←back to thread

214 points SkyMarshal | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.245s | source
Show context
saagarjha ◴[] No.28230503[source]
Better link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.15181

The results are fairly obvious: CMB and Hawking radiation provide almost zero power output, while an accretion disk and relativistic jets can provide a lot of power.

replies(2): >>28230601 #>>28231063 #
kragen ◴[] No.28230601[source]
Oh cool, CC-BY!

In theory you can get an arbitrary amount of power from Hawking radiation if you have a lot of very small black holes instead of just one big one. I feel like the stability of the negative-feedback control systems for their orbits might be important here, especially if they're orbiting something you care about like your home planet.

replies(1): >>28230733 #
m_mueller ◴[] No.28230733[source]
As far as I understand, small black holes could be used as a super efficient energy storage („Kugelblitz“), but hardly as a source, assuming that primordial black holes are rare. Primordial black holes afaik are the only theorized origin of a sub stellar mass black hole at this stage of the universe‘s timeline.
replies(2): >>28231067 #>>28231105 #
kragen ◴[] No.28231105[source]
Yeah, making tiny black holes could be pretty challenging, but I feel like it's just an engineering challenge. Is there a fundamental reason I'm missing that you can't just build a really precise, solar-system-scale particle accelerator to slam together a lot of mass into a tiny space to make tiny black holes?
replies(4): >>28231121 #>>28231216 #>>28231270 #>>28231432 #
faeyanpiraat ◴[] No.28231121[source]
I don’t like the idea of having a black hole of any size in my solar system.
replies(3): >>28231161 #>>28231230 #>>28231263 #
1. ◴[] No.28231161[source]