GRB is not proof that a "new" black hole has been formed. All known GRBs come from outside our own galaxy, and most come from billions of light years away[21] so the black holes associated with them are actually billions of years old.
Some astrophysicists believe that some ultraluminous X-ray sources may be the accretion disks of intermediate-mass black holes.[22]
Quasars are thought to be caused by the accretion disks of supermassive black holes, since we know of nothing else which is powerful enough to produce such strong emissions. While X-rays and gamma rays have much higher frequencies and shorter wavelengths than visible light, quasars radiate mainly radio waves, which have lower frequencies and longer wavelengths than visible light.
[edit] Gravitational lensing
Gravitational lensing distorts the image around a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud (artistic interpretation)
Gravitational lensing distorts the image around a black hole in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud (artistic interpretation)
Gravitational lensing is another phenomenon which can have other causes besides the presence of a black hole, because any very strong gravitational field bends light rays. The most spectacular examples produce multiple images of very distant objects by bending towards our telescopes light rays which would otherwise have gone in different directions. But these multiple-image effects are probably produced by distant galaxies.
[edit] Objects orbiting possible black holes
Some large celestial objects are almost certainly orbiting around black holes, and the principles behind this conclusion are surprisingly simple if we consider a circular orbit first (although all known astronomical orbits are elliptical):
* The radius of the central object round which the observed object is orbiting must be less than the radius of the orbit, otherwise the two objects would collide.
* The orbital period and the radius of the orbit make it easy to calculate the centrifugal force created by the orbiting object. Strictly speaking the centrifugal force also depends on the orbiting object's mass, but the next two steps show why we can get away with pretending this is a fixed number, e.g. 1.
* The gravitational attraction between the central object and the orbiting object must be exactly equal to the centrifugal force, otherwise the orbiting body would either spiral into the central object or drift away.
* The required gravitational attraction depends on the mass of the central object, the mass of the orbiting object and the radius of the orbit. But we can simplify the calculation of both the centrifugal force and the gravitational attraction by pretending that the mass of the orbiting object is the same fixed number, e.g. 1. This makes it very easy to calculate the mass of the central object.
* If the Schwarzschild radius for a body with the mass of the central object is greater than the maximum radius of the central object, the central object must be a black hole whose event horizon's radius is equal to the Schwarzschild radius.
Unfortunately in real astronomy there are some complications, but astronomers have been dealing with them for centuries (since the time of Kepler):
* Astronomical orbits are elliptical. This complicates the calculation of the centrifugal force, the gravitational attraction and the maximum radius of the central body. But Kepler could handle this without needing a computer.
* The orbital periods in this type of situation are several years, so several years' worth of observations are needed to determine the actual orbit accurately. The "possibly a black hole" indicators (accretion disks, gas jets, radiation emissions, etc.) help "black hole hunters" to decide which orbits are worth observing for such long periods.
* If there are other large bodies within a few light years, their gravity fields will perturb the orbit. Adjusting the calculations to filter out the effects of perturbation can be difficult, but astronomers are used to doing it.
[edit] Black hole candidates
Although black holes cannot be detected directly, many observational studies have provided substantial evidence for black holes. Black holes may be divided into three classes of objects:
* Stellar mass black holes have masses that are equivalent to the masses of individual stars (4–15 times the mass of our Sun).
* Intermediate-mass black hole have masses that are a few hundred to a few thousand times the mass of the Sun.
* Supermassive black holes have masses ranging from on the order of 105 to 1010 times the mass of the Sun.[23]
Further details are given below.
[edit] Supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies
The jet originating from the center of M87 in this image comes from an active galactic nucleus that may contain a supermassive black hole. Credit: Hubble Space Telescope/NASA/ESA.
The jet originating from the center of M87 in this image comes from an active galactic nucleus that may contain a supermassive black hole. Credit: Hubble Space Telescope/NASA/ESA.
