←back to thread

214 points SkyMarshal | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
hkt ◴[] No.28231230{3}[source]
I have bad news for you:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11090

replies(1): >>28231244 #
m_mueller ◴[] No.28231244{4}[source]
this would easily be the most awesome discovery of the last 50 years if it turned out true and we could locate and study it...
replies(1): >>28231548 #
hkt ◴[] No.28231548{5}[source]
Only 50?
replies(2): >>28231844 #>>28232554 #
tsimionescu ◴[] No.28231844{6}[source]
Well, in some sense, black holes are the least interesting objects in the universe - they are entirely characterized by their mass and angular velocity (possibly charge as well?).
replies(2): >>28232072 #>>28232248 #
Andrew_nenakhov ◴[] No.28232072{7}[source]
They are the least interesting objects outside. It is quite possible that inside they are much more complex than a hypothetical singularity.
replies(1): >>28232301 #
1. raattgift ◴[] No.28232301{8}[source]
It's possible, but as long as that stuff stays inside, we have no reason to care (or even tell) whether "inside they are much more complex than a hypothetical singularity".

The central theoretical problem is that taking Hawking seriously, the stuff inside stays inside, but inside goes away. What happens to the stuff? There are more theoretical answers to that written down than there are actual theorists, and presently no astronomical or laboratory observations which let us throw practically any of them away.

(Also of course, inside might not go away after all -- not at all or not completely -- with large numbers of explanations of how that might work, and nothing concretely observed that lets us discount such possibilities in favour of total evaporation.)