Could a black hole ever explode?

[Floridian]

If, for instance, a black hole was losing matter to one or more other black holes, could there be a point where after enough matter was siphoned off, all the materials inside the black hole could extra spontaneously de-compress/expand or explode with heat/energy?

Or would the black hole just be sucked into the other black hole as a singularity? (how much of the mass is orbiting the black hole inside the event horizon and how much is actually inside the singularity or close enough?)

 

[FlatEarth]

The short answer is that black holes cannot lose matter to other black holes. They are, after all, singularities. Black holes can merge to create more massive black holes. I believe only one person has survived the merger of two black holes, and that person is Chuck Norris.

 

[ramparts]

No, and the very simple reason is that once matter is in a black hole, it can't get out pretty much by definition. For matter to leave the event horizon, it would need to travel faster than light which is, of course, impossible.

Chuck Norris excepted, of course.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

(how much of the mass is orbiting the black hole inside the event horizon and how much is actually inside the singularity or close enough?)

To answer this part ... all of the mass is in the singularity (or close enough if you don't believe in true singularities). Any matter inside the event horizon will eventually end up there. Mass outside of the BH's event horizon, orbitting or not, isn't considered part of the BH.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

If, for instance, a black hole was losing matter to one or more other black holes, could there be a point where after enough matter was siphoned off, all the materials inside the black hole could extra spontaneously de-compress/expand or explode with heat/energy?

Or would the black hole just be sucked into the other black hole as a singularity? (how much of the mass is orbiting the black hole inside the event horizon and how much is actually inside the singularity or close enough?)

I know my answer won't sit well with many readers here. But I must repeat my view on this matter.

A black hole, for this or that reason, must explode before it reaches its singularity. Our black hole math somehow missed this sceneario.

This is the only logical conclusion on 'end of a massive object' considering the type of physical universe we have, and observational skills we have.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

I know my answer won't sit well with many readers here. But I must repeat my view on this matter.

A black hole, for this or that reason, must explode before it reaches its singularity. Our black hole math somehow missed this sceneario.

This is the only logical conclusion on 'end of a massive object' considering the type of physical universe we have, and observational skills we have.

I missed your original statement re: this. Could you repeat the reasoning behind your conclusion above ?

 

[Couerl]

I believe only one person has survived the merger of two black holes, and that person is Chuck Norris.

Not only that, but he tosses black holes like a PhD. ceramicist on a potters wheel. :lol:

I love Chuck!

 

[ramparts]

If, for instance, a black hole was losing matter to one or more other black holes, could there be a point where after enough matter was siphoned off, all the materials inside the black hole could extra spontaneously de-compress/expand or explode with heat/energy?

Or would the black hole just be sucked into the other black hole as a singularity? (how much of the mass is orbiting the black hole inside the event horizon and how much is actually inside the singularity or close enough?)

I know my answer won't sit well with many readers here. But I must repeat my view on this matter.

A black hole, for this or that reason, must explode before it reaches its singularity. Our black hole math somehow missed this sceneario.

This is the only logical conclusion on 'end of a massive object' considering the type of physical universe we have, and observational skills we have.

You mean it won't sit well with the readers who think scientific views should be backed up by math and observation? Probably not. Why do you believe that? Do you think that a black hole can therefore never exist? What do you make of the observed objects which quite clearly look like black holes.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

You mean it won't sit well with the readers who think scientific views should be backed up by math and observation? Probably not. Why do you believe that? Do you think that a black hole can therefore never exist? What do you make of the observed objects which quite clearly look like black holes.

Observed? You mean 'observed symptoms of black holes'.
It is interesting there are many scientists who reject time travel, parallel universe, etc, for their impossibility, turns around and accept the the notion of objects becoming singularities.
No, I do not have a mathematical model or mathematical tool to back up my doubts about black holes, I'm presenting my views based on logic and properties of physical universe we experience everyday. Please note, I used the word 'doubts' not 'rejection'. I see one of the three possibilities for the fate of extremely massive objects in this universe:

1) An unknown properties of matter may prevent formation of this type of massive objects. One possibility is formation of unknown elements with peculiar properties in the cores of this objects due to extreme gravity.

2) Objects will proceed towards formation of black holes, as our theories say, but will explode long before theoretical singularity is reached

3) Objects will proceed towards formation of black holes, as our theories say, but at a certain stage the process will freeze long before it reaches the singularity, then it will transform into some unknown objects.

