The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can the Special Relativity Theory (E=MC²) work in reverse in a black hole?  (Read 2270 times)

Offline cmoreman

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Can the Special Relativity Theory (E=MC2) work in reverse in a black hole? 

I’m an engineer not a physicist, but I've been wondering if Special Relativity could explain what may be happening in a Black Hole if allowed to work in reverse ( as an endothermic nuclear reaction).  I would appreciate if those of you, who know far more than I, could give me some feedback.

Background:  Normally as matter is drawn to an object due to gravitational forces, the temperature of the object will rise as the kinetic energy of arriving new matter is converted to random thermal energy as the new matter collides with the object.    This and other processes including nuclear fusion may raise the object’s temperature until the object is radiating sufficient energy to reach an overall thermal equilibrium.   This thermal energy causes particle motion within the object.  Since any particle motion acts to increase spacing between particles, this particle motion tends to limit the density and impose a minimum size of the object depending on its mass.

What if sufficiently dense objects did not follow the above pattern?    If an object is sufficiently dense could it reach a point of critical mass and density?   At this point, the object’s internal gravitational pull might increase to the point where thermal energy is not possible. What if the object experiences contraction forces due to gravitational pull, at a level where the normal thermal forces that cause particle motion (and the resulting limitation on density) are overwhelmed?   Could the particles within the object’s core become so compressed that thermal motion is no longer possible? 

If so, where does the energy go?  Could the prior thermal energy of the core be radiated away or otherwise dissipated?   Does Hawking radiation explain this?  What if this lost thermal energy in the object’s core is (at least partially) absorbed by an endothermic (reverse) nuclear reaction that still follows the equation E=MC2? 

The endothermic nuclear reaction would be the reverse of commonly known exothermic nuclear reactions.  This reaction follows the Special Relativity (Mass–Energy equivalence) formula but in the reverse direction of commonly accepted use.   In contrast to exothermic nuclear reactions, the endothermic nuclear reaction would absorb energy and create matter. 

Could black holes contain an endothermic nuclear chain reaction?

1.   As the reaction creates mass within the object, the object’s gravitational pull and its contraction forces are increased.  This works to expand the area within the object’s core that has sufficient contraction force to prohibit thermal motion, causing more thermal energy to be absorbed and the reaction to continue.

2.   As the reaction absorbs thermal energy, the temperature of wider areas within the object begins to approach absolute zero.  This decrease in temperature causes further contraction in the object.  Further contraction causes its overall density to increase.  As its density increases, its local gravitational pull and contraction forces are further increased thus helping to sustain the reaction.

If this is possible, then it seems like the endothermic nuclear reaction would continue as long as portions of the object remain above absolute zero and the contraction forces are sustained or increased.  As long as the gravitational pull of the object causes new matter to be ingested and/or the object absorbs external thermal radiation, additional mass and kinetic energy are added to the object and the endothermic nuclear reaction continues to absorb this energy, create new mass, increase the contractive force and continue the chain reaction.

Please reply with comments to help me understand if this is possible.  I’m not a professional physicist so I may have this all wrong.  If so please help me understand.  Thanks.


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: cmoreman
Background:  Normally as matter is drawn to an object due to gravitational forces, the temperature of the object will rise as the kinetic energy of arriving new matter is converted to random thermal energy as the new matter collides with the object.
I don't see any reason for the temperature of an object to rise as such. Please explain why. The reason you gave here makes no sense. E.g. what do you mean by kinetic energy of arriving new matter is converted to random thermal energy as the new matter collides with the object.? Why would kinetic energy be converted to thermal energy? Are you talking about an object falling through an atmosphere and heating up due to friction with the atmosphere? If so I don't see how this applies to a black hole since they don't have an atmosphere.

Quote from: cmoreman
This and other processes including nuclear fusion may raise the object’s temperature until the object is radiating sufficient energy to reach an overall thermal equilibrium.
What kind of source are you talking about that causes nuclear fusion and how does that energy get to the object in question?

Quote from: cmoreman
What if sufficiently dense objects did not follow the above pattern?    If an object is sufficiently dense could it reach a point of critical mass and density?
Critical in what sense? In the sense that it would collapse into a black hole? That's what happens when stars burn out and can't support their own weight against gravitational collapse anymore and then collapses into a black hole.

Quote from: cmoreman
At this point, the object’s internal gravitational pull might increase to the point where thermal energy is not possible. What if the object experiences contraction forces due to gravitational pull, at a level where the normal thermal forces that cause particle motion (and the resulting limitation on density) are overwhelmed?   Could the particles within the object’s core become so compressed that thermal motion is no longer possible? 
Like a black hole? Sure.

