Brainstorm, how to destory a black hole?

Black holes would make really good powerplants;

1/ you find (or create) one the same mass as a small asteroid, which would decay over a few million years; it would emit its billion tonne mass as hawking radiation steadily and you could run several civilisations off it.

2/, if you can only find a stellar mass BH which has been created by natural stellar collapse, you can throw things at it on a hyperbolic orbit; the hole would eat perhaps 1% of the mass, and rip much of the rest of the mass into elementary particles and energy.

3/ a very small unstable black hole, a few million tonnes in weight, would emit brilliant Hawking radiation, but would evaporate quickly; so you have to feed it mass constantly- a perfect mass to energy converter.

-----------------------
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jaredster, You ROCK!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is so freakin' cool!

As you and eburacum45 point out, they would make excellent powerplants. Since the original question was how to destroy a black hole, I guess you would just "twist the dial" up higher to force HR out much faster than it should, while at the same time denying it new fuel (matter). Once it depletes to nothing, move on...

Damn, that is a cool picture.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thanks, I worked about an hour on it.

Yes we could destroy it be using it's powers. There is so much mass there you could power the Earth for so long.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jaredster.......Nice image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think he was looking at cancelling out the mass directly, but indirectly. Say you could tell a matter and antimatter hole apart, assuming physics as we know it still works inside, the matter and antimatter should eliminate each other, producing 100% energy, which itself wouldn't have the mass to produce the gravity. Correct?

Still assuming normal physics, you suddenly have a hell of a lot of energy, and no gravity to contain it. Boom. Plus, what gravitational effect would be observed? (I picture the analogy of the rubber sheet, suddenly springing back to zero...the mother of all gravity waves?

 

Waaaaaahhhhh, I can't see it! Damn that free-provider (they said I'm in a region unelligible to view it, curse them!!)

 

well yea, it will create a boom bigger than any supernova, it would probably be able to wip out a whole galaxy. As for the gravity waves, there is no ripple, It just springs back up to 0 instantly at the center and moves out at the speed of light.

here is a mirror to my image curioucity, it was a concept to the black hole powerplant Silverback suggested.
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/Jaredster-blackholeplant.jpg .

Btw: Thanks for the complements everyone

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Thank you for the mirror site.
Wow, that thing's gonnabe big.... but so interesting!

 

Using Hawking radiation to kill a black hole is like killing a human by waiting for him to die of old age.

After a little reading. Hawking radiation is a factor of the event horizon area, which is directly proportional to the mass of the black hole.

If we could affect the event horizon area without affecting the mass we may have a method of accelerating the evaporation. Gravity waves will affect the shape of the event horizon.

If we could focus gravity waves we could reduce the area of the event horizon to a size that could create run-a-way evaporation. This would happen in the trough of the focused waves. As the trough approaches the evaporation also reduces the mass and thus diameter of the event horizon thus accelerating the evaporation.

Just stand back.

 

No, you can't destroy a black hole by antimatter; all the mass inside a black hole has effectively been converted to energy already, and energy does have the same gravity as an equivalent amount of mass.

To make a BH evaporate more quickly you would need a supply of Negative Mass (or negative energy- the two are equivalent)

this would speed up the Hawking radiation alright, but it would be a waste of a very useful (and completely hypothetical) resource.
-----------------------
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

 

Yea, I guess your probably right.

 

care to explain a bit more, eburacum? (Negative energy and Hawking radiation?)

 

What if you collide two blackholes together? Would they just absorb each other? :bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh...! And what about using anti-gravity, somehow? Maybe adding anti-matter to the black hole?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What about focused gravity waves? No need for Negative energy of antimatter.

Ill just repost incase I wasn’t read

 

I did read your post, and was impressed by the idea... you mean increase the surface area, I think, but the idea is good.
A spinning black hole would have a slightly larger event horison, so would have a faster rate of evaporation.
Add in your gravity waves and you could have a flattened, corrugated disk, evaporating several times as fast as it would if spherical.

Trouble is, gravity waves are really difficult to prouduce, unless you have a bunch of big masses to play with-
more black holes, probably. Or Neutron stars.

Still; sounds like an interesting thought experiment.
-----------------------
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

 

Well, Hawking Radiation is effectively caused by negative mass/energy;

a virtual pair of particles, appearing in the vacuum near a black hole event horizon, will (in this case) consist of a real-positive mass particle and a negativemass particle; the negative mass particle is the one which crosses the event horizon and enters the singularity, but because it has negative mass/energy it decreases the mass of the black hole.
The positive mass/energy particle is emitted as radiation.

In fact I believe the maths of this transaction is very complicated but this is a simplification (matter and anti-matter are equivalent and irrelevant in this case).

 

Is all that what you said equal to that...:

...?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm just trying to see if we thought about the same thing...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, because both matter and antimatter have positive energy;

I am talking about negative mass/energy, which is not seen in the real world, yet is the most important component of the universe-
when it is called the cosmological constant...

 

Oh...

I though anti-matter would be the oposite of matter, so it would have negative energy...

So... what's the difference between anti-matter and negative matter, and where did the idea of negative matter (which I've never heard of) come from?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

no anti-matter is just matter whos subatomic particals have a oppisite charge from ours. Anti-matter isn't negetive-matter.