Create Black Hole Through Heat or Fusion?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical possibility of creating a black hole through extreme heating and pressure, as well as the implications of gravitational fluctuations. Participants explore various conditions under which a black hole might form, including energy thresholds and the role of neutron star mergers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that heating an object to extreme temperatures could theoretically lead to black hole formation, but practical limitations exist.
  • There is a discussion about the necessary conditions, including enormous pressure and radiation shielding, to prevent expansion or explosion.
  • One participant questions the concept of "extreme gravity fluctuation rip" and seeks clarification on its meaning.
  • Calculations regarding the temperature corresponding to the energy per particle (10^10 joules) are suggested, with references to Boltzmann's constant.
  • Another participant shares their calculations related to Planck's Law and discusses the implications of their findings on the feasibility of creating a black hole.
  • There is mention of the relationship between the size of the object and the energy per particle, suggesting that smaller sizes could lead to higher energy densities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement, with some acknowledging theoretical possibilities while others emphasize practical challenges. Multiple competing views remain regarding the conditions necessary for black hole formation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved mathematical steps in the calculations presented and dependence on specific definitions related to energy, temperature, and black hole formation criteria.

General Scientist
Messages
39
Reaction score
3
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
General Scientist said:
Would it be possible that you could create a black hole from heating something really hot.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.
General Scientist said:
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.
It doesn't have to be so short.
General Scientist said:
That means that the energy would be on the order of 10^10 joules.
Per particle!
What is an "extreme gravity fluctuation rip"?
Two neutron stars can form a black hole if they merge.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Stephanus
General Scientist said:
Would it be possible that you could create a black hole from heating something really hot.

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.

General Scientist said:
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

Have you calculated what temperature this would correspond to? Try it.
 
PeterDonis said:
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.
Which formula would work
 
General Scientist said:
Which formula would work

Temperature is energy per particle (which you said was ##10^{10}## Joules) divided by Boltzmann's constant.
 
mfb said:
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.
Typo
 
PeterDonis said:
Temperature is energy per particle (which you said was ##10^{10}## Joules) divided by Boltzmann's constant.
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...

plancks.length.is.off.to.the.right.somewhere.png


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:

mfb said:
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.

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.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
9K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K