New Mars Forums

John Creighton

Member

From: Nova Scotia, Canada

Registered: 2001-09-04

Posts: 2,401

Website

Re: Black Hole Drives

Table I    Parameters for the evaporation of black holes.

Mass            Temperature     Power           Life time    Schw. radius  
M               T               P               t 	     rs
2 × 10^5 kg      1.54 × 10^19 K 4.3 × 10^26 W * 14 µs        3 × 10–22 m
5 × 10^6 kg      6 × 10^17 K    7 × 10^23 W 	0.22 s       7 × 10–21 m
1 × 10^10 kg     3 × 10^14 K    2 × 10^17 W 	55 years     1.5 × 10–17 m **
7 × 10^12 kg     4 × 10^11 K    4 × 10^11 W 	2 × 10^10 y   5 × 10–15 m
M Earth         0.5 K           5 × 10–13 W 	1 × 10^46 y   8.8 mm
M Sun 	1.5 µK 	4 × 10–24 W 	4 × 1062 y 	2,950 m
*Note that the luminosity of the Sun is about 3.9 × 10^26 W and
**that the radius of the proton is about 10–l5 m.

http://www.engr.mun.ca/~ggeorge/astron/blackholes.html

I would like to discuss the possibility of a black hole drive for a space ship. A black hole is a unique power source in that it converts all of its matter into energy but the power outs are so extreme they make nuclear weapons look like toys.

A black hole weighing a mere 100 tons has a power output greater then the sun but only for a mere 14 micro seconds. Can we build accelerators to create such extremely energetic events? Lets think about it 4.3 x 10^26 W in 14 micro seconds. That is equivalent to 60.2*10^20 s of power at one terawatt. Consider the amount of plasma that such a miniature explosion could heat to a desired temperature, now imagine that plasma directed out the back of the ship though some magnetic nossel. Now, consider the plasma being vaporized comes not from plasma but from solids.

Now, we know that we cannot produce that much energy over any reasonable time period with modern day power plants. So the question is not how much energy such a black hole produces but how much energy is needed to create it. The energy gained is the conversion of the mass into energy. The energy supplied is the amount of kinetic energy needed to cause the collision. 

What structure will the resulting black hole have. Will the collision be so uniform that everything collapse into a single point? Or will  we create a collection of smaller black holes which will last for a shorter period of time an vaporize the matter around them as they evaporate.

What energy will we best be able to utilize for propulsion. Will it be reflected photons,  the expansion of plasma though a magnetic funnel or some kind of ablative propulsion. If a black hole is big enough it may be possible to feed it fast enough for a continuous energy output. I’ll work out the mass flow rates that you must feed such a black hole later.

But I’ll start it now. If we divide the energy by the speed of light squred we get an equivalent mass flow rate. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m / s. or about 3x10^8. One over the speed of light squared is 3.3810^-15. So a black hole about 1x10^10 kg would only need to be feed about 100 kgs of mass per second to remain stable and would output a power of 4x10^11. I am not sure what kind of acceleration you could get from that maybe you would need to use a smaller black hole. I am also not sure how difficult it would be to feed a small black hole since we are talking about extremely small diameters

---

Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]

John Creighton

Member

From: Nova Scotia, Canada

Registered: 2001-09-04

Posts: 2,401

Website

Re: Black Hole Drives

I new somone else would of though of using a black hole for propulsion:

http://www.moonminer.com/Advanced-starships.html

A little speculative but I'm not finding much on google.

---

Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]

MarsDog

Member

From: vancouver canada

Registered: 2004-03-24

Posts: 852

Re: Black Hole Drives

 
Once black holes are created in particle accelerators, we will know a lot more.
Then the question becomes how to extend their lives.
Essentially making a white hole less white.
Possibly another way of storing energy, maybe even easier than antimatter.
Cosmic rays may be producing miniature black holes which evaporate quickly.

Large black holes have large mass and are difficult to move.
But may be good to swing by for extra speed.
 

Commodore

Member

From: Upstate NY, USA

Registered: 2004-07-25

Posts: 1,021

Re: Black Hole Drives

Before we start creating black holes on something important, like Earth, I think we should make sure we can turn it off.

Normally I try to reject the NIMBY attitude, but I draw the line at singularities.

---

"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Black Hole Drives

Black holes are not perpetual motion machines, they will fizzle out on their own

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

MarsDog

Member

From: vancouver canada

Registered: 2004-03-24

Posts: 852

Re: Black Hole Drives

 

but I draw the line at singularities

Singularity means you need another theory.
Short lived black holes likely created by cosmic rays on a regular basis.
But their properties are unknown.

Will be interesting as particle accelerators start making black holes.
Lot of new theories and protesters fearing the end.
 

Austin Stanley

Member

From: Texarkana, TX

Registered: 2002-03-18

Posts: 519

Website

Re: Black Hole Drives

There may be some merit to eventualy using a micro black whole as some sort of energy store/generator.  But I have my doubts about using them in a mobile star-ship.

Going over the figures you listed I see some obvious problems.  The two smallest black-wholes have lifetimes far to short to be usefull.  Making use of a black whole does not get around concervation of energy.  You still have to expend some amount of energy (probably a whole lot of it) to create the black whole.  And at lest then 1 secound in life-span the usable life-span of the black whole is insufficent for any power-generation needs.

The larger black wholes may work if you can get around a couple serious issues.  Most obviously their mass.  The next largest black-whole masses 10 million metric tones.  Moving this beast is going to be nearly impossible.  However, if you re-direct it's energy twoards moving it it might be possible to move it, but the inertia would still be extream.  I'm working on the math for this.

The next serious problem is it's microscopic horizion.  Smaller than a proton in most of the examples.  It would be very difficult to contain such a small object, I'm not quite sure how you could do it.  A black whole has no signifigant magnetic fields which would be the easiest way to hold such an untouchable item.  Gravity might also be ineffective as a black whole's pull will be much, MUCH stronger then any of the atoms around it.  A big enough object might "snag" it so to speak though, but only if it had next to zero momentum.  A black whole with any signifigant velocity is not going to be easily stopped, period.  Maybe nuclear forces could be harnesed to contain a black whole, though I have no idea how this might be acomplished or if they would interact with a singularity at all.

Being so small also leads to a the practical problem of how you feed matter into it.  A black whole could conceivably be the greates generator in the universe.  Feed matter into it, and capture the Hawking radiation it slowly (or not so slowly in the case of one of these micro ones) put out.  This might realise near 100% energy efficency, or the total conversion of matter into energy.  This would make it a fantastic energy generator, which is why I think it has some merit as a power source.

-----

Of course there is the minor technical issues as to how you create a min-black whole in the first place as well...

---

He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

chat

Member

From: Ontario Canada

Registered: 2003-10-23

Posts: 371

Re: Black Hole Drives

Probably more useful to try and bend time/space in front of a spacecraft with a mini black hole than to use it as a power source.

A short black hole distortion directly in front of a moving craft might be the answer to interstellar travel, you only need a very short time/space distortion to travel to anywhere in the universe.

Black holes as a power source as with any other man made object  will be more expensive to make than the energy it releases.

---

The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Black Hole Drives

Probably more useful to try and bend time/space in front of a spacecraft with a mini black hole than to use it as a power source.

A short black hole distortion directly in front of a moving craft might be the answer to interstellar travel, you only need a very short time/space distortion to travel to anywhere in the universe./quote]

That would require us making some kind of gravity shield, which we don't know how to do; black holes will normally bend space around them equally in all directions, so it will pull your ship backwards just as hard as forwards.

Keeping the black hole from "drifting" out of its container is indeed a big problem.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

chat

Member

From: Ontario Canada

Registered: 2003-10-23

Posts: 371

Re: Black Hole Drives

GCNRevenger,

If we could only make black holes that last a few millions of a second just in front of the space craft then we could travel at any speed we desired.
The pull towards the space craft would be C/mass spacecraft on any black hole creation.

Other than the obvious problems of the black hole destroying the machine that makes them each time one is made, and the problem of creating one in the first place, and the problem of a black hole pulling more on the front of the space craft than on the back.

Guess as soon as someone creates a black hole, the next creation should be an anti black hole to control the black hole.

---

The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.

MarsDog

Member

From: vancouver canada

Registered: 2004-03-24

Posts: 852

Re: Black Hole Drives

 
Propulsion system which sucks into a black dustbag,
and blows a little away ?
 
http://www.vacdepot.com/vacuums/images/ … 363911.jpg
 

chat

Member

From: Ontario Canada

Registered: 2003-10-23

Posts: 371

Re: Black Hole Drives

MarsDog,

I guess if you could control the black hole that you created you could use it to pull atoms out of space and eject them behind you at C.