For decades, astronomers have used the term "active galaxy" to describe galaxies with unusual characteristics, such as unusual spectral line emission and very strong radio emission.[24][25] However, theoretical and observational studies have shown that the active galactic nuclei (AGN) in these galaxies may contain supermassive black holes.[24][25] The models of these AGN consist of a central black hole that may be millions or billions of times more massive than the Sun; a disk of gas and dust called an accretion disk; and two jets that are perpendicular to the accretion disk.[25]
Although supermassive black holes are expected to be found in most AGN, only some galaxies' nuclei have been more carefully studied in attempts to both identify and measure the actual masses of the central supermassive black hole candidates. Some of the most notable galaxies with supermassive black hole candidates include the Andromeda Galaxy, M32, M87, NGC 3115, NGC 3377, NGC 4258, and the Sombrero Galaxy.[23]
Astronomers are confident that our own Milky Way galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center, in a region called Sagittarius A*:
* A star called S2 (star) follows an elliptical orbit with a period of 15.2 years and a pericenter (closest) distance of 17 light hours from the central object.
* The first estimates indicated that the central object contains 2.6M (2.6 million) solar masses and has a radius of less than 17 light hours. Only a black hole can contain such a vast mass in such a small volume.
* Further observations[26] strengthened the case for a black hole by showing that the central object's mass is about 3.7M solar masses and its radius no more than 6.25 light-hours.
[edit] Intermediate-mass black holes in globular clusters
In 2002, the Hubble Space Telescope produced observations indicating that globular clusters named M15 and G1 may contain intermediate-mass black holes. This interpretation is based on the sizes and periods of the orbits of the stars in the globular clusters. But the Hubble evidence is not conclusive, since a group of neutron stars could cause similar observations. Until recent discoveries, many astronomers thought that the complex gravitational interactions in globular clusters would eject newly-formed black holes.
In November 2004 a team of astronomers reported the discovery of the first well-confirmed intermediate-mass black hole in our Galaxy, orbiting three light-years from Sagittarius A*. This black hole of 1,300 solar masses is within a cluster of seven stars, possibly the remnant of a massive star cluster that has been stripped down by the Galactic Centre.[27][28] This observation may add support to the idea that supermassive black holes grow by absorbing nearby smaller black holes and stars.
In January 2007, researchers at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom reported finding a black hole, possibly of about 400 solar masses, in a globular cluster associated with a galaxy named NGC 4472, some 55 million light-years away.[29]
[edit] Stellar-mass black holes in the Milky Way
Artist's impression of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence ("normal") star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an accretion disk around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.
Artist's impression of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence ("normal") star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an accretion disk around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.
Our Milky Way galaxy contains several probable stellar-mass black holes which are closer to us than the supermassive black hole in the Sagittarius A* region. These candidates are all members of X-ray binary systems in which the denser object draws matter from its partner via an accretion disk. The probable black holes in these pairs range from three to more than a dozen solar masses.[30][31]
[edit] Micro black holes
The formation of micro black holes on Earth in particle accelerators has been tentatively reported,[32] but not yet confirmed. So far there are no observed candidates for primordial black holes.
[edit] History of the black hole concept
The Newtonian conceptions of Michell and Laplace are often referred to as "dark stars" to distinguish them from the "black holes" of general relativity.
[edit] Newtonian theories (before Einstein)
The concept of a body so massive that even light could not escape was put forward by the geologist John Michell in a 1784 paper sent to Henry Cavendish and published by the Royal Society.[33]
“ If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity. ”
Michell's analysis is based on the concept of escape velocity, which can be deduced from Newton's Law of Gravitation. But Newton's Law of Gravitation assumes a pair of masses, not a single mass. So any analysis based on escape velocity assumes that photons have a non-zero rest mass (vis inertiae in the quote from Michell), but we now know that this is not true. The concept of escape velocity also allows an object to rise for an indefinite distance before falling back, and therefore does not predict event horizons around black holes.
In 1796, the mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace promoted the same idea in the first and second editions of his book Exposition du système du Monde (it was removed from later editions).
The idea of black holes was largely ignored in the nineteenth century, since light was then thought to be a massless wave and therefore not influenced by gravity.
