Is there a maximum mass for a black hole?

mfb

Simple: the Planck mass. Or maybe the Planck mass with a small prefactor, as those are arbitrary anyway.

hubble_bubble

Have you looked at the work on Sagittarius A* where the milky way supermassive black hole is assumed to be located and also the work on dark matter detection in the milky way that has found NO evidence of halo effects? If the halo is in fact made up partly of primordial black holes then we are looking in the wrong direction completely.

hubble_bubble

I need a cubed component for my calculations but it needs to relate to this planck mass. I am not sure if this is simply the planck volume. If it is then this ties in with quantum effects but what happens when this is scaled up?

hubble_bubble

If we assume that matter at the singularity is contained within the Planck volume then plotting back from the Schwarzchild radius the escape velocity may well approach infinity. I need to think about that one.

hubble_bubble

To account for this violation of relativity time must speed up and the mass is effectively thrown forward into the future. Time does not go backwards so bad news for time travel.

Drakkith

This has nothing to do with gravity itself, but only on our way of calculating its effects in the domain of very high gravitational force. The apparent increase is based against newtonian gravity which is already known to be incorrect, but since it is MUCH easier to use than General Relativity it is the choice for most calculations. As the paper shows it ceases to be accurate in regions of very high mass. Interestingly they say that their equation accurately predicts gravity using a constant factor.

hubble_bubble

I am now in the position where time could flow either forwards or backwards with a swap of the functions of space and time into what could be termed timespace. Going backwards would increase the mass of the universe and have the same energy and mass existing twice which I really don't believe. Moving forward would make more sense. Lorentz transforms of spacetime into timespace would have to modify beta, t and x at least. Whether this would even be possible I don't know. Even worse this is using the standard configuration. There would also need to be movement of the singularity through a stretched timespace as mass increases. This would need to be proportional to the Schwarzchild radius somehow although who knows how you compute this.

The forward moving mass would only be partially present at any spacetime point in the external universe and mass would seem less than expected. Yet at some future time this mass will resolve itself and again become "available" I think.

hubble_bubble

If I am right and the article in the link below is interesting in this regard, then supermassive black holes are killing the universe.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0126104844.htm

hubble_bubble

The relationship of the frame dragging should be described by the relationship 2lp/tp where tp = Planck time and lp = Planck length. If anyone disagrees or thinks I am too off the wall please let me know.

Vanadium 50

Closed pending moderation.