Charged black holes

Unless black holes don't exist and are really "gravatars" or whatever
the word is, there _is_ no mass at the core.
I can't think of a good reason why a neutron star or a black hole should
have a charge, but charged BHs have been theorised extensively. And
unlike any other object, they have no way to lose the charge once it's
acquired.

In message , Hans
writes
I think we'll find that black holes are simular to neutron stars in
that the mass at the core is no longer "atomic" structures in the sense
of electrons, protons and neutrons. And like a neutron star, black
holes will be neutral as far as a charge is concerned.


Bill Sheppard wrote:

In another thread 'Dave' asks,
So if I have an uncharged black hole, then fire electrons it it,
it'll become positive?
Look at it this way- all the mass ingested by a BH is composed of
protons, neutrons and electrons. The electrons' total mass is miniscule
compared to the mass of the protons/neutrons. So the electrons' negative
charge influence is going to be miniscule. With the
neutrons electrically neutral, the great
preponderance of the charge is therefore dictated by the protons, and it
is positive(+). So a pristine BH should be of positive charge. If you
fire 'enough' electrons into a BH, it would make
the BH 'less' positive. Continually firing more and more electrons into
it would make it less and less positive and finally neutral; firing
still more electrons would finally make it negative (all hypothetical
thinking of course). oc


--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
Unless black holes don't exist and are really "gravatars" or whatever
the word is, there _is_ no mass at the core.
I can't think of a good reason why a neutron star or a black hole should
have a charge, but charged BHs have been theorised extensively. And
unlike any other object, they have no way to lose the charge once it's
acquired.

Why so? A charged black hole could be neutralized by
swallowing additional (opposite) charge. And I wouldn't
be surprised of the Hawking radiation would favor (even
if ever so slightly) the emission of particles carrying
away the excess charge.

In message , Greg Neill
writes
"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
Unless black holes don't exist and are really "gravatars" or whatever
the word is, there _is_ no mass at the core.
I can't think of a good reason why a neutron star or a black hole should
have a charge, but charged BHs have been theorised extensively. And
unlike any other object, they have no way to lose the charge once it's
acquired.

Why so? A charged black hole could be neutralized by
swallowing additional (opposite) charge. And I wouldn't
be surprised of the Hawking radiation would favor (even
if ever so slightly) the emission of particles carrying
away the excess charge.


D'oh! Your first point is so obvious I'm ashamed of myself :-)
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Do we really know what a charge is? I don't. We can create a
charge by rubbing(friction) Nature does not like a negative charge
being bigger than a positive charge. Its all part of her balancing act.
Charge is like gravity we know its effects ,but don't really know what
it is. Not much difference between a proton and a neutron,except the
proton has a positive charge,and that is why we have atoms.
Nature uses photons to keep negative charges up to strength. I think
quarks frational charges are fixed(do not lose charge energy) The
electrons are the busy bees of the atom. Quarks just sit there and
make sure the electrons don't take off. Bert

Sorry for the top post but all the replies below we're top posted also.

Anyway, neutron stars are HIGHLY charged. They have bewilderingly
powerful magnetic fields. That is, in fact, what their 'beacons' are.
A neutron star has an escape velocity of around half the speed of
light and a magnetic field so powerful that it can still rip electrons off
the surface send them hurtling in to space in a high velocity stream
creating the 'beacons' we see.

A neutron star is like an immensely powerful electric generator.


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Jonathan Silverlight wrote:

Unless black holes don't exist and are really "gravatars" or whatever
the word is, there _is_ no mass at the core.
I can't think of a good reason why a neutron star or a black hole should
have a charge, but charged BHs have been theorised extensively. And
unlike any other object, they have no way to lose the charge once it's
acquired.

In message , Hans
writes
I think we'll find that black holes are simular to neutron stars in
that the mass at the core is no longer "atomic" structures in the sense
of electrons, protons and neutrons. And like a neutron star, black
holes will be neutral as far as a charge is concerned.


Bill Sheppard wrote:

In another thread 'Dave' asks,
So if I have an uncharged black hole, then fire electrons it it,
it'll become positive?
Look at it this way- all the mass ingested by a BH is composed of
protons, neutrons and electrons. The electrons' total mass is miniscule
compared to the mass of the protons/neutrons. So the electrons' negative
charge influence is going to be miniscule. With the
neutrons electrically neutral, the great
preponderance of the charge is therefore dictated by the protons, and it
is positive(+). So a pristine BH should be of positive charge. If you
fire 'enough' electrons into a BH, it would make
the BH 'less' positive. Continually firing more and more electrons into
it would make it less and less positive and finally neutral; firing
still more electrons would finally make it negative (all hypothetical
thinking of course). oc


--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Well lets keep away from the inside of a BH. We should see lots of
charged particles on our side of the event horizon. The accretion disc
is made of ionized particles,and we call that gas "plasma" Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Well lets keep away from the inside of a BH. We should see lots of
charged particles on our side of the event horizon. The accretion disc
is made of ionized particles,and we call that gas "plasma" Bert

There are no atoms there - perhaps. Possibly the concept "proton" (etc) is a
useless limiting notion in a black hole. Possibly insisting that there
should be "mass" there is pushing our sense of "normality" onto something
strange.