Note: before quantum mechanics was developed, physicists had been perplexed since about 1600 by the problem of wave-particle duality - some thought of light as a stream of particles, others thought of it as a series of waves, and the two different views went in and out of fashion alternately.
[edit] Theories based on Einstein's general relativity
In 1915, Albert Einstein developed the theory of gravity called general relativity, having earlier shown that gravity does influence light (although light has zero rest mass, its path follows any curvature of space-time, and gravity is curvature of space-time). A few months later, Karl Schwarzschild gave the solution for the gravitational field of a point mass and a spherical mass,[34][35] showing that a black hole could theoretically exist. The Schwarzschild radius is now known to be the radius of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole, but this was not well understood at that time, for example Schwarzschild himself thought it was not physical. Johannes Droste, a student of Lorentz, independently gave the same solution for the point mass a few months after Schwarzschild and wrote more extensively about its properties.
In 1930, the astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar argued that, according to special relativity, a non-radiating body above 1.44 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit), would collapse since there was nothing known at that time could stop it from doing so. His arguments were opposed by Arthur Eddington, who believed that something would inevitably stop the collapse. Eddington was partly right: a white dwarf slightly more massive than the Chandrasekhar limit will collapse into a neutron star. But in 1939, Robert Oppenheimer published papers (with various co-authors) which predicted that stars above about three solar masses (the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit) would collapse into black holes for the reasons presented by Chandrasekhar.[36]
Oppenheimer and his co-authors used Schwarzschild's system of coordinates (the only coordinates available in 1939), which produced mathematical singularities at the Schwarzschild radius, in other words the equations broke down at the Schwarzschild radius because some of the terms were infinite. This was interpreted as indicating that the Schwarzschild radius was the boundary of a "bubble" in which time "stopped". For a few years the collapsed stars were known as "frozen stars" because the calculations indicated that an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where its collapse takes it inside the Schwarzschild radius. But many physicists could not accept the idea of time standing still inside the Schwarzschild radius, and there was little interest in the subject for over 20 years.
In 1958 David Finkelstein broke the deadlock over "stopped time" and introduced the concept of the event horizon by presenting the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, which enabled him to show that "The Schwarzschild surface r = 2m is not a singularity but acts as a perfect unidirectional membrane: causal influences can cross it but only in one direction".[37] Note that at this stage all theories, including Finkelstein's, covered only non-rotating, uncharged black holes.
In 1963 Roy Kerr extended Finkelstein's analysis by presenting the Kerr metric (coordinates) and showing how this made it possible to predict the properties of rotating black holes.[38] In addition to its theoretical interest, Kerr's work made black holes more believable for astronomers, since black holes are formed from stars and all known stars rotate.
In 1967 astronomers discovered pulsars, and within a few years could show that the known pulsars were rapidly rotating neutron stars. Until that time, neutron stars were also regarded as just theoretical curiosities. So the discovery of pulsars awakened interest in all types of ultra-dense objects that might be formed by gravitational collapse.
In December 1967 the theoretical physicist John Wheeler coined the expression "black hole" in his public lecture Our Universe: the Known and Unknown, and this mysterious, slightly menacing phrase attracted more attention than the static-sounding "frozen star".
In 1970, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose proved that black holes are a feature of all solutions to Einstein's equations of gravity, not just of Schwarzschild's, and therefore black holes cannot be avoided in some collapsing objects.[39]
[edit] Black holes and Earth
Black holes are sometimes listed among the most serious potential threats to Earth and humanity,[40][41] on the grounds that:
* A naturally-produced black hole could pass through our Solar System.
* A large particle accelerator might produce a micro black hole, and if this escaped it could gradually eat the whole of the Earth.
[edit] Black hole wandering through our solar system
Stellar-mass black holes travel through the Milky Way just like stars. Consequently, they may collide with the Solar System or another planetary system in the galaxy, although the probability of this happening is very small. Significant gravitational interactions between the Sun and any other star in the Milky Way (including a black hole) are expected to occur approximately once every 1019 years.[42] For comparison, the Sun has an age of only 5 × 109 years, and is expected to become a red giant about 5 × 109 years from now, incinerating the surface of the Earth.[25] Hence it is extremely unlikely that a black hole will pass through the Solar System before the Sun exterminates life on Earth.
