Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,082 questions , 2,232 unanswered
5,354 answers , 22,789 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

  Does black hole formation contradict the Pauli exclusion principle?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
1923 views

A star's collapse can be halted by the degeneracy pressure of electrons or neutrons due to the Pauli exclusion principle. In extreme relativistic conditions, a star will continue to collapse regardless of the degeneracy pressure to form a black hole. Does this violate the Pauli exclusion principle? If so, are theorists ok with that? And if it doesn't violate the Pauli exclusion principle, why not?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user jk88
asked Jan 16, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by jk88 (35 points) [ no revision ]
Take the case of a star -> neutron star first. There is enough pressure (energy density) to convert protons into neutrons and radiate the leptons away as neutrinos. I'm not sure what happens in a collapse to a black hole but my guess is that something similar happens with the quarks. Good question!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Brandon Enright
Then perhaps analogously to your example of $e + p \rightarrow n + \nu$ there could be some unknown process that allows $u + d \rightarrow X$ where $X$ is either bosonic or somehow free to propagate away.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user jk88
There are probably lots of other options besides that. I really don't know.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Brandon Enright

2 Answers

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

I don't have a very satisfactory description of the microscopic picture, but let me share my thoughts.

The Pauli exclusion doesn't quite say that fermions can't be squeezed together in space. It says that two fermions can't share the same quantum state (spin included). A black hole has an enormous amount of entropy (proportional to its area, from the famous Bekenstein-Hawking formula $S = \frac{A}{4}$) and hence, its state count is $\sim e^A$.

Now, this might not seem like a big deal since usual matter has entropy proportional to volume. However, volume of such collections is also proportional to the mass. This means that a counting of the number of states goes as $e^M$

For a black hole, it's Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass, hence $A \sim M^2$. So, the number of states scales as $e^{M^2}$ which is much much more than ordinary matter, especially if the mass is "not small". So there seem to be a lot of quantum states into which one can shove the fermions.

So it seems like the fermions should have an easier time in a black hole than in (say) a neutron star.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Siva
answered Jan 16, 2014 by Siva (720 points) [ no revision ]
+ 1 like - 1 dislike

Does this violate the Pauli exclusion principle? If so, are theorists ok with that?

The short answers are "yes" and "yes". Recall that we are talking about what happens inside the event horizon ...

Perhaps the density of states diverges as volume decreases. However iirc most thinking is around the idea that there is a quark degeneracy limit that has to be overcome like the neutron degeneracy limit.

i.e. those people speculating some process that combines quarks into some boson can pat themselves on the back.

The bottom line is that we don't know enough about how matter/energy behaves in such extreme conditions to be able to do more than speculate.

Also see: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=600360

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user Simon Bridge
answered Jan 17, 2014 by Simon Bridge (0 points) [ no revision ]
+1 for pointing out that "what happens in the event horizon stays in the event horizon"

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-24 02:34 (UCT), posted by SE-user jk88

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOve$\varnothing$flow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...