some questions

Should I post some porn to get answers, or is 4chan really filled with stoned 14 yo neo-nazis?

>>8537911
These are all meme questions.
Never heard about the first question but black holes don't have a net charge. And the biological qm shit was a bad paper published by washed up scientists.

>>8537934
1. But neutrino oscillation is a real thing innit?
2. Black holes dont have charge? Explain this: you feed a black hole a loads of electrons, and after you wait for it radiate all its mass via Hawking radiation. Will the charge be conserved? If not WTF. If yes, what ensures, that the radiated particles have more negative charge than positive?
3. Yeah, it sounds like bullshit, just wanted to be sure.

>>8537934
Oh I know these are meme questions, but fuck it, I want the answers. And because they contain so much buzzwords, its not that easy to get easy but reliable answers via google.

>>8537878
They suspect the momentum changes. They will move off to a different angle.

>>8537949
We don't know what happens when a bh evaporates completley.

But it probably gets converted to pure energy so there's no violation. Charge doesn't need to be conserved at all for that matter.

>>8537975
So they emit a photon, or just hurt the homogenity of space?

>>8538105
So black holes are free from conservation laws? They do conserve mass/energy, don`t they? But they don`t conserve charge?!?!?
That hurts like all symmetries of the standard model.
And what about angular momentum?

>>8537878
A black hole will (probably) (observationally) never be charged because it's local neighborhood would fill up with particles of its opposite charge.

However, if a black hole had a charge, the best known models we would have for it are Reissner-Nordström and Kerr-Newman. Say it were strongly negatively charged. If the charge was strong enough, it would repel other negative particles, but attract positive ones from a farther radius than neutral ones. So yes, it would technically have different Schwarzchild radii for each kind of particle (one for positive, neutral, and negative, neutral being the non-charged radius).

Again, charged black holes don't exist ( >>8537949 ).

If they did, they would (theoretically) contain a Cauchy horizon, which is inherently unstable and would cause the black hole to...well we don't really know, mathematically it could collapse into a "naked singularity" but what happens to all the charge is a mystery since Schwarzchild-related metrics are based on GR which doesn't directly require conservation of charge.

Eventually, the black hole gives back.
>sums up all the Physics I know so far
You're right.

>>8538454
Thanks man.
So this is a question, what will be answered when theory of relativity will include conservation of charge.
But fuckin string theorists always say, that they have solution for everything. Do they have a direct answer, if black holes conserve charge?

>>8537975
>momentum changes
>>8538407
>emit a photon
It`s no good, if they emit a photon. Because sometimes they need to absorb one. Or does the chance of an electron neutrino becoming a muon neutrino depend on the photon flux?