The only energy costs would be in creating and controlling the black hole, and aiming it forward to collect trace atoms in space for acceleration past the black hole.

I can think of a few hurdles here, but i bet they are all obvious

If technology gets to the point of creating black holes i bet they will be used to alter dimensions to go places rather than to try and accelerate the meager amounts of matter in interstellar space in this dimension.

In my opinion dimensional travel is the way star travel will happen in the future.
Conventional ways to traverse the stellar distances are just to energy costly, time consuming and daunting technically.

---

The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.

chat

Member

From: Ontario Canada

Registered: 2003-10-23

Posts: 371

Re: Black Hole Drives

MarsDog,

I couldn't see your image

I was looking forward to hoover in space also

---

The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.

MarsDog

Member

From: vancouver canada

Registered: 2004-03-24

Posts: 852

Re: Black Hole Drives

The free lunch universe may be accessed via extra dimensions.
The genie in Aladdin's lamp moved ?
Just have to rub the hole correctly ?

chat

Member

From: Ontario Canada

Registered: 2003-10-23

Posts: 371

Re: Black Hole Drives

MarsDog,

Maybe you just need to know the frequency to rub at, and what to rub with what.
Then the free lunch genie I'm sure will appear and we will all see the light.
As with most free lunches though they seldom are free or even happen at lunchtime.

---

The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.

John Creighton

Member

From: Nova Scotia, Canada

Registered: 2001-09-04

Posts: 2,401

Website

Re: Black Hole Drives

The next serious problem is it's microscopic horizion.  Smaller than a proton in most of the examples.  It would be very difficult to contain such a small object, I'm not quite sure how you could do it.  A black whole has no signifigant magnetic fields which would be the easiest way to hold such an untouchable item.  Gravity might also be ineffective as a black whole's pull will be much, MUCH stronger then any of the atoms around it.  A big enough object might "snag" it so to speak though, but only if it had next to zero momentum.  A black whole with any signifigant velocity is not going to be easily stopped, period.  Maybe nuclear forces could be harnesed to contain a black whole, though I have no idea how this might be acomplished or if they would interact with a singularity at all.

Being so small also leads to a the practical problem of how you feed matter into it.  A black whole could conceivably be the greates generator in the universe.  Feed matter into it, and capture the Hawking radiation it slowly (or not so slowly in the case of one of these micro ones) put out.  This might realise near 100% energy efficency, or the total conversion of matter into energy.  This would make it a fantastic energy generator, which is why I think it has some merit as a power source.

-----

Of course there is the minor technical issues as to how you create a min-black whole in the first place as well...

I don’t know if you really can feed super small black holes. 100 ton black hole has a power output greater then the sun. The photon pressure from such an event would probably be an unrealistic force to overcome.  For a microscopic black hole you would basically have to capture all the energy as it is created. Perhaps you could surround the event by something like lead powder or heavy water. You obviously couldn’t use solid lead because that could blow large chunks towards the ship. Then once you vaporize some medium would need some way to control it and direct the energy.  Probably some super large magnetic field. We would probably need fusion and super conductors just to power the containment field. The field would have to be very long so that the force exerted could be over a larger distance making it more continuous and less of a space ship shattering impulse.

A larger black hole you could feed but obviously there are inertia issues. It would be fun to consider the power output, the efficiency of using that power, and see what is the largest black hole that could give us one g acceleration. The next question would be what kind of speed and precession would we need to realistically feed such a black hole.

---

Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]

Austin Stanley

Member

From: Texarkana, TX

Registered: 2002-03-18

Posts: 519

Website

Re: Black Hole Drives

I don’t know if you really can feed super small black holes. 100 ton black hole has a power output greater then the sun. The photon pressure from such an event would probably be an unrealistic force to overcome.  For a microscopic black hole you would basically have to capture all the energy as it is created. Perhaps you could surround the event by something like lead powder or heavy water. You obviously couldn’t use solid lead because that could blow large chunks towards the ship. Then once you vaporize some medium would need some way to control it and direct the energy.  Probably some super large magnetic field. We would probably need fusion and super conductors just to power the containment field. The field would have to be very long so that the force exerted could be over a larger distance making it more continuous and less of a space ship shattering impulse.

