A new effect may oppose the formation of black holes and explain the mysterious energy of gamma-ray bursts.
Black holes are thought to form when stars of sufficient size collapse, creating a force so strong that nothing can oppose it. The result is a region of space with infinite density and a gravitational field so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape.
The idea that no known force can oppose the collapse of a large star sits uncomfortably with many physicists. Einstein believed that black holes could not form because the angular momentum of the star would eventually become high enough to stabilize a collapse.
Others say that our inability to find a force that opposes collapse says more about our limited understanding of physics than about the existence of black holes.
The current thinking is that any star three or four times bigger than the sun ought to form a black hole in a supernova at the end of its life. Anything smaller than that, and the degeneracy pressure of neutrons, which prevents neutrons from being squashed too closely together, can successfully oppose the collapse. Hence the formation of neutron stars.
Now Ilya Royzen from the P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in Moscow, has put his finger on an even more powerful force at work in supernovas.
He says that quantum chromodynamics predicts that when a collapse overcomes the pressure of neutron degeneracy, another effect comes into play: matter undergoes a phase change.
This change is from a hadronic form to a so-called subhadronic form, which is very different to ordinary matter. In subhadronic form, space is essentially empty. So the phase change creates a sudden reduction in pressure, allowing any ordinary matter in the star to implode into this new vacuum. The result is a massive increase in temperature of this matter to 100 million electron volts or so, creating what Royzen calls a "burning wall" within the supernova.
He says that it is this "burning wall that stops the formation of a black hole during a supernova of stars up to about four times the mass of the sun, not just the degeneracy pressure of neutrons."
Now 100 million electron volts is several orders of magnitude more energy than any theory of supernovas has predicted so far. And that's interesting because it ought to produce very powerful gamma rays.
Strangely enough, the most powerful gamma rays are several orders of magnitude more powerful than can be explained by existing theories of supernovas.
As Royzen says, it's hard to resist making the link. If it stands up, he may have put his finger on the mechanism that finally explains the most powerful gamma-ray bursts in the universe and one of the great modern-day mysteries of astrophysics.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0906.1929: QCD Against Black Holes?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
jrob
06/15/2009
Posts:1
PlasticityMe...
06/15/2009
Posts:1
The conclusions are -- in my opinion -- highly questionable.
The article in its current form would probably not be recommended for publication in a regular peer-reviewed scientific journal.
hypercott
06/15/2009
Posts:4
The current thinking is that any star three or four times bigger than the sun ought to form a black hole in a supernova at the end of its life. Anything smaller than that and the degeneracy pressure of neutrons, which prevents neutrons from being squashed too closely together, can successfully oppose the collapse. Hence the formation of neutron stars.
No. We are talking about massive stars here that form central cores of iron-group nuclei at the end of their nuclear burning lives. The mass of such a star is > ~8 times the mass off the sun.
At the end of such a star's life, its iron core collapses to a hot protoneutron star that is stabilized by the strong interaction and, to lesser extent, by nucleon degeneracy.
When a protoneutron star is formed, a shock is launched that travels outward, but quickly loses energy to neutrinos and breakup of infalling heavy nuclei. It stalls. NOW: For a successful supernova explosion, this shock must be "revived", (how this shock revival occurs is another matter and topic of current research). If the shock is not revived, matter piles up onto the protoneutron star, eventually pushing it over its maximum mass, leading to its dynamical collapse to a black hole. The maximum mass of a protoneutron star is somewhere between ~1.8 and 3 times the mass of the sun.
Current theory and observations suggest that stars more massive than ~30-40 solar masses may
experience black hole formation in the way just discussed. Somewhat less massive stars may first explode in a supernova, but their protoneutron stars may subsequently accrete sufficient mass to also collapse to black holes.
Now 100 million electron volts is several orders of magnitude more energy than any theory of supernovas has predicted so far.
No. Quite the contrary. 100 million electron volts, or 100 MeV, if taken as an unit of energy (and not temperature), is only 0.00016 erg (or 1.6 x 10^-4 erg). The typical explosion energy of a supernova is 10^51 erg, so about 10^55 times larger. The total energy available is the gravitational binding energy liberated (primarily in neutrinos) in stellar collapse to a neutron star. This is ~3 x 10^53 erg, so about 10^57 times larger than 100 MeV.
