Black hole inside a larger black hole.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Meatbot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole Hole
Click For Summary
A smaller black hole cannot orbit within the event horizon of a larger black hole, as their orbits would become nonlinear, leading to strong gravitational waves and eventual merger. However, a swarm of stars could theoretically exist within its own Schwarzschild radius, potentially allowing for a black hole at the center of this swarm. The concept of event horizons becomes complex in this scenario, as traditional definitions may not apply, necessitating alternative terms like "future outer trapping horizon." The discussion highlights the need for careful consideration of gravitational effects and the nature of spacetime within and around black holes. Overall, while intriguing, the idea of a black hole existing inside another remains speculative and requires further exploration in theoretical physics.
  • #31
hurk4 said:
Unless someone is inside a BH??

Look at the reply, post #6, by xantox.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Doesn't the universe satisfy the conditions of Almanzo's postulated star cluster inside its own schwarzchild radius? If so then every black hole is within the event horizon of a larger black hole. cf

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath339.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
The orbital velocity at the event horizon is the speed of light.
Your black hole cannot orbit inside the event horizon of the other black hole because it cannot go faster than the speed of light. It instead falls in and does not orbit.
 
  • #34
Haelfix said:
The problem with having a black hole inside a black hole is several fold.

Xantox is right, there is a problem with the horizon definition.

Worse, there is a problem with the asymptotics. The asymptotics of the interior black hole/star solution does not have minkowski space as a limit, so the very metric itself is poorly joined. In fact, it has some god awful time varying thing as an asymptote.

The problem has indeed been looked at before, and its apparently one of the most excruciatingly complex things to do numerically in all of physics. The last time I talked with someone about it (I believe the state of the art is in Germany), they're still in rarefied extremal D != 4 situations with a bunch of highly technical assumptions which would take a specialist to explain, and even then, the computer returns junk most of the time.

Any references to their work?

Excuse me bumping this thread.
 

Similar threads

Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K