[edit] Micro black hole escaping from a particle accelerator
There is a theoretical possibility that a micro black hole might be created inside a particle accelerator.[43] Formation of black holes under these conditions (below the Planck energy) requires non-standard assumptions, such as large extra dimensions.
However, many particle collisions that naturally occur as the cosmic rays hit the edge of our atmosphere are often far more energetic than any collisions created by man. If micro black holes can be created by current or next-generation particle accelerators, they have probably been created by cosmic rays every day throughout most of Earth's history, i.e. for billions of years, evidently without earth-destroying effects.
Even if, say, two protons at the Large Hadron Collider could merge to create a micro black hole, this black hole would be extremely unstable, and it would evaporate due to Hawking radiation before it had a chance to propagate. For a 14 TeV black hole (the center-of-mass energy at the Large Hadron Collider), direct computation of its lifetime by the Hawking radiation formula indicates that it would evaporate in 10-100 seconds.
CERN conducted a study assessing the risk of producing dangerous objects such as black holes at the Large Hadron Collider, and concluded that there is "no basis for any conceivable threat."[44]
[edit] Alternative models
Several alternative models, which behave like a black hole but avoid the singularity, have been proposed. However, most researchers judge these concepts artificial, as they are more complicated but do not give near term observable differences from black holes (see Occam's razor). The most prominent alternative theory is the Gravastar.
In March 2005, physicist George Chapline at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California proposed that black holes do not exist, and that objects currently thought to be black holes are actually dark-energy stars. He draws this conclusion from some quantum mechanical analyses. Although his proposal currently has little support in the physics community, it was widely reported by the media.[45][46]
Among the alternate models are magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects, clusters of elementary particles[47] (e.g., boson stars[48]), fermion balls,[49] self-gravitating, degenerate heavy neutrinos[50] and even clusters of very low mass (~0.04 solar mass) black holes.[47]
[edit] More advanced topics
[edit] Entropy and Hawking radiation
In 1971, Stephen Hawking showed that the total area of the event horizons of any collection of classical black holes can never decrease, even if they collide and swallow each other[51]. This sounded remarkably similar to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, with area playing the role of entropy. As a classical object with zero temperature it was assumed that black holes had zero entropy; one could violate the second law of thermodynamics by entropy laden material entering a black hole, resulting in a decrease of the total entropy of the universe. Therefore, Jacob Bekenstein proposed that a black hole should have an entropy and that it should be proportional to its horizon area. Since black holes do not classically emit radiation, the thermodynamic viewpoint was simply an analogy, since zero temperature implies zero disorder implies zero entropy. However, in 1974, Hawking applied quantum field theory to the curved spacetime around the event horizon and discovered that black holes emit Hawking radiation, a form of thermal radiation, allied to the Unruh effect. This led to analogies being drawn between black hole dynamics and thermodynamics: using the first law of black hole mechanics, it follows that the entropy of a non-rotating black hole is one quarter of the area of the horizon. This is a universal result and can be extended to apply to cosmological horizons such as in de Sitter space. It was later suggested that black holes are maximum-entropy objects, meaning that the maximum possible entropy of a region of space is the entropy of the largest black hole that can fit into it. This led to the holographic principle.
The Hawking radiation reflects a characteristic temperature of the black hole, which can be calculated from its entropy. This temperature in fact falls the more massive a black hole becomes: the more energy a black hole absorbs, the colder it gets. A black hole with roughly the mass of the planet Mercury would have a temperature in equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background radiation (about 2.73 K). More massive than this, a black hole will be colder than the background radiation, and it will gain energy from the background faster than it gives energy up through Hawking radiation, becoming even colder still. However, for a less massive black hole the effect implies that the mass of the black hole will slowly evaporate with time, with the black hole becoming hotter and hotter as it does so. Although these effects are negligible for black holes massive enough to have been formed astronomically, they would rapidly become significant for hypothetical smaller black holes, where quantum-mechanical effects dominate. Indeed, small black holes are predicted to undergo runaway evaporation and eventually vanish in a burst of radiation.