Quote from: cmoreman
If so, where does the energy go?
Gravitational potential energy. Think about it. What's happening here? The gravitational force is increasing which means that there is now greater gravitational potential of the particles and that means that the particles can't oscillate to as large an extent as they used to be able to.
« Last Edit: 05/12/2014 04:15:13 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline cmoreman

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Thanks PmbPhy for taking the time to reply.  I'm not sure how to reply in-line to your reply but I will try to repeat your points and respond in the hope that I can be more clear.

Your reply:  I don't see any reason for the temperature of an object to rise as such. Please explain why. The reason you gave here makes no sense. E.g. what do you mean by kinetic energy of arriving new matter is converted to random thermal energy as the new matter collides with the object.? Why would kinetic energy be converted to thermal energy? Are you talking about an object falling through an atmosphere and heating up due to friction with the atmosphere? If so I don't see how this applies to a black hole since they don't have an atmosphere.

Response:  An atmosphere is not required to convert kinetic energy into heat.  Even an object hitting the earth's moon (with almost no atmosphere) will convert much of it's kinetic energy (due to its velocity) into heat.  As the black hole's pulls in an object, this object will have non-zero kinetic energy due to its velocity.  I guess I am assuming that this object  will collide with something in the black hole's center.  This collision will convert the object's kinetic energy into heat.

Your reply: What kind of source are you talking about that causes nuclear fusion and how does that energy get to the object in question?
Response:  The real point I was trying to make here was about thermal equilibrium.   I mistakenly said "fusion" when I should have said "fission" (as exists in a star).

Your reply: Critical in what sense? In the sense that it would collapse into a black hole? That's what happens when stars burn out and can't support their own weight against gravitational collapse anymore and then collapses into a black hole.
Response:  Critical in the sense that the object's gravitational forces could reach a point that these gravitational forces overcome and overwhelm the increase in density that results from thermal motion of particles.   At this "critical" point, thermal oscillation can no longer occur.  I'm wondering if this is the point that begins a endothermic nuclear reaction to convert the thermal energy into mass. 

Your reply:  Gravitational potential energy. Think about it. What's happening here? The gravitational force is increasing which means that there is now greater gravitational potential of the particles and that means that the particles can't oscillate to as large an extent as they used to be able to.

Response:  Yes.  We are both saying that the particles can't oscillate to as large an extent as they used to be able to.  I'm just wondering if it might be possible for some of this energy to be converted into mass per E=MC².  This reduction in energy would help to further reduce particle oscillation (with a corresponding increase in density) while also increasing the black hole's mass (which would further increase its gravity).  Is this possible or does some limitation in the mass - energy equivalence formula only allow mass to be converted to energy (but not the reverse)?
 

Offline cmoreman

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Sorry for the confusion between "fusion" and "fission".  It's getting too late to be typing.  The original term "fusion" was correct and was simply used as an example of how a high density object could get hotter.  To answer the question of how fusion could occur;  I point to the basic mechanism of fusion in a star.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: cmoreman
Your reply:  Gravitational potential energy. Think about it. What's happening here? The gravitational force is increasing which means that there is now greater gravitational potential of the particles and that means that the particles can't oscillate to as large an extent as they used to be able to.
Yes. I thought about it. Now you need to as well. This isn't as simple as you thought since there is an increasing gravitational field and you have to think about where the energy came from to increase that field. Understand?
 

Offline cmoreman

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Quote from: cmoreman
Your reply:  Gravitational potential energy. Think about it. What's happening here? The gravitational force is increasing which means that there is now greater gravitational potential of the particles and that means that the particles can't oscillate to as large an extent as they used to be able to.
Yes. I thought about it. Now you need to as well. This isn't as simple as you thought since there is an increasing gravitational field and you have to think about where the energy came from to increase that field. Understand?

Thanks PmbPhy, I'm thinking through what you said.  I'm just not sure I understand what process would convert thermal energy into increased gravitational field.  The only process I can think of that could accomplish this would be a process that converts this energy into increased mass.  Increased mass would then cause an increased gravitational field.  That brings me back to wondering if E=MC² would work in "reverse" (endothermic nuclear reaction) to convert energy into mass...
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: cmoreman
Thanks PmbPhy, I'm thinking through what you said.  I'm just not sure I understand what process would convert thermal energy into increased gravitational field.  The only process I can think of that could accomplish this would be a process that converts this energy into increased mass.  Increased mass would then cause an increased gravitational field.  That brings me back to wondering if E=MC² would work in "reverse" (endothermic nuclear reaction) to convert energy into mass...
Well, it could be that I'm wrong too. After all, nobody's perfect, right? :)

What's confusing me is that you're speaking as if the object is both a black hole and a star. No object can be both so you need to rephrase your question with this in mind.

Also it might be worth your time to model a simple situation such as a heavy plate being lowered into a gravitational field at a constant rate and see what's happening in terms of work and energy. When you have a container with a gas in it and you compress it by moving one of the walls in the container in slowly then the kinetic energy of the gas will increase. Do you understand why?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length