Sure it puts our more power than the sun, but only for a couple of microsecounds.  Still an awfull lot of energy, but not nearly so much as it might seem.  Some 6 Zeta Joules, or 6x10^21 J.  And as you point out, capturing all this energy would be one heck of a trick as we are looking at considerbly more energy than an any atomic detonations.  About 1.5 MILLION Megatons worth of explosive power.  Containing such an explosion is downright impossible.

-- Side note here, I'm working the calcuations backwards and it seems like the explosive energy is considerably more energy than what should be contained in the matter, so my figures may be off, please double check for me.  In any case, the generaly principle remains the same.

The other issue is that the process of creating the blackwhole may very well require more energy than it gives off.  Certianly compressing 100 MT of mater into a diameter smaller than that of a proton would be a difficult trick.  If this turns to be the case then the use of such a short-lived black-whole is obvioulsy a bust.

A larger black hole you could feed but obviously there are inertia issues. It would be fun to consider the power output, the efficiency of using that power, and see what is the largest black hole that could give us one g acceleration. The next question would be what kind of speed and precession would we need to realistically feed such a black hole.

I agree with you in principle.  If we developed practical ways to create, contain, and control such small blackwholes they may very well end up being usefull powergeneration devices.  As I said, a black whole is the only way I know of that we can realisticly totaly concert matter into energy, which is a good as a generator/fuel can possibly get thermodynamicly.

Of coures, we still are a long way away from such concepts, but it is fun to dream.

---

He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

MarsDog

Member

From: vancouver canada

Registered: 2004-03-24

Posts: 852

Re: Black Hole Drives

Maybe you just need to know the frequency to rub at, and what to rub with what.
Then the free lunch genie I'm sure will appear and we will all see the light.
As with most free lunches though they seldom are free or even happen at lunchtime.

Hawking changed from information destroyed (lost to us, captured in a baby universe), to information leaks back out in imaginary time. What goes in influences what comes out. How and what you feed a black hole controls later behaviour. Contrary to Wheeler's Black Hole has no hairs.

Begs the question; can you feed a black hole something to give severe indigestion and explode quickly, or live longer ? Eject in a specifird direction and become a rocket engine ?
 

John Creighton

Member

From: Nova Scotia, Canada

Registered: 2001-09-04

Posts: 2,401

Website

Re: Black Hole Drives

-- Side note here, I'm working the calcuations backwards and it seems like the explosive energy is considerably more energy than what should be contained in the matter, so my figures may be off, please double check for me.  In any case, the generaly principle remains the same.

I can’t decide if this makes sense or not.  On, the one hand I think that packing mass in a smaller area should increase the potential energy. On the other hand I think the increased potential energy should be included in the mass of the black hole. I remember reading before in a chemistry book that the loss of energy in a chemical reaction should by Einstein’s principle of E=mc^2 decrease the mass but it would decrease it by too small an amount to be measurable. It is certainly a good sanity check of the calculations and I would of thought that the energy released from the explosion would have been equivalent to the mass of the black hole.

The other issue is that the process of creating the blackwhole may very well require more energy than it gives off.  Certianly compressing 100 MT of mater into a diameter smaller than that of a proton would be a difficult trick.  If this turns to be the case then the use of such a short-lived black-whole is obvioulsy a bust.

From my understanding of physics energy can’t be created or destroyed. Although some things I hear are hard to define in general relativity like potential energy. If I understand the theories correctly we can create a black hole by a particle accelerator. All the energy put into the system should come out of the system. That would include the kinetic energy of the particles in the accelerator and the mass of the objects in the accelerator. It is my understanding at these speeds most of the energy is from the kinetic energy and not the mass. Thus, with current accelerators the energy you put into is much larger then the extra energy you get out of it.

The only thought I have of getting around this problem is to have a target mass, that is much greater then the effective mass of the particles in the accelerators. I say accelerators, because the target mass would be spherical and the accelerators would simultaneously hit each part of the surface in a perpendicular direction triggering an implosion of the target mass. The target mass should be the densest material known to man so that once compressed by the pressure of the accelerated particles gravitational forces will compress it further before the explosion begins. So basically it is the same idea as an atomic bomb but with much greater force energy and precession.

A larger black hole you could feed but obviously there are inertia issues. It would be fun to consider the power output, the efficiency of using that power, and see what is the largest black hole that could give us one g acceleration. The next question would be what kind of speed and precession would we need to realistically feed such a black hole.

I agree with you in principle.  If we developed practical ways to create, contain, and control such small blackwholes they may very well end up being usefull powergeneration devices.  As I said, a black whole is the only way I know of that we can realisticly totaly concert matter into energy, which is a good as a generator/fuel can possibly get thermodynamicly.

Of coures, we still are a long way away from such concepts, but it is fun to dream.

I agree it is fun to dream. Such a concept is a long way off. It probably wouldn’t be tried until we are ready to travel to other stars. We may try an antimatter drive first but I wonder if this is a best path for a hypothetical star traveling civilization. I can’t help but think how easy matter is to store and how hard antimatter is to store. If just wonder if by the time we need an antimatter drive we should just skip it and go to the next best thing.

---

Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]

Austin Stanley

Member

From: Texarkana, TX

Registered: 2002-03-18

Posts: 519

Website

Re: Black Hole Drives

-- Side note here, I'm working the calcuations backwards and it seems like the explosive energy is considerably more energy than what should be contained in the matter, so my figures may be off, please double check for me.  In any case, the generaly principle remains the same.

I can’t decide if this makes sense or not.  On, the one hand I think that packing mass in a smaller area should increase the potential energy. On the other hand I think the increased potential energy should be included in the mass of the black hole. I remember reading before in a chemistry book that the loss of energy in a chemical reaction should by Einstein’s principle of E=mc^2 decrease the mass but it would decrease it by too small an amount to be measurable. It is certainly a good sanity check of the calculations and I would of thought that the energy released from the explosion would have been equivalent to the mass of the black hole.

I think the most obvious answer is that I made an error someplace in my calculations.  The figures come out right, I just am getting the wrong order of magnitude, I might give it a fresh look tomorrow.

The other issue is that the process of creating the blackwhole may very well require more energy than it gives off.  Certianly compressing 100 MT of mater into a diameter smaller than that of a proton would be a difficult trick.  If this turns to be the case then the use of such a short-lived black-whole is obvioulsy a bust.

From my understanding of physics energy can’t be created or destroyed. Although some things I hear are hard to define in general relativity like potential energy. If I understand the theories correctly we can create a black hole by a particle accelerator. All the energy put into the system should come out of the system. That would include the kinetic energy of the particles in the accelerator and the mass of the objects in the accelerator. It is my understanding at these speeds most of the energy is from the kinetic energy and not the mass. Thus, with current accelerators the energy you put into is much larger then the extra energy you get out of it.

Your absolutuly right that energy can't be created or destroyed.  However, it can be wasted in various other ways.  For example when your car burns gasoline, not 100% of the energy is converted into velocity, a signifigant percent of it (in fact more than the majority of it) is lost as heat and friction.  The same could be true of our black-whole generation system.  It could very easily waste more energy in the creation of a micro-black whole then the system would actualy generate.  For example, the creation of anti-matter requires much more energy than the anti-matter contains.  The laws of physics demand this.

On the other hand, there may not be such a law governing the creation of black wholes.  It is possible that the generation system might be marginaly efficent, and when you are talking about total conversion of matter, even marginal efficency is great.  But without knowing exactly how a black-whole might be generated, there is no way to know.

The only thought I have of getting around this problem is to have a target mass, that is much greater then the effective mass of the particles in the accelerators. I say accelerators, because the target mass would be spherical and the accelerators would simultaneously hit each part of the surface in a perpendicular direction triggering an implosion of the target mass. The target mass should be the densest material known to man so that once compressed by the pressure of the accelerated particles gravitational forces will compress it further before the explosion begins. So basically it is the same idea as an atomic bomb but with much greater force energy and precession.

I think you are getting ahead of yourself.  I doubt that any of our current approaches to the problem will generate a solution.  Certianly using a conventional partical accelerator to compress 100 MT of matter is simply not going to work.  At least not any kind of partical accelerator we currently have developed.

I agree it is fun to dream. Such a concept is a long way off. It probably wouldn’t be tried until we are ready to travel to other stars. We may try an antimatter drive first but I wonder if this is a best path for a hypothetical star traveling civilization. I can’t help but think how easy matter is to store and how hard antimatter is to store. If just wonder if by the time we need an antimatter drive we should just skip it and go to the next best thing.

I see your logic in this.  A black whole can be both an excelent energy store and an excelent generator.  Anti-matter is only a good energy store, but a total conversion drive (like we are talking about) is much better.  I'm not good at predicting the future, but I tend to think that a conventional fusion drive or solar sail/solar mirror will be the power source for the first interstllar vessle.  Generating anti-matter is to unecnomical currently for it to be a real alternative.  And since we know neither a more economical means of generating anti-matter or a method for making black wholes, that puts them on an even foothold in my mind.  Which gives black-wholes the edge since they are obviously supperior.

