How much of a wave function must reside inside event horizon for it to be consumed by the black hole?












7












$begingroup$


Related to this question in astronomy SE (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30611/10813) and in particular my attempt to answer it, I started to wonder which fraction of a waveform (for eg a photon) need to be inside event horizon in order to make its escape impossible? As far as I understand, there is infinitesimal, yet non-zero part of every photon inside event horizons even right now.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As a GR layman, I would guess that any particle anywhere would have a non-zero probability of tunnelling into the attractive potential.
    $endgroup$
    – Pieter
    2 hours ago
















7












$begingroup$


Related to this question in astronomy SE (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30611/10813) and in particular my attempt to answer it, I started to wonder which fraction of a waveform (for eg a photon) need to be inside event horizon in order to make its escape impossible? As far as I understand, there is infinitesimal, yet non-zero part of every photon inside event horizons even right now.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As a GR layman, I would guess that any particle anywhere would have a non-zero probability of tunnelling into the attractive potential.
    $endgroup$
    – Pieter
    2 hours ago














7












7








7


1



$begingroup$


Related to this question in astronomy SE (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30611/10813) and in particular my attempt to answer it, I started to wonder which fraction of a waveform (for eg a photon) need to be inside event horizon in order to make its escape impossible? As far as I understand, there is infinitesimal, yet non-zero part of every photon inside event horizons even right now.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Related to this question in astronomy SE (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/30611/10813) and in particular my attempt to answer it, I started to wonder which fraction of a waveform (for eg a photon) need to be inside event horizon in order to make its escape impossible? As far as I understand, there is infinitesimal, yet non-zero part of every photon inside event horizons even right now.







quantum-mechanics black-holes wavefunction event-horizon






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









Qmechanic

108k122011253




108k122011253










asked 6 hours ago









tuomastuomas

1684




1684








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As a GR layman, I would guess that any particle anywhere would have a non-zero probability of tunnelling into the attractive potential.
    $endgroup$
    – Pieter
    2 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    As a GR layman, I would guess that any particle anywhere would have a non-zero probability of tunnelling into the attractive potential.
    $endgroup$
    – Pieter
    2 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
As a GR layman, I would guess that any particle anywhere would have a non-zero probability of tunnelling into the attractive potential.
$endgroup$
– Pieter
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
As a GR layman, I would guess that any particle anywhere would have a non-zero probability of tunnelling into the attractive potential.
$endgroup$
– Pieter
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

You are thinking of the photon as an extended classical wave, which is not correct within the standard model of particle physics. Photons are point like quantum mechanical particles, and quantum mechanics is all about probabilities.



A photon approaching a black hole will have a calculable probability to fall through and be captured, or join the photon sphere. This means that a distribution of photons with the same energy and boundary conditions has to be accumulated in order to check the calculation.



A single photon is described by a wavefunction $Ψ$ and the probability of finding a single photon at an (x,y,z) is given by $Ψ^*Ψ$, it is the probability that is a wave in space, not the photon. An ensemble of photons in quantum mechanical superposition builds up the classical electromagnetic wave in space and time in a mathematically consistent manner, using quantum field theory.
,






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    how can a probability be a wave in space? Can you explain that further, please? And in this case, the photon is still a point like particle but the probability if there (where?) even is a photon is a wave?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    35 mins ago



















7












$begingroup$

Introduction



First of all we need to establish what the question even means (I will restrict all formulas to non-rotating Schwarzschild black holes of mass $M$ for concreteness). There are no bound states of the electromagnetic field near a black hole, even quasi-stationary states of finite wavelength near the photon radius $r = 3GM/c^2$ will decay, a part falling into the black hole, a part to infinity.



So the question really is about scattering. It turns out that scattering of electromagnetic waves behaves differently based on wavelength. In SI units the wavelength is $lambda = c/(2pi omega)$ and this is also the localization of the photon. For intuition we can picture the photon as a wavepacket localized in a sphere of radius $lambda$. On the other hand, the typical length of the gravitational background is $GM/c^2$. The main parameter that controls the behavior of the scattering is thus the ratio of these lengths $(GM/c^2)/(c/(2pi omega))$. I will now switch to geometrized $G=c=1$ units and drop a $2pi$ factor, and then the ratio of the wavelength to the size of the black hole is $sim Momega$.





