Is There a Maximum Mass Limit for Black Holes?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of whether black holes have a maximum mass limit. Participants assert that current physics does not impose a mass limit on black holes; rather, more mass simply results in larger black holes. The conversation references the early universe's expansion, which occurred faster than the speed of light, preventing matter from clumping into a black hole. The critical mass for black hole formation is emphasized, with the distinction that the early universe's conditions were vastly different from those surrounding a collapsing star.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of black hole formation and critical mass
  • Familiarity with the Big Bang theory and cosmic expansion
  • Knowledge of general relativity and spacetime concepts
  • Basic grasp of astrophysics terminology
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of critical mass in stellar evolution
  • Explore the implications of cosmic inflation on black hole formation
  • Study the relationship between mass and black hole size in general relativity
  • Investigate current theories on the limits of black hole mass and size
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, and students of cosmology will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in black hole physics and the early universe's dynamics.

dcheme7373
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
The question, "why didn't the emerging universe collapse into a black hole" has been answered in other forums. Though I am not sure I understand the reason. But it got me thinking. Is it particularly stupid to ponder whether a black hole has a maximum possible mass? Or rather a certain mass threshold for which exceeding it results in some other phenomena? I believe the current accepted assumption is that more mass will just create a larger black hole and theoretically if all the mass in the universe was in close proximity to a black hole then we would have a black hole equal in mass to the mass of the universe. But the last time all the mass in the universe was at one point it spread out and did not form a black hole. Any thoughts?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, if the universe is infinite in extent then there is no such thing as "all the mass in the universe "

Second, I don't believe there is any known physics that limits the size of a black hole
 
dcheme7373 said:
But the last time all the mass in the universe was at one point it spread out and did not form a black hole. Any thoughts?
The moments following the Big Bang were not static. The matter that expanded from a small volume did not do so ballistically - as if shot out of a cannon. Spacetime itself expanded and carried the matter with it. (That's grossly simplistic. )

The key point is that this epoch of expansion is not constrained by the speed of light . It's believed that the expansion happened much faster than the speed of light* (not that the speed of light had much meaning during this epoch of time). *according to Wiki - in less then 10-32 seconds after the BB, its volume expanded by a factor of 1078 - i.e. from a molecule-sized up to about 10.6 light years - in 1 / 100 trillion trillionth of a second.

So, even if the matter were gravitationally attracted to clump together, it could not have done so faster than the universe was expanding.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lren Zvsm and hmmm27
dcheme7373 said:
The question, "why didn't the emerging universe collapse into a black hole" has been answered in other forums. Though I am not sure I understand the reason. But it got me thinking. Is it particularly stupid to ponder whether a black hole has a maximum possible mass? Or rather a certain mass threshold for which exceeding it results in some other phenomena? I believe the current accepted assumption is that more mass will just create a larger black hole and theoretically if all the mass in the universe was in close proximity to a black hole then we would have a black hole equal in mass to the mass of the universe. But the last time all the mass in the universe was at one point it spread out and did not form a black hole. Any thoughts?
The short answer is that a black hole forms when a star of at least the critical mass collapses. Note that the star is surrounded by a vacuum. The early universe was a (possibly infinite) region of almost uniform density. It wasn't surrounded by vacuum. These conditions are therefore very different. This question gets asks quite regularly. See here for a fuller answer:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/in-the-beginning-there-was-a-black-hole.984254/
 
Thank you for your responses. I think I understand now
 
phinds said:
Second, I don't believe there is any known physics that limits the size of a black hole
Neither do I.
 

Similar threads

High School A photon always travels in a black hole
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
High School I Need Help on Understanding Some Basic Astrophysics / Sand Clock Universe
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
High School Questions about the Eddington Limit and Super - Eddington black holes
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Undergrad Falling through the event horizon of an evaporating black hole
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
Undergrad Black Holes in Curved Spacetime
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
High School How do Black Holes Grow? A Far-Away Observer's Perspective
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
High School Crossing the Bekenstein Bound at Black Hole Event Horizon
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Undergrad Question on halos of matter made from massive and stable particles?
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
High School Could the source of dark energy be our parent black hole feeding?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad The initial density of an object and its compression into a black hole
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K