Is there a maximum mass for a black hole?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether there is a maximum mass for a black hole, exploring calculations related to black hole mass, the implications of general relativity, and the nature of black holes themselves. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, calculations, and conceptual debates.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant initially calculated the mass of the Milky Way's black hole as 1.8x10e+53 kg, expressing confusion over the result.
  • Another participant corrected this calculation, suggesting the mass is closer to 10^{37} kg and stating there is no theoretical maximum size for a black hole, except possibly the total mass-energy of the observable universe.
  • Participants discussed the importance of using general relativity for accurate calculations of black hole mass, as Newtonian physics may lead to significant errors.
  • One participant acknowledged an error in their calculation, later arriving at a mass of about 2e41 kg, while noting the simplifications made in their approach.
  • Concerns were raised about the significance of the mass of the rest of the galaxy in calculations of the black hole's mass, with one participant emphasizing that the black hole's mass should be determined using objects much closer to it.
  • Several participants debated the nature of black holes, with some arguing that if black holes occupy space, there must be a maximum mass, while others countered that the event horizon's properties do not imply a critical mass point.
  • Discussions included the relationship between the observable diameter of a black hole and its mass, with some asserting that larger black holes have larger event horizons, while others questioned the implications of this relationship.
  • Participants expressed differing views on whether the infalling material towards a black hole constitutes a "flowing structure" and debated the concept of a "critical mass point" for black holes.
  • Some participants suggested that changes may occur within or outside a black hole at certain mass values, while others remained skeptical about the rigidity of the concept of black holes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the existence of a maximum mass for black holes, the implications of their structure, and the validity of calculations made using different physical theories. No consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants noted limitations in their calculations, including assumptions made about the mass of the galaxy and the effects of general relativity. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainty and exploration of the topic.

  • #91
hubble_bubble said:
If you study the article in the link in #83 then this is what happens. Also mass is increased as if out of nowhere which is what I had found and didn't believe. This research ties cold dark matter to black holes.

This has nothing to do with gravity itself, but only on our way of calculating its effects in the domain of very high gravitational force. The apparent increase is based against Newtonian gravity which is already known to be incorrect, but since it is MUCH easier to use than General Relativity it is the choice for most calculations. As the paper shows it ceases to be accurate in regions of very high mass. Interestingly they say that their equation accurately predicts gravity using a constant factor.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #92
I am now in the position where time could flow either forwards or backwards with a swap of the functions of space and time into what could be termed timespace. Going backwards would increase the mass of the universe and have the same energy and mass existing twice which I really don't believe. Moving forward would make more sense. Lorentz transforms of spacetime into timespace would have to modify beta, t and x at least. Whether this would even be possible I don't know. Even worse this is using the standard configuration. There would also need to be movement of the singularity through a stretched timespace as mass increases. This would need to be proportional to the Schwarzschild radius somehow although who knows how you compute this.

The forward moving mass would only be partially present at any spacetime point in the external universe and mass would seem less than expected. Yet at some future time this mass will resolve itself and again become "available" I think.
 
  • #94
The relationship of the frame dragging should be described by the relationship 2lp/tp where tp = Planck time and lp = Planck length. If anyone disagrees or thinks I am too off the wall please let me know.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
Closed pending moderation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K