<p>In Layman's terms, the Pauli exclusion principal wouldn't need to be overcome to form the black hole.  A Neutron star of a certain size will shrink below it's Schwarzschild radius naturally.   That's not hard to see.  In fact, like white dwarfs, Neutron stars grow smaller in radius as they gain mass.  The maximum mass wouldn't be much more than 2.5 or so solar masses past which the Neutron Star couldn't avoid becoming a black hole.</p>

<p>The relativistic effects get complicated, such as what precisely happens at the 100% time dilation and beyond.  </p>

<p>__ </p>

<p>Now, as to what happens inside the black hole, there's two general points I can make.  One is, as the neutrons (quark matter, whatever it is), grows more compact the weight and force to compact it further keeps increasing.  That's fairly obvious.  It almost becomes the unstoppable force (weight and gravitation) vs the immovable object (Pauli exclusion) question.  The problem with knowing exactly what happens is essentially the singularity problem.  The math breaks down.   I don't think anyone knows.</p>

<p>Another way that I like to look at it, is Gluons, like photons, move at the speed of light.  Inside a black hole, Gluons, like Photons would be drawn towards the center, not able to fly outwards and that property might greatly shrink the size of a Proton or Neutron down to the size of . . . maybe an Electron?? but again, who knows?   Maybe some kind of quantum tunneling keeps the size of the Neutrons somewhat consistent but the gravitational escape velocity exceeding the speed of light could greatly reduce the more standard/observed size of the Neutrons.  (I think).</p>

<p>I know you asked for the most accepted explanation and I've only touched on this from a layman's POV, so, hopefully someone with a bigger brain than me will answer this one more precisely to your specific question.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-25T10:15:57.393Z
Let me upvote and make a *positive* comment. This summary above is quite accurate, but you could make the point in the first paragraph that as you add mass to a neutron star, it gets smaller. Secondly, once collapse to a black hole is established it is not a question of forces; there is (in GR) no possible avoidance of collapse to a singularity in the same way that outside a black hole it is not possible to stop moving forward in time.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T21:43:41.970Z
2016-03-16T21:43:41.970Z
userLTK
<p>To create a black hole a body must occupy a radius that is smaller than its Schwarzschild limit. If a body has a mass greater than 3.2 solar masses then the theoretical behaviour of the neutron is that the force acting upon the neutrons due to the pressure of the collective mass of the star would cause the neutron to collapse. Then the way that a neutron star would form a black hole is by having a companion star which looses matter to the neutron star. If the mass of the neutron star is close to the mass of 3.2 solar masses then the star will theoretically collapse into a black hole when enough matter is accreted to exceed the critical limit. </p>

<p>The caveat is that there is no force in the universe that can accelerate  energy faster than the speed of light. When neutron collapses it’s surface must accelerate at a rate that exceeds the speed of light, so this in fact is not allowed. An alternate theory is that the matter does not collapse into a black hole nut rather exists at an energy density that is just above its Schwartzschild limit. In fact recent observations made by Ligo of colliding black holes and by the recent observations of Sagittarius A*'s G2 gas cloud collision in fact fits much more closely with this model than these object being in fact true black holes. When the G2 gas cloud interacted with Sagittarius A* it did not create a large output of energy, but rather there was a just small release of energy consistent with a black star that exists at an energy state just above its true event horizon. These objects do not emit light and so are virtually indistinguishable from black holes, except when they interact with other objects. </p>

<p>When LIGO first observed a gravitational wave there was a small gamma ray burst 0.04 seconds after the gravitational wave struck. There should be no Gamma Ray Bursts when black holes merge. There was a paper written in June of 2016 that used statistical models to suggest that the GRB did not occur. (Someone's job was at stake.) When you look at the method they used it virtually eliminates any possible observation of a GRB that would be associated with a dark star merger due to the weak GRB it would produce. Thus, no black hole merger could be observed in the future associated with a gravitational wave observation, unless it as a neutron star merger, which produces a much larger GRB. Recently LIGO announced just such an event where two neutron stars merged and this coincided with a GRB. When asked why this has not been observed before the officials at LIGO said it was because the merging of black holes do not produce GRBs. </p>

