Posted on 07/18/2015 1:39:54 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Video—What if there was a black hole in your pocket?
Could you survive being close to a black hole the size of a nickel? Seriously though, how grisly would your death be and what would such a phenomena mean for the future of the Earth?
A new video from the folks at Kurz Gesagt posted July 16 tries to answer those questions with some helpful animations. The video explores a few different assumptions, as the impact of the black hole would depend on whether its size was based on the mass or width of a nickel. Either way, if a black hole developed anywhere near you, you would certainly die, but the impact on the Earth would be drastically different.
The video argues that a black hole with the mass of a nickel would radiate away all of its mass almost instantly, leading to an explosion about three times bigger than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Needless to say, that would devastate a good portion of the Earth, but it's nowhere near as destructive as a black hole that's as wide as a nickel.
A black hole as wide as a nickel would be slightly more massive than the Earth, and would devour the entire thing, leaving nothing but a flat disk of hot rock in its wake. The black hole would then take the Earth's place orbiting around the sun, but not before sending several asteroids into the solar system to crash into various planets for the next few million years.
But you and the rest of humanity will be long dead by then, so what happens after that really doesn't concern us, right? Watch the video above to get a better sense of black-hole science and why we should thank our lucky stars that the likelihood of such an event happening on or near Earth is astronomically small.
Thor. Not Thorn.
Supposedly in Star Trek TNG Romulian ships are powered by a quantum singularity which is another way of saying a mini-black hole. As this video shows that’s not possible. Fusion and anti-matter/matter power is much more scientifically realistic.
Diameter of the black hole is measured by how far from the singularity, point of infinite density, light does not escape.
Good information, the lesson to be learned here is that if you find a black hole in your pocket, leave it there and try to stuff it with lint and kleenex.
The tines the power of Hiroshima would devastate a good portion of the earth? Got it. This is obviously real physics.
The mass of a black hole is finite. The radius of a non-rotating black hold is distance at which light cannot escape it’s gravity, the Schwartzschild radius. The Schwartzschild radius for a black hole with the mass of the earth would be about 9 mm and its density would be 2 x 10^27 grams/cm3.
Ordinary matter does not easily form black holds because electrons do not like getting squeezed together, (due to Pauli’s exclusion principle, not merely electrical charge, having protons around doesn’t change that). It takes the gravitational collapse of a very massive star, much bigger than the sun, to form a black hole, which is why small black holes are unlikely to exist.
What keeps much more common dark matter from forming black holes? We do not know what dark matter is, much less anything about its quantum mechanical properties. Apparently the Universe has not collapsed into a black hole, so something must be preventing it.
I believe the mention of “diameter” referred to the event horizon.
A teaspoon full of a neutron star would weight 55×10^6 long tonnes. A black hole the size of the earth would be about 40% smaller in volume, and weight about 6 x 10^21 long tonnes.
I didn’t necessarily mean infinite mass, though it may as well be. Regardless of the mass of a black hole, whether it be a million suns or a billion or a trillion, there doesn’t seem to be a limit, but its size is still less than a proton.
The Schwartschild radius of a black hole with the mass of the earth would be 9mm, about 1/3 of an inch, considerably bigger than a proton. A black hole with infinite mass would have an infinite Schwartschild radius, everything would be inside it. Such objects are theological, not physical.
The mass of a black hole definitely matters, because of their effects on their neighbors.
Oddly, the density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of its mass; a black hole with the mass of the universe would be about the size of the universe.
One could argue that if the universe were closed (and will ultimately collapse back on itself) that it is a black hole, and we’re inside it. We can’t know of anything outside it, ‘the observable universe’, yet things aren’t necessarily too shabby here.
By "diameter," do you perhaps mean Schwarzschild Radius? Because a Black Hole with the mass of our Sun would have a Schwarzschild Radius of 3 km.
Do you know what you're talking about?
Regards,
I saw a show the other day about black holes...they theorized that at the center of every universe is a black hole the universe rotates around...
I thought it was a interesting theory...
Any comments ?
They are. What they're talking about is the event horizon having the diameter of a nickel.
That is weird, but interesting. I presume it might have to do with gravity being such a weak force. The more mass, the more difficult it is to hold it all together.
That's because while infinities are very common in mathematics, no infinities actually exist anywhere in reality.
True. . . but the event horizon can be the diameter of a nickel. There is where the blackness supposedly starts. . . But what color is it one inch away? 1/8 of an inch away? Light would be pulled and they lensed away. . . I doubt anyone could see the blackness. . . if they exist. All descriptions of being a "black hole" are based on the erroneous idea that light will spiral in, or all light comes in perpendicular to the surface and once it's entered, it cannot escape the gravity well. However, any light that does not cross the event horizon escapes. If "Black" holes exist, I would maintain that they glow brightly from every bit of light they do not capture. The larger they are, the brighter they would be, lensing more light in their neighborhood.
No, stormhill, it wouldn't. Think about it. If our hypothetical black hole doesn't evaporate, it would have accumulated only the mass of the Earth. . . and the tail cannot wag the dog. Or, in other words, the mass of the Earth cannot force the mass of the Sun to orbit the Earth.
While our black hole/Earth may have gained angular momentum within itself, by pulling more mass into a smaller volume (think spinning ice skater), but there is no way that that mass has any effect on the orbit of where it is. That angular momentum has added absolutely no speed to the orbital velocity.
The apparent G force 4,000 miles away from the new center of gravity will be exactly 1G, the same as it was when the mass occupied that entire volume. The G force of that mass 240,000 miles away will be exactly the same face that currently keeps the Moon captive in its orbit . . . and the Moon will notice no change in its orbit. . . and the G force of the black hole/Earth will be exactly the same 93,000,000 miles away and the Sun will notice no change on the tidal forces exerted on it from the new black hole/Earth orbiting in the same position that Earth once occupied by itself. Similarly, the new black hole/Earth will nave no more effect on the near Earth asteroids than did the previous Earth did. The scientists claiming it would are exhibiting very fuzzy thinking.
The Sun and the Earth already orbit each other to a certain extent, however, the Earth's effect on the Sun is minuscule while the Sun's effect on the Earth is far larger than than the Earth's. The center of orbit of this Earth/Sun system is inside the Sun because of the overwhelming mass of the Sun.
As this hypothetical Earth swallowing black hole accumulates more mass, these orbital effects on the Sun will eventually switch places, but not until the mass of the black Hole/Earth exceeds that of the Sun.
Eons later, when they are equal, they will orbit a point half way between the two. . . perturbing the rest of the planets, but Venus and Mercury most. It's likely Mercury would still orbit the Sun, but Venus would eventually be pulled into an untenable orbit and may either be pulled into an orbit around black hole/Earth or even sent off to orbit both or lost completely by being sling shotted out of the joint system. Any of these scenarios is possible. It would take millions if not billions of years for this black hole/Earth to accumulate enough mass to perturb much from what mass is in our general area to do anything in our solar system. Its gravity well simply is not strong enough as it still is the same as Earth's. Close enough to it, it's deadly. . . but far away, it's not a risk. As I stated above, if it stays the exactly same mass as the Earth, it would not even perturb the orbit of the Moon, because at the distance of the Moon, the gravity that holds the Moon in orbit would be the same, because the mass is still there, just occupying an infinitely smaller volume.
Some day, in the far future, the black hole/Earth and Sun will get close enough together for the gravity pull of the black hole/Earth to exceed the escape velocity of the Sun and the material of the Sun will start flowing from that body into the black hole/Earth and the end will be very quick as astronomical times go. . . say five to ten thousand years to eat substance of the sun. That is a much more realistic scenario.
I think that the error of science is to think that black holes exist at all.
I agree there is no magical substance as dark matter. . . or magical energy such as dark energy that modern cosmologists need to invoke to get their theories to work. But they also need to invoke black holes to get their system to work as well. . . and they've discovered that their own theories require that black holes LEAK. . . and cannot be self sustaining.
In fact, one of their requirements for a black hole to exist, a spiral orbit, just doesn't exist unless there is a medium to bleed orbital velocity and star formation by accumulation of "gasses" also has never seen to work or can they explain how it could possibly work. Such scenarios are contrary to Boyle's Laws.
I am a proponent of an alternative cosmology that explains things better, has a far better track record of making predictions on future discoveries, doesn't require the invocation of any of those magical creatures to explain what we see and discover, and finally is reproducible in the microcosm in the plasma laboratory and is scalable from the microcosm to the macrocosm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.