Is There a Maximum Mass Limit for Black Holes?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether there is a maximum mass limit for black holes and the implications of mass thresholds on black hole formation. Participants explore theoretical considerations, historical contexts, and the nature of the universe's expansion, particularly in relation to the Big Bang.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants ponder whether a black hole has a maximum possible mass or a mass threshold that, if exceeded, results in different phenomena.
  • It is suggested that the current accepted assumption is that more mass leads to larger black holes, with the hypothetical scenario of a black hole containing all the mass in the universe being discussed.
  • One participant argues that if the universe is infinite, then the concept of "all the mass in the universe" is not applicable.
  • Another participant explains that the early universe's expansion was not static and that matter could not clump together faster than the universe was expanding, which complicates the idea of black hole formation from the initial conditions of the universe.
  • There is a mention that a black hole forms when a star of at least a critical mass collapses, highlighting the difference between the conditions of the early universe and those necessary for black hole formation.
  • Some participants express agreement that there is no known physics limiting the size of a black hole.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of a maximum mass limit for black holes, with some asserting that no known physics imposes such a limit while others explore the implications of mass thresholds. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of a maximum mass limit.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on complex concepts such as the nature of the universe's expansion, the conditions required for black hole formation, and the implications of infinite mass distribution, which may not be fully resolved or agreed upon by participants.

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

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K