Black Hole powered interstellar flight

[why06]

This may seem very crazy but if possible a ship with a blackhole for an engine could have an exhaust speed of near light speed and would need little fuel.I have the hole thing figured out and it's really very simple.<br /><br /><br /><font color="orange">Step one:<font color="white"><br />In order to initially produce the hole we would gather dust from a nuetronstar.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="orange">Step two:<font color="white"> <br />There are two ways of doing this...<br /><br /><font color="green">1.<font color="white">In one a particle accelerator is created that continiuosly launch the star dust. when they collide small black holes are created over and over again. Due to the steepness of the dent in space-time there will be a greater amount of matter colliding with its antimatter counterpart causing the black hole to explode. This initial propulsion will propell the ship.<br /><br /><font color="green">2.<font color="white">The second form will deal with forming one relatively large black hole. From here the hole will act like a galactic scamjet. Matter will be forced in threw an opening and put on a correct trijectory, enabaling the incoming particles to sling shot around the super-dense point and propelled outward at near-light speeds in a quasar.<br /><br /><font color="orange">Step Three:<font color="white"><br />Cruise across the solar system and back in time for dinner.<br />The great thing about this concept is it serves as a multi purpose device. Say a dynamo or generator. Trash could be thrown down and shot up at break neck speeds turning a generator.<br /><br /><font color="red">So what do you think!<font color="yellow"></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

1- I assume you mean get dust from a neutron star. This would be impractical as removing the ultradense matter would mean no more compressive force so it will go bang.<br /><br />2- I am assuming that you are somehow refering to hawking radiation. The energy that you get out ould be far less than put in.<br /><br />Any matter passing the large black hole will be accelerated and then deccelerated, resulting in no net force.<br />The Sling shot maneuver requires the centre of gravity of the system to be moving perpendicular to the direction of acceleration. In this case it is not.

 

[qso1]

I may be wrong about this but I think the nearest black hole is at the center of our galaxy some 20 or 30 thousand light years away. Its also a supermassive black hole. Point being, one first has to get the black hole to harness it for the engine of your ship which defeats the purpose of your proposal. That is, unless there are black holes of much smaller mass at much closer distances. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[why06]

I've been reading up some and Hawking radiatio changes due to the curvature of space-time. Basically the bigger the black Hole the gentler the bend in space time. A super-massive BH would create little anti- matter/matter reactions, while a small BH would greatly bend space time at one spot. Therefore the small microscopic black holes I'm producing may come off as nothing more than a smal explosion. Even so the energy-to-mass ratio of these small Black Holes would dwarf the super-massive. Because I'm creating thousands of these holes a minute it would be nearly as fuel efficient as anti-matter.<br />Also plese explai your self in these two quotes<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><font color="blue">"This would be impractical as removing the ultradense matter would mean no more compressive force so it will go bang."<br /><br /><font color="orange">"The Sling shot maneuver requires the centre of gravity of the system to be moving perpendicular to the direction of acceleration. In this case it is not"<font color="yellow"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></font></font></font></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

qso1,<br />First of all I'm not trying to take stardust out of a pre existing black hole as that would be impossible to my current understanding. What I stated was I would take super-dense matter from a small nuetron star. Than I would collide the matter together at high velocities creating a very small black hole.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

why06, would you be able to elaborate on your method for getting your super dense dust out of the neutron star?

 

[why06]

I'm not saying that we may use this to travel space, I'm just trying to say that once we get to a nuetron star it may be possible.<br /><br />I'm planning to get the dusk by just scooping it up from a white dwarf or nuetron star. And itat doesn't work I'll blow it's particles into the air first. There are a number of ways to do this.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

I don't really see a problem with this idea. When one plan fails the other suceeds. Plus it would be nearly as fuel efficient as anti-matter and that's saying something.<br /><br />Does this make sense or are there more problems to my design?What does question me is why the sling shot manuever cannot work, because I was planning to use the larger one.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Neutron star material is only neutron star material because gravity condenses all of the subatomic particles into neutrons. If you take away the intense gravitational field the matter will expand (more like explode!) back to its normal state. In other words there is lower limit to the size of the neutron star. Too little mass and it won't have enough gravitational force to squeeze the atoms down into neutrons. (When you squeeze an electron and a proton together the opposite charges cancel out and you get neutral particle a little heavier than a proton--a neutron.)