Large wavelengths



For $Momega to 0$ the wavelength is much larger than the black hole, "a very small part of the photon is in the black hole". In this limit it can be computed that the total cross-section of an incoming monochromatic, asymptotically planar wave is
$$sigma = left[4 pi (2 M)^2 right]frac{4}{3}M^2 omega^2 + mathcal{O}(omega^3)$$
It is difficult to interpret the leading-order term as some kind of "overlapping volume" of the wave and the black hole, since that would scale as $M^3omega^3$. However, a sphere of radius $R$ will scatter particles with a cross-section $4 pi R^2$. Taking a wave-packet with a centroid that would be classically absorbed by a rigid sphere of radius $2M$, the factor $4 M^2 omega^2/3$ can be loosely understood as the probability it will actually be absorbed. Quite interestingly, the low-energy photon sees the black hole as a two-dimensional surface interacting with its wave-front rather than a three-dimensional volume.





Shorter wavelengths



However, this all changes with increasing frequency/decreasing wavelength. The intermediate regime is impossible to compute analytically, so I just put a plot from Crispino et al. (2007) here (I also recommend the paper for further references):
enter image description here
In the plot, $sigma_mathrm E^{(omega = 0)}$ is the low-frequency limit given above, $sigma_mathrm E$ is the total cross-section of monochromatic electromagnetic waves (computed numerically), $sigma_mathrm S$ is the same for massless scalar waves, and $sigma_mathrm O$ is the optical limit which you get from considering photons as point particles
$$sigma_mathrm O = 27 pi M^2$$
It is now easy to see that once the size of the wavepacket is comparable or smaller than the black hole, you can simply use the following approximate intuition: If the wavepacket centroid is within the photon sphere, it is going to fall inside it.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    this is within the classical electromagnetic interactions , fair enough, but one should not call them photons. Photons have to be treated quantum mechanically. and it propagates the false, imo, intuition that a photon can be partly in or out of the horizon. Individual particles are either in and absorbed, or out. It is the probability of this that can be calculated for individual photons. They do build up the electromagnetic wave, in QFT, but still they are individual measureable particles. The wave function of the photon is a wavefunction that builds a probability distribution, not space one
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    See a wavefunction of a photon here cds.cern.ch/record/944002?ln=en .
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @annav The classical scattering cross-sections are exactly equal to their QFT counter-parts, since the theory is free quantum electrodynamics interacting semi-classically with the curved background. In other words, the total cross-section $sigma(omega)$ is a sum of the squared S-matrix elements corresponding to a photon of a sharp momentum and frequency $omega$ getting absorbed by the black hole. The explanation in the answer just tries to provide a loose intuition for the results in a language similar to that of the OP.
    $endgroup$
    – Void
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, everything is consistent, but not at the single photon level. imo it is a bad intuition to give space dimensions to individual elementary particles which are connected to to a space extension only as probability distributions, i.e. not individual photons but an ensemble of photons
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    2 hours ago












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f475903%2fhow-much-of-a-wave-function-must-reside-inside-event-horizon-for-it-to-be-consum%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7












$begingroup$

You are thinking of the photon as an extended classical wave, which is not correct within the standard model of particle physics. Photons are point like quantum mechanical particles, and quantum mechanics is all about probabilities.



A photon approaching a black hole will have a calculable probability to fall through and be captured, or join the photon sphere. This means that a distribution of photons with the same energy and boundary conditions has to be accumulated in order to check the calculation.



A single photon is described by a wavefunction $Ψ$ and the probability of finding a single photon at an (x,y,z) is given by $Ψ^*Ψ$, it is the probability that is a wave in space, not the photon. An ensemble of photons in quantum mechanical superposition builds up the classical electromagnetic wave in space and time in a mathematically consistent manner, using quantum field theory.
,






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    how can a probability be a wave in space? Can you explain that further, please? And in this case, the photon is still a point like particle but the probability if there (where?) even is a photon is a wave?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    35 mins ago
















7












$begingroup$

You are thinking of the photon as an extended classical wave, which is not correct within the standard model of particle physics. Photons are point like quantum mechanical particles, and quantum mechanics is all about probabilities.



A photon approaching a black hole will have a calculable probability to fall through and be captured, or join the photon sphere. This means that a distribution of photons with the same energy and boundary conditions has to be accumulated in order to check the calculation.



A single photon is described by a wavefunction $Ψ$ and the probability of finding a single photon at an (x,y,z) is given by $Ψ^*Ψ$, it is the probability that is a wave in space, not the photon. An ensemble of photons in quantum mechanical superposition builds up the classical electromagnetic wave in space and time in a mathematically consistent manner, using quantum field theory.
,






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    how can a probability be a wave in space? Can you explain that further, please? And in this case, the photon is still a point like particle but the probability if there (where?) even is a photon is a wave?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    35 mins ago














7












7








7





$begingroup$

You are thinking of the photon as an extended classical wave, which is not correct within the standard model of particle physics. Photons are point like quantum mechanical particles, and quantum mechanics is all about probabilities.



A photon approaching a black hole will have a calculable probability to fall through and be captured, or join the photon sphere. This means that a distribution of photons with the same energy and boundary conditions has to be accumulated in order to check the calculation.



A single photon is described by a wavefunction $Ψ$ and the probability of finding a single photon at an (x,y,z) is given by $Ψ^*Ψ$, it is the probability that is a wave in space, not the photon. An ensemble of photons in quantum mechanical superposition builds up the classical electromagnetic wave in space and time in a mathematically consistent manner, using quantum field theory.
,






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



You are thinking of the photon as an extended classical wave, which is not correct within the standard model of particle physics. Photons are point like quantum mechanical particles, and quantum mechanics is all about probabilities.



A photon approaching a black hole will have a calculable probability to fall through and be captured, or join the photon sphere. This means that a distribution of photons with the same energy and boundary conditions has to be accumulated in order to check the calculation.



A single photon is described by a wavefunction $Ψ$ and the probability of finding a single photon at an (x,y,z) is given by $Ψ^*Ψ$, it is the probability that is a wave in space, not the photon. An ensemble of photons in quantum mechanical superposition builds up the classical electromagnetic wave in space and time in a mathematically consistent manner, using quantum field theory.
,







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 5 hours ago









anna vanna v

163k8154459




163k8154459












  • $begingroup$
    how can a probability be a wave in space? Can you explain that further, please? And in this case, the photon is still a point like particle but the probability if there (where?) even is a photon is a wave?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    35 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    how can a probability be a wave in space? Can you explain that further, please? And in this case, the photon is still a point like particle but the probability if there (where?) even is a photon is a wave?
    $endgroup$
    – undefined
    35 mins ago
















$begingroup$
how can a probability be a wave in space? Can you explain that further, please? And in this case, the photon is still a point like particle but the probability if there (where?) even is a photon is a wave?
$endgroup$
– undefined
35 mins ago




$begingroup$
how can a probability be a wave in space? Can you explain that further, please? And in this case, the photon is still a point like particle but the probability if there (where?) even is a photon is a wave?
$endgroup$
– undefined
35 mins ago











7












$begingroup$

Introduction



First of all we need to establish what the question even means (I will restrict all formulas to non-rotating Schwarzschild black holes of mass $M$ for concreteness). There are no bound states of the electromagnetic field near a black hole, even quasi-stationary states of finite wavelength near the photon radius $r = 3GM/c^2$ will decay, a part falling into the black hole, a part to infinity.



So the question really is about scattering. It turns out that scattering of electromagnetic waves behaves differently based on wavelength. In SI units the wavelength is $lambda = c/(2pi omega)$ and this is also the localization of the photon. For intuition we can picture the photon as a wavepacket localized in a sphere of radius $lambda$. On the other hand, the typical length of the gravitational background is $GM/c^2$. The main parameter that controls the behavior of the scattering is thus the ratio of these lengths $(GM/c^2)/(c/(2pi omega))$. I will now switch to geometrized $G=c=1$ units and drop a $2pi$ factor, and then the ratio of the wavelength to the size of the black hole is $sim Momega$.





Large wavelengths



For $Momega to 0$ the wavelength is much larger than the black hole, "a very small part of the photon is in the black hole". In this limit it can be computed that the total cross-section of an incoming monochromatic, asymptotically planar wave is
$$sigma = left[4 pi (2 M)^2 right]frac{4}{3}M^2 omega^2 + mathcal{O}(omega^3)$$
It is difficult to interpret the leading-order term as some kind of "overlapping volume" of the wave and the black hole, since that would scale as $M^3omega^3$. However, a sphere of radius $R$ will scatter particles with a cross-section $4 pi R^2$. Taking a wave-packet with a centroid that would be classically absorbed by a rigid sphere of radius $2M$, the factor $4 M^2 omega^2/3$ can be loosely understood as the probability it will actually be absorbed. Quite interestingly, the low-energy photon sees the black hole as a two-dimensional surface interacting with its wave-front rather than a three-dimensional volume.





Shorter wavelengths



However, this all changes with increasing frequency/decreasing wavelength. The intermediate regime is impossible to compute analytically, so I just put a plot from Crispino et al. (2007) here (I also recommend the paper for further references):
enter image description here
In the plot, $sigma_mathrm E^{(omega = 0)}$ is the low-frequency limit given above, $sigma_mathrm E$ is the total cross-section of monochromatic electromagnetic waves (computed numerically), $sigma_mathrm S$ is the same for massless scalar waves, and $sigma_mathrm O$ is the optical limit which you get from considering photons as point particles
$$sigma_mathrm O = 27 pi M^2$$
It is now easy to see that once the size of the wavepacket is comparable or smaller than the black hole, you can simply use the following approximate intuition: If the wavepacket centroid is within the photon sphere, it is going to fall inside it.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    this is within the classical electromagnetic interactions , fair enough, but one should not call them photons. Photons have to be treated quantum mechanically. and it propagates the false, imo, intuition that a photon can be partly in or out of the horizon. Individual particles are either in and absorbed, or out. It is the probability of this that can be calculated for individual photons. They do build up the electromagnetic wave, in QFT, but still they are individual measureable particles. The wave function of the photon is a wavefunction that builds a probability distribution, not space one
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    See a wavefunction of a photon here cds.cern.ch/record/944002?ln=en .
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @annav The classical scattering cross-sections are exactly equal to their QFT counter-parts, since the theory is free quantum electrodynamics interacting semi-classically with the curved background. In other words, the total cross-section $sigma(omega)$ is a sum of the squared S-matrix elements corresponding to a photon of a sharp momentum and frequency $omega$ getting absorbed by the black hole. The explanation in the answer just tries to provide a loose intuition for the results in a language similar to that of the OP.
    $endgroup$
    – Void
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, everything is consistent, but not at the single photon level. imo it is a bad intuition to give space dimensions to individual elementary particles which are connected to to a space extension only as probability distributions, i.e. not individual photons but an ensemble of photons
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    2 hours ago
















7












$begingroup$

Introduction



First of all we need to establish what the question even means (I will restrict all formulas to non-rotating Schwarzschild black holes of mass $M$ for concreteness). There are no bound states of the electromagnetic field near a black hole, even quasi-stationary states of finite wavelength near the photon radius $r = 3GM/c^2$ will decay, a part falling into the black hole, a part to infinity.



So the question really is about scattering. It turns out that scattering of electromagnetic waves behaves differently based on wavelength. In SI units the wavelength is $lambda = c/(2pi omega)$ and this is also the localization of the photon. For intuition we can picture the photon as a wavepacket localized in a sphere of radius $lambda$. On the other hand, the typical length of the gravitational background is $GM/c^2$. The main parameter that controls the behavior of the scattering is thus the ratio of these lengths $(GM/c^2)/(c/(2pi omega))$. I will now switch to geometrized $G=c=1$ units and drop a $2pi$ factor, and then the ratio of the wavelength to the size of the black hole is $sim Momega$.





Large wavelengths



For $Momega to 0$ the wavelength is much larger than the black hole, "a very small part of the photon is in the black hole". In this limit it can be computed that the total cross-section of an incoming monochromatic, asymptotically planar wave is
$$sigma = left[4 pi (2 M)^2 right]frac{4}{3}M^2 omega^2 + mathcal{O}(omega^3)$$
It is difficult to interpret the leading-order term as some kind of "overlapping volume" of the wave and the black hole, since that would scale as $M^3omega^3$. However, a sphere of radius $R$ will scatter particles with a cross-section $4 pi R^2$. Taking a wave-packet with a centroid that would be classically absorbed by a rigid sphere of radius $2M$, the factor $4 M^2 omega^2/3$ can be loosely understood as the probability it will actually be absorbed. Quite interestingly, the low-energy photon sees the black hole as a two-dimensional surface interacting with its wave-front rather than a three-dimensional volume.





Shorter wavelengths



However, this all changes with increasing frequency/decreasing wavelength. The intermediate regime is impossible to compute analytically, so I just put a plot from Crispino et al. (2007) here (I also recommend the paper for further references):
enter image description here
In the plot, $sigma_mathrm E^{(omega = 0)}$ is the low-frequency limit given above, $sigma_mathrm E$ is the total cross-section of monochromatic electromagnetic waves (computed numerically), $sigma_mathrm S$ is the same for massless scalar waves, and $sigma_mathrm O$ is the optical limit which you get from considering photons as point particles
$$sigma_mathrm O = 27 pi M^2$$
It is now easy to see that once the size of the wavepacket is comparable or smaller than the black hole, you can simply use the following approximate intuition: If the wavepacket centroid is within the photon sphere, it is going to fall inside it.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    this is within the classical electromagnetic interactions , fair enough, but one should not call them photons. Photons have to be treated quantum mechanically. and it propagates the false, imo, intuition that a photon can be partly in or out of the horizon. Individual particles are either in and absorbed, or out. It is the probability of this that can be calculated for individual photons. They do build up the electromagnetic wave, in QFT, but still they are individual measureable particles. The wave function of the photon is a wavefunction that builds a probability distribution, not space one
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    See a wavefunction of a photon here cds.cern.ch/record/944002?ln=en .
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @annav The classical scattering cross-sections are exactly equal to their QFT counter-parts, since the theory is free quantum electrodynamics interacting semi-classically with the curved background. In other words, the total cross-section $sigma(omega)$ is a sum of the squared S-matrix elements corresponding to a photon of a sharp momentum and frequency $omega$ getting absorbed by the black hole. The explanation in the answer just tries to provide a loose intuition for the results in a language similar to that of the OP.
    $endgroup$
    – Void
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, everything is consistent, but not at the single photon level. imo it is a bad intuition to give space dimensions to individual elementary particles which are connected to to a space extension only as probability distributions, i.e. not individual photons but an ensemble of photons
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    2 hours ago














7












7








7





$begingroup$

Introduction



First of all we need to establish what the question even means (I will restrict all formulas to non-rotating Schwarzschild black holes of mass $M$ for concreteness). There are no bound states of the electromagnetic field near a black hole, even quasi-stationary states of finite wavelength near the photon radius $r = 3GM/c^2$ will decay, a part falling into the black hole, a part to infinity.



So the question really is about scattering. It turns out that scattering of electromagnetic waves behaves differently based on wavelength. In SI units the wavelength is $lambda = c/(2pi omega)$ and this is also the localization of the photon. For intuition we can picture the photon as a wavepacket localized in a sphere of radius $lambda$. On the other hand, the typical length of the gravitational background is $GM/c^2$. The main parameter that controls the behavior of the scattering is thus the ratio of these lengths $(GM/c^2)/(c/(2pi omega))$. I will now switch to geometrized $G=c=1$ units and drop a $2pi$ factor, and then the ratio of the wavelength to the size of the black hole is $sim Momega$.





Large wavelengths



For $Momega to 0$ the wavelength is much larger than the black hole, "a very small part of the photon is in the black hole". In this limit it can be computed that the total cross-section of an incoming monochromatic, asymptotically planar wave is
$$sigma = left[4 pi (2 M)^2 right]frac{4}{3}M^2 omega^2 + mathcal{O}(omega^3)$$
It is difficult to interpret the leading-order term as some kind of "overlapping volume" of the wave and the black hole, since that would scale as $M^3omega^3$. However, a sphere of radius $R$ will scatter particles with a cross-section $4 pi R^2$. Taking a wave-packet with a centroid that would be classically absorbed by a rigid sphere of radius $2M$, the factor $4 M^2 omega^2/3$ can be loosely understood as the probability it will actually be absorbed. Quite interestingly, the low-energy photon sees the black hole as a two-dimensional surface interacting with its wave-front rather than a three-dimensional volume.





Shorter wavelengths



However, this all changes with increasing frequency/decreasing wavelength. The intermediate regime is impossible to compute analytically, so I just put a plot from Crispino et al. (2007) here (I also recommend the paper for further references):
enter image description here
In the plot, $sigma_mathrm E^{(omega = 0)}$ is the low-frequency limit given above, $sigma_mathrm E$ is the total cross-section of monochromatic electromagnetic waves (computed numerically), $sigma_mathrm S$ is the same for massless scalar waves, and $sigma_mathrm O$ is the optical limit which you get from considering photons as point particles
$$sigma_mathrm O = 27 pi M^2$$
It is now easy to see that once the size of the wavepacket is comparable or smaller than the black hole, you can simply use the following approximate intuition: If the wavepacket centroid is within the photon sphere, it is going to fall inside it.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Introduction



First of all we need to establish what the question even means (I will restrict all formulas to non-rotating Schwarzschild black holes of mass $M$ for concreteness). There are no bound states of the electromagnetic field near a black hole, even quasi-stationary states of finite wavelength near the photon radius $r = 3GM/c^2$ will decay, a part falling into the black hole, a part to infinity.



So the question really is about scattering. It turns out that scattering of electromagnetic waves behaves differently based on wavelength. In SI units the wavelength is $lambda = c/(2pi omega)$ and this is also the localization of the photon. For intuition we can picture the photon as a wavepacket localized in a sphere of radius $lambda$. On the other hand, the typical length of the gravitational background is $GM/c^2$. The main parameter that controls the behavior of the scattering is thus the ratio of these lengths $(GM/c^2)/(c/(2pi omega))$. I will now switch to geometrized $G=c=1$ units and drop a $2pi$ factor, and then the ratio of the wavelength to the size of the black hole is $sim Momega$.





Large wavelengths



For $Momega to 0$ the wavelength is much larger than the black hole, "a very small part of the photon is in the black hole". In this limit it can be computed that the total cross-section of an incoming monochromatic, asymptotically planar wave is
$$sigma = left[4 pi (2 M)^2 right]frac{4}{3}M^2 omega^2 + mathcal{O}(omega^3)$$
It is difficult to interpret the leading-order term as some kind of "overlapping volume" of the wave and the black hole, since that would scale as $M^3omega^3$. However, a sphere of radius $R$ will scatter particles with a cross-section $4 pi R^2$. Taking a wave-packet with a centroid that would be classically absorbed by a rigid sphere of radius $2M$, the factor $4 M^2 omega^2/3$ can be loosely understood as the probability it will actually be absorbed. Quite interestingly, the low-energy photon sees the black hole as a two-dimensional surface interacting with its wave-front rather than a three-dimensional volume.





Shorter wavelengths



However, this all changes with increasing frequency/decreasing wavelength. The intermediate regime is impossible to compute analytically, so I just put a plot from Crispino et al. (2007) here (I also recommend the paper for further references):
enter image description here
In the plot, $sigma_mathrm E^{(omega = 0)}$ is the low-frequency limit given above, $sigma_mathrm E$ is the total cross-section of monochromatic electromagnetic waves (computed numerically), $sigma_mathrm S$ is the same for massless scalar waves, and $sigma_mathrm O$ is the optical limit which you get from considering photons as point particles
$$sigma_mathrm O = 27 pi M^2$$
It is now easy to see that once the size of the wavepacket is comparable or smaller than the black hole, you can simply use the following approximate intuition: If the wavepacket centroid is within the photon sphere, it is going to fall inside it.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago









Loong

1,3831120




1,3831120










answered 3 hours ago









VoidVoid

11.1k11960




11.1k11960












  • $begingroup$
    this is within the classical electromagnetic interactions , fair enough, but one should not call them photons. Photons have to be treated quantum mechanically. and it propagates the false, imo, intuition that a photon can be partly in or out of the horizon. Individual particles are either in and absorbed, or out. It is the probability of this that can be calculated for individual photons. They do build up the electromagnetic wave, in QFT, but still they are individual measureable particles. The wave function of the photon is a wavefunction that builds a probability distribution, not space one
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    See a wavefunction of a photon here cds.cern.ch/record/944002?ln=en .
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @annav The classical scattering cross-sections are exactly equal to their QFT counter-parts, since the theory is free quantum electrodynamics interacting semi-classically with the curved background. In other words, the total cross-section $sigma(omega)$ is a sum of the squared S-matrix elements corresponding to a photon of a sharp momentum and frequency $omega$ getting absorbed by the black hole. The explanation in the answer just tries to provide a loose intuition for the results in a language similar to that of the OP.
    $endgroup$
    – Void
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, everything is consistent, but not at the single photon level. imo it is a bad intuition to give space dimensions to individual elementary particles which are connected to to a space extension only as probability distributions, i.e. not individual photons but an ensemble of photons
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    2 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    this is within the classical electromagnetic interactions , fair enough, but one should not call them photons. Photons have to be treated quantum mechanically. and it propagates the false, imo, intuition that a photon can be partly in or out of the horizon. Individual particles are either in and absorbed, or out. It is the probability of this that can be calculated for individual photons. They do build up the electromagnetic wave, in QFT, but still they are individual measureable particles. The wave function of the photon is a wavefunction that builds a probability distribution, not space one
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    See a wavefunction of a photon here cds.cern.ch/record/944002?ln=en .
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @annav The classical scattering cross-sections are exactly equal to their QFT counter-parts, since the theory is free quantum electrodynamics interacting semi-classically with the curved background. In other words, the total cross-section $sigma(omega)$ is a sum of the squared S-matrix elements corresponding to a photon of a sharp momentum and frequency $omega$ getting absorbed by the black hole. The explanation in the answer just tries to provide a loose intuition for the results in a language similar to that of the OP.
    $endgroup$
    – Void
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, everything is consistent, but not at the single photon level. imo it is a bad intuition to give space dimensions to individual elementary particles which are connected to to a space extension only as probability distributions, i.e. not individual photons but an ensemble of photons
    $endgroup$
    – anna v
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
this is within the classical electromagnetic interactions , fair enough, but one should not call them photons. Photons have to be treated quantum mechanically. and it propagates the false, imo, intuition that a photon can be partly in or out of the horizon. Individual particles are either in and absorbed, or out. It is the probability of this that can be calculated for individual photons. They do build up the electromagnetic wave, in QFT, but still they are individual measureable particles. The wave function of the photon is a wavefunction that builds a probability distribution, not space one
$endgroup$
– anna v
3 hours ago






$begingroup$
this is within the classical electromagnetic interactions , fair enough, but one should not call them photons. Photons have to be treated quantum mechanically. and it propagates the false, imo, intuition that a photon can be partly in or out of the horizon. Individual particles are either in and absorbed, or out. It is the probability of this that can be calculated for individual photons. They do build up the electromagnetic wave, in QFT, but still they are individual measureable particles. The wave function of the photon is a wavefunction that builds a probability distribution, not space one
$endgroup$
– anna v
3 hours ago














$begingroup$
See a wavefunction of a photon here cds.cern.ch/record/944002?ln=en .
$endgroup$
– anna v
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
See a wavefunction of a photon here cds.cern.ch/record/944002?ln=en .
$endgroup$
– anna v
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
@annav The classical scattering cross-sections are exactly equal to their QFT counter-parts, since the theory is free quantum electrodynamics interacting semi-classically with the curved background. In other words, the total cross-section $sigma(omega)$ is a sum of the squared S-matrix elements corresponding to a photon of a sharp momentum and frequency $omega$ getting absorbed by the black hole. The explanation in the answer just tries to provide a loose intuition for the results in a language similar to that of the OP.
$endgroup$
– Void
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
@annav The classical scattering cross-sections are exactly equal to their QFT counter-parts, since the theory is free quantum electrodynamics interacting semi-classically with the curved background. In other words, the total cross-section $sigma(omega)$ is a sum of the squared S-matrix elements corresponding to a photon of a sharp momentum and frequency $omega$ getting absorbed by the black hole. The explanation in the answer just tries to provide a loose intuition for the results in a language similar to that of the OP.
$endgroup$
– Void
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
Yes, everything is consistent, but not at the single photon level. imo it is a bad intuition to give space dimensions to individual elementary particles which are connected to to a space extension only as probability distributions, i.e. not individual photons but an ensemble of photons
$endgroup$
– anna v
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Yes, everything is consistent, but not at the single photon level. imo it is a bad intuition to give space dimensions to individual elementary particles which are connected to to a space extension only as probability distributions, i.e. not individual photons but an ensemble of photons
$endgroup$
– anna v
2 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f475903%2fhow-much-of-a-wave-function-must-reside-inside-event-horizon-for-it-to-be-consum%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Verónica Boquete

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten