Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Black hole from heat and or fusion

  1. Jan 30, 2016 #1
    Would it be possible that you could create a black hole from heating something really hot. I heard Vsauce said if you heat something hot enough that it's wave length of the light released is smaller than the plank length, it would become a black hole. That means that the energy would be on the order of 10^10 joules.
    Also would a extreme gravity fluctuation rip create a black hole for something in it's influence, like two neutron stars of something even more massive.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 30, 2016 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.
    It doesn't have to be so short.
    Per particle!
    What is an "extreme gravity fluctuation rip"?
    Two neutron stars can form a black hole if they merge.
     
  4. Jan 30, 2016 #3

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Only if you also put it under enormous pressure and shielded it so it couldn't emit radiation. Otherwise it would just expand, explode, emit lots of radiation, or some combination thereof.

    Have you calculated what temperature this would correspond to? Try it.
     
  5. Jan 30, 2016 #4
    Which formula would work
     
  6. Jan 30, 2016 #5

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Temperature is energy per particle (which you said was ##10^{10}## Joules) divided by Boltzmann's constant.
     
  7. Jan 30, 2016 #6
    Typo
     
  8. Sep 29, 2016 #7

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Since @General Scientist hasn't been seen in a few months, and a mentor just mentioned this thread a few days ago, and I'm always up for a maths challenge, I decided to solve this problem.

    T, in Kelvin, equals 7.2 * 1033

    Assuming I got that right, I decided to plug that into my "Planck's Law" spreadsheet graph, which I just put together about a week ago.

    I'm 99.9% certain that my "Planck's law spreadsheet graph" maths was correct last week, as all of the numbers at 5000 K matched what wikipaedia's graph displayed.

    So......

    plancks.length.is.off.to.the.right.somewhere.png

    Anyways...... 7E+163 looked like kind of a big number, and I took some liberties and made (steradians * m^3) = 1, divided by the output of our sun, 4E26 watts, and came up with: 18,488,599,037,487,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns

    Is it safe to say, that this is where mfb came up with the comment:

    hmmm......
    How Many Stars Are In The Universe?
    Kornreich used a very rough estimate of 10 trillion galaxies in the universe. Multiplying that by the Milky Way's estimated 100 billion stars results in a large number indeed: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, or a "1" with 24 zeros after it. Kornreich emphasized that number is likely a gross underestimation, as more detailed looks at the universe will show even more galaxies.

    But then, I noticed, that the y-axis was somewhat based on the x-axis, and decided I was off by somewhere around 36 decimal places.

    But, I didn't care, as that was still too many stars, to do the maths.
     
  9. Sep 30, 2016 #8

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, you wouldn't want to make it meter-sized at the given energy. Make it as small as a Planck length and you get the Planck power. Make it bigger and the energy per particle and the temperature can go down, and you get smaller power values.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Black hole from heat and or fusion
Loading...