<p>The problem with creating black holes is that the matter at the event horizon, or simply the energy, must accelerate faster than the speed of light, which is not allowed by relativity. The comeback is that spacetime itself is collapsing faster than the speed of light. One must then ask how this could happen if the relativity does not allow super luminous speeds. To accelerate spacetime to super luminous speeds something must have dragged spacetime to this acceleration. But, that is not allowed. In fact what the observations are really showing is that it is most probable that black holes do not exist in nature. To back this up the search for extraterrestrial planets has found zero black holes orbiting other stars. Since 1968 only about 20 stellar mass black hole candidates have been found anywhere. If they exist where are they? Every observation made is consistent with black stars and only mathematical models are consistent with black holes. </p>

<p>WE must also consider that the present theory predicts that black holes will explode at the end of their lifetimes as they evaporate. No spikes of energy of this nature has been observed and yet there should some if the theory is correct. We must also consider that CERN should have produced black holes at the energy levels they have employed and no black holes have been created. This was not expected.</p>

<p>Black stars paper.
<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03853.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03853.pdf</a></p>

<p>A better solution to the runaway endpoint problem
<a href="https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.044032" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.044032</a></p>

<p>The statistical trick and logic used to eliminate future black star merger observations</p>

<p><a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L38/meta;jsessionid=5902D1B053AA93E11FDDF2A02A79BFBF.ip-10-40-2-120" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L38/meta;jsessionid=5902D1B053AA93E11FDDF2A02A79BFBF.ip-10-40-2-120</a></p>

<p>The non-event of the Sagittarius A* G2 collision
<a href="http://earthsky.org/space/milky-ways-black-hole-more-active" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://earthsky.org/space/milky-ways-black-hole-more-active</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-30T17:23:56.367Z
The 3.2 solar mass limit has nothing to do with the properties of neutrons. The stuff about evaporating black holes is not credible. The creation of black holes and observable Hawking radiation at CERN was not "expected". The stuff about binary black holes is bizarre. How do you think binary black holes are found?
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-28T23:48:31.203Z
2017-10-29T00:15:47.737Z
2017-10-29T00:15:47.737Z
Brian T. Johnston
<p>I can see why your drawing the comparison with white dwarfs, but in reality we don't yet understand the effects of gravity and pressure well enough at those densities to be able to know for sure if an accreting Neutron Star will collapse directly into a black hole or go into some intermediate phase like the quark stars you mentioned. </p>

<p>As far as I've always been taught the accepted view is that the Pauli exclusion principle only works so far, and once that is overcome by gravity the star collapses into a singularity and forms a black hole. In my time studying on my undergraduate course I heard no mention of quark stars or any other intermediate step (not that I was looking though).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T20:07:21.063Z
My question is why the Pauli exclusion principle can be overcome. Isn't impossible for two fermions to occupy the same quantum state?
Sir Cumference
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T20:18:15.263Z
Ah right, well i found this question on the physics page which might or might not answer your question. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93988/does-black-hole-formation-contradict-the-pauli-exclusion-principle
Dean
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T23:06:58.537Z
There is no question of the PEP being "overcome by gravity". It works just fine at any density you like.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T23:10:25.333Z
Ben Crowell's answer is the correct one, though he doesn't explain why the PEP can't balance gravity at higher densities (see my answer).
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T20:03:48.857Z
2016-03-16T20:03:48.857Z
Dean
<p>The scenario you describe <em>may</em> occur. On the other hand it may actually be that neutronisation in a white dwarf is the trigger for a thermonuclear type Ia supernova.</p>

<p>You may be misunderstanding the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP).The PEP states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, <strong>not</strong> that they cannot occupy the same space or be compressed to whatever density you like. The quantum states here consist of two spin states for every possible momentum state. In a degenerate gas, all these states are filled up to the Fermi energy. All that happens when the neutron star gets smaller (or collapses), is that the Fermi energy just keeps increasing as the neutron density climbs, and the neutron degeneracy pressure just keeps increasing as a consequence.</p>

<p>However, in General Relativity, pressure (like mass/energy) is a source of gravitational curvature and actually <em>increases</em> the required pressure gradient needed to support the star. At a certain threshold radius - a small factor larger than the Schwarzschild radius, a point of instability is reached where increasing the pressure is actually counter-productive.  Beyond this, you can make the pressure as large as you like and it will not prevent the formation of a black hole.</p>

