The limit of Ultramassive Black Holes.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the growth limits of ultramassive black holes, suggesting there is no fundamental limit to their size, but rather regulatory factors that slow their growth, such as the radiation of accreted matter. While merging could theoretically allow black holes to increase indefinitely, practical constraints like the finite age of the universe and the conditions required for formation may prevent the emergence of extremely massive black holes, such as those with 50 septillion solar masses. Observations of billion solar mass black holes at redshift 6 indicate rapid early growth, followed by minimal growth over billions of years. Hawking radiation is deemed insignificant in the context of black hole growth, as the energy radiated from accreting matter far exceeds that from Hawking radiation. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of black hole growth and the factors influencing their mass.
Researcher X
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
The limit of "Ultramassive" Black Holes.

There is no limit, is there?


Both these links show not a limit, but a regulation that slows the growth of a black hole, due to radiating most of its food away:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14653-how-big-can-a-black-hole-grow.html
http://www.physorg.com/news140370694.html

Expansion is also stopping really big black holes from merging, but there doesn't seem to be a fundamental physical limit that I can find reference for.

Can black holes increase indefinitely by merging? Could you have a 50 Septillion solar mass monster within known physics? (Not that the conditions to form it can be met) Are there any strange effects that would become evident as black holes become so massive? As far as I can tell, it would become harder and harder to identify it as a black hole at all.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


Hi Researcher X,

Thanks for the link, that was fascinating.

If some physical processes limit the growth of a black hole, then the limited growth coupled with the finite age of the universe gives you a maximum mass. So I don't think there is anything preventing a 50 septillion solar mass black hole from forming other than a lack of time.

The strange thing is that we see ~billion solar mass black holes at a redshift of 6 (1 billion years after the big bang). This means that black holes must grow really fast in the early universe, and then grow very little over the next 12 billion years.

-bombadil
 


That does not mesh well with my understanding. I though that Hawking radiation *decreased* as mass increased.
 


CRGreathouse said:
That does not mesh well with my understanding. I though that Hawking radiation *decreased* as mass increased.

Hello CRGreathouse,

When we talk about radiation from a black hole, we're talking about the radiation that originates from the disc of matter accreting onto the black hole. This accreting matter radiates far more energy than Hawking radiation does.

In general, Hawking radiation is not a significant process for the growth of astrophysical black holes (i.e. black holes that more than the mass of the sun). The amount of mass that is radiated away via Hawking radiation is minuscule compared to how much matter the black holes sucks in from interstellar gas and stars.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top