Do black holes have hair? A new hypothesis on the nature of these celestial bodies

[Judi Lynn]

Do black holes have hair? A new hypothesis on the nature of these celestial bodies
15 hours ago

Black holes may be less simple and "clean" than how the most authoritative theoretical model describes them. This is what a group of researchers based at the International School of Advanced Studies, Trieste, and IST, Lisbon, claims in a new article appeared in Physical Review Letters. According to the scientists' calculations, these celestial bodies may actually have "hair".

A black hole. A simple and clear concept, at least according to the hypothesis by Roy Kerr, who in 1963 proposed a "clean" black hole model, which is the current theoretical paradigm. From theory to reality things may be quite different. According to a new research carried out by a group of scientists that includes Thomas Sotiriou, a physicist of the International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA) of Trieste, black holes may be much "dirtier" than what Kerr believed.

According to the traditional model, black holes are defined by only two quantities: mass and angular momentum (a black hole rotation velocity). Once their progenitor has collapsed (a high mass star, for instance, that at the end of its life cycle implodes inwards) its memory is lost forever. All that is left is a quiescent black hole, with almost no distinctive features: all black holes, mass and angular momentum aside, look almost the same.

According to Sotiriou, things may not have occurred this way. "Black holes, according to our calculations, may have hair", explains Sotiriou, referring to a well-known statement by physicist John Wheeler, who claimed that "black holes have no hair". Wheeler meant that mass and angular momentum are all one needs to describe them.

More:
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-black-holes-hair-hypothesis-nature.html#ajTabs

[longship]

1. And they evaporate via Hawking radiation.

The simplistic model of Black Holes as a universal vacuum cleaner was only a fact in Hollywood, which only ever misuses science to weave fiction.

Physicists have known for a long time that Black Holes are much more strange than has been portrayed in pop culture.

Steven Hawking came up with Hawking radiation, that quantum theory states that Black Holes must emit energy and thus, must eventually evaporate (so to speak). Now, there is new science about Black Holes that they may be more complicated than even Hawking envisioned.

Good shit! It's all good shit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. When they put "charge" in quotes, does that mean it's not really charge?

And, if it isn't, then why pick a name that already has a meaning? My first thought on reading "mass and angular momentum are all one needs to describe them" was "what about electrical charge", that being a fundamental property of particles. And, indeed, I find a long-standing Wikipedia article - Charged black hole.