# Thread: Would a collapsing black hole have a positive charge?

1. This kind of comes out of http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...23939&start=15

In a strong gravitational field, protons weigh more than electrons because they have more mass, but they experience exactly the same amount of electrostatic repulsion as electrons do, because they have exactly the same charge.

So, I'm thinking that, in the last stages of collapse, as the gravitational field is getting stronger and stronger, and mass is getting thrown out to prepare for the transition, wouldn't there be more electrons than protons in that ejection?

2.

3. Originally Posted by kojax
This kind of comes out of http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...23939&start=15

In a strong gravitational field, protons weigh more than electrons because they have more mass, but they experience exactly the same amount of electrostatic repulsion as electrons do, because they have exactly the same charge.

So, I'm thinking that, in the last stages of collapse, as the gravitational field is getting stronger and stronger, and mass is getting thrown out to prepare for the transition, wouldn't there be more electrons than protons in that ejection?
Black holes do not collapse.

4. Originally Posted by kojax
This kind of comes out of http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...23939&start=15

In a strong gravitational field, protons weigh more than electrons because they have more mass, but they experience exactly the same amount of electrostatic repulsion as electrons do, because they have exactly the same charge.

So, I'm thinking that, in the last stages of collapse, as the gravitational field is getting stronger and stronger, and mass is getting thrown out to prepare for the transition, wouldn't there be more electrons than protons in that ejection?
First, DrRocket is right. But if you replace "collapsing black hole" with "collapsing star", the answer is NO. A neutron star is already a product of a collapsing star. The strong pressure pushes the electrons into the atomic nuclei. As a result, the reaction of inverse beta decay produces neutrons.

5. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kojax
This kind of comes out of http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...23939&start=15

In a strong gravitational field, protons weigh more than electrons because they have more mass, but they experience exactly the same amount of electrostatic repulsion as electrons do, because they have exactly the same charge.

So, I'm thinking that, in the last stages of collapse, as the gravitational field is getting stronger and stronger, and mass is getting thrown out to prepare for the transition, wouldn't there be more electrons than protons in that ejection?
First, DrRocket is right. But if you replace "collapsing black hole" with "collapsing star", the answer is NO. A neutron star is already a product of a collapsing star. The strong pressure pushes the electrons into the atomic nuclei. As a result, the reaction of inverse beta decay produces neutrons.
Yeah, I said "collapsing black hole" because instead of "collapsing star" because I didn't want to be ambiguous about which stage of collapse I was talking about, but what you just said makes a lot of sense. I guess there's no reason a charge would ever build up, as long as neutral matter is falling in, because it just gets compressed into neutrons as well.

6. Originally Posted by kojax
Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Originally Posted by kojax
This kind of comes out of http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...23939&start=15

In a strong gravitational field, protons weigh more than electrons because they have more mass, but they experience exactly the same amount of electrostatic repulsion as electrons do, because they have exactly the same charge.

So, I'm thinking that, in the last stages of collapse, as the gravitational field is getting stronger and stronger, and mass is getting thrown out to prepare for the transition, wouldn't there be more electrons than protons in that ejection?
First, DrRocket is right. But if you replace "collapsing black hole" with "collapsing star", the answer is NO. A neutron star is already a product of a collapsing star. The strong pressure pushes the electrons into the atomic nuclei. As a result, the reaction of inverse beta decay produces neutrons.
Yeah, I said "collapsing black hole" because instead of "collapsing star" because I didn't want to be ambiguous about which stage of collapse I was talking about, but what you just said makes a lot of sense. I guess there's no reason a charge would ever build up, as long as neutral matter is falling in, because it just gets compressed into neutrons as well.
Black holes are characterized (classically in GR nrglrcting quantum effects) by mass, angular momentum, and charge (see "no hair theorem"). Each is the sum of whatever has gonr to make up the black hole -- none of it is manufactured by the hole.

7. Is that where Hawking Radiation comes from? Say an electron/positron pair forms at the event horizon of a black hole that has a strong net charge. One would be more strongly attracted than the other, right?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement