Can you tear apart a black hole with an even more massive black

>>7994422
>Can you tear apart a black hole with an even more massive black hole?

If you assume that the mass really is compressed into a point-shaped singularity then no. At best you could warp the geometry of the event horizon but you can't get a gravitational gradient across a point and therefor can't tear parts off it either.

>>7994567

So what would happen if you put two black holes next to each other? Nothing?

>>7994606
They'd merge into a bigger black hole.

>>7994609

How big can a black hole get? Infinite? Would it break physics at a certain point?

While we're on stupid questions about black holes, what really would one do if it were to appear on earth, say from an accelerator or whatever. Would it be able to phase through the earth and sink straight to the core, would it head toward the sun or the center of the galaxy, or just suck everything up within a certain distance and stay relatively stationary?

>>7994640
It depends on its mass. And that's as far as my understanding of black holes go

>>7994422
infinity does have a magnitude so I'd say yes

one blackhole could be strong enough to tear apart another's event horizon

Can a black hole explode?

>>7994637
I'll be honest, I'm just a high school autist(like at least half of /sci/) who likes physics and I'm quite uneducated about this, so the reply is basically my best guess. It'd be great if someone informed would show up in the thread, cause this is an interesting discussion topic. So, I guess, theoretically, its size shouldn't have a limit. It's highly unlikely that a black hole could "break physics" simply because the amount of time it would take for a hole that big to form is basically infinite.

File: black.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>7994640

a small one doesn't exist
you need a certain mass to trap light and to appear black

>>7994709
By small one I assume you're talking about mass, since a (near at least) point would have (close to or exactly) zero volume, and therefore (possibly approaching) infinite density at any positive mass.

Guys seem to not know what a black hole is. The event horizon is just a place close enough to the black hole where light cannot ever escape. An observer could pass the event horizon without even knowing it was there. The black hole itself is a mass of almost infinite density, which generates an intense gravitational field.

>>7994709
The smallest possible black hole has a radius of the Planck length, but would evaporate almost instantly.

>>7994746
>zero volume, infinite density

than it'd be a singularity, like the Big Bang

no, they are a more common object
I think that if a red giant collapse too fast it creates a white dwarf just... a bit too dense and heavy

>>7994786
Planck length is not any more physically significant than an inch is. It's literally just an arbitrary unit of measurement.

>>7994640
Well firstly, given currently attainable magnetic field strengths you would need an accelerating ring a little over a thousand light years wide in order to get particles up to the energies where black holes may form, and you probably couldn't really count that as 'on Earth'.

But even if you did, such small black holes would very rapidly decay via Hawking radiation and definitely wouldn't destroy the Earth.

>>7994875
The Planck scale has everything to do with black holes and is physically significant, unlike arbitrary imperial measurements.

I thought black holes were simply a point of non energy. Elections and charges all stripped from whatever wanders near enough allowing the mass to settle on top of each other not unlike a ball of sand, only of atoms or whatever.

Since there's no energy, nothing has what's necessary to hold a form or emit/carry wave signals. Such a process from my understanding would be highly radioactive as well.

So to answer, there's nothing to tear apart. It's a ball of non energy. Should a charge ever return to the mass, the rapid expansion would probably be quite explosive.

>>7995024
Black holes retain the charge of whatever falls into it. Even waves and everything still exist, but the gravity is so strong that signals cannot escape. General relativity tells us that space-time is curved in proportion to the amount of mass (energy). There is so much curvature around a black hole that even light cannot 'climb' out of it.

>>7994709
CERN has very likely been creating lots of really really small blacks holes that evaporate near instantly. Any amount of mass can form a black hole so long as its radius is smaller than its Schwarzchild radius

>>7995096
Oh. That makes sense.
Although I don't think it's a fact that it can't 'climb' out of it, but rather it lacks the means of movement to do so.

Or maybe that's just semantics. I'll be honest I'm not 100% on how matter slows the rate at which things process, but I do understand the implications and results of the process.

If you've got a resource for how/why space time gets manipulated, that'd be awesome.

>>7995204
The point of a black hole is that past the event horizon there is no speed fast enough that will get you out of it. Light cant do it, and light goes as fast as you can go

>>7995212
Um... That's not how blackholes work. They aren't 'sucking you in faster than you could escape". They're simply halting the processes that constituate what makes matter, matter.

