Is a Black Hole Gun Possible? [on hold] The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is there a limit as to how fast a black hole can grow?What is the capture cross-section of a black hole region for ultra-relativistic particles?Black hole related questionsWhat happens when one black hole eats another black hole?Is the new Hawking black hole all about photon launch angles?Are black holes in a binary system with white holes, and are they both wormholes?Will a disco ball really end up inside a black hole?What does black hole formation and evaporation actually look like as viewed from far away?Do gravitational waves impart linear momentum to objects? (e.g. Quasar 3C 186)Black hole within a