Can black holes be disintegrated from a sufficiently powerful explosion?

[Bararontok]

Can black holes be disintegrated by a sufficiently powerful explosion?

If an explosion from various types of astrophysical phenomena occurs near a black hole, can the explosion disintegrate the black hole if the force of the explosion is greater than the gravitational force of the black hole?

 

[lpetrich]

No, the field is too strong for that.

 

[Bararontok]

What type of violent phenomenon could possibly disintegrate a black hole?

 

[Ich]

There is none.
AFAIK, you could stop otherwise inevitable collapse with eonugh "negative pressure", something like Dark Energy. My understanding is that applying such a mysterious material inside the Event Horizon will not disrupt the Black Hole: even if things start flying apart again, as seen from the outside nothing will change. But I could be dead wrong about that, just guessing.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What type of violent phenomenon could possibly disintegrate a black hole?

Absolutely nothing. The event horizon of a black hole represents the point at which the greater than the speed of light must be achieved to escape. As nothing can do this nothing can disrupt it.

 

[Bararontok]

What about a collision between a black hole and another extremely massive object, such as a hyper-giant sun or another black hole? Or what if the black hole encounters dark energy particles or is, hypothetically, in a universe that has so much dark energy that it expands at a rate that tremendously overwhelms gravitational force?

 

[Vastin]

I think the closest you could come would be a collision event between two black holes.

The amount of energy they threw off via frame dragging as they orbited each other at near light-speed just before contact might look like a massive explosion to an outside observer - but the black holes themselves would just merge, not actually explode, it would be the matter and energy nearby that would be intensely affected by the event.

Not sure how much energy they would actually lose during the event. Presumably they'd be throwing off a decent chunk of angular momentum or something?

 

[Flatland]

A black hole technically isn't even an actual object so how can it be disintegrated?

 

[twofish-quant]

If an explosion from various types of astrophysical phenomena occurs near a black hole, can the explosion disintegrate the black hole if the force of the explosion is greater than the gravitational force of the black hole?

No. Let's suppose you explode something in a black hole. You need a lot of energy to blow up the black hole, *but* E=mc^2 and so that energy is going to have a mass associated with it and is also going to produce a gravitational field.

So if you have an explosion that big enough to do something to the black hole, it's also big enough to generated enough gravity to cancel out the effects of the explosion.

 

[twofish-quant]

What about a collision between a black hole and another extremely massive object, such as a hyper-giant sun or another black hole?

The massive object adds to the mass of the black hole, and you get a bigger black hole. If you feed any energy to the black hole, it just makes the black hole bigger.

I think that's cool...

 

[twofish-quant]

I think the closest you could come would be a collision event between two black holes.

You just end up with a bigger black hole.

The amount of energy they threw off via frame dragging as they orbited each other at near light-speed just before contact might look like a massive explosion to an outside observer - but the black holes themselves would just merge, not actually explode, it would be the matter and energy nearby that would be intensely affected by the event.

Now if you stuff around the black hole, that's going to cause a lot of mess. But one interesting thing about black holes is that on the whole, they are pretty quiet. If you bang two neutron stars together you get a big explosion, but if you bang two black holes together, they just form a bigger black hole.

 

[Chronos]

Black hole mergers appear to be energetic events - http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/gwave.html
Neutron star mergers, on the other hand, appear to be hugely energetic events - http://flash.uchicago.edu/~calder/neutron.html

 

[Flatland]

The REAL way to "disintegrate" a black hole would be through hawking radiation. Maybe if we could some how speed it up tremendously?

 

[Bararontok]

What if there was a way to sink the particles ejected from the black hole into a region of deep space, dark matter or some other type of entity that can rapidly drain the black hole's mass? Or, can accelerating the black hole's spin or adding more heat to the black hole speed up the emission of Hawking Radiation?

 

[rorix_bw]

What if there was a way to sink the particles ejected from the black hole into a region of deep space, dark matter or some other type of entity that can rapidly drain the black hole's mass? Or, can accelerating the black hole's spin or adding more heat to the black hole speed up the emission of Hawking Radiation?

What if a space monster spun it around a few times?

We don't exactly what exactly happens with black holes but current mainstream theory says black hole + something else = bigger black hole.

Anything else, take to science fiction forum and bring out the space monsters!

 

[PAllen]

There is none.
AFAIK, you could stop otherwise inevitable collapse with eonugh "negative pressure", something like Dark Energy. My understanding is that applying such a mysterious material inside the Event Horizon will not disrupt the Black Hole: even if things start flying apart again, as seen from the outside nothing will change. But I could be dead wrong about that, just guessing.

Supporting this is the following reasoning:

Formation of a singularity inside a horizon is a global phenomenon, and the singularity theorems all make assumptions about energy conditions. However, escaping an event horizon requires there exists a (local) frame where matter overtakes light (the lightlike event horizon). I seem to recall papers about non-singular black holes that involve various subtle violations of the assumptions of the singularity theorems.

The one caveat I can think of is that I did see one paper (whose repute I am not sure of) that argued as follows: various authors, over the years, have published ever more rigorous derivations of the fact that a massive body taken to the limit zero mass and size, follows a geodesic, thus establishing that separate equations of motion are superfluous in GR (Sam Gralla who contributes on this site, is a co-author on one of the more recent ones). However, the more rigorous papers of this type need to assume an an energy condition for the body during the limiting process. The interesting paper I saw argued that if you allow gross violation of energy conditions during the limiting process, you can end up with a test body trajectory that is spacelike.

 

[twofish-quant]

What if there was a way to sink the particles ejected from the black hole into a region of deep space, dark matter or some other type of entity that can rapidly drain the black hole's mass? Or, can accelerating the black hole's spin or adding more heat to the black hole speed up the emission of Hawking Radiation?