Time doesn't "stop" or whatever other nonsense, things just stop moving/working. Light is included, albeit my knowledge of photons/wavelengths are not as well fleshed out as matter.

The point is, there's nothing to propel something pased the 'event horizon' because it's at that point the object is dead. There is nothing left to it. Nothing moves down to the smallest observable phenomena that we know of.

It's litteraly a big ball of matter that's stopped moving. As things fall into it, they too slow down giving you 'relativity'. While to the individual affected by it, their processes are not perceptable slower, to them the rate at which they 'process their perception' remains the same, whereas an observer who is unaffected would be able to observe the individual moving much slower.

black holes are a meme and there is no evidence that they exist. No ones even seen one.

>>7995212

and as soon as you touch the surface, your atoms will be literally splattered all around it, and also disassembled, with protons, neutrons, etc. going to freeze side by side without any order
nothing is moving

>>7995262
This is rubbish. The radius of a Schwarzschild event horizon is basically the point where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.

>>7995329
You can't be talking about touching the event horizon, there is nothing to stop you passing the horizon however you can never reach a speed to move back out.

And tidal forces will tear apart any matter before it reaches the singularity, so idk.

>>7995336
A Schwarzchild Horizon and an event horizon of a black hole are different things, anon.

A scwarzchild horizon is a way of explaining more or less the 'atmosphere', if I may call it that, of a black hole.

The resting point of the matter is actually lower than the percieved event horizon. To what degree? I don't know, but Schwarzchild's math is supposed to reflect that somehow.

Where is it that things lose their mass anyhow? Is it ripped apart prior to the event horizon or do we merely lose sight of it without ever verifying it's destruction?

>>7995362
form* not mass. I miss spoke.

>>7995329
>>7995262
You are misunderstanding what an event horizon is. Its not a field that does anything, its just the distance at which escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. How violent crossing the horizon is depends on the mass of the black hole. A really big one you would be so far away from the centre when you cross the horizon that tidal effects would be weak and you wouldnt even notice, except that you could only see by looking up

>>7995356
What the hell are you talking about?

Do you even know?

>>7995362
The Schwarzchild radius is just a way of describing how much you need to compress a piece of mass before it undergoes gravitational collapses. Smaller than the radius and it does, bigger and it wont

>>7995372
You are seriously confused as to what the event horizon represents

>>7995376
Oh.
I'm mixing my shit up then, for that I apologize for not remembering who said this or that and what each thing was.

Anyhow, instead of naming names, A black hole is much less a 'hole' and more a collection of mass. There is a 'horizon' at which things cease to 'move' and I like how >>7995329 put it. You get ripped apart "spaghettified" and "splattered across the black hole as your disassembled protons, neutrons, etc... go to freeze side by side without any particular order". Almost like a ball of legos.

>>7995369
You wouldn't be able to see anything, even if you looked up. At best, you'd see the blackhole, everywhere you looked. Or if you looked straight up (away from the blackhole), and for all intents and purposes you've managed to remain intact to the point you could stand 'on' all of the matter that the black hole has collected, you'd simply observe yourself.

Assuming the black hole isn't spinning, that is. I admit I do not know exactly how the rotation of a black hole is different to something like the rotation of something like earth, but I've just been told it's different.

>>7994640
When you do your babby newtonian physics, you assume all the objects are point masses. Well, a tiny black hole really is a point mass, so you can expect if you made one on earth, it would "go for the sun" with similar vigor that a baseball does when you throw it.

>>7995362
The Schwarzchild radius is the event horizon simplest model of black holes. That is, nonrotating black holes without factoring in general relativity. However the way Schwarzchild determined this radius was by calculating the escape velocity of a gravitational field. So, the actual event horizon is not always calculated with the Schwarzchild radius. None of this changes the face that the event horizon is not the surface of the black hole, which itself is a tiny point of almost infinite density.