If ultra-high-energy collisions of particles in a particle accelerator can create microscopic black holes, it is expected that all types of particles will be emitted by black hole evaporation, providing key evidence for any grand unified theory. Above are the high energy particles produced in a gold ion collision on the RHIC.
If ultra-high-energy collisions of particles in a particle accelerator can create microscopic black holes, it is expected that all types of particles will be emitted by black hole evaporation, providing key evidence for any grand unified theory. Above are the high energy particles produced in a gold ion collision on the RHIC.
Although general relativity can be used to perform a semi-classical calculation of black hole entropy, this situation is theoretically unsatisfying. In statistical mechanics, entropy is understood as counting the number of microscopic configurations of a system which have the same macroscopic qualities(such as mass, charge, pressure, etc.). But without a satisfactory theory of quantum gravity, one cannot perform such a computation for black holes. Some promise has been shown by string theory, however. There one posits that the microscopic degrees of freedom of the black hole are D-branes. By counting the states of D-branes with given charges and energy, the entropy for certain supersymmetric black holes has been reproduced. Extending the region of validity of these calculations is an ongoing area of research.
[edit] Black hole unitarity
An open question in fundamental physics is the so-called information loss paradox, or black hole unitarity paradox. Classically, the laws of physics are the same run forward or in reverse. That is, if the position and velocity of every particle in the universe were measured, we could (disregarding chaos) work backwards to discover the history of the universe arbitrarily far in the past. In quantum mechanics, this corresponds to a vital property called unitarity which has to do with the conservation of probability.
Black holes, however, might violate this rule. The position under classical general relativity is subtle but straightforward: because of the classical no hair theorem, we can never determine what went into the black hole. However, as seen from the outside, information is never actually destroyed, as matter falling into the black hole appears from the outside to become more and more red-shifted as it approaches (but never ultimately appears to reach) the event horizon.
Ideas of quantum gravity, on the other hand, suggest that there can only be a limited finite entropy (ie a maximum finite amount of information) associated with the space near the horizon; but the change in the entropy of the horizon plus the entropy of the Hawking radiation is always sufficient to take up all of the entropy of matter and energy falling into the black hole.
Many physicists are concerned however that this is still not sufficiently well understood. In particular, at a quantum level, is the quantum state of the Hawking radiation uniquely determined by the history of what has fallen into the black hole; and is the history of what has fallen into the black hole uniquely determined by the quantum state of the black hole and the radiation? This is what determinism, and unitarity, would require.
For a long time Stephen Hawking had opposed such ideas, holding to his original 1975 position that the Hawking radiation is entirely thermal and therefore entirely random, containing none of the information held in material the hole has swallowed in the past; this information he reasoned had been lost. However, on 21 July 2004 he presented a new argument, reversing his previous position.[52] On this new calculation, the entropy (and hence information) associated with the black hole escapes in the Hawking radiation itself, although making sense of it, even in principle, is still difficult until the black hole completes its evaporation; until then it is impossible to relate in a 1:1 way the information in the Hawking radiation (embodied in its detailed internal correlations) to the initial state of the system. Once the black hole evaporates completely, then such an identification can be made, and unitarity is preserved. It is not clear how far even the specialist scientific community is yet persuaded by the mathematical machinery Hawking has used (indeed many regard all work on quantum gravity so far as highly speculative); but Hawking himself found it sufficiently convincing to pay out on a bet he had made in 1997 with Caltech physicist John Preskill, to considerable media interest.
[edit] Mathematical theory
Info icon This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Any material which cannot readily be verified may be challenged and removed.
This article has been tagged since May 2007.