Our current observations may be the objects before they even reached possibilities (2) and (3).

 

[FlatEarth]

Observed? You mean 'observed symptoms of black holes'.
It is interesting there are many scientists who reject time travel, parallel universe, etc, for their impossibility, turns around and accept the the notion of objects becoming singularities.
No, I do not have a mathematical model or mathematical tool to back up my doubts about black holes, I'm presenting my views based on logic and properties of physical universe we experience everyday. Please note, I used the word 'doubts' not 'rejection'. I see one of the three possibilities for the fate of extremely massive objects in this universe:

1) An unknown properties of matter may prevent formation of this type of massive objects. One possibility is formation of unknown elements with peculiar properties in the cores of this objects due to extreme gravity.

2) Objects will proceed towards formation of black holes, as our theories say, but will explode long before theoretical singularity is reached

3) Objects will proceed towards formation of black holes, as our theories say, but at a certain stage the process will freeze long before it reaches the singularity, then it will transform into some unknown objects.

Our current observations may be the objects before they even reached possibilities (2) and (3).

Sorry, but the three ideas you posted are not exactly logical or scientific. There is no evidence or good theory to back up any of these possibilities. Black holes have not only been proven mathematically, but there are numerous examples of super massive black holes at the center of galaxies that have been detected and measured. Smaller stellar-sized singularities are more difficult to spot, but a few of them have also been located and measured.

If you could provide a link with scientific evidence to support your thoughts, that would help your case, but as it stands there is no basis for any of your ideas.

 

[ramparts]

Emperor - Your second possibility sounds silly for exactly the reasons I described earlier: once matter is inside its own event horizon, by definition even if it exploded it could never move fast enough to escape. Now, scientists aren't in general sold on the formation of a bona fide singularity; most physicists I know are waiting for a well-tested quantum gravity theory to weigh in on this. It's quite possible quantum effects preclude the formation of a singularity - this sounds like your possibilities 1 and 3, more or less - and that's pretty satisfactory because yeah, singularities are weird. Maybe nature doesn't allow them to form. General relativity is an incomplete description of the universe. That said, I'd call such an object a black hole anyway even if there isn't an actual singularity at the center. Why? Well, because it has all the exact same properties from the outside, and it even fits the name; it gives off no light, and sucks stuff in. From looking at a black hole from the outside we would be unable to tell whether there's a singularity or some sort of quantum-supported high density region in the center, so I say call 'em both black holes.

But no, black holes exploding still makes no sense

 

[PiotrSatan]

Observed? You mean 'observed symptoms of black holes'.
It is interesting there are many scientists who reject time travel, parallel universe, etc, for their impossibility, turns around and accept the the notion of objects becoming singularities.
No, I do not have a mathematical model or mathematical tool to back up my doubts about black holes, I'm presenting my views based on logic and properties of physical universe we experience everyday. Please note, I used the word 'doubts' not 'rejection'. I see one of the three possibilities for the fate of extremely massive objects in this universe:

1) An unknown properties of matter may prevent formation of this type of massive objects. One possibility is formation of unknown elements with peculiar properties in the cores of this objects due to extreme gravity.

2) Objects will proceed towards formation of black holes, as our theories say, but will explode long before theoretical singularity is reached

3) Objects will proceed towards formation of black holes, as our theories say, but at a certain stage the process will freeze long before it reaches the singularity, then it will transform into some unknown objects.

Our current observations may be the objects before they even reached possibilities (2) and (3).

Sorry, but the three ideas you posted are not exactly logical or scientific. There is no evidence or good theory to back up any of these possibilities. Black holes have not only been proven mathematically, but there are numerous examples of super massive black holes at the center of galaxies that have been detected and measured. Smaller stellar-sized singularities are more difficult to spot, but a few of them have also been located and measured.

If you could provide a link with scientific evidence to support your thoughts, that would help your case, but as it stands there is no basis for any of your ideas.

Okay then, wheres the scientific or logical explanation/possibility for that black holes never explode? Everything has to end once. Universe, I believe, is a perpetum mobile so it constantly generates mass and energy OR it has one amount of mass and energy that cannot change therefore if my second theory is right then black holes HAVE to explode, I have logical explanation for that, if black holes were always the same then by now we would be overriden by black holes as in the early universe supernovas occured often, stars were clustered together and one explosion could create at least few small black holes or at least put stars on their path towards it. Of course it is right considering that the "big bang" theory is right which I also doubt, but it is largely believed in, but I believe that the space always was and always will be without an end as it is the universe afterall... even if it will end I believe there are numerous of other universes which we will get to as our technology expands. You know like perpetum mobile theory (as sol has planets it is solar system, as super black hole has stars it is galaxy and as universe has galaxies it is also something?) but probably we will never know, at least not in our time of living.

 

[neuvik]

.... I believe, is a perpetum mobile so it constantly generates mass and energy OR it has one amount of mass and energy that cannot change therefore if my second theory is right then black holes HAVE to explode,......

If that gibberish was true we would find that black hole masses would be very disproportionate to galaxy bulge masses. Which we have not…and the rest is just gibberish.

 

[FlatEarth]

Okay then, wheres the scientific or logical explanation/possibility for that black holes never explode? Everything has to end once. Universe, I believe, is a perpetum mobile so it constantly generates mass and energy OR it has one amount of mass and energy that cannot change therefore if my second theory is right then black holes HAVE to explode, I have logical explanation for that, if black holes were always the same then by now we would be overriden by black holes as in the early universe supernovas occured often, stars were clustered together and one explosion could create at least few small black holes or at least put stars on their path towards it. Of course it is right considering that the "big bang" theory is right which I also doubt, but it is largely believed in, but I believe that the space always was and always will be without an end as it is the universe afterall... even if it will end I believe there are numerous of other universes which we will get to as our technology expands. You know like perpetum mobile theory (as sol has planets it is solar system, as super black hole has stars it is galaxy and as universe has galaxies it is also something?) but probably we will never know, at least not in our time of living.

Mr. Satan, I noticed that you like to call your ideas theories, but they really are just ideas. Theories are backed up by scientific data to establish their validity. Please correct this or I will order a military strike on your country. :lol:

ramparts explains very well why black holes cannot explode.

I don't know why you think black holes should dominate the universe. The gravity fields of black holes are limited, and the universe is a big place and is getting bigger. You may be right about the universe being comprised of other “universes”, but there is no evidence to support that idea. Observations support the Big Bang Theory, and I'm not aware of another explanation of why galaxies are uniformly moving away from each other.

 

[PiotrSatan]

Okay then, wheres the scientific or logical explanation/possibility for that black holes never explode? Everything has to end once. Universe, I believe, is a perpetum mobile so it constantly generates mass and energy OR it has one amount of mass and energy that cannot change therefore if my second theory is right then black holes HAVE to explode, I have logical explanation for that, if black holes were always the same then by now we would be overriden by black holes as in the early universe supernovas occured often, stars were clustered together and one explosion could create at least few small black holes or at least put stars on their path towards it. Of course it is right considering that the "big bang" theory is right which I also doubt, but it is largely believed in, but I believe that the space always was and always will be without an end as it is the universe afterall... even if it will end I believe there are numerous of other universes which we will get to as our technology expands. You know like perpetum mobile theory (as sol has planets it is solar system, as super black hole has stars it is galaxy and as universe has galaxies it is also something?) but probably we will never know, at least not in our time of living.

Mr. Satan, I noticed that you like to call your ideas theories, but they really are just ideas. Theories are backed up by scientific data to establish their validity. Please correct this or I will order a military strike on your country. :lol:

ramparts explains very well why black holes cannot explode.

I don't know why you think black holes should dominate the universe. The gravity fields of black holes are limited, and the universe is a big place and is getting bigger. You may be right about the universe being comprised of other “universes”, but there is no evidence to support that idea. Observations support the Big Bang Theory, and I'm not aware of another explanation of why galaxies are uniformly moving away from each other.

I call my ideas theories because it is as scientific as "big bang theory" means pulled out of finger. We will not know how universe was created with current knowledge. I understand something is called like "evolution theory" as it is backed up by lots of proofs and yet we call theory something like big bang. Why shouldnt I be able to call my ideas theories? What observations support big bang? We have been watching space for... 30 years? or something close to that. We do not know anything about space except for other bodies existing. How are you supposed to support big bang theory by a picture of... I dont know, a supernova remnant. It is just supernova remnant. How would that prove big bang to be scientifically correct and yet a theory? I think that black holes should rule the universe as in the first 1 bln years the blue giants, if our speculations are correct, would burn out and therefore create supernovas or turn into black holes and then all stars were clustered together so it wouldnt be hard for the blackholes to get all bodies mass around sucked in. They would probably get bigger and bigger as the mass would increase therefore they would ruin the whole universe before 3 bln years and yet we say our universe is ... 14 bln years or so, but also I have to admit my physics knowledge is pretty small, as I learn it only for 1.5 year.

And I would be happy if you nuked my country! I would finally see the end of fascist polish regime!! And I would find this song suitable! [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGdrMOttV_s[/youtube]

And of course I will call my friends to join the fun with you, american!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLcc19mt4eA[/youtube]

 

[neuvik]

I call my ideas theories because it is as scientific as "big bang theory" means pulled out of finger.

Your ideas were certainly pulled out of somewhere...a blackish, holeish sorta thing...

We will not know how universe was created with current knowledge. I understand something is called like "evolution theory" as it is backed up by lots of proofs and yet we call theory something like big bang. Why shouldnt I be able to call my ideas theories? What observations support big bang? We have been watching space for... 30 years? or something close to that. We do not know anything about space except for other bodies existing. How are you supposed to support big bang theory by a picture of... I dont know, a supernova remnant. It is just supernova remnant. How would that prove big bang to be scientifically correct and yet a theory? I think that black holes should rule the universe as in the first 1 bln years the blue giants, if our speculations are correct, would burn out and therefore create supernovas or turn into black holes and then all stars were clustered together so it wouldnt be hard for the blackholes to get all bodies mass around sucked in. They would probably get bigger and bigger as the mass would increase therefore they would ruin the whole universe before 3 bln years and yet we say our universe is ... 14 bln years or so, but also I have to admit my physics knowledge is pretty small, as I learn it only for 1.5 year.

Ugh...you are the master at weapons grade gibberish. We have observations like the cosmic back ground radiation to support the big bang theory...as well as a bunch of other stuff you would know of if you spent some time using the search feature on this site. You ideas are ideas....not theories.

Also what do those vids have to do with physics....?

 

[PiotrSatan]

I call my ideas theories because it is as scientific as "big bang theory" means pulled out of finger.

Your ideas were certainly pulled out of somewhere...a blackish, holeish sorta thing...

We will not know how universe was created with current knowledge. I understand something is called like "evolution theory" as it is backed up by lots of proofs and yet we call theory something like big bang. Why shouldnt I be able to call my ideas theories? What observations support big bang? We have been watching space for... 30 years? or something close to that. We do not know anything about space except for other bodies existing. How are you supposed to support big bang theory by a picture of... I dont know, a supernova remnant. It is just supernova remnant. How would that prove big bang to be scientifically correct and yet a theory? I think that black holes should rule the universe as in the first 1 bln years the blue giants, if our speculations are correct, would burn out and therefore create supernovas or turn into black holes and then all stars were clustered together so it wouldnt be hard for the blackholes to get all bodies mass around sucked in. They would probably get bigger and bigger as the mass would increase therefore they would ruin the whole universe before 3 bln years and yet we say our universe is ... 14 bln years or so, but also I have to admit my physics knowledge is pretty small, as I learn it only for 1.5 year.

Ugh...you are the master at weapons grade gibberish. We have observations like the cosmic back ground radiation to support the big bang theory...as well as a bunch of other stuff you would know of if you spent some time using the search feature on this site. You ideas are ideas....not theories.

Also what do those vids have to do with physics....?

My ideas might be gibberish, but you havent explained WHY are they gibberish from scientific point of view so in your face! And seems like you've got reading problem, read the post before mine or at least read the quotation in my post and you will understand.

 

[neuvik]

My ideas might be gibberish, but you havent explained WHY are they gibberish from scientific point of view so in your face! And seems like you've got reading problem, read the post before mine or at least read the quotation in my post and you will understand.

There is nothing to explain in regards to your ideas because there is no science behind them...so, it's gibberish.

Edit: Read my first reply to you. You linked black hole explosions to an increase in mass (but with appalling English and lack of knowledge.) I remarked that we have not observed this with super massive black holes, and that their mass is proportional to the galactic bulge mass (of their prospective galaxy).

Care to point out the reading problem? Granted I have a hard time understanding what you say with all the grammatical errors and unscientific bologna. If its the videos, I saw what Flatearth said...and I still think the videos don't have a place in the Physics folder. That type of behavior is reserved for Freespace, and the Unexplained.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Emperor - Your second possibility sounds silly for exactly the reasons I described earlier: once matter is inside its own event horizon, by definition even if it exploded it could never move fast enough to escape. Now, scientists aren't in general sold on the formation of a bona fide singularity; most physicists I know are waiting for a well-tested quantum gravity theory to weigh in on this. It's quite possible quantum effects preclude the formation of a singularity - this sounds like your possibilities 1 and 3, more or less - and that's pretty satisfactory because yeah, singularities are weird. Maybe nature doesn't allow them to form. General relativity is an incomplete description of the universe. That said, I'd call such an object a black hole anyway even if there isn't an actual singularity at the center. Why? Well, because it has all the exact same properties from the outside, and it even fits the name; it gives off no light, and sucks stuff in. From looking at a black hole from the outside we would be unable to tell whether there's a singularity or some sort of quantum-supported high density region in the center, so I say call 'em both black holes.

But no, black holes exploding still makes no sense

There was a recent Scientific American which discussed how very compact objects might form just short of what we'd call a black hole (true singularity). Now I'm not sure what the dividing line is between a quark star, black star, fuzz ball and a BH but from far enough away they're going to look the same. IIRC the argument was that if an object that was just borderline massive enough to form a BH went that route, and if the collapse was slowed enough, then the vacuum polarization leads to values for the renormalized stress energy tensor that prevent the collapse to a true singularity. I'll have to retrieve the article from the "reading room" and post back some of the pertinent points the authors we're trying to make. You can peruse the intro here ....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -not-holes


Still BH's don't explode but rather evaporate.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

... but also I have to admit my physics knowledge is pretty small, as I learn it only for 1.5 year.

You should read some of SpeedFreek's excellent posts re: the evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory and then you'd understand why the BB is called a theory and why your ideas aren't. When you can propose a competing idea that explains all the present BBT does and show how that idea is more likely correct ... then you can call your idea a theory.

For starters ...
1) Explain the observed redshifts.
2) Explain the observed SN1A light curves (time dilation)
3) Explain the observed corellation between galactic diameters and redshift
4) Explain the observed cosmic backround radiation.

 

[kelvinzero]

I just skim read so sorry if someone has already mentioned this.

I think there is a reasonably accepted belief that if the universe just keeps on expanding indefinitely then eventually black holes will begin to evaporate using hawking radiation, faster than they pull new mass in.

The smaller they get, the faster they will evaporate until finally they will effectively explode, releasing all their remaining mass as energy in a fraction of a second.

This would be at some vast distance into the future though.

You might also find this interesting:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 ... n-yet.html

 

[dryson]

No, and the very simple reason is that once matter is in a black hole, it can't get out pretty much by definition. For matter to leave the event horizon, it would need to travel faster than light which is, of course, impossible.

Traveling faster than the speed of light is not an impossibility, X rays have been observed leaving a black which would make them traveling fater than the speed of light.

If enough matter were drawn into the blackhole at one time it might be possible for the blackhole to 'explode'. This would require thousands of planets and suns to be present within the radius of the blackhole when it collapsed.

We cannot say for certain whether or not this possible as we have never witnessed such an event to measure whether it is real or not. Science is also about speculation's, speculation's that must aris to keep the mind thinking otherwise science dies.

 

[MeteorWayne]

No, and the very simple reason is that once matter is in a black hole, it can't get out pretty much by definition. For matter to leave the event horizon, it would need to travel faster than light which is, of course, impossible.

Traveling faster than the speed of light is not an impossibility, X rays have been observed leaving a black which would make them traveling fater than the speed of light.

.

Balony.

 

[tam8ttec]

Well i might have to disagree with some of you...yes it can, the one in Geneva, Switzerland.....the hadron collider :shock:

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

No, and the very simple reason is that once matter is in a black hole, it can't get out pretty much by definition. For matter to leave the event horizon, it would need to travel faster than light which is, of course, impossible.

Traveling faster than the speed of light is not an impossibility, X rays have been observed leaving a black which would make them traveling fater than the speed of light.

I believe X rays have been seen leaving the vicinity of a BH, more specifically, from the matter being torn asunder and bashed together outside of the event horizon. I've yet to hear anyone claim X rays came from within the event horizon.