Is there a maximum mass for a black hole?

[hubble_bubble]

I have just looked up this article about quantum gravity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm

If the speed of light is frequency dependent then this could explain the position of the halo.

 

[hubble_bubble]

There is no known link between dark matter and black hole mass [re: Supermassive black holes do not correlate with dark matter halos of galaxies http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4650] . It is also unlikely dark matter is a significant contributor to black hole mass because, unlike baryonic matter, it is essentially collisionless. Baryonic matter is slowed by collisions with other baryonic matter allowing it to shed angular moment and be captured by local gravitational wells [like black holes]. Ingesting large amounts of dark matter would also interfere with galaxy formation via a process called runaway accretion.

I'll get back to you on that I have just had some very interesting thoughts.

 

[hubble_bubble]

"We conclude that black holes do not correlate directly with dark matter. They do not correlate with galaxy disks, either. Therefore black holes coevolve only with bulges."

This implies rotational velocity as the bulge will form around a rotating black hole, presumably with significant velocity. Also accumulating an ergosphere where time and space behave in peculiar ways.

 

[hubble_bubble]

There is no known link between dark matter and black hole mass [re: Supermassive black holes do not correlate with dark matter halos of galaxies http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4650] . It is also unlikely dark matter is a significant contributor to black hole mass because, unlike baryonic matter, it is essentially collisionless. Baryonic matter is slowed by collisions with other baryonic matter allowing it to shed angular moment and be captured by local gravitational wells [like black holes]. Ingesting large amounts of dark matter would also interfere with galaxy formation via a process called runaway accretion.

One definite link is that dark matter does not cluster near a black hole. This would distort the galaxy it inhabits. I see your point though. They do say that it is "unless they contain a bulge". In this scenario the correlation has to be explained somehow.

Just a follow up I do not believe that the dark matter contributes to the mass of a black hole. I am just trying to work out how they are linked under certain conditions.

 

[hubble_bubble]

just one fly in the ointment. If the event horizon stops anything at light speed or less escape the black hole how does gravity itself have an influence outside the EH. It travels at the sped of light. I know that this sounds like a very silly question to ask as it is self referencing, but that is a force that travels at the speed of light that violates its own bounds. We do not even know what gravity is but there could be a case for arguing that is should trap everything including itself.

 

[Drakkith]

I have just looked up this article about quantum gravity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm

If the speed of light is frequency dependent then this could explain the position of the halo.

Since that article is over 11 years old and I've never heard of this before, I'm going to assume that no correlation has been observed yet. Nor do I understand how this could possibly explain the position of the halo.

"We conclude that black holes do not correlate directly with dark matter. They do not correlate with galaxy disks, either. Therefore black holes coevolve only with bulges."

This implies rotational velocity as the bulge will form around a rotating black hole, presumably with significant velocity. Also accumulating an ergosphere where time and space behave in peculiar ways.

I really don't think the rotation of the black hole has anything to do with the velocity of the bulge. The effect of the black hole's rotation just doesn't extend far enough out to do anything like this to my knowledge.

just one fly in the ointment. If the event horizon stops anything at light speed or less escape the black hole how does gravity itself have an influence outside the EH. It travels at the sped of light. I know that this sounds like a very silly question to ask as it is self referencing, but that is a force that travels at the speed of light that violates its own bounds. We do not even know what gravity is but there could be a case for arguing that is should trap everything including itself.

Gravity is in the geometry of spacetime, it is not something that has to "get out" of anything. Gravity WAVES travel at the speed of light, but gravity, meaning the geometry of spacetime, acts instantly. It is only the change in spacetime that moves at c.

 

[Chronos]

See http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=264/

 

[hubble_bubble]

See http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=264/

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

 

[hubble_bubble]

Since that article is over 11 years old and I've never heard of this before, I'm going to assume that no correlation has been observed yet. Nor do I understand how this could possibly explain the position of the halo.



I really don't think the rotation of the black hole has anything to do with the velocity of the bulge. The effect of the black hole's rotation just doesn't extend far enough out to do anything like this to my knowledge.



Gravity is in the geometry of spacetime, it is not something that has to "get out" of anything. Gravity WAVES travel at the speed of light, but gravity, meaning the geometry of spacetime, acts instantly. It is only the change in spacetime that moves at c.

I take your points. I have to say though that the prograde and retrograde photon orbits have set distances that can be calculated for a Scwarzchild black hole. For Kerr black holes the spherical orbits can also be described. These distances are proportional. Why then can this not extend further. We have gravity amplification in effect and an enormous mass. Since theoretically gravity extends to infinity the diminishing force has a curve plotted against mass and distance. In the normal universe outside the event horizon I would expect this to behave differently than when a black hole is involved.

 

[Drakkith]

You can extend it further. It just has negligible effect due to the vast distances between objects in space. And I don't know what you mean by "gravity amplification", as such a thing does not exist. Gravity behaves no differently near a black hole than it does near any other object.

 

[hubble_bubble]

On a related note work has been done on halo size and truncation.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...poC4Aw&usg=AFQjCNHQvFdo9NAnS9nl1LLKDjej9q1YPg

 

[hubble_bubble]

You can extend it further. It just has negligible effect due to the vast distances between objects in space. And I don't know what you mean by "gravity amplification", as such a thing does not exist. Gravity behaves no differently near a black hole than it does near any other object.

Within the event horizon I would say that gravity is definitely amplified. Past the point of no return. BTW what mass would produce a Swarzchild radius equal to the Planck length and also to Planck length cubed?

 

[hubble_bubble]

I am currently studying this.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...g4CICA&usg=AFQjCNHr5kdw8V4G0lA9fZGFoUhzRrSDtQ

It ties in with some calculations I was working on. I didn't believe the results I obtained as they violated relativity, until I read this.

 

[Drakkith]

Within the event horizon I would say that gravity is definitely amplified. Past the point of no return. BTW what mass would produce a Swarzchild radius equal to the Planck length and also to Planck length cubed?

Then you are incorrect. Gravity is not amplified within the event horizon according to current theory.

 

[hubble_bubble]

Then you are incorrect. Gravity is not amplified within the event horizon according to current theory.

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.

 

[mfb]

BTW what mass would produce a Swarzchild radius equal to the Planck length and also to Planck length cubed?

Simple: the Planck mass. Or maybe the Planck mass with a small prefactor, as those are arbitrary anyway.

 

[hubble_bubble]

Have you looked at the work on Sagittarius A* where the milky way supermassive black hole is assumed to be located and also the work on dark matter detection in the milky way that has found NO evidence of halo effects? If the halo is in fact made up partly of primordial black holes then we are looking in the wrong direction completely.

 

[hubble_bubble]

Simple: the Planck mass. Or maybe the Planck mass with a small prefactor, as those are arbitrary anyway.

I need a cubed component for my calculations but it needs to relate to this Planck mass. I am not sure if this is simply the Planck volume. If it is then this ties in with quantum effects but what happens when this is scaled up?

 

[hubble_bubble]

If we assume that matter at the singularity is contained within the Planck volume then plotting back from the Schwarzschild radius the escape velocity may well approach infinity. I need to think about that one.

 

[hubble_bubble]

To account for this violation of relativity time must speed up and the mass is effectively thrown forward into the future. Time does not go backwards so bad news for time travel.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[hubble_bubble]

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.

 

[hubble_bubble]

If I am right and the article in the link below is interesting in this regard, then supermassive black holes are killing the universe.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126104844.htm

 

[hubble_bubble]

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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Closed pending moderation.