Black hole vs. Black hole, who wins?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaos' lil bro Order
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Black hole Hole
Click For Summary
When two equally massive black holes collide, they are likely to merge into a single, larger black hole due to gravitational attraction. The outcome may vary based on their physical properties, but they generally do not annihilate each other. Regarding an isolated galaxy like Andromeda, its core black hole would not necessarily consume all surrounding matter; instead, the matter would maintain its orbit unless perturbed. The fate of the galaxy's matter depends on its angular momentum, similar to how solar systems operate. Overall, the dynamics of black holes and galaxies are complex, influenced by gravitational forces and the conservation of angular momentum.
  • #31
Bernie G said:
Here's my thoughts. If 2 black holes "meet", the one that is much larger will absorb the smaller, like a frog eating an insect. Gulp, just goes down. But if 2 approximately equal size black holes meet its a different situation. To explain:

I think there’s a lot of confusion out there about black holes, mostly caused by so many people repeating the illogical argument that black holes are a point singularity. They use the incorrect argument that anything within the event horizon (Schwarzschild radius) must have energy greater than mc^2 if it is not to proceed to the center. This is getting facts backwards. The maximum gravitational energy of a star is (0.6GM^2)/R. If ALL a star’s energy goes into creating pressure, that energy would equal Mc^2 maximum. Setting Mc^2 = (0.6GM^2)/R results in the minumum radius R for anything, or any star, including the star in a black hole, of R(min) = (0.6GM)/(c^2). This is 30% of the Schwarzschild radius. Any smaller radius would mean the gravitational energy would have to exceed Mc^2.

Actual stars in nature have density profiles of about 1/(r^2), resulting in a gravitational energy of almost exactly (1.0GM^2)/R, or simply (GM^2)/R. And if all (or almost all) the mass inside a black hole were to go “relativistic” (I hate using that term), the total energy creating pressure would be (Mc^2)/3. The viral theorem, which is used to calculate the size of gravitational objects, says the energy creating pressure equals half the gravitational energy, or (Mc^2)/3 = (GM^2)/2R. This gives the radius of a star inside a black hole of R = (1.5GM)/(c^2), which is 75% of the Schwarzschild radius. It doesn’t matter what this star in a black hole is made of, quark matter, radiation, whatever; that's the size. Other basic math shows that the core density of a resulting black hole is about 20 times the core density of a neutron star, and the core pressure of the black hole is about 50 times the core pressure of a neutron star (of a few solar masses). Nothing profound or unrealistic about this. Maybe I shouldn't bother mentioning this, but also, if the star inside a black hole has an “atmosphere” of radiation, it would be small and insignificant and would not affect the above calculations. This hypothetical radiation wouldn’t come anywhere near the Schwarzschild radius and would be contained in much the same way the Earth contains its atmosphere.

An interesting result of the above is if two EQUAL mass orbitting black holes merge, there can be a huge ejection from them or even annihilation of the 2 black holes. Hmmm. Its only a matter of time before black hole mergers will be observed. Let's hope some observed mergers are of equal sized ones.

Finally, I don’t know why so many people use the Tolmann Volkov equation for a black hole. Not only does it give the wrong answer (neutron star collapse at 0.7 solar mass), but its conclusion of infinate pressure at the Schwarzschild radius is kind of obvious nonsense. But I do agree with Tolmann Volkov that the contents of a black hole can be analyzed as a gas, but one where the "gas" pressure P = (rho/3)c^2. Sorry for the length of this. If anyone has any questions on the above email Berniepie at aol.com or ask here.

What you say above seems to contradict the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems (which require some form of singularity to form inside the horizon).

So far as I know, an authoritative discussion of inspiral of similar mass black holes is:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610122

in Phys Rev. D by recognized authorities in the field.

It doesn't agree with much of what you claim. Can you provide any refereed publications supporting your point of view?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
vinayjain said:
Your perception might be true but,

Please tell me when there are two objects with such a high magnitude of gravitational pull comes closer then how will they going to transfer particles amongst them...Let us take a scenario of Earth and moon as taken by drakitt in previous replies, if right now moon falls on Earth will they both going to destroy each other or after hypothetical collision they will going to merge and if there could be a scenario in which they both will destroy each other then please tell me how they will going to do so...

What goes on behind the event horizon is not knowable. I would guess that the two black holes simply orbit each other and bleed of gravitational energy, bringing them closer together until their event horizons start to overlap. I have no idea if energy could be released through gravity if two black holes are orbiting each other inside each others event horizon.

Bernie G said:
I think there’s a lot of confusion out there about black holes, mostly caused by so many people repeating the illogical argument that black holes are a point singularity.

I'm going to side with mainstream physics on this one. I think Stephen Hawking knows what he's doing.
 
  • #33
Here's a great site with videos corresponding to refereed papers. Not surprisingly, it is generally consistent with the paper I posted above. Several scenarios are shown (head on, various spin and orbit configurations).

http://www.black-holes.org/explore2.html
 
  • #34
ok; e=mc2...all energy has mass and all mass has energy. right? photons have energy..therefore must have mass. infinite energy vs. infinite mass...the particle achieved 99% of light speed when tried at accelerator..no more. so is a photon something akin to the higgs bosun? so very small that we can't measure it's mass or velocity? I'm just a curious guy and no phd to my name..hoping to get help in layman's understanding of this question. thanks to all.. terry
 
  • #35
PAllen said:
Here's a great site with videos corresponding to refereed papers. Not surprisingly, it is generally consistent with the paper I posted above. Several scenarios are shown (head on, various spin and orbit configurations).

http://www.black-holes.org/explore2.html

tried your link...said corrupted??
 
  • #36
tqwiff said:
ok; e=mc2...all energy has mass and all mass has energy. right? photons have energy..therefore must have mass. infinite energy vs. infinite mass...the particle achieved 99% of light speed when tried at accelerator..no more. so is a photon something akin to the higgs bosun? so very small that we can't measure it's mass or velocity? I'm just a curious guy and no phd to my name..hoping to get help in layman's understanding of this question. thanks to all.. terry

Many questions, none of them clear to me. One question is clearly for the Relativity forum. The FAQ's on the relativity forum touch on some of these issues, e.g the following:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511175
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
tqwiff said:
tried your link...said corrupted??

Works for me. No idea what the issue is for you.
 
  • #38
Yes, one might conclude many award winning "recognized authorities" in this field are talking & repeating mathematical baloney. I think the source you give doesn't describe the reasons for a singularity but presumes it. And if a singularity exists in a black hole their analysis of mergers seems valid. But if you have a science background, what is the gravitational energy of a singularity? Infinity? Greater than Mc^2?

Remember that gravitational energy is a required consequence of gravity varying as M/r^2.

**********

I'd like to discuss about how the maximum gravitational field in a relativistic star should occur at roughly half the radius (r/2), and is about double that at the surface, and is easily supported by pressure of (rho/3)c^2, but that discussion can wait a while as some people could need time to digest the above.
 
  • #39
Bernie G said:
Yes, one might conclude many award winning "recognized authorities" in this field are talking & repeating mathematical baloney. I think the source you give doesn't describe the reasons for a singularity but presumes it. And if a singularity exists in a black hole their analysis of mergers seems valid. But if you have a science background, what is the gravitational energy of a singularity? Infinity? Greater than Mc^2?

Remember that gravitational energy is a required consequence of gravity varying as M/r^2.

**********

I'd like to discuss about how the maximum gravitational field in a relativistic star should occur at roughly half the radius (r/2), and is about double that at the surface, and is easily supported by pressure of (rho/3)c^2, but that discussion can wait a while as some people could need time to digest the above.

I don't think anyone believes the actual singularity is real. I think a majority of experts think event horizons are real, and that these GR simulations are correct overall for external phenomena (GW emission, horizon merger), while not being correct for exactly what happens inside the horizon.

I am not aware of any treatment of BH merger based on a reputable alternative to GR. I have invited you to provide a reference to such in a peer reviewed journal.

If you post personal theories without such reference, you are in violation of PF rules.
 
  • #40
"What goes on behind the event horizon is not knowable. "

Not so. But it takes the merger of two approximately equal size black holes to see what's inside. These mergers are rare and can only be realistically expected in merging galaxies. When 2 equal size black holes merge, gravity is nulled temporarily at the merger point, and if there's anything in the outer volume of the black holes it will eject. So you get to temporarily "see" what's inside. If "mainstream black hole science" concludes that the energy of a black hole is greater than Mc^2, than that science is wrong.
 
  • #41
PAllen: Gravitational energy of (0.6GM^2)/R or (GM^2)/R can be found in numerous sources. You haven't answered a question a college freshman might be asked:

What is the gravitational energy of a singularity? Infinity? Greater than Mc^2?
 
  • #42
Bernie G said:
PAllen: Gravitational energy of (0.6GM^2)/R or (GM^2)/R can be found in numerous sources. You haven't answered a question a college freshman might be asked:

What is the gravitational energy of a singularity? Infinity? Greater than Mc^2?

These are classical formula, not valid at all in GR. The only allowed way to discuss alternatives to GR in these forums in "Beyond the standard model", and such discussion is limited to alternatives that have been published in peer reviewed journals (e.g. string theory, loop quantum gravity, causal dynamical triangulation, etc.).
 
  • #43
Bernie G said:
Remember that gravitational energy is a required consequence of gravity varying as M/r^2.

**********

M/r^2 is simply false in GR - it is Newtonian. It is also false in any hypothetical quantum gravity theory. So you want to disprove GR using a theory empirically disproven by GR.
 
  • #44
Well said, although I don't think that's quite right. And there's no argument from me that event horizons are real. I have to go do animal rescue and then work, and will post a reply tonight.
 
  • #45
Thread closed for Moderation...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
578
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K