3 ms·
> It does seem like natural thought - that at some point even a black hole reaches it's maximum density. There is no compelling reason, neither theoretical nor
by Udo 12y ago
> It does seem like natural thought - that at some point even a black hole reaches it's maximum density.
There is no compelling reason, neither theoretical nor observational, that black holes should have a maximum mass. In fact, we've observed some extraordinarily heavy black holes and so far no upper bound has become visible other than factors stemming from the amount of time active and the environment in their vicinity that allowed those holes to grow.
> However, I do seem to recall (some) black holes shoot a stream of particles from either pole
That happens whenever a lot of matter accretes around a source of gravity - a hot disk is formed and matter is accelerated out of the poles. It happens with heavy objects other than black holes as well. The ejected matter comes from the accreted stuff, not from the black hole itself.
> In that case, it's plausible that it doesn't take on additional mass and thus never reaches a maximum stress point, thus doesn't explode
No, only a small part of the accreted matter is ejected.
> Of course there's another theory that they're dumping that matter elsewhere..
There is no plausible theory at this point that suggests anything of that nature. Matter as we know it ceases to exist in a black hole, it becomes compressed in a way that its usual properties are lost - so much so that in fact, how and if information loss happens in a black hole is still a matter of debate and has led to some credible theories on how information and entropy might be preserved at the border to ordinary space.
There is also nothing to suggest that black holes are losing mass at any appreciable rate, other than possibly through Hawking radiation. Combined with the fact that the known cosmos does not exhibit any regions where measurable amounts of matter simply come into existence, the idea that opposite of every black hole is a white hole spewing out the stuff both ignores the fact that black holes get bigger by ingestion and the lack of any evidence for matter spewers.
Of course that does not prove it's not happening, but there is zero reason at the moment to believe this is going on. And that pertains to this article as well, the content being presented here is not supported by any evidence or current theoretical modeling.
- Tyrant505 12y agoSo will the universe eventually just have black holes?
- Udo 12y agoNot strictly speaking. Black holes are just ordinary gravity wells. They're strong, and stuff falls into them, but they don't actively suck stuff in anymore than planets or stars do. However, over very long time spans, orbiting systems should lose energy by radiating gravitational waves. That means after an inordinately long period of time, and after ejecting a lot of its mass, each galaxy will likely end up just one big black hole. But there is always stuff traveling through the universe that is not gravitationally bound to anything, and since space itself is expanding, a lot of the matter in the universe will just keep on drifting without ever colliding with anything ever again. Not that it matters from a practical perspective. Once the last stars have gone cold, that's pretty much as good a definition of "the end" as any other, and that will happen long before maximum entropy is reached. There might not be a definite end state to the universe itself, but there are certainly some thresholds past which everything will become so boring that we may just as well consider them to be final.
- serf 12y agoIs it no longer a valid concept that 'cold' universes are just another part of a cyclical 'era' in our universe, awaiting the quantum interactions to start the 'Big Bang' anew? With expansion, and the fact that there are objects in space without a practical gravitational bounds, does that imply a form of finality which may inhibit the QM interactions that took place during the initial 'Big Bang'? I've been of the understanding for some time now that the 'Big Bang' could not have happened without the vacuous void which was to exist preceding it, is my understanding incorrect?
- swombat 12y agoYour understanding is indeed incorrect. According to the big bang theory, there is no vacuous void preceding the big bang. I know that it's hard to wrap your head around that, but there is nothing before the big bang. Not even time. Time itself begins with the big bang. The idea of "before the big bang" has no meaning in the big bang theory as we understand it. Yes, cosmology is hard.