Black Holes and Quantum Field Theory

jbcool
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Now, I must preface this by saying that my understanding of QFT is limited, and my understanding of GR is even more so. Nevertheless, I was reading about the No Hair Theorem, and it seemed to me to be suggestive of the indiscernibility of Quantum Particles. Obviously, for a macroscopic black hole, this is merely analogy, but for a microscopic black hole, this isn't necessarily true. If a black hole can be quantized solely by M, Q, and L, then, on the microscopic level, it would make sense to have Q at the very least quantized. It also wouldn't be entirely out of the question to associate L with spin, since they are both intrinsic angular momenta. This would lead one to conclude that black holes must be bosonic since they can have 0 angular momenta (Schwarzschild BH). If it were some how possible to attribute a bosonic field to a black hole, it would make sense to describe it by the two coupling constants Q and M, and have a spin L. Is this logical, or is it too speculative.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Schwarzschild solution is a solution for GR, it does not imply that it is a quantum-mechanical solution.

Spin quantisation of black holes... I am sure there are publications about it, but I don't know any.
This is about charge
 
Thanks. I wasn't saying that the Schwarzschild solution was also a QM solution, merely that it shows a black hole can have 0 angular momentum.
 
It shows that there is a spacetime geometry with 0 angular momentum. But that is just a mathematical thing. We don't know if this solution (in GR) can exist in the universe.

I wouldn't expect BH to be fermions, but maybe they are? Or even something completely different, as the classification gets more complicated once we leave the classical 3 dimensions.
 
True. I guess a more pressing issue is whether the metric even applies at quantum scales. Still, it seems that the No Hair theorem is suggestive of a link between QM and GR.
 
In real life, black holes form from collapsing objects, and the odds of producing a hole with zero angular momentum is just that, essentially zero. In fact every black hole will have at least some angular momentum and therefore be Kerr rather than Schwarschild.

And as far as a black hole being bosonic or fermionic, all you have to do is drop one additional electron into the hole to make it the other one.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
44
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top