What happens if...

[Becks2k]

Okay so lets say you make a little blackhole, like ultra tiny one.... then you shine a bunch of lasers and crap on it and throw all sorts of energy into it.... does the energy basically just get stored? You could put like an infinite amount of energy into it and nothing would happen right?

Okay can you then like take some antimatter and throw it at the mini black hole... so it goes in there and it's gonna annaliate some matter... and if you throw enough in there isn't enough matter to keep it a black hole and all the energy excapes.

Could you do that?

Can you kill a black hole like that? That'd be neato.

So okay you take your mini black hole and its got whatever event horizon. And you shine bunch of lasers and crappies at it, not directly at teh center but just somewhere inside the event horizon. So then you take our antimatter and throw it in a little at a time and it'll keep killing some matter and so the blackhole will get a litlte smaller... so the event horizon decreases a little.. so all the light that was in an orbit in the change gets released! w00t a batter!

Anyways so now tell me why this won't work. =D

 

[rimshaker]

The information stored in a black hole is proportional to the area of its event horizon. The behavior of black holes follows the laws of thermodynamics.... namely entropy (order, organization). The 3rd law of thermodynamics basically says entropy never decreases, only increases in time. Black hole behavior is modeled after entropy, it can't decrease. Ahhh, but here's the kicker.... the laws of thermodynamics aren't foolproof 100% because they describe on a macroscopic scale, not on the quantum scale.

So if a black hole were to lose some 'information' inside of it, the entropy has to be accounted for with an increase in its event horizon area. And no, a black hole can't store an infinite amount of information. The amount of information stored is finite.... on the Planck scale. This goes for black holes or empty space, doesn't matter.

Now for your interesting theory :The antimatter you throw in there will destroy its corresponding particles, but it won't destroy the black hole because there are other remaining 'particles.' Black holes suck in everything, that includes light and gravity. I've never heard of the anti-photon or anti-graviton particles yet... have you?

 

[RSMemphis]

Energy and matter are equivalent.

If you throw anti-matter into the black hole, you will create a lot of high power photons, but they cannot escape. So, in the blackhole anti-matter/matter will be created out of those photons back and forth, until the photons have been absorbed by matter and put into thermal energy.

Something like this. Hard to tell what's really going on. Yes, you can store infinte amount of energy in a black hole - it just increases the mass.

Intriguing, no?

 

[rimshaker]

<< Energy and matter are equivalent.

If you throw anti-matter into the black hole, you will create a lot of high power photons, but they cannot escape. So, in the blackhole anti-matter/matter will be created out of those photons back and forth, until the photons have been absorbed by matter and put into thermal energy.

Something like this. Hard to tell what's really going on. Yes, you can store infinte amount of energy in a black hole - it just increases the mass. >>



Don't mean to sound offending, but it takes much more than E=mc^2 to completely describe a black hole, both physically and behaviorally. A black hole cannot store an infinite amount of energy or information.

 

[hinderson]

i do belive that rimshaker
is the smartest sounding person iv seen on these what if questions(if not a little dry)
however compleet quantum understanding STILL cant explaine the so called black hole/worm hole/event horizon/etc etc etc.
good luck
dont trip too many circut breakers tring to figuer it out.

 

[rimshaker]

<< i do belive that rimshaker
is the smartest sounding person iv seen on these what if questions(if not a little dry)
however compleet quantum understanding STILL cant explaine the so called black hole/worm hole/event horizon/etc etc etc.
good luck
dont trip too many circut breakers tring to figuer it out. >>



Everything won't and cannot be fully explained until the complete theory of quantum gravity (aka Grand Unification Theory) is formulated. The ultimate theory that encompasses General Relativity and Quantum mechanics (from stars/galaxies all the way down to electrons/quarks). Physicists and mathematicians are close, but still another few decades away, maybe even another 100 years. Just to keep everyone up to date on this, there are currently 3 major theories: 1)String theory, or M theory, 2)Loop Quantum Gravity, and 3)black hole thermodynamics. It's currently believed that a combination of all 3 contribute to this elusive theory of Grand Unification.

 

[figgypower]

I don't know about the size of an event horizon of a black hole... or destroying a black hole. However, Stephen Hawking suggested (and
maybe it's now a theory due to mathemetical evidence, or whatever) that it's possible for a black hole to die in a manner you suggested.
Normally, matter and anti-matter form in space out of pure randomness (from energy), and within less than nanoseconds they collide and
become energy once more. The interesting thing is that when such events take place around a black hole some wierd things happen. In
theory, this random formation of matter and anti-matter in space is divided when it's around a black hole. The anti-matter would get
sucked in and destory matter within the black hole and the matter would escape from this black. This is why, apparently, we have those
long streams of gas-like material being ejected from many black holes. Those are streams of escaped matter. This would mean that black
holes eventually die, even though it may take billions of years. Of course, the problem is that according to some really complicated math
black holes are infinite, but according to Stephen Hawking, they're not really.

EDIT: typos

 

[Locutus4657]

Ironically as far as I understand it... The smaller the blackhole the harder it would be too make... This would be because the smaller the blackhole the more powerfull it is.... But at anyrate I don't know how one would go about making a blackhole...

Carlo



<< Okay so lets say you make a little blackhole, like ultra tiny one.... then you shine a bunch of lasers and crap on it and throw all sorts of energy into it.... does the energy basically just get stored? You could put like an infinite amount of energy into it and nothing would happen right?

Okay can you then like take some antimatter and throw it at the mini black hole... so it goes in there and it's gonna annaliate some matter... and if you throw enough in there isn't enough matter to keep it a black hole and all the energy excapes.

Could you do that?

Can you kill a black hole like that? That'd be neato.

So okay you take your mini black hole and its got whatever event horizon. And you shine bunch of lasers and crappies at it, not directly at teh center but just somewhere inside the event horizon. So then you take our antimatter and throw it in a little at a time and it'll keep killing some matter and so the blackhole will get a litlte smaller... so the event horizon decreases a little.. so all the light that was in an orbit in the change gets released! w00t a batter!

Anyways so now tell me why this won't work. =D >>

 

[rimshaker]

Speaking of tiny black holes, here's an interesting thing to know:

In the Star Wars movies where they fight with light swords... how can light be stopped at a certain length?

Exactly, a small black hole has to exist to hold back that light somehow. Maybe there's a built-in black hole inside the sword handle

 

[Evadman]

<< Speaking of tiny black holes, here's an interesting thing to know:
In the Star Wars movies where they fight with light swords... how can light be stopped at a certain length?
Exactly, a small black hole has to exist to hold back that light somehow. Maybe there's a built-in black hole inside the sword handle >>



That would work. You could have a black hole in the handle, with some kind of directional containment field around it, so that it only "pulled" in one direction. Then right "above" it, you would have a photon / energy emitter. That would spew out the photons in a straight line, then they would slow, then come back. You would need some kind of one way reflector "above" the emiter that would reflect the energy back up ( like a bounce ) while not being crushed fron the energy of the black hole. Maybe something that is transparent to gravitons?

Only thing I could see, is that if you moved too fast, the photons / energy would miss the reflector and hit your shoes. That would leave a skuff.

 

[Shalmanese]

In the earlier episodes, they were shiny golw rods, in the last version, it was done in CGI.

Now, all we need is a CGI editor for RL .

 

[jwo7777777]

Everyone assumes that the "lightsabre" from Star Wars is light emitted from the handle. What is this based upon, a George Lucas exclusive interview or some "technical" book or explanation of the Star Wars universe?

Why couldn't it be a device that emits light as a side effect like a high voltage hot wire or stacked plasma or somesuch sci-fi explanation. That would explain the sabres' abilities to block other sabres and still look like columnar light.

I know, I know....it is a single molecular width string of carbon nanotubes energized to create and contain an infinite number of infinitely small black holes.

There.....I solved the problem.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

When you contemplate "lightsaber", think "cutting torch" and not "flash light". It might make groking the possibility a bit more feasable. One might be able to make a plasma knife.

 

[bbarnes]

Hmm, I really need to do something about this, I get lost in most of these HT threads...

 

[imgod2u]

On the part of the lightsaber. If you focused the beam of light so that it would only go up to a certain height before 2 opposing wavelengths canceled eachother (two or possibly even more wavelengths are emitted and are canceled at the tip of the saber), then the thing would only go a finite length. Of course, this is just speculation, but hey, it's Sci Fi.

 

[zephyrprime]

Doesn't light have a gravitational field?

 

[RSMemphis]

<< Don't mean to sound offending, but it takes much more than E=mc^2 to completely describe a black hole, both physically and behaviorally. A black hole cannot store an infinite amount of energy or information. >>



Whoops, did not follow the post around.

I never claimed it was that easy, and I never claimed that information was stored that way.
But yes, a black hole can store infinite energy, as far as our current knowledge of black holes is.

Check one of the recent publications on black holes in your library...

 

[454Casull]

Light has mass, and everything that has mass has a gravitational field. I think.

 

[rimshaker]

<< Check one of the recent publications on black holes in your library... >>



I have been... not from the library though. The current theory is going towards quantum gravity, where spacetime itself is actually finite and defined on a planck scale. If the concept of space can be defined in finite terms, then black holes must also be finite in nature. Therefore, black holes cannot store an infinite amount of information.

 

[RSMemphis]

Honestly, you just discredited yourself.
Because no one but you is talking about information. We are talking energy. Energy != information.

What do we know right now about black holes?

They happen when the gravitational pressure is high enough to overcome neutron degeneracy. (you are still following me, right?)
What happens after that, we do not fully know yet... Why? Because we do not know if there is, for example, a quark degeneracy (which is possible, but could not exist either). If there is, then there could be more than one state of black holes.
The basic point is that once you feed a black hole more energy/mass, the gravitational pressure increases. If there still are any degeneracies left, that stop the black hole from totally collapsing (not that a black hole does not have to be infinitely small, Earth compressed to about less than an inch would have an intact Schwartzschild radius - I assume you are still following me?), they would sooner or later break.

Adding mass/energy to a black hole make it just compress more densely, rather than the inverse.
Do you understand me now?

 

[RSMemphis]

[i}The anti-matter would get sucked in and destory matter within the black hole and the matter would escape from this black. This is why, apparently, we have those long streams of gas-like material being ejected from many black holes.[/i]

There are no long streams of gas like material ejected from many black holes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where did you get that idea?
The only thing that happens is some x-ray radiation from just outside the event horizon due to particles spinning into the black hole. Photons created just outside the event horizon can escape.

 

[RSMemphis]

The anti-matter would get sucked in and destory matter within the black hole and the matter would escape from this black. This is why, apparently, we have those long streams of gas-like material being ejected from many black holes.
Being finite on a small scale, agreed. Being finite on a large scale, not necessarily.
It is nowhere proven that a black hole has zero extension. It is one of the current hypothesis, but not proven.

Two scenarios:
1) Black holes have no extension. Period. Than, by what you are saying, they don't exist (Planck scale)
2) Black holes do have an extension. Then, by your understanding, their "space time size goes in steps of the Planck scale". THat does not prohibit them from being even infinitely large.

The point is: For one reason, black holes cannot have an infinite mass - there is no infinite mass in the universe.

Can you feed a black hole with as much as you want - I have not seen one single good argument against that assumption.
Is it possible that a black hole would break down and that I am wrong? Sure, but there is no proof for that yet.

That's all I am gonna say here.

 

[Agent004]

If the universe is defined on the planck's scale and it's finite, anything within the universe has a finite size.

Anything which is finite can not contain anything infinitely.

 

[rimshaker]

<< If the universe is defined on the planck's scale and it's finite, anything within the universe has a finite size. >>



Yes. That's all I was trying to get across here. I wasn't up for an actual black hole debate If everything in the universe ultimately has a finite scale, then nothing can physically realize an infinite value, other than from a purely mathematical standpoint.

So back to square one. RSMemphis said yes, a black hole can store an infinite amount of energy, it just increases the mass. Well.... wouldn't that ultimately lead to an infinite mass? And you yourself later said nothing in the universe can ever have infinite mass.

 

[figgypower]

<< Light has mass, and everything that has mass has a gravitational field. I think. >>



No, light has NO mass at all... just imagine if it had even the tiniest amount of mass - these photons are going about 186,200 miles per
SECOND. You'd die anytime you saw light! It's like microsized baseballs being chucked at you all over the place simultaneously, not to
mention at MUCH greater speeds.