I suppose if it produces familiar effects you're entitled to assume that
these spring from familiar causes, though. Chuck away the concept of
"space" "in" the black hole? And if you have no space then you have no
time. Not "time" as we know it...
--
Clear Skies,

Slow Eddy.

Have you noticed how on some nights the sky gets so black that it seems to
shine? Bright darkness to you, too.
Spam he

You're confusing magnetic fields with atomic particles. To have an ion you need
an atom with one or more MISSING or ADDITIONAL electrons compared to the protron
count.

A neutron star has no electrons or per se as all of the atomic orbits have been
colapsed. It is therefore neutral electronically.


Malachi wrote:
Sorry for the top post but all the replies below we're top posted also.

Anyway, neutron stars are HIGHLY charged. They have bewilderingly
powerful magnetic fields. That is, in fact, what their 'beacons' are.
A neutron star has an escape velocity of around half the speed of
light and a magnetic field so powerful that it can still rip electrons off
the surface send them hurtling in to space in a high velocity stream
creating the 'beacons' we see.

A neutron star is like an immensely powerful electric generator.


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Jonathan Silverlight wrote:


Unless black holes don't exist and are really "gravatars" or whatever
the word is, there _is_ no mass at the core.
I can't think of a good reason why a neutron star or a black hole should
have a charge, but charged BHs have been theorised extensively. And
unlike any other object, they have no way to lose the charge once it's
acquired.

In message , Hans
writes

I think we'll find that black holes are simular to neutron stars in
that the mass at the core is no longer "atomic" structures in the sense
of electrons, protons and neutrons. And like a neutron star, black
holes will be neutral as far as a charge is concerned.


Bill Sheppard wrote:


In another thread 'Dave' asks,

So if I have an uncharged black hole, then fire electrons it it,
it'll become positive?

Look at it this way- all the mass ingested by a BH is composed of
protons, neutrons and electrons. The electrons' total mass is miniscule
compared to the mass of the protons/neutrons. So the electrons' negative
charge influence is going to be miniscule. With the
neutrons electrically neutral, the great
preponderance of the charge is therefore dictated by the protons, and it
is positive(+). So a pristine BH should be of positive charge. If you
fire 'enough' electrons into a BH, it would make
the BH 'less' positive. Continually firing more and more electrons into
it would make it less and less positive and finally neutral; firing
still more electrons would finally make it negative (all hypothetical
thinking of course). oc

--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Hans" wrote in message...
. ..

You're confusing magnetic fields with atomic particles. To have an ion you need
an atom with one or more MISSING or ADDITIONAL electrons compared to the protron
count.

A neutron star has no electrons or per se as all of the atomic orbits have been
colapsed. It is therefore neutral electronically.

An inquisitive young astronomer recently asked the following
neutron-star question...

What is the star's atmosphere made of? How can it have a
magnetic field since the neutron star has no charge (by
definition of a neutron)?

And some "old timers" answered...

Neutron stars are supernova corpses (from stars not big
enough to die as a black hole).

A thin wispy cloud of hydrogen and helium probably make
up a neutron star's inches deep atmosphere. Whatever is
lightest forms the atmosphere since the star's tremendous
gravity field causes heavy elements to sink quickly. Most of
the star is iron but some hydrogen and helium remain from
its star-burning days.

We'd like to check spectral lines from an isolated star to
know for sure what the atmosphere is. However, the Catch-
22 is that, if the atmosphere is mainly hydrogen and helium,
the star temperature is high enough to ionize the gasses
completely. We won't see any lines!

About the magnetic field---actually, a neutron star does
have free charges floating around. It isn't made up entirely
of neutrons. Most, but not all. Even deep in the star interior
one proton (positive charge) exists for every ten neutrons.
An electron (negative charge) must exist for every proton
because the star as a whole must be charge neutral.
Otherwise, it would sweep up every charge in the near
vicinity until it was charge neutral.

Since the star has free charges, they move and, in so
doing, generate a magnetic field. But why such a huge
one, you may wonder. Good question. We think the
turbulent movement during the star's collapse may have
acted like an enormous magneto-dynamo and generated
the monster field. The only problem with this theory is such
an effect would generate a much stronger field than even
the one we have measured.

Why is it so much weaker? Beats us!

Further Surfing:

WonderQuest: Gazing around a neutron star
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science...derquest_x.htm

M. Coleman Miller, University of Maryland: Introduction to neutron stars
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
if you have love,
you really have something,
if you give love,
you'll never have nothing.

Paine Ellsworth