Further information: Schwarzschild metric and Deriving the Schwarzschild solution
Black holes are predictions of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. There are many known solutions to the Einstein field equations which describe black holes, and they are also thought to be an inevitable part of the evolution of any star of a certain size. In particular, they occur in the Schwarzschild metric, one of the earliest and simplest solutions to Einstein's equations, found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1915. This solution describes the curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of a static and spherically symmetric object, where the metric is,
\mathrm{d}s^2 = - c^2 \left( 1 - {2Gm \over c^2 r} \right) \mathrm{d}t^2 + \left( 1 - {2Gm \over c^2 r} \right)^{-1} \mathrm{d}r^2 + r^2 \mathrm{d}\Omega^2,
where \mathrm{d}\Omega^2 = \mathrm{d}\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta\; \mathrm{d}\phi^2 is a standard element of solid angle.
According to general relativity, a gravitating object will collapse into a black hole if its radius is smaller than a characteristic distance, known as the Schwarzschild radius. (Indeed, Buchdahl's theorem in general relativity shows that in the case of a perfect fluid model of a compact object, the true lower limit is somewhat larger than the Schwarzschild radius.) Below this radius, spacetime is so strongly curved that any light ray emitted in this region, regardless of the direction in which it is emitted, will travel towards the centre of the system. Because relativity forbids anything from traveling faster than light, anything below the Schwarzschild radius – including the constituent particles of the gravitating object – will collapse into the centre. A gravitational singularity, a region of theoretically infinite density, forms at this point. Because not even light can escape from within the Schwarzschild radius, a classical black hole would truly appear black.
The Schwarzschild radius is given by
r_{\rm S} = {2\,Gm \over c^2}
where G is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object, and c is the speed of light. For an object with the mass of the Earth, the Schwarzschild radius is a mere 9 millimeters — about the size of a marble.
The mean density inside the Schwarzschild radius decreases as the mass of the black hole increases, so while an earth-mass black hole would have a density of 2 × 1030 kg/m3, a supermassive black hole of 109 solar masses has a density of around 20 kg/m3, less than water! The mean density is given by
\rho=\frac{3\,c^6}{32\pi m^2G^3}
Since the Earth has a mean radius of 6371 km, its volume would have to be reduced 4 × 1026 times to collapse into a black hole. For an object with the mass of the Sun, the Schwarzschild radius is approximately 3 km, much smaller than the Sun's current radius of about 696,000 km. It is also significantly smaller than the radius to which the Sun will ultimately shrink after exhausting its nuclear fuel, which is several thousand kilometers. More massive stars can collapse into black holes at the end of their lifetimes.
The formula also implies that any object with a given mean density is a black hole if its radius is large enough. The same formula applies for white holes as well. For example, if the observable universe has a mean density equal to the critical density, then it is a white hole, since its singularity is in the past and not in the future as should be for a black hole.
More general black holes are also predicted by other solutions to Einstein's equations, such as the Kerr metric for a rotating black hole, which possesses a ring singularity. Then we have the Reissner-Nordström metric for charged black holes. Last the Kerr-Newman metric is for the case of a charged and rotating black hole.
There is also the Black Hole Entropy formula:
S = \frac{Akc^3}{4\hbar G}
Where A is the area of the event horizon of the black hole, \hbar is Dirac's constant (the "reduced Planck constant"), k is the Boltzmann constant, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light and S is the entropy.
A convenient length scale to measure black hole processes is the "gravitational radius", which is equal to
r_{\rm G} = {Gm \over c^2}
When expressed in terms of this length scale, many phenomena appear at integer radii. For example, the radius of a Schwarzschild black hole is two gravitational radii and the radius of a maximally rotating Kerr black hole is one gravitational radius. The location of the light circularization radius around a Schwarzschild black hole (where light may orbit the hole in an unstable circular orbit) is 3rG. The location of the marginally stable orbit, thought to be close to the inner edge of an accretion disk, is at 6rG for a Schwarzschild black hole.
[edit] References
1. ^ "Step by Step into a Black Hole"
2. ^ NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center: "Gamma-rays from Black Holes and Neutron Stars".
