I Can Dark Energy Cause Deviations in Extremely Large Black Holes?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the impact of dark energy on extremely large black holes, particularly how it might cause deviations from the expected linear relationship between a black hole's mass and its Schwarzschild radius. It posits that if dark energy behaves like a cosmological constant, its density remains constant even within a black hole, leading to a scenario where dark energy could constitute a significant fraction of the black hole's mass. This repulsive nature of dark energy suggests that a black hole would need to possess more mass than anticipated to maintain an event horizon. The conversation also raises questions about whether dark energy could enable large black holes to become super-extremal or form wormholes. Overall, the implications of dark energy on black hole physics remain a complex and debated topic.
A Puzzlement
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Ordinarily a black hole’s Schwarzschild radius is linearly proportional to its mass.

However, wouldn’t there be a deviation from this rule for extremely large black holes? Suppose we assume dark energy is due to a cosmological constant, whose value is the same everywhere (including inside the black hole). Since the amount of dark energy inside the black hole grows as the cube of its radius, but the black hole’s own mass only grows linearly with radius, eventually we will get to a point where the amount of dark energy inside the hole is a significant fraction of it’s “regular” mass. But dark energy is repulsive, so in order to ensure we still have an event horizon, a black hole of a given radius would need to have more mass than we would expect it to. Presumably this would be the case with a black hole formed from all the matter in the observable universe. Is this correct?

Also, would dark energy effects allow very large black holes to be super-extremal (or wormholes)?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
A Puzzlement said:
Ordinarily a black hole’s Schwarzschild radius is linearly proportional to its volume.
Shouldn't be mass ?
 
Oops, I meant to say mass, not volume. My mistake.
 
A Puzzlement said:
Ordinarily a black hole’s Schwarzschild radius is linearly proportional to its volume.

However, wouldn’t there be a deviation from this rule for extremely large black holes? Suppose we assume dark energy is due to a cosmological constant, whose value is the same everywhere (including inside the black hole). Since the amount of dark energy inside the black hole grows as the cube of its radius, but the black hole’s own mass only grows linearly with radius, eventually we will get to a point where the amount of dark energy inside the hole is a significant fraction of it’s “regular” mass. But dark energy is repulsive, so in order to ensure we still have an event horizon, a black hole of a given radius would need to have more mass than we would expect it to. Presumably this would be the case with a black hole formed from all the matter in the observable universe. Is this correct?

Also, would dark energy effects allow very large black holes to be super-extremal (or wormholes)?

I guess I understand your idea, I don't think we can talk about a cosmological constant inside the black hole but let's assume we can, Even in that case the density of the cosmological constant will not change with time. Why? Because it is a rustic property of space-time, it doesn't depend on how you choose the volume of the region. Let us suppose with a box size ##a^3## and dark energy density ##ρ_Λ## as the reason as I described above even you increase the volume the density would be the same.

The other thing is it's hard to talk about a volume of a black hole.
@PeterDonis might be more helpful on this subject.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top