Hmmmmmmm...

I think so. If you put a giant refrigerator near a black hole and then use it to suck up all of the Hawking radiation, the black hole should increase evaporation to compensate and that would shrink the black hole...

 

[Bararontok]

What if a space monster spun it around a few times?

We don't exactly what exactly happens with black holes but current mainstream theory says black hole + something else = bigger black hole.

Anything else, take to science fiction forum and bring out the space monsters!

Is it possible for another black hole with an axis of rotation parallel to the first black hole and spinning in the same direction as the first black hole transfer some of its rotational energy through its gravitational field to the first black hole and make it spin faster? Would it also make it easier for the second black hole to do this if it is larger than the first black hole?

 

[PoeMeson]

Hmmmmmmm...

I think so. If you put a giant refrigerator near a black hole and then use it to suck up all of the Hawking radiation, the black hole should increase evaporation to compensate and that would shrink the black hole...

But if you're sucking up all the hawking radiation you are depriving the black hole of what it needs to evaporate.

 

[FOIWATER]

But if you're sucking up all the hawking radiation you are depriving the black hole of what it needs to evaporate.

Isn't the hawking radiation WHAT is evaporates

Not a necessity TO evaporate

 

[PAllen]

The fastest a black hole can evaporate is in absolute zero degree 'empty space', which is what most figures for evaporation rates assume. That is, quoted evaporation times already assume the fastest possible conditions. For stellar black holes, there will be net growth due to CMB being 'hotter' than their Hawking temperature until the heat death of the universe. And for small black holes (if they exist), the CMB is indistinguishable from absolute zero, so there is no further speed up possible. Certainly, there is no way for evaporation to proceed faster than the normally quoted figures, for any black hole.

 

[twofish-quant]

The fastest a black hole can evaporate is in absolute zero degree 'empty space', which is what most figures for evaporation rates assume.

Not convinced.

Temperature differences give you the direction of the energy flow. The speed at which an object cools depends on the detailed physics. If the calculations are assuming ordinary radiative processes from the black hole into empty space, then those aren't obviously fundamental thermodynamic limits.

Certainly, there is no way for evaporation to proceed faster than the normally quoted figures, for any black hole.

I'll have to look at the derivation to be convinced.

You have a black hole at temperature T_BH and you put that into empty space which we assume is at zero K. If the calculations assume that the black hole is just radiating into cold space, then simple radiation not the fasting possible rate of cooling.

If there's another thermodynamic constraint then that's different.

 

[twofish-quant]

For stellar black holes, there will be net growth due to CMB being 'hotter' than their Hawking temperature until the heat death of the universe.

Another question. How do black holes interact with cosmological constants. Suppose there is a "big rip" what happens to black holes?

 

[PAllen]

Not convinced.

Temperature differences give you the direction of the energy flow. The speed at which an object cools depends on the detailed physics. If the calculations are assuming ordinary radiative processes from the black hole into empty space, then those aren't obviously fundamental thermodynamic limits.



I'll have to look at the derivation to be convinced.

You have a black hole at temperature T_BH and you put that into empty space which we assume is at zero K. If the calculations assume that the black hole is just radiating into cold space, then simple radiation not the fasting possible rate of cooling.

If there's another thermodynamic constraint then that's different.

What non-radiative process might you propose? For normal matter, most everything else boils down to collisions (potentially augmented by fluid flow, but the microscopic transfer is still a collision). Collision with a black hole will simply grow the hole.

So, yes, I am assuming there is no alternative process.

 

[twofish-quant]

What non-radiative process might you propose?

Give me some time and I think of something.

For normal matter, most everything else boils down to collisions (potentially augmented by fluid flow, but the microscopic transfer is still a collision). Collision with a black hole will simply grow the hole.

Bit you aren't interacting with the black hole, you are interacting with the radiation field around the black hole. You put a black hole with temperature T in empty space with zero temperature. The black hole will radiate empty space with a temperature gradient. Now we put in a refrigerator at temperature less than the temperature gradient. What happens?

So, yes, I am assuming there is no alternative process.

So the question here is can you come up with physics argument why there can't be an alternative process?

 

[Drakkith]

Twofish, I understand that closer to the black hole you would have more radiation, but how does somehow taking a section of space near the BH and removing the radiation increase the rate at which the BH radiates? Doesn't it simply depend on the amount of radiation falling on the BH compared to the amount of radiation being emitted?

 

[twofish-quant]

Twofish, I understand that closer to the black hole you would have more radiation, but how does somehow taking a section of space near the BH and removing the radiation increase the rate at which the BH radiates? Doesn't it simply depend on the amount of radiation falling on the BH compared to the amount of radiation being emitted?

Still working it out, but it looks promising.

The situation is that it appears that the derivation of the Hawking-Unruh equations assumes that some fraction of the radiation that gets produces just outside of the black hole, falls back into the black hole. Now if you can somehow capture some of the the "fallback" radiation then that would increase the leakage from the black hole.

What I'm trying to figure out now is the maximum radiation that you can get if you prevent "fallback."

 

[Drakkith]

Just how far from the event horizon is the radiation produced at? I'm assuming it is created at various distances, with less being produced at increasing distance from the EH, although I don't really have any idea.

 

[Naty1]

According to Wikipedia the Stefan–Boltzmann-Schwarzschild-Hawking power law has
nothing to do with exterior temperatures.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Black_hole_evaporation


Power loss P is hc⁶/15360[pi]G²M²

 

[Spinalcold]

Wouldn't a faster spinning black hole evaporate SLIGHTLY faster due to hawking radiation getting caught up in the polar jets? I could he wrong but I thought faster spinning black holes have larger jets which help the accretion disk slow enough so more particles can be absorbed. The same process could help to throw away hawking radiation so that less of it was reabsorbed.