3. ^ Max-Planck-Gesellschaft October 28, 2006, "Discovery Of Gamma Rays From The Edge Of A Black Hole".
4. ^ Milky Way Black Hole May Be a Colossal 'Particle Accelerator'.
5. ^ Hawking, Stephen (1974). "Black Hole Explosions". Nature 248: pp. 30-31.
6. ^ McDonald, Kirk T. (1998). "Hawking-Unruh Radiation and Radiation of a Uniformly Accelerated Charge". Princeton University: p. 1.
7. ^ Hawking, Stephen; Penrose, Roger (2000). The Nature of Space and Time, New Ed edition, Princeton University Press, p. 44. ISBN 978-0691050843.
8. ^ Kaufmann, William J. III (1979)). Black Holes and Warped Spacetime. W H Freeman & Co (Sd). ISBN 0-7167-1153-2.
9. ^
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/schwarzschild.html Schwarzschild's Spacetime: Introducing the Black Hole
10. ^ Nemiroff, R. J.. Journey to a strong gravity neutron star. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
11. ^ *Kaufmann, William J. III (1977). The Cosmic Frontiers of General Relativity. Little Brown & Co. ISBN 0-316-48341-9.
12. ^ arXiv:gr-qc/9902008
13. ^
http://www.physorg.com/news3702.html
14. ^ Lewis, G. F. and Kwan, J. (2007). "No Way Back: Maximizing survival time below the Schwarzschild event horizon". To appear in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia.
15. ^ Blinnikov, S., et al. (1984). "Exploding Neutron Stars in Close Binaries". Soviet Astronomy Letters 10: 177.
16. ^ Fynbo et al. (2006). "A new type of massive stellar death: no supernovae from two nearby long gamma ray bursts". Nature.
17. ^
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4856
18. ^ Bloom, J.S., Kulkarni, S. R., & Djorgovski, S. G. (2002). "The Observed Offset Distribution of Gamma-Ray Bursts from Their Host Galaxies: A Robust Clue to the Nature of the Progenitors". Astronomical Journal 123: 1111-1148.
19. ^ Blinnikov, S., et al. (1984). "Exploding Neutron Stars in Close Binaries". Soviet Astronomy Letters 10: 177.
20. ^ Lattimer, J. M. and Schramm, D. N. (1976). "The tidal disruption of neutron stars by black holes in close binaries". Astrophysical Journal 210: 549.
21. ^ Paczynski, B. (1995). "How Far Away Are Gamma-Ray Bursters?". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 107: 1167.
22. ^ Winter, L.M., Mushotzky, R.F. and Reynolds, C.S. (2005, revised 2006). "XMM-Newton Archival Study of the ULX Population in Nearby Galaxies". Astrophysical Journal 649: 730.
23. ^ a b J. Kormendy, D. Richstone (1995). "Inward Bound---The Search For Supermassive Black Holes In Galactic Nuclei". Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics 33: 581-624.
24. ^ a b J. H. Krolik (1999). Active Galactic Nuclei. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01151-6.
25. ^ a b c d L. S. Sparke, J. S. Gallagher III (2000). Galaxies in the Universe: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-59704-4.
26. ^
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~jlu/gc/
27. ^ Second black hole found at the centre of our Galaxy.
[email protected]. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
28. ^ The nature of the Galactic Center source IRS 13 revealed by high spatial resolution in the infrared. Retrieved on 2007-01-07.
29. ^ Black hole found in ancient lair. Retrieved on 2007-01-07.
30. ^ J. Casares: Observational evidence for stellar mass black holes. Preprint
31. ^ M.R. Garcia et al.: Resolved Jets and Long Period Black Hole Novae. Preprint
32. ^ Lab fireball 'may be black hole'. BBC News (17 March 2005). Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
33. ^ J. Michell, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., 74 (1784) 35-57.
34. ^ K. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber.Preuss.Akad.Wiss.Berlin (Math.Phys.), (1916) 189-196
35. ^ K. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsber.Preuss.Akad.Wiss.Berlin (Math.Phys.), (1916) 424-434
36. ^ On Massive Neutron Cores, J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Physical Review 55, #374 (February 15, 1939), pp. 374–381.
