4 ms·

We can theoretically impact it. Antimatter slowly falls into the black hole and decreases its mass until there isn't enough gravity to maintain a black hole (an

We can theoretically impact it. Antimatter slowly falls into the black hole and decreases its mass until there isn't enough gravity to maintain a black hole (and then you have a massive explosion). So, in theory, if we could somehow acquire antimatter and throw it at a black hole, we could 'evaporate' the black hole faster. We better run fast though :) It's fascinating how this actually happens. There are twin particles of matter/anti-matter appearing and disappearing throughout the universe. They exist for only a fraction of a second. However, at the edge of a black hole, the matter is pushed away and the antimatter is sucked in. The matter is what creates the 'glow' of the black hole and the antimatter is just decreasing the mass of the black hole. So, evaporation is a bit of a misnomer because nothing is escaping.

ars 16y ago
That is completely wrong. > Antimatter slowly falls into the black hole and decreases its mass If you dropped anti matter in a black hole, it just gets heavier. Matter is energy, anti matter is also energy. Energy has mass. It makes no difference what kind it was. > there isn't enough gravity to maintain a black hole (and then you have a massive explosion). No. The black hole simply gets smaller - at no point does it ever stop being a black hole. > There are twin particles of matter/anti-matter appearing and disappearing throughout the universe. They exist for only a fraction of a second. However, at the edge of a black hole, the matter is pushed away and the antimatter is sucked in. No. The idea with virtual particles is that one of them escapes. You create two particles at once, one escapes, the other falls in. These particles are created by the black hole. Twin particles do not constantly appear and disappear through the universe. That would violate conservation of momentum. And it could just as easily be reversed, with the matter falling in, and the anti matter escaping. And anyway, most of the time it's photons that escape, and they are not matter or anti matter. > The matter is what creates the 'glow' of the black hole and the antimatter is just decreasing the mass of the black hole. No. The glow is photons. And the antimatter is not decreasing the mass - the escaping photons are what decreases the mass. You can think of it as a small chuck of the mass of the black hole appears at the edge. Half falls back in, half escapes. > So, evaporation is a bit of a misnomer because nothing is escaping. Not correct. Energy is escaping.
- Jach 16y ago
  > And anyway, most of the time it's photons that escape, and they are not matter or anti matter. If memory serves, a photon is its own anti-particle though, right?
  - ars 16y ago
    Yes.
- keefe 16y ago
  >No. The black hole simply gets smaller - at no point does it ever stop being a black hole. Is this the case and do you have any good references on this topic? I had thought after a sufficient period the black hole does in fact disappear.
  - ars 16y ago
    It does, but only when it's so small it almost doesn't exist. Trillions of times (10^20 times) smaller than a proton. But heavier - about 1/5000 of a flea. It's not known exactly what will happen, current physics does not go so far. But what I meant was that it's always either a black hole, or it's nothing. At no point does it become visible.

ars 16y ago

That is completely wrong. > Antimatter slowly falls into the black hole and decreases its mass If you dropped anti matter in a black hole, it just gets heavier. Matter is energy, anti matter is also energy. Energy has mass. It makes no difference what kind it was. > there isn't enough gravity to maintain a black hole (and then you have a massive explosion). No. The black hole simply gets smaller - at no point does it ever stop being a black hole. > There are twin particles of matter/anti-matter appearing and disappearing throughout the universe. They exist for only a fraction of a second. However, at the edge of a black hole, the matter is pushed away and the antimatter is sucked in. No. The idea with virtual particles is that one of them escapes. You create two particles at once, one escapes, the other falls in. These particles are created by the black hole. Twin particles do not constantly appear and disappear through the universe. That would violate conservation of momentum. And it could just as easily be reversed, with the matter falling in, and the anti matter escaping. And anyway, most of the time it's photons that escape, and they are not matter or anti matter. > The matter is what creates the 'glow' of the black hole and the antimatter is just decreasing the mass of the black hole. No. The glow is photons. And the antimatter is not decreasing the mass - the escaping photons are what decreases the mass. You can think of it as a small chuck of the mass of the black hole appears at the edge. Half falls back in, half escapes. > So, evaporation is a bit of a misnomer because nothing is escaping. Not correct. Energy is escaping.

Jach 16y ago
> And anyway, most of the time it's photons that escape, and they are not matter or anti matter. If memory serves, a photon is its own anti-particle though, right?
- ars 16y ago
  Yes.
keefe 16y ago
>No. The black hole simply gets smaller - at no point does it ever stop being a black hole. Is this the case and do you have any good references on this topic? I had thought after a sufficient period the black hole does in fact disappear.
- ars 16y ago
  It does, but only when it's so small it almost doesn't exist. Trillions of times (10^20 times) smaller than a proton. But heavier - about 1/5000 of a flea. It's not known exactly what will happen, current physics does not go so far. But what I meant was that it's always either a black hole, or it's nothing. At no point does it become visible.