Tag Archives: black holes

Neutron Stars and Black Holes

I was reading this article on the behavior of neutron stars and black holes being very similar with regard to accretion. This reminded me of a hypothesis I’ve had for a very long time. I will state it below.


My hypothesis is that the compact object at the interior of the black hole is the same stuff as a high mass neutron star, whether you call that a quark star or whatever. The only difference is that the event horizon grows to engulf the entire object. This hypothesis may also exclude the existence of a singularity, although I’m not confident about that, as I will also explain.

Neutron Stars Grow Into Black Holes

When a neutron star accretes matter gradually, eventually there is enough mass to become a black hole. At that critical moment, is there a violent event? A non-violent event would suggest the interior of the black hole is unchanged from the neutron star that was its progenitor.

If the gradual accretion scenario is non-violent, it suggests there is no state change in the compact object itself. It is only the curvature of spacetime that changes, as the Swartzschild radius grows to engulf the entire object. A non-event suggests the nature of the compact object is unchanged. There is no release of energy.

Black Hole Singularity

The Swartzschild radius > 0 for a neutron star. Its interior within that radius already is subject to black hole spacetime curvatures without evidence of a singularity. Therefore, I disbelieve a singularity exists at all.

This also supports the idea that black holes and neutron stars are made of the same stuff. The growth of the Swartzschild radius is gradual with accretion. There isn’t a continuous series of violent events as the neutron star gains mass. Or is there? Maybe that explains the violent outbursts observed from neutron stars. This is known as a starquake. The neutron star compacting its material into a lower energy state. They think it is a surface phenomenon. I’m not so sure.

On the topic of a singularity, if the Swartzschild radius is already > 0, that means the innermost core of a neutron star is already a black hole. Is there any evidence of a singularity? What would such evidence look like to an outside observer? I read somewhere that the singularity is not necessarily a point in space, but can be thought of as a point in time. My mind struggles to imagine what that would mean. Given information cannot escape the event horizon except as Hawking radiation, we shouldn’t be able to observe any evidence of what is inside. Therefore, we cannot be certain.

Have I talked myself out of my hypothesis? No. If the final transition from neutron star to black hole is non-violent, I think it supports my claim. My hypothesis is also consistent with the current accepted explanation of starquake as a surface phenomenon. However, if a starquake results from gradual growth of the Swartzschild radius within a neutron star, I think that would falsify my claim. High energy events from the interior would suggest that there is a change in state of the stuff inside the neutron star.

Black Hole Information Loss

I was watching Sabine Hossenfelder’s video titled I stopped working on black hole information loss. Here’s why. It inspired some ideas.

A black hole’s charge and angular momentum would cause a magnetic field (Maxwell’s Law) to accelerate accreting matter into relativistic jets, as we can observe. Matter spirals around, orbiting the black hole’s equator, and falls inward toward the black hole event horizon. Some or all of this in-falling matter is redirected to jets firing out from the poles of black hole, and this matter is accelerated to relativistic speeds (near the speed of light). This involves a huge transfer of energy from the black hole to the matter from the accretion disc.

Could that transfer of energy carry information away from the black hole? Maybe this hypothesis isn’t sufficient by itself to explain how a black hole’s mass shrinks — only how its angular momentum slows.

We can also hypothesize the magnetic field is strong enough to produce pairs of particles that add to the jets. Photons of the magnetic field collide to create electron-positron pairs. Now we have a mechanism, pair production, for mass to escape the black hole in a manner that is distinct from Hawking (thermal) radiation. That would be how information flows out, so it is not lost.

Black hole jets – how do they work?

In my hubris, I sometimes write emails to established scientists with my stupid ideas. I have a knack for formulating what I believe to be good questions. Here is what I sent to Netta Engelhardt at MIT this morning on the topic of black hole jets.

I appreciate the videos you’ve done on YouTube on black holes.

Some rhetorical questions come to mind. I don’t expect an answer. My intention is to ask them, in case they help stimulate some curiosity toward maybe forming a useful idea.

  1. How much of the mass that is falling into a black hole adds to the mass of the black hole, versus being ejected, say through its jets?
  2. Can we think of the jets as carrying information away from the black hole, given that the BH is accelerating the outbound particles substantially, thereby transferring energy from it?
  3. Wouldn’t (2) then be consistent with a model whereby all information about the BH is thought to be encoded on its boundary, for accreted matter to be seen as sticking to the boundary as it falls in, and over time that same information migrating to the poles of the BH and ejected through its jets?

It just seems to me, as a layman, that black hole jets are such a prominent feature, but I haven’t seen much talk about what mechanisms generate these jets, and what are their relationships to the flow of energy and information into and out of the black hole.