---

He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

chat

Member

From: Ontario Canada

Registered: 2003-10-23

Posts: 371

Re: Black Hole Drives

To create a black hole you would need to alter a region of space/time.
If you can do that it makes sense that you could alter the space/time around a space ship in a more efficient way to travel.

I don't believe creating a black hole is just a matter of pumping in vast quantities of energy.
A black hole in all sense is simply a region of space that has no space.
A location that has compressed matter so far as to contain no space but all time.

If current black hole theory is followed then black holes should not exist in our universe at all, the collapse of a black hole should continue until they wink out of existence or blow up as they attempt to compress below a certain size where gravity can longer exert a gravitational force, not stop at some imaginary point still in our universe.

black holes are also a theoretical problem onto themselves as they emit gravity waves past a point of singularity.
This emanation of gravity waves itself is a problem in trying to explain the inner working of a black hole as nothing can escape a singularity, but gravity waves do.

Do gravity waves have an ability to escape the singularity because they
are not true waves but simply a distortion of regular space time?

Or do gravity waves escape the singularity because they are dimensional, they simply escape from a different dimension into ours?

Or do gravity waves poses no mass or energy that can be pulled on from the singularity?

Or do gravity waves travel faster than C allowing them to escape the singularity?

Or are gravity waves instantaneous, felt everywhere all across the universe to some degree, everything connected with them all across the universe.?

One of the above must be true.

Why does a black hole not wink out of our universe?
The time in compressed space is also near infinite, as the black hole compresses so does the time inside a black hole.

just my thoughts on the workings of a black hole.

If you are going to create one please answer the gravity wave problem with them, would love a definitive answer.

---

The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.

MarsDog

Member

From: vancouver canada

Registered: 2004-03-24

Posts: 852

Re: Black Hole Drives

 

inner working of a black hole as nothing can escape a singularity

Singularity just means that the model is outside its useful range.
Extrapolate and other effects predominate.
The imaginary solutions, how can they be mapped or interpreted ?

If we are inside a black hole, our universe, local laws apply.
But how would we interpret events outside the event horizon ?
Things falling in, but not escaping.

Puzzling !
 

cIclops

Member

Registered: 2005-06-16

Posts: 3,230

Re: Black Hole Drives

Creating a BH artificially will either require a fundermental breakthorugh in Physics or probably more energy than it will produce.

It can be done right now if you are able to assemble about 3 solar masses of non radiative matter in a volume approximatey that of the Sun. Then all you have to do is wait for gravity to cook you a nice new BH.

---

[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond -  triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space]  #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps]   - videos !!![/url]

chat

Member

From: Ontario Canada

Registered: 2003-10-23

Posts: 371

Re: Black Hole Drives

MarsDog,

In my opinion the event horizon is the zone where time begins its compression.
When you enter the event horizon feet first things are very bad for you as your feet are in a different time perspective than your head.
The spagetifigation of an object is not only caused by the gravitational effects but the time distortion effects also.

If you could survive beyond the event horizon to look up you would see nothing strange outside the black hole other than things moving faster outside, but inside the black hole time itself would have nearly stopped.

This is the reason black holes don't compress forever or blow up.

Living virtually forever in a black hole is possible, but you would still live a normal life span, it would just take multiple billions of years to make it to 75.

The singularity i don't believe really exists, just an explanation for a point that science has trouble defining. (math breaks down)

If we are outside the black hole watching an object fall in, then we see nothing special, the object falls into and disappears at normal accelerating speeds.

Still very difficult to try and explain how gravity escapees the unescapable point in a black hole.

I believe that all gravity waves are just a distortion of regular time/space and not true waves.
Then no universal laws need to be bent.
But the dimensional gravity is also appealing.

Space without matter and Matter without space are the two places i try to wrap my mind around most of all.
Both are difficult places to try and understand.

---

The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.

chat

Member

From: Ontario Canada

Registered: 2003-10-23

Posts: 371

Re: Black Hole Drives

cIclops,

If we could get a few suns together i bet it would be a devastating event for the local area to create a black hole.
I bet it wouldn't be a seamless transition to a black hole.

---

The universe isn't being pushed apart faster.
It is being pulled faster towards the clumpy edge.