Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC

Black Holes and trash compactors

- Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:14:24 EST n8sUDEe1 No.54835
File: 1418872464784.jpg -(2835458B / 2.70MB, 4096x3072) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Black Holes and trash compactors
If black holes are at the center of each galaxy, and their gravitational vortex creates the whirlpool spiraling of galaxy arms, then is it possible black holes and gamma ray bursts such as Cygnus X-1 act as garbage disposals or trash compactors and they can get full. Does the pull of a black hole suck in at varying speeds? Do some black holes start slowing down? Is there too much matter in them?

On an unrelated note, my garbage disposal is currently jammed.
Thomas Henderson - Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:51:26 EST Ncnb3OJc No.54837 Reply
black holes don't get full, they grow and get stronger as they accumulate mass. their attraction is exactly proportional to their mass, they don't "suck" any more than a star of the same mass would.
Vera Rubiin - Thu, 18 Dec 2014 06:59:28 EST ksAXy5yQ No.54838 Reply
>black holes don't get full
I can't find the freaking article so you're on your own with this one but if a black hole is overloaded with too much matter coming in it loses sucking power.

But the thing is it has to be a lot of matter and it has to keep coming in. If it stops, the black hole returns to full strength.

Google failed me.
Thomas Henderson - Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:50:51 EST Ncnb3OJc No.54840 Reply
1418914251088.jpg -(31400B / 30.66KB, 404x296) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
wtf are you talking about? you're on your own with your baseless citation-required claim.
Henry Russell - Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:29:32 EST YHjXylC8 No.54842 Reply
1418930972040.jpg -(509495B / 497.55KB, 3000x2400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
If there's too much mass being accreted, a portion of the matter being accreted will be ejected, but the size/shape of a body is irrelevant to its gravitational effect on another body, only center of mass and distance.
Wilhelm Beer - Thu, 18 Dec 2014 19:09:50 EST ksAXy5yQ No.54843 Reply
Finally found something similar but it's not what I remember
More or less if 2 supermassive black holes are merging, the accretion discs can merge into a quazar that will blow all matter away from the holes so nothing will fall into the black holes, effectively neutralizing their pull for a short amount of time.

But this isn't exactly the article I remember. I think I might be suffering from false-memory syndrome which is weird because my memory is usually flawless and I assure you that I'm not just pulling this out of my ass (aka lying).

I really can't find it but I know I fucking saw it. This is frustrating.

Just from my speculation, since Hawking radiation works by 2 entangled particles approaching a black hole and only one falling in, with the other by chance flying off, the black hole loses mass, or that's as much as I understand. If we have a black hole of 10 stellar masses and throw dozens of stellar masses of entangled particles at it, the black hole would eventually evaporate completely because it's natural rate of decay by hawking radiation would have been artificially increased. I wouldn't doubt a type 3 civilization would be capable of destroying a black hole in this manner. But this isn't what I read either.
Johann Bode - Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:36:59 EST Ncnb3OJc No.54844 Reply
Reading about the quasar phase was interesting, thanks.

> effectively neutralizing their pull
Though the quasar's wind blows gas away and inhibits the growth of the black hole, I don't see it as the black hole losing strength. There are other things (stars orbiting beyond the significant effects of the cosmic wind, dark matter) that continue being dominated by the black hole's gravity. I guess I'm arguing semantics.

> Hawking radiation works by 2 entangled particles approaching a black hole and only one falling in
Entanglement isn't important to Hawking radiation. Virtual particle pairs that occur very close to the event horizon can be split apart by the gravity, with one particle accreted and the other escaping. The infalling particle represents negative energy since they're virtual (add up to 0) and the escaping particle is positive (it carries mass away from the black hole). Virtual particle pairs is just one way of explaining Hawking radiation. Another is quantum tunneling, which allows particles to cross the event horizon without moving faster than the speed of light.

> throw dozens of stellar masses of entangled particles at it, the black hole would eventually evaporate
That wouldn't work. We'd be throwing mass at the black hole and it would grow. Even if we could split virtual particles pairs with an artificial event horizon, any energy we could throw would be positive, meaning the negative half of the virtual pairs would reduce our own mass.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.