<p>Even inside the BH there is not necessarily a problem with the PEP. You can compress fermions to infinite density so long as they can have infinite momentum.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T23:32:58.520Z
Great answer! But as long as the neutron star gains mass, will the Fermi energy continue rising?
Sir Cumference
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T23:37:02.167Z
@SirCumference Yes it will. roughly proportional to $\rho^{1/3}$. But as I explained, in GR this cannot halt the collapse - it is self-defeating.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-17T01:19:28.293Z
And when the Fermi energy increases, not all of the states will still be filled up to the Fermi energy, right?
Sir Cumference
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-17T07:08:26.143Z
@SirCumference Yes they will. That is what happens in a degenerate gas. As you increase the number of fermions per unit volume, they completely fill states up to a higher momentum (and hence energy) and thus exert a greater pressure.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-22T17:19:06.900Z
But if singularity occurs then all the fermions in singularity must have different quantum states which leads to a large number of quantum states?
Sreeraj Chundayil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-22T19:12:57.183Z
@InQuisitive All the fermions are in different quantum states in a degenerate gas. The number of states per unit volume would tend to infinity at the singularity.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T23:03:02.613Z
2016-03-16T23:12:21.883Z
2016-03-16T23:12:21.883Z
ProfRob
<p>White dwarfs usually do not collapse, as they have electron degeneracy pressure due to the Pauli exclusion principle. However, if one accretes mass beyond the Chandrasekhar limit, it is energetically favorable for the electrons to combine with protons and form neutrons. This gives us a neutron star.</p>

<p>However, neutron stars usually do not collapse into black holes due to neutron degeneracy pressure. How is it possible that beyond the LOV limit, the Pauli exclusion principle no longer prevents the collapse? Shouldn't it still prevent neutrons, which are fermions, from being compressed together any further?</p>

<p>I've seen answers involving quark stars, but those are purely hypothetical. What is the most accepted explanation for this?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T19:54:15.310Z
Are you talking about an accreting neutron star?
Dean
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-16T19:56:56.157Z
@Dean Yes, if it accretes enough mass to collapse into a black hole.
Sir Cumference
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-25T21:11:28.570Z
Possible duplicate of [How does neutron star collapse into black hole?](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/748/how-does-neutron-star-collapse-into-black-hole)
James K
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-26T03:37:00.947Z
@JamesKilfiger I was specifically wondering how it could overcome the Pauli exclusion principle, which was never mentioned in that question. I also clearly stated I didn't want any answers involving hypothetical quark stars. I wanted the most accepted explanation for this.
Sir Cumference
<black-hole><general-relativity><stellar-evolution><neutron-star><degenerate-matter>
How could a neutron star collapse into a black hole?
Sir Cumference
# How could a neutron star collapse into a black hole?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-03-16)

White dwarfs usually do not collapse, as they have electron degeneracy pressure due to the Pauli exclusion principle. However, if one accretes mass beyond the Chandrasekhar limit, it is energetically favorable for the electrons to combine with protons and form neutrons. This gives us a neutron star.

However, neutron stars usually do not collapse into black holes due to neutron degeneracy pressure. How is it possible that beyond the LOV limit, the Pauli exclusion principle no longer prevents the collapse? Shouldn't it still prevent neutrons, which are fermions, from being compressed together any further?

I've seen answers involving quark stars, but those are purely hypothetical. What is the most accepted explanation for this?

**Tags:** black-hole, general-relativity, stellar-evolution, neutron-star, degenerate-matter

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Are you talking about an accreting neutron star?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Yes, if it accretes enough mass to collapse into a black hole.  
> **username_2**: Possible duplicate of [How does neutron star collapse into black hole?](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/748/how-does-neutron-star-collapse-into-black-hole)  
> **username_0**: @JamesKilfiger I was specifically wondering how it could overcome the Pauli exclusion principle, which was never mentioned in that question. I also clearly stated I didn't want any answers involving hypothetical quark stars. I wanted the most accepted explanation for this.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-03-16. Score: 16 | Accepted answer

The scenario you describe *may* occur. On the other hand it may actually be that neutronisation in a white dwarf is the trigger for a thermonuclear type Ia supernova.

