Expert: Philip Stahl - 1/9/2009

Question
QUESTION: Dear Philip,

i am 17 years old and i was wondering is it possible that when a star dies and produces a black hole. can it be that the black hole is actually a giant deposit of tritium or some other radioactive isotope from the nuclear reactions on of the stars during nuclear fusion. I'm only wandering if it could be that the tritium pulsates its beta waves in order to follow other beta/alpha waves released from the left overs by the formation of planets and stars  to gain enough energy and helium to spark up a new star or planet?

ANSWER: Hello,

No, it isn't possible at all that such a scenario applies, because the black hole which is the product of stellar collapse has no matter that can be "radioactive". Essentially, all the matter is crushed out of existence. What you have is what we call a "singularity" and this implies infinite density at essentially "zero volume". Obviously no matter can exist here.

Even in the case of neutron stars, wherein protons and electrons are crushed together to form boundless neutrons you're not going to have the scenario that you envisage. Clearly, a wholly "neutron" star cannot exhibit charged particles - like electrons - hence any radioactivity which manifest as the release of such (e.g. in beta decay).

Essentially, once black holes form they aren't going to be participating in any other stellar evolutionary schemes - and that includes planet formation. (Which we believe occurs via a kind of nebular collapse.)

You can learn about how planets form at this site- at least some of the theories:

http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/planet_formation.htm



and more about star and planet formation here:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/COMPLETE/learn/star_and_planet_formation.html



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: well then how can you account for the magnetic waves and radio waves that are emitted from a black hole. if you were to look at the fact that also planets have the same magnetic poles as a black hole. so in fact could it be possible that the earth and some other plants could have originated from a black hole swallowing its self. so please think about the fact that maybe stars and plants could have originated from a giant black hole that swallowed its self to the singularity and thus blew up causing a plant or a star. which could be the reverse effect of a stars original collapse.

ANSWER: Hello,

Sorry, I am aware of no "magnetic waves" or "radio waves" emitted from a black hole. Do you have a source cite for it? A reference or paper from a journal?

X-rays ARE emitted and used as detection media for astronomers, BUT these do not emanate from black holes proper. They come from the particle collisions that arise when a (possible) companion star's layers are sucked into the event horizon of the hole.

Thus, to identify black holes one needs a binary (double -star) system to infer their existence from the x-rays given off in the process. This is NOT the same thing you are advocating.

Again, stellar black holes do not "blow up" once formed. The information of whatever matter formed them is now unavailable. (This is not the same for Stephen Hawking's mini-black holes which are quantum scale entities that CAN emit radiation)

So, as far as I know (and unless you can clue me in otherwise with source citations) it is preposterous to imagine that a black hole can form new stars or planets.

Hope this helps, and in any case await any further sources you can cite that gives support for the view that macro-black holes can radiate in and of themselves and be detected without the need for a companion object.


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: i understand what you are saying, but still sorry to say but the formation of black holes and exactly what they do is unknown so their is no way to actually propose that my theory is wrong. so hopefully you can see it from a perspective that maybe a black hole doesn't do exactly what everyone expects them to do. check this website for the possible theory of magnetic fields http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/magnetic-black.html

Answer
Hello,


Actually, what you have is not a "theory" but a casual speculation about black holes and their possible roles in planet formation. To have a bona fide theory you need to include all the following:

1) Basis for the claim as a data set from observations, or from a computer model you may have run. (Including the quantitative basis for it.)

Alternatively, you can develop a coherent mathematical basis for the claim to show it is plausible. (Use the mathematics for black holes, their entropy, surface area etc. to show the type you envisage can exist)

2) Leading assumptions given as part of (1) usually framed as "necessary and sufficient conditions" for the entity-model-event to manifest. In this case, a necessary condition is one - if absent- an event cannot occur, or object cannot exist. A sufficient condition is one which - if present - the event must occur or entity must exist.

As an example, a hydrogen emission nebula. The necessary condition for it is that a cloud of neutral hydrogen exist already someplace. If it doesn't exist, then it can't be ionized - even partially- and no emission can occur. The sufficient condition is proximity to a radiative source like a star, which will then excite the atoms in the nebula causing the electrons of H-atoms to go to a higher energy level, then fall to a lower, with emission of photons.

3) Falsification tests:

What tests or observations would falsify your "theory". Any good theory ought to be able to articulate at least one and maybe two falsifying tests or observations.

4) Predictions:

What new predictions can your "theory" make which existing ones cannnot?

This will show the degree to which your proposal is different from existing ones, and also advance observations such that they are able to fulfill the predictive requirement.

Now, it is true I cannot assert your theory is "wrong" with 100% certainty. But, knowing what we know about black holes I can say the probability of it being wrong is probably very high - maybe more than 95%.

Another thing, the link you provided makes reference to:

"material being pulled into the black hole, which has been heated and ionised by continual collisions"

Which is exactly the same thing I already noted in conjunction with the outer layers of a binary companion being pulled into a black hole and engendering x-rays.

The main problem here is that this is uniquely a means for stellar black holes (e.g. from collapsed stars) to be identified. It does NOT apply to mini or micro-black holes which seems to be the basis for the whole link article. In other words, the way it looks to me, is that whoever wrote this piece is confusing micro-black holes (which *can radiate* as Hawking has noted) with stellar black holes, which do not. For example, there is no basis (so far as I know) to suppose a "micro black hole" can exhibit the properties of rotating Kerr black holes.

So far as we know, stellar black holes do not leak radiation, or information like the micro-counterparts do. Nor do they "rotate"

Anyway, congrats on your speculations, now see if you can integrate the 4 aspects I noted and come up with something more substantive and coherent.