Colliding black holes

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lukman

Guest
Is that true when 2 supermassive black holes collide will output an energy more than the entire galaxies in the universe are combined?<br />Why black holes are more powerful than a star alhough it was a star itself?<br />Will black holes die? Will it stop swallowing? Is the white hole theory is wrong? Is black hole always originated from a star?<br />Is black hole always come from dying star? what factors determine whether the dying star will end up as a black hole, a neutron star or a white dwarft or else? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Gravititational potential energy can be released quite quickly during the collision, and it is a very efficient process. Peak output would occur over a brief time period, too, so there would not be a sustained period when tremendous energies are being released.<br /><br /><br />I would assume most (all?) black holes in the universe are still growing (the mini ones still remain theoretical) and will continue to grow for a very long time. The universe will have to expand considerably to get the density of matter low enough for the black holes to finally stop ingesting. Additionally, as Hawking has pointed out, black holes have a characteristic temperature, inversely proportional to their mass. (the really big ones are colder). As long as a black hole is colder than the cosmic background radiation, they will still absorb that, even if totally deprived of matter. Once the CBR dissipates enough that black holes become warmer in comparison, the black holes will start to evaporate. This process takes a <i><b>very</b></i> long time.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
N

nexium

Guest
As usual Vogon13 gave good answers, however we do not have any near by black holes on which to test our current theories, so our theories will likely change over the decades, perhaps radically.<br />A few black holes will likely last a google years = 10E100. Less than 10E60 years is likely rare, except for micro black holes, if there are any micro black holes.<br />Possibly, some of the black holes were formed by mechanisms other than dying stars. Stars become neutron stars, or white dwarfs unless they are more than ten times the mass of our Sun. I believe that was 6 times a few decades ago, so the number may change again. Likely there are some other factors that change the threshold at least slightly and some experts think a quark star is possible at the threshold between neutron star and black hole.<br />Some have supposed that a neuton star (or white dwarf) hitting (direct hit) a nine solar mass star might delay the super nova by thousands of years and provide enough extra mass to produce a black hole later. The neutron star collision might force considerable fresh hydrogen from the stars exterior into the core. Such collisions are thought to be extreemly rare = one per billion years in a billion galaxies = just a wild guess<br />My guess is the white hole hypothesis is wrong. Neil
 
N

newtonian

Guest
vogon13 - Have we observed the collision of supermassive black holes?<br /><br />From what I understand from the standard model: most galaxies have supermassive black holes at their center. And there are many galactic mergers/collisions.<br /><br />Therefore, could any gamma ray bursters or similar phenomena be from such a collision?<br /><br />Is it possible for a collision of supermassive black holes to cause a spin rate at a certain radius that would be faster than light speed?<br /><br />I am assuming that you are assuming that our universe will not interact with another universe before thinning to the extent you are extrapolating to - ?
 
V

vogon13

Guest
I am not sure anything has been unequivocably attributed to such an event.<br /><br />But I have latent pyro tendencies and would love to observe one.<br /><br /><br />I'll try to remember to take some sun block . . . . <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
lukman - Mass is a determining factor in whether a star will become a black hole.<br /><br />Nexium correctly notes that stellar collisions can cause results quite different from the results if a star remains isolated. Stellar collisions are more common near galactic centers.<br /><br />My question is (I can't believe I forget this!): Does energy exert (propagate) gravity?<br /><br />That is involved in your questions, btw.<br /><br />E.g.: since our early universe was too hot for matter to exist, I assume the energy equivalent propagated gravity, and - if so - then energy black holes could have been spawned in the seconds after big bang due to the extreme density at that time.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
vogon13 - OK, have we modeled (with computers) the upcoming merger of Andromeda and Milky Way to determine if the two supermassive black holes at the centers will collide?<br /><br />Is there any firm estimate of the results of that merger from the core black holes on the Andromilkywayeda galaxy that will result?
 
V

vogon13

Guest
--------------------------------------------------<br />Does energy exert (propagate) gravity? <br />--------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The suns gravitational field, for instance, can be thought of as representing a great deal of energy. Energy is equivalent to mass via the famous equation, E=MC^2. Therefore, the suns gravitational field, <i>has a gravitational field of its' own</i>.<br /><br />Weird, huh?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
More specifically, photons would interact gravitationally with each other. (and us as well)<br /><br />But keep in mind, gravity is quite weak compared to the electromagnetic interactions that for the most part govern how photons interact, that measuring such a tiny force would be a trifle difficult.<br /><br /><br />It has been remarked upon that the initial flux of x-rays released in a nuclear weapon, would be palpable for a person immune to the dangers of attempting such intimate contact with the device.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
vogon13 - Yes, weird. Are you sure?<br /><br />In that case, could energy black holes have been propagated shortly after the big bang?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts