ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

GO AWAY!!!

BaneF

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 88

Report this Dec. 01 2004, 8:11 pm

Is there any way to get rid of a black hole for good without damaging space or time?

Enterprise1701f

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 754

Report this Dec. 01 2004, 8:23 pm

Send in more mater than it can suckup, than again hat would amount to not enough mass in 5000 solar syatems.

AquamonkeyEG

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4915

Report this Dec. 01 2004, 9:26 pm

that will just make it bigger. if you starve the black whole it will eventually evaporate.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Dec. 01 2004, 10:19 pm

Quote (BaneF @ Dec. 01 2004, 5:11 pm)
Is there any way to get rid of a black hole for good without damaging space or time?

Well as aquamonkey said starving it would eventually cause it to evaporate. This could take a very long time, more time than the present age of the universe.

Another way would be first to charge the Blackhole by feeding it charged particles ( either tons of electrons and protons) at the same time with spinning matter.

The only two properties ( other than heat and mass) that a black hole retains is angular momentum and charge, so now you have a highly charge spinning blackhole.

According to a physicist called Kerrs, speed up the rotation of a charge blackhole hi enough and the Event Horizon will disappear leaving a nake singulatity. This may not be a good thing, since this is more likely be damaging to the universe, but you have destroyed the blackhole...But this is only a theory, since it going be hard to maintain the charge on a blackhole and to spin rapdily enought to meet Kerrs specification ..

Giantevilhead

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1175

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 12:03 am

Go back through time and stop it from being formed.

human_of_the_plains

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 81

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 1:13 am

If I'm understanding Lancer right, then all you would need would be a quasar. If I'm not mistaking names with other types then a quasar is a star that spins at unnaturally high rates of speed and emit bursts of charged particles every rotation (I think it was around every 30 minutes to 5 hours depending on the star). Just find some way to move a star and, voila, problem solved.

Another question along the same lines, what would happen if two black holes "met"? Bigger black hole, smaller, or would it be just not good?

Xelopheris

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 445

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 8:00 am

the event horizon would go farther out. The actual black hole itself, we don't know. It's impossible to see exactly what's happening to all the matter in there. My theory is that it's all crunched into one little tiny insignificant spec of matter.

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 11:10 am

Quote (human_of_the_plains @ Dec. 01 2004, 10:13 pm)
If I'm understanding Lancer right, then all you would need would be a quasar. If I'm not mistaking names with other types then a quasar is a star that spins at unnaturally high rates of speed and emit bursts of charged particles every rotation (I think it was around every 30 minutes to 5 hours depending on the star). Just find some way to move a star and, voila, problem solved.

Another question along the same lines, what would happen if two black holes "met"? Bigger black hole, smaller, or would it be just not good?

You mean a pulsar. Some of them rotate at a rate of hundreds of times each second!
However, I don't see haow it could be used to eliminate a black hole. :whatthe:

Stupid black holes...

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 2:16 pm

Quote (human_of_the_plains @ Dec. 01 2004, 10:13 pm)
If I'm understanding Lancer right, then all you would need would be a quasar.  If I'm not mistaking names with other types then a quasar is a star that spins at unnaturally high rates of speed and emit bursts of charged particles every rotation (I think it was around every 30 minutes to 5 hours depending on the star).  Just find some way to move a star and, voila, problem solved.

Another question along the same lines, what would happen if two black holes "met"?  Bigger black hole, smaller, or would it be just not good?

joining two blackholes result in a slightly larger one, some of the mass of the both blackhole is lossed as gravity waves..

Quasar would not work, since the ionized matter being swallowed by the Blackhole is also followed by ionized matter of the opposited charged.....

We need to isolate the BH and feed it specific matter of a single charged and spin...

ZeframCochran

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 941

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 2:57 pm

How about feeding in anti-matter. Would it eliminate the matter in the black hole?

(give it some thought ) :)

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 3:02 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Dec. 02 2004, 8:10 am)
Quote (human_of_the_plains @ Dec. 01 2004, 10:13 pm)
If I'm understanding Lancer right, then all you would need would be a quasar.  If I'm not mistaking names with other types then a quasar is a star that spins at unnaturally high rates of speed and emit bursts of charged particles every rotation (I think it was around every 30 minutes to 5 hours depending on the star).  Just find some way to move a star and, voila, problem solved.

Another question along the same lines, what would happen if two black holes "met"?  Bigger black hole, smaller, or would it be just not good?

You mean a pulsar. Some of them rotate at a rate of hundreds of times each second!
However, I don't see haow it could be used to eliminate a black hole.  :whatthe:

Stupid black holes...

The normal equations for black holes are designed around static or non-spinning BH. Kerr realized that normal stars are rotating and that any black hole formed from these stars would also be spinning due to the conservation of angular momentum.

Such spinning black hole would actually contain two Event Horizons, the first being the one we are all familiar with, the second Horizon would actually be inside the area contain by the first.

The area between the two horizon would be an region where matter could be suspended or orbit the singularity without having having fall into it. This is not the case of a non rotating BH where all object that cross the primary horizon must eventually fall into the singularity

see the following link for more on Kerr work:
http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~psih/kerr-metric/node5.html

An associate of Kerr called Newmann discover that charging a black hole introduct a new Tensor to the ones due to the effect of Gravity.

If such a black hole ( Kerr-Newman black hole) is spunned fast enought the alter space tensor will actually cause both Horizons to merge releasing the Gravity field in a burst of Gravity waves exposing the singularity

see :http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407026.


also from : http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/blkhole.html

"The Naked Singularity
One of the most unusual characteristics of a Kerr black hole is the possibility that it could evolve into a naked singularity. Due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, a rotating black hole should rotate ever faster as its radius decreased. Once the object's angular momentum increased beyond it's mass, the event horizon of the hole would be moving in excess of the speed of light. At this point, the event horizon would simply vanish from the universe, exposing the singularity. The absence of the event horizon means that we could travel freely into and out of the singularity. While no one has yet to prove that naked singularities cannot exist, most physicists are strongly inclined to believe that such is the case. Safely within the event horizon, a singularity is effectively shut out of the universe. When it is naked, this region of utter disregard for the known laws of nature is free to interact with the rest of the universe. To illustrate just how disruptive such an object might be, the simple act of going into orbit around a naked singularity would enable one to travel to any point in the past (9). "



The idea of  an exposed singularity is one that many physicist can not stomach. such a object would allow travel to alternate universes, time travel, etc so Hawking has suggested that must be some clause that would prevent so called Nake Singularities...

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 3:17 pm

Quote (ZeframCochran @ Dec. 02 2004, 11:57 am)
How about feeding in anti-matter. Would it eliminate the matter in the black hole?

(give it some thought ) :)

No antimatter is just positive energy and would add to the mass energy of the blackhole..

To the blackhole the only properties of matter that count is mass, charge and momentum.. Whether it is normal or antiparticle is not important as that information seem to be lost. This is one of the cause of the so call "Lost information paradox" that Hawking is claim to solve in his latest paper..

Enterprise1701f

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 754

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 5:48 pm

Feeding in anti-matter is the worst idea ever (no offense intended of course) as matter spirals toward a black hole, it heats up and emits x-rays, if anti-matter is used, not only will it react with whatever remains of matter is in there (matter=matter remains, anti-matter=antimatter remains), but the x-rays given off will react with whatever light there is in the universe (matter disentigration=x-rays as photons, anti-matter disentigration=anti-x-rays as anti-photons) and create a massive all-matter sestroying explosion.

Enterprise1701f

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 754

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 5:49 pm

Oops, i meant ...all-matter destroying explosion. not all-matter sestroying.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Dec. 02 2004, 7:16 pm

Quote (Enterprise1701f @ Dec. 02 2004, 2:48 pm)
Feeding in anti-matter is the worst idea ever (no offense intended of course) as matter spirals toward a black hole, it heats up and emits x-rays, if anti-matter is used, not only will it react with whatever remains of matter is in there (matter=matter remains, anti-matter=antimatter remains), but the x-rays given off will react with whatever light there is in the universe (matter disentigration=x-rays as photons, anti-matter disentigration=anti-x-rays as anti-photons) and create a massive all-matter sestroying explosion.

antimatter does not create anti  Xray :laugh: The Photon is it own antiparticle, two photons of the same freq striking each other will create a particle of matter and antimatter...

True antimatter would stand a chance of reacting with any normal matter it meet on the way down...

As it stand antimatter has no effect on a blackhole.

Now negative energy would cause a blackhole to evaporate quicker, but as it stand charging and increasing the spin of the blackhole is theorically the only other way to destroy a black hole.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum