B Black hole from heat and or fusion

Tags:
1. Jan 30, 2016

General Scientist

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. Jan 30, 2016

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.

3. Jan 30, 2016

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.

4. Jan 30, 2016

General Scientist

Which formula would work

5. Jan 30, 2016

Staff: Mentor

Temperature is energy per particle (which you said was $10^{10}$ Joules) divided by Boltzmann's constant.

6. Jan 30, 2016

General Scientist

Typo

7. Sep 29, 2016

OmCheeto

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......

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.

8. Sep 30, 2016

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.