Jump to content

Ok stupid question, but I want to know if killing black holes are possible


Recommended Posts

I know black holes would eventually die to hawking radiation, but that takes a stupid amount of time, like a ton of time.

Is there some kind of technology or theory to kill a black hole with some kind of weapon, like even maybe a lazer that emits a ton of hawking radiation.

 

I'm curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd have to steal energy out of it somehow. If you made it so the space around the black hole was producing those particle pairs that lead to Hawking radiation in greater quantity, you could accelerate the process. But this:

Quote

You'd have to steal energy out of it somehow.

sounds a lot like an impossible statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, cubinator said:

You'd have to steal energy out of it somehow. If you made it so the space around the black hole was producing those particle pairs that lead to Hawking radiation in greater quantity, you could accelerate the process. But this:

sounds a lot like an impossible statement.

Granted, this has limits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the current understanding of physics- unlikely.

And the fact of possibility of existence of such dead corners (together with the perpetuum mobile of unlimited expansion ) illustrates how far is its current iteration from the real picture of the Universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NFUN said:

But what if we do it...

7 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

With a bigger black hole?

via the Penrose Process! Here is the idea. We drop the black hole we want to recycle into an even bigger black hole that is already rotating. The theoretical limit on how much angular momentum we can give it would actually convert 100% of the smaller black hole's mass into kinetic energy of the larger black hole. We can then use Penrose Process to extract that energy back from the ergosphere. Profit!

 

7 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:

like even maybe a lazer that emits a ton of hawking radiation

Thor Odinson on a pogo stick, can't you ask something simpler? You're basically asking if a medium consisting of black holes can lase. I mean, yeah, technically, as far as our understanding of these things goes, I guess it's an inverted population state if you have a matrix of black holes in a vacuum. Somehow. But I'm not touching that bag of Plank gremlins with a Hubble length pole until somebody sorts out quantum gravity. Lasing is inherently quantum, and we haven't even figured out how Hawking radiation squares with quantum nature of vacuum near event horizon, because our math for vacuum disintegrates near event horizon. You wouldn't think that'd be possible, and yet, here we are. So I propose we stick to simple topics, like warp drives and black hole dynamos and leave Hawking lasers to better times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have read once that more massive black holes "leak" Hawking radiation at a higher rate than lower mass black holes. So, if you accelerate a black hole to a substantial percentage of the speed of light (easy, right?) its relativistic mass increases and it evaporates through Hawking radiation faster than it would otherwise. This approaches fitting the definition of "killing" a black hole.

I'm sure there are reasons why this doesn't really work. For instance, (a) does relativistic mass count for this purpose?; (b) "faster than it would otherwise" may only apply in a frame of reference that isn't useful; (c) I'm an idiot; (d) ...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kerwood Floyd said:

I may have read once that more massive black holes "leak" Hawking radiation at a higher rate than lower mass black holes. So, if you accelerate a black hole to a substantial percentage of the speed of light (easy, right?) its relativistic mass increases and it evaporates through Hawking radiation faster than it would otherwise. This approaches fitting the definition of "killing" a black hole.

I'm sure there are reasons why this doesn't really work. For instance, (a) does relativistic mass count for this purpose?; (b) "faster than it would otherwise" may only apply in a frame of reference that isn't useful; (c) I'm an idiot; (d) ...

It's the other way around. The smaller the black hole, the faster it will "evaporate". I think this is basically due to surface-to-volume ratio, because the "Hawking radiation" happens at the surface of the event horizon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

It's the other way around. The smaller the black hole, the faster it will "evaporate". I think this is basically due to surface-to-volume ratio, because the "Hawking radiation" happens at the surface of the event horizon.

OK, thanks for the correction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2021 at 9:27 PM, mikegarrison said:

It's the other way around. The smaller the black hole, the faster it will "evaporate". I think this is basically due to surface-to-volume ratio, because the "Hawking radiation" happens at the surface of the event horizon.

Yes surface to volume is higher but the gravity gradient is far higher on an tiny black hole and I think that is more important for the virtual particle to escape 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Maxwell's Demon to interfere with the Hawking radiation could do awesome things.  Larry Niven had a bit in the book "Shipstar" about rotating black holes with opposite electric charge, to send messages on gravitational waves.  The Demon could not only decide which charges to cast back into the black hole, it could also create powerful magnetic fields by selecting charges to orbit permanently in the accretion disk, or setup powerful antimatter explosions by putting charges on eccentric orbits to collide at some future time.  I'm not sure if any of that would speed up the death of the black hole.  Not that anybody more serious than me or Niven has developed a theory for black holes with net electric charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pull the plug out of the sink, so all matter will fall through the hole wherever it should fall instead of collecting as a huge ball of unrecognizable junk.

Also, "black hole" is not a correct physical term. It should be called "clogged hole".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gravitational waves and gravity generators are beloved by SF writers as a way to get past speed of light issues.

Problem is, gravity waves and gravity do not actually propagate faster than the speed of light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem of the "black hole" theory is that the gravitation has only "plus" and no "minus" in the current picture of the Universe.

So, you can't prevent the Universe from agglutination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcubierre dive plans rely on negative mass don't they? Could you generate lots of negative mass and drop it into your black hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The Alcubierre drive needs it, not provides.

But it does in theory exist?

Edit: I only mentioned alcubierre because that is why I believe negative mass is theoretically possible.

Edited by tomf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...