You may be misunderstanding the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP).The PEP states that no two fermions can occupy the same quantum state, **not** that they cannot occupy the same space or be compressed to whatever density you like. The quantum states here consist of two spin states for every possible momentum state. In a degenerate gas, all these states are filled up to the Fermi energy. All that happens when the neutron star gets smaller (or collapses), is that the Fermi energy just keeps increasing as the neutron density climbs, and the neutron degeneracy pressure just keeps increasing as a consequence.

However, in General Relativity, pressure (like mass/energy) is a source of gravitational curvature and actually *increases* the required pressure gradient needed to support the star. At a certain threshold radius - a small factor larger than the Schwarzschild radius, a point of instability is reached where increasing the pressure is actually counter-productive. Beyond this, you can make the pressure as large as you like and it will not prevent the formation of a black hole.

Even inside the BH there is not necessarily a problem with the PEP. You can compress fermions to infinite density so long as they can have infinite momentum.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Great answer! But as long as the neutron star gains mass, will the Fermi energy continue rising?  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Yes it will. roughly proportional to $\rho^{1/3}$. But as I explained, in GR this cannot halt the collapse - it is self-defeating.  
> **username_0**: And when the Fermi energy increases, not all of the states will still be filled up to the Fermi energy, right?  
> **username_4**: @username_0 Yes they will. That is what happens in a degenerate gas. As you increase the number of fermions per unit volume, they completely fill states up to a higher momentum (and hence energy) and thus exert a greater pressure.  
> **username_6**: But if singularity occurs then all the fermions in singularity must have different quantum states which leads to a large number of quantum states?  
> **username_4**: @InQuisitive All the fermions are in different quantum states in a degenerate gas. The number of states per unit volume would tend to infinity at the singularity.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-03-16. Score: 2

In Layman's terms, the Pauli exclusion principal wouldn't need to be overcome to form the black hole. A Neutron star of a certain size will shrink below it's Schwarzschild radius naturally. That's not hard to see. In fact, like white dwarfs, Neutron stars grow smaller in radius as they gain mass. The maximum mass wouldn't be much more than 2.5 or so solar masses past which the Neutron Star couldn't avoid becoming a black hole.

The relativistic effects get complicated, such as what precisely happens at the 100% time dilation and beyond.

\_\_

Now, as to what happens inside the black hole, there's two general points I can make. One is, as the neutrons (quark matter, whatever it is), grows more compact the weight and force to compact it further keeps increasing. That's fairly obvious. It almost becomes the unstoppable force (weight and gravitation) vs the immovable object (Pauli exclusion) question. The problem with knowing exactly what happens is essentially the singularity problem. The math breaks down. I don't think anyone knows.

Another way that I like to look at it, is Gluons, like photons, move at the speed of light. Inside a black hole, Gluons, like Photons would be drawn towards the center, not able to fly outwards and that property might greatly shrink the size of a Proton or Neutron down to the size of . . . maybe an Electron?? but again, who knows? Maybe some kind of quantum tunneling keeps the size of the Neutrons somewhat consistent but the gravitational escape velocity exceeding the speed of light could greatly reduce the more standard/observed size of the Neutrons. (I think).

I know you asked for the most accepted explanation and I've only touched on this from a layman's POV, so, hopefully someone with a bigger brain than me will answer this one more precisely to your specific question.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Let me upvote and make a *positive* comment. This summary above is quite accurate, but you could make the point in the first paragraph that as you add mass to a neutron star, it gets smaller. Secondly, once collapse to a black hole is established it is not a question of forces; there is (in GR) no possible avoidance of collapse to a singularity in the same way that outside a black hole it is not possible to stop moving forward in time.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-03-16. Score: 0

I can see why your drawing the comparison with white dwarfs, but in reality we don't yet understand the effects of gravity and pressure well enough at those densities to be able to know for sure if an accreting Neutron Star will collapse directly into a black hole or go into some intermediate phase like the quark stars you mentioned.

As far as I've always been taught the accepted view is that the Pauli exclusion principle only works so far, and once that is overcome by gravity the star collapses into a singularity and forms a black hole. In my time studying on my undergraduate course I heard no mention of quark stars or any other intermediate step (not that I was looking though).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: My question is why the Pauli exclusion principle can be overcome. Isn't impossible for two fermions to occupy the same quantum state?  
> **username_1**: Ah right, well i found this question on the physics page which might or might not answer your question. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/93988/does-black-hole-formation-contradict-the-pauli-exclusion-principle  
> **username_4**: There is no question of the PEP being "overcome by gravity". It works just fine at any density you like.  
> **username_4**: Ben Crowell's answer is the correct one, though he doesn't explain why the PEP can't balance gravity at higher densities (see my answer).  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-10-28. Score: -2

To create a black hole a body must occupy a radius that is smaller than its Schwarzschild limit. If a body has a mass greater than 3.2 solar masses then the theoretical behaviour of the neutron is that the force acting upon the neutrons due to the pressure of the collective mass of the star would cause the neutron to collapse. Then the way that a neutron star would form a black hole is by having a companion star which looses matter to the neutron star. If the mass of the neutron star is close to the mass of 3.2 solar masses then the star will theoretically collapse into a black hole when enough matter is accreted to exceed the critical limit.

The caveat is that there is no force in the universe that can accelerate energy faster than the speed of light. When neutron collapses it’s surface must accelerate at a rate that exceeds the speed of light, so this in fact is not allowed. An alternate theory is that the matter does not collapse into a black hole nut rather exists at an energy density that is just above its Schwartzschild limit. In fact recent observations made by Ligo of colliding black holes and by the recent observations of Sagittarius A\*'s G2 gas cloud collision in fact fits much more closely with this model than these object being in fact true black holes. When the G2 gas cloud interacted with Sagittarius A\* it did not create a large output of energy, but rather there was a just small release of energy consistent with a black star that exists at an energy state just above its true event horizon. These objects do not emit light and so are virtually indistinguishable from black holes, except when they interact with other objects.

When LIGO first observed a gravitational wave there was a small gamma ray burst 0.04 seconds after the gravitational wave struck. There should be no Gamma Ray Bursts when black holes merge. There was a paper written in June of 2016 that used statistical models to suggest that the GRB did not occur. (Someone's job was at stake.) When you look at the method they used it virtually eliminates any possible observation of a GRB that would be associated with a dark star merger due to the weak GRB it would produce. Thus, no black hole merger could be observed in the future associated with a gravitational wave observation, unless it as a neutron star merger, which produces a much larger GRB. Recently LIGO announced just such an event where two neutron stars merged and this coincided with a GRB. When asked why this has not been observed before the officials at LIGO said it was because the merging of black holes do not produce GRBs.

The problem with creating black holes is that the matter at the event horizon, or simply the energy, must accelerate faster than the speed of light, which is not allowed by relativity. The comeback is that spacetime itself is collapsing faster than the speed of light. One must then ask how this could happen if the relativity does not allow super luminous speeds. To accelerate spacetime to super luminous speeds something must have dragged spacetime to this acceleration. But, that is not allowed. In fact what the observations are really showing is that it is most probable that black holes do not exist in nature. To back this up the search for extraterrestrial planets has found zero black holes orbiting other stars. Since 1968 only about 20 stellar mass black hole candidates have been found anywhere. If they exist where are they? Every observation made is consistent with black stars and only mathematical models are consistent with black holes.

WE must also consider that the present theory predicts that black holes will explode at the end of their lifetimes as they evaporate. No spikes of energy of this nature has been observed and yet there should some if the theory is correct. We must also consider that CERN should have produced black holes at the energy levels they have employed and no black holes have been created. This was not expected.

Black stars paper.
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.03853.pdf>

A better solution to the runaway endpoint problem
<https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.044032>

The statistical trick and logic used to eliminate future black star merger observations

<http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/827/2/L38/meta;jsessionid=5902D1B053AA93E11FDDF2A02A79BFBF.ip-10-40-2-120>

The non-event of the Sagittarius A\* G2 collision
<http://earthsky.org/space/milky-ways-black-hole-more-active>

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: The 3.2 solar mass limit has nothing to do with the properties of neutrons. The stuff about evaporating black holes is not credible. The creation of black holes and observable Hawking radiation at CERN was not "expected". The stuff about binary black holes is bizarre. How do you think binary black holes are found?  

---

