🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <80722@ut-emx.uucp> johncobb@ut-emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)  
writes:
> So what are the implications of this? Does this mean that if a
> Quantum no-hair theorem holds that gravitational collapse, ipso facto,
> is the source of baryon non-conservation?

If no-hair theorems extend into the quantum regime it does mean that black
holes can be *A* mechanism for baryon non-conservation.
 
> Most (All that I have ever seen) "no-hair" theorems are proved for classical
> systems. What about quantum systems? If a true quantum description of Hawking
> radiation (not just a semi-classical estimate) is finally worked out, is
> it not possible for it to depend on "the hair". for example, if a proton/
> anti-proton pair is created out of the curvature field just inside the 
> horizon,
> will both the proton and anti-proton have exactly the same probability to
> tunnel beyond the horizon? Might not these probabilities be affected by the
> overall baryon number of the black-hole. Perhaps this is a way to restore
> baryon conservation in collapse situations --- then again, black holes may
> not respect baryon numbers, even in a complete quantum description.

I'll tread on the dangerous ground of quoting things I don't understand here.
If baryon number is a discrete gauge symmetry of a TOE then apparently baryon
hair can be expected in black holes, otherwise not. Either case, we'll likely
have to wait a fair while to find out.


--
########################## _`|'_ ##############################################
##  Warren G. Anderson     |o o| "... for its truth does not matter, and is  ##
##  Dept. of Physics       ( ^ )  unimaginable." -J. Ashbery, The New Spirit ##
##  University of Alberta  /\-/\      (anderson@fermi.phys.ualberta.ca)      ##