Apparently, the author of the technology review article is mixing up temperature and energy.
A temperature of 100 MeV is rather high for a protoneutron star, though not impossible to obtain just before to collapse to a black hole. However, even at 100 MeV, the thermal pressure is still way lower than that effectively due to nuclear interactions (I can compute some numbers, if people are interested) and it is highly unlikely that a sudden increase of the temperature to ~100 MeV would do anything to keep a protoneutron star from collapsing.
Strangely enough, the most powerful gamma rays are several orders of magnitude more powerful than can be explained by existing theories of supernovas.
(a) The plural of supernova is supernovae.
(b) The energy theoretically available from stellar collapse is more than 10^53 erg. There just needs to be a viable mechanism that transfers this energy into the energy of explosion/of the gamma-ray burst. The mechanism in arxiv.org/abs/0906.1929 does not appear to be viable at this point. Perhaps, a better written and fully comprehensible paper with derivations would help.
hypercott
06/16/2009
Posts:4
Of all the objections to this article you gave, this is the most petty. I did a quick check, and according to both Random House and American Heritage, "supernovas" is an acceptable plural of supernova. Since Technology Review is an American publication, American orthography is most certainly acceptable and even expected.
As a graduate of MIT, I distinctly recall taking Joe Haldeman's Science Fiction writing class. (I was a physics major with a minor in creative writing.) One of my classmates objected to my use of "concertos" -- he insisted the only correct plural was "concerti," even though I could show him a dictionary citation to the contrary. Haldeman was surprised by that objection.
Some people will never be satisfied. In the anecdote I gave above, the classmate in question was Air Force ROTC, and probably hidebound by that ultra-conservative culture. But I expect more from a scientist in this field of research than quibbling over what any good magazine editor would tell you is a non-issue. (And I'm pretty sure the article was sanitized by TR staff prior to publication. The choice of spelling may very well have been the editor's.)
All that said, I enjoyed reading the rest of your analysis, spread out as it was over a few comments.
LionMage
06/16/2009
Posts:8
The form 'supernovas' may be allowed (as are many things in the English language), but is not used in science.
hypercott
06/16/2009
Posts:4
Just as someone applied quantum calculations to the warped space theory of faster than light travel--it showed that bending space that severely would also bath any potential starship in Hawking radiation.
Now, same thing with very real black holes. When black holes were first widely discussed they seemed to answer all mysteries of the cosmos: galaxy formation, quasars, pulsars, etc.
But now, the whole universe is once again more mysterious. Good. It was getting dull.
However undeveloped this inquiry may be, it promises to become a road to understanding. The fights and arguements are going to be worth watching.
This also suggests that if the Large Hadron Collider is able to create tiny black holes, however fleeting, there should be a terrific energy release. Some day, forced event horizons might be harnessed to generate energy right out of the vacuum--wouldn't that be an accomplishment!
kitk
06/16/2009
Posts:66
This also has nothing to do with black holes potentially created by CERN.
hypercott
06/16/2009
Posts:4
Also, you could have pointed out to the poor fellow that you can't get out more than you put in to a generated black hole. (At least, I don't think you can violate conservation of energy this way...) There doesn't seem to be any sort of "free ride" here to be taken advantage.
LionMage
06/16/2009
Posts:8
In my opinion, if we would collapse all matter inside of observable part of Universe into tiny black hole, the speed of collapse would exceed the age of Universe at the moment, when diameter would correspond human distance scale and CMB wavelength. CMB radiation corresponds Hawking radiation of black hole of diameter approximatelly 3 cm, whose lifespan would correspond the observable Universe age, i.e. 13,7 GYears.
This still doesn't mean, black hole cannot contain a daughter singularities, if it was formed BEFORE observable Universe formation or by collissions of gravitational waves inside it (compare the shock wave cosmology of J. Smoller and B. Temple [PNAS, 2002] and ekpyrotic model) - because these waves should propagate in superluminal speed through it.
The another question is, if we can observe such black holes inside of our Universe if we are formed by one of them, etc...
ZephirAWT
06/16/2009
Posts:158
See "Why black holes with permeable event horizons are perpetual motion machines" www.noblackholes.com
bhskeptic
08/03/2009
Posts:3