>>7995422
The event horizon is not the black hole, the black hole is an infinitely small point at the exact centre of the event horizon. Assuming the black hole was big enough not to rip you apart with tidal force at the event horizon you would be able to see any light falling towards the black hole that had crossed the event horizon, but only if you were facing away from the black hole in the centre. In effect the event horizon would seem to contract in front of you and you would never quite reach it, until eventually you would be sphaghettified as you got too close to the blackhole

>>7995429
Oh, so I did know what I was talking about. Sort of. Why I made a distinction or alluded to there's multiple horizons as opposed to a horizon and a surface, I don't even know, and I apologize.

>>7995422
>You wouldn't be able to see anything, even if you looked up
Nope. Light can still fall into a black hole. If you are in the event horizon, you can still see light falling in. Light cannot escape the event horizon. It can definitely enter.

>>7995429
*literal infinite density

>>7995440
>>7995435

It's more perfect density than some magical infinite density. All of the pieces simply fall together with nothing between them.

>>7995440
It's less a matter of entering vs leaving, and more the rate at which they curve. You could look away from the blackhole, just for your 'vision' to be curved right back down to the black hole. You'd look up, and the curving of your vision would have you looking back at your own eyeball.

Should you be observing prior to standing on the mass, then you might be able to observe other light before it breaks down, but regardless there's nothing to observe.

If you were 100% immune to what was happening and could maintain standard vision, yes, you could look up and around the black hole and observe what would more or less look like a skybox of light as it gets warped by the black hole. But you don't have to be 'inside' the blackhole to get that viewpoint.

>>7995480
>It's more perfect density than some magical infinite density

Well fair enough

>>7995443
>>7995480
I'm confused by this - doesn't gravitational time dilation mean that from our external reference frame, the density of the black hole will never reach infinity?
Here's my (maybe flawed) logic:
Time flows slower closer to a large mass. So for indestructible observer A who crosses the event horizon and falls for 1 sec on his wristwatch, omniscient observer B orbiting far away from the black hole waits (pulling #s from ass) 1 year. When A moves another second closer, B waits longer still. I'm copping out from actually doing math, but say the sun was instantly compressed just enough to be a black hole at midnight - does the above imply that a day later from Earth we should know pretty accurately how dense the core inside the event horizon should be, and that it is certainly not a point? From Earth's perspective, in a human lifetime, I'm thinking the core would shrink down close to some particular size and be effectively frozen there.

>>7995369
This is false, it's the part where space is distorted in a way that all paths lead to the same direction: the black hole.

>>7995560
That what I said. Distortion of space is the same thing as gravity. Escape velocity is determined by gravity. When the gravity is strong enough that escape velocity exceeds lightspeed, you have an event horizon

My brain hurts

>>7995727
K.

>Everything regarding Even Horizon posted
Imagine a ball. That ball is the center of the black hole where all of the mass has been sucked in.
That ball is also so heavy that light falls into it.
The "Event Horizon" or "Schwarzchild Radius" is the point at which light begins falling down to the object instead of emitting/continuing on through space.

>Black Hole mechanics.
There are no bonds of any sort around anything in a black hole, despite the energy persisting around the black hole. Imagine someone took all of those models of melecules you've seen and broke them all appart ( down to the neutrons, protons, atoms, whatever the smallest part that you understand is.) and through them all into a giant ball. Because they no longer have the protection of things like electrons that normally keep them certain distances from eachother, they get to sit so close to eachother that they become a perfectly dense mass.
Think sand melting into a blob of glass that's teeny tiny fraction of the original mass of sand.

ITT: useless speculations

>>7995839
Just because it makes the entire movie seem really stupid doesn't mean it's useless. I'm sorry it doesn't live up to your pop-sci expectations.

>>7994637
I for one believe gigantic black holes trigger "big bangs" and are the way new universes are made. My guess is that at some point a black hole will reach a critical mass, tear away from this area of space-time and form a new bubble in the sea of universes.

This thread is proof to me that the average sci poster gets younger with every passing day. Everyone in this thread should pick up a book on relativity before engaging in a discussion on it. Scratch that, you don't even need to read a book, there are hours of video on youtube that will show all of you exactly why you are mistaken and clear up all of these retarded misconceptions. And for the one or two posters here that have actually taken a general relativity course I'm obviously not talking to you so no need to get all autistic on me.