 

[aaron38]

Tomnackid,<br /><br />Is that true? Does matter have memory? A proton and electron get squished into a neutron... isn't that information lost?<br /><br />Why don't the neutrons in my coffee cup explode into protons and electrons then?

 

[why06]

I don't think matter can be fused and then come back to its normal state. Anyway all I really need is just some ultra-dense matter which I can ram together to create a black hole. I was just offering one way in which to get this material other than it being man- made. if we had a teaspoon of this material the ship could run for decades. As a matter of fact this maybe one of the few ways to mass produce anti-matter. Any way I don't believe a solid would expand like that.Just like a rock doesn't expand when taken into orbit, but if you were right and it did explode that's all the better. That would take out the need to create a black hole and I could power the ship by the sudden expansion of the material and all I would have to worry about is containment.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Three words:<br /><br />Pauli Exclusion Principle.

 

[why06]

The What!<br /><br />Could you put down a link to that or something? <font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

It basically states that fermions can not be in the same state at the same time. A 'state' can also be roughly summed up as in the same place. <br /><br />Neutrons in the neutron star are balancing out gravitational energy and the nuclear force (weak/strong can't remember). When you remove the gravity from the equation the neutrons will accelerate away from each other.<br /><br />Think of it of pushing your hands together with equal force, your hands don't move, but if you push less with one hand then they will move. Its the same here but with gravity as one hand and the repulsive force as the other.

 

[skyone]

You don't need a link. Look it up in an intro to chemistry textbook (i'm not kidding you! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />). <br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />The What! <br /><br />Could you put down a link to that or something?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>

 

[why06]

Okay, Okay I get it..<br />But that still doesn't make sense. <br /><br /><br /><font color="orange">If that was the case why wouldn't things fly apart as the leave earth's atomosphere? <br /><font color="white">Does this nuetron dust have a natural urge to spread out even though it is a solid? <br /><font color="orange">If there is a danger about this material exploding couldn't I simply charge the material?<br /><font color="white"> And when this dust explodes will their sub atomic particles really turn from nuetrons into electrons and protons? <br /><font color="orange">If a nuetron star had no electrical charge how could it have magnetic poles?<font color="yellow"> <br /><br /></font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

Things don't fly apart as they leave the earths atmosphere because matter at our scale is held together by electro-static forces not gravitational forces. However gravity becomes important in a neutron star when a mass the size of the sun collapses to around 15km across.<br /><br />If you charge the material then you would just be adding a force to push the material apart. Like charges repel and all.<br /><br />Actually after the neutron 'dust' explodes it would decay into protons, electrons and neutrinos. Neutrons on their own are only stable for a very short period of time. IIRC even in an atom they have a half life of 10^30 years, meaning that even solid matter will fall apart given time.<br /><br />I don't know why some neutron stars have very strong magnetics fields. It may be due to plasmas falling into the star. Unknown effects inside the star. The star could have a charge but it would not be large enough to have much of an effect on the star.

 

[why06]

Thaks for the response <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I was really looking forward to some one answering those questions.<br /><br /><br />Even so........ I said there were many possible ways to contain this material such as with anti-gravity. But if all those fail, like I said we could always choose a less dense material such as from say a REALLY Big white dwarf made from a very small star.<br />Also I simply stated it might be neat to charge the one specific peace of dust we were extracting so that it might replace the gravity of the star allowing it not to explode. and because I think electromagnetics can effect gravity.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

No, there are closer black holes. The first discovered was found orbiting a blue giant in Cygnus called HDE 226868, and is known as "Cygnus X-1". It is about 11000 light years away from Earth. The currently closest known black hole to Earth is 1600 ly from Earth, in Sagitarius: <br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v4641_microquasar_000114.html<br /><br />Stephen Hawking proposed that there would have been 'quantum black holes' after the big bang, but demonstrated that such would have rapidly evaporated in rapid and total bursts of energy converting all their mass to energy.<br /><br />It is this sort of reaction that I think would make a feasible interstellar ship: if you construct thermonuclear bombs capable of creating small quantum black holes with their implosions, the mass imploded inside the Schwartzilde radius will rapidly rebound in a massive explosion converting all of the mass in it to energy. Normal fusion explosions convert only a very tiny amount of the mass of its fuel into energy, essentially the atomic mass difference between 2 deuterium atoms and 1 Helium atom is converted to energy, less than .01% of the total atomic mass. A black hole bomb would convert 100% of the atomic mass to energy, much like would happen with anti-matter/matter reactions.<br /><br />For this reason, I believe that black hole bombs used in Orion class starships will be the route to the stars, avoiding the expensive and inefficient process of producing anti-matter.<br /><br />Additionally, they would be very useful in destroying entire astroids or comets on collision courses with Earth.

 

[why06]

Thanks for the reply, would you happen to know where the nearest nuetron or white dwarf star might be?<br />Another question... would these quantum black hole bombs produce any radioactive waste or would it be a "clean bomb"?<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

I would not consider them to be useful on Earth in any way whatsoever. The required fusion reactions would likely rank in the tens to hundreds of megatons, alone, and the black hole evaporation explosions would likely be thousands of times more explosive than that. Using one on Earth would likely crack the planet open.<br /><br />That being said, if you are close enough to worry about fallout, you are not going to be around afterward.... If you are on an Orion starship using this sort of device, you are going to be so far away from the explosion that the issue of fallout is immaterial. Besides, it's in space: there is no such thing as a radiation free environment in space. <br /><br />The closest white dwarf I know of is Sirius B, about 8 ly away. Not sure where the closest neutron stars are, but I suspect they are not much further, maybe 20-30 ly away.

 

[why06]

Aha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />See a white dwarf is only eight light years away. making ultra-dense material not to hard to get. And if a simple bomb is that dangerous imagine how far and fast a ship could go with a small limited supply of White dwarf dust. We could be cruising the galaxy with this method of anti-matter/ matter reactions before the turn of the century!!! An Orion starship could make the journey to the star and return with a new kind of fuel source.<font color="yellow"><br /></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

My only problem with your "white dwarf dust" is that its existence isn't supported by physics or astronomical observations (besides the fact it sounds like "pixie dust"). Getting to Sirius B in the first place would also be a problem... 8 ly = 80 years at 10% of c. Saying its "not hard to get" is a vast understatement, and, as I said, anti-matter is far less efficient than using black hole bombs.<br /><br />What exactly do you think is so unique about "white dwarf dust", other than that it sounds queer.

 

[why06]

Nothing just that it's dense enough to make substantial black holes and closer than a nuetron star. And what are you talking about! When I say "dust " I am just refering to the material of a white dwarf. If a white dwarf exist it has to be made of something?<br /><br />Just to add on, I'm surprised to hear this blackhole would be stronger than anti-matter as that was not my first goal in this thread. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="red">And what do you have against pixies? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><font color="yellow"></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Firstly, you'd need 10 times the mass of our Sun to produce a 'substantial' black hole, i.e. one that has an appreciable lifetime.<br /><br />Getting the material of a white dwarf star from its surface is an impossible idea. A white dwarf star is essentially the remnant of a red or yellow dwarf that had gone nova, and is fusing higher elements above helium but doesn't have enough mass to collapse to become a neutron star or black hole. There is nothing unique about it, other than that it is very compressed by its own gravity field and very hot. Its composition is made up of all normal isotopes of many elements.<br /><br />When scientists talk about a teaspoon of white dwarf weighing many tons, that is a referent, not a claim that you can actually separate that sort of material from the white dwarf. Any tool you used to scoop up its material would automatically become part of the white dwarf.<br /><br />The black holes I'm talking about are quantum black holes: not large enough to last stably more than a very short period of time, i.e. not long enough to suck in more matter to grow into larger black holes. Such small black holes could be produced by immense explosions that imploded amounts of mass less than that necessary to become stable. <br /><br />When they evaporate from lack of more material to suck in, they would convert most of their mass into energy and, as another suggested, leptons, possibly other subatomic particles. In this, they would be as efficient in converting mass to energy as anti-matter is. <br /><br />The advantage is that it is likely easier to produce quantum black holes with implosions than it is to produce and store large quantities of anti-matter. Physicists are already designing a particle accelerator device that would produce small quantum black holes from relatively few atoms. My idea would scale this up into a detonation device, much as the Manhattan Project scaled up particle collidor research on fission into the atom bomb.<br /><br />These bombs