37. ^ D. Finkelstein (1958). "Past-Future Asymmetry of the Gravitational Field of a Point Particle". Phys. Rev. 110: 965–967.
38. ^ R. P. Kerr, "Gravitational field of a spinning mass as an example of algebraically special metrics", Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237 (1963)
39. ^ The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology. S. W. Hawking, R. Penrose, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (27 January 1970), pp. 529–548
40. ^ What a way to go. Guardian UK.
41. ^ Big Bang Machine could destroy Earth. Sunday Times.
42. ^ J. Binney, S. Tremaine (1987). Galactic Dynamics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-08445-9.
43. ^ To the Higgs Particle and Beyond: U.Va. Physicists are Part of an International Team Searching for the Last Undiscovered Aspect of the Standard Model of Physics Brad Cox, 8 November 2006. Retrieved 7 January 2007.
44. ^
http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf
45. ^ Black holes 'do not exist'.
[email protected]. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
46. ^ Chapline, G.. Dark Energy Stars. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
47. ^ a b Maoz, Eyal (20 February 1998). "Dynamical Constraints On Alternatives To Supermassive Black Holes In Galactic Nuclei". The Astrophysical Journal 494: L181–L184.
48. ^ Torres, Diego F.; S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase (2000). A supermassive boson star at the galactic center?. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
49. ^ Munyaneza, F.; R.D. Viollier (2001). The motion of stars near the Galactic center: A comparison of the black hole and fermion ball scenarios. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
50. ^ Tsiklauri, David; Raoul D. Viollier (1998). Dark matter concentration in the galactic center. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
51. ^ Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time, 1998, ISBN 0-553-38016-8
52. ^ Hawking changes his mind about black holes.
[email protected]. Retrieved on 2006-03-25.
[edit] Further reading
[edit] Popular reading
* Ferguson, Kitty (1991). Black Holes in Space-Time. Watts Franklin. ISBN 0-531-12524-6.
* Hawking, Stephen (1998). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books, Inc. ISBN 0-553-38016-8.
* Melia, Fulvio (2003). The Black Hole at the Center of Our Galaxy. Princeton U Press. ISBN 978-0-691-09505-9.
* Melia, Fulvio (2003). The Edge of Infinity. Supermassive Black Holes in the Universe. Cambridge U Press. ISBN 978-0-521-81405-8.
* Pickover, Clifford (1998). Black Holes: A Traveler's Guide. Wiley, John & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-19704-1.
* Thorne, Kip S. (1994). Black Holes and Time Warps. Norton, W. W. & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-31276-3.
[edit] University textbooks and monographs
* Carter, B. (1973). Black hole equilibrium states, in Black Holes, eds. DeWitt B. S. and DeWitt C.
* Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (1999). Mathematical Theory of Black Holes. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-850370-9.
* Frolov, V. P. and Novikov, I. D. (1998), Black hole physics.
* Hawking, S. W. and Ellis, G. F. R. (1973), The large-scale structure of space-time, Cambridge University Press.
* Melia, Fulvio (2007). The Galactic Supermassive Black Hole. Princeton U Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13129-0.
* Thorne, Kip S.; Misner, Charles; Wheeler, John (1973). Gravitation. W. H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 0-7167-0344-0.
* Wald, Robert M. (1992). Space, Time, and Gravity: The Theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-87029-4.
[edit] Research papers
* Hawking, S. W. (July 2005), Information Loss in Black Holes, arxiv:hep-th/0507171. Stephen Hawking's purported solution to the black hole unitarity paradox, first reported at a conference in July 2004.
* Ghez, A.M. et al. Stellar orbits around the Galactic Center black hole, Astrophysics J. 620 (2005). arXiv:astro-ph/0306130 More accurate mass and position for the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way.
* Hughes, S. A. Trust but verify: the case for astrophysical black holes, arXiv:hep-ph/0511217. Lecture notes from 2005 SLAC Summer Institute.
Oh wow, HEAVEN!
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