>>7995917
Point out which posts are which or else i will assume you are also an ignorant moron

>>7995922
This. I'm going to assume it whether they do so or not.

>>7995922

>>7994657
>>7994665
>>7994850
>>7995024
>>7995204
>>7995262
>>7995329
>>7995362
>>7995422
>>7995437
>>7995540
>>7995846
are all underage

>>7995933
go fuck yourself

>>7995943
Assuming you're an ignorant moron.

Didn't read the thread, just saying.

>>7995943
Congratulations you are not a moron, but try to avoid weaselly statements in future

>>7995946
I'm not an ignorant moron. I'm just tired of uneducated people shitting up this board with their "theories". I am usually happy to help correct people's misconceptions but this thread is beyond saving.

>>7995965
Not all roads lead to Gotham. Pick and choose your battles carefully or you'll burn out and we'll lose your company. Basically >>7995961

>>7995990
Losing my company just means the average age of /sci goes down by a couple of years. If that's really what you want I'll leave and you can have fun sitting at the kiddies table.

>>7995998
I'm confident I can make up the difference, don't worry. Also I wasn't saying you ought to leave, just that you ought to learn to let stupidity slide when it happens en masse.

>>7996013
Its our job to educate the ignorant anyway, otherwise how will anyone ever learn

>>7996017
You don't teach anyone by trying to teach everyone.

>>7995845

Uhm
What movie

>>7996018
Public education does. Besides which you teach the people who come here asking questions. If they come with terrible opinions you correct them. Not that hard, even if they dont listen

What if half of a black hole passes the event horizon of another black hole?

>>7996018
you haveno idea what you are talking about.

anyone is everyone frend ;)

>>7994422

Wtf is this guy trying to do

>>7996446

Stand up

>>7996446

Beat gravity

>>7996446

Resisting

>>7996404

Pls respond

>muh fuzzballs

>>7994637
Yes, six black holes break physics.

>>7996956

Explain

>>7994640
The particle accelerator creates then ask the time, they're called micro black holes (I think) anyway they dissipate after a few micro seconds because they don't have enough mass. FYI they're black holes because they're density is high enough that if they had enough mass they would trap light.

>>7997120
When more than 5 blacks get together they invariably split up into two gangs and try to kill each other

>>7994609
I read "nigger black hole"

>>7996679
The black holes would merge together

>>7997393

Okay but say the other half of the black hole is in the event horizon of yet another black hole
What then

>>7998138
They all just merge together

two black holes can't steal mass from each other. they just end up colliding and producing the most energetic event in the universe.

>>7998173

no

when you add one ball of string to another ball of string you get a larger ball of string

>>7998173
They just become a bigger black hole. You remember when they detected gravity waves a little while ago? It was a black hole merger that produced them

>>7998157

And if the other black holes are helf in place by yet another set of black holes?

>>7998189
They all move toward the common centre of gravity and merge, this will occur for infinite black holes

>>7998198

But what will happen during the process, the one in the middle that is between two event horizons?

>>7998201
I dont understand?

Guys i need some help here my english is pretty bad and can't understand the whole video and i need this information. Can someone transcribe what is she saying ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSf6wbojFK8&nohtml5=False

>>7998177
>>7998175
black holes have a limit to how much mass and energy they can consume at any given time.

the collision of two black holes, does create a bigger black hole. Yet there is still too much mass and energy to be consumed during the collisions. So the extra gets released in an event that makes super novas look like mouse farts.

>>7998274
No, thats not correct

>>7998203
>>7998203

A black hole gets torn apart by two bigger black holes. What happens to it?

>>7998434
That cant happen as far as im aware, but if it somehow did you would just have 2 smaller black holes

>>7998440

And if you tear them apart again? How many times can you tear them apart until they stop being black holes?

>>7998577
Any amount of mass can be a black hole, if it was possible to subdivide them at all you could do until you started making black holes so small they evaporated before you could divide them again

black holes dont exist

>>7998585

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/astronomers-discover-mysterious-alignment-of-black-holes/

>>7994606
This is literally a question i would ask my physics nerd friend to troll him when we were 15
damn this thread is full of underage b&

How do Black Holes evaporate anyway? How does energy leave them if light can't?

>>7998736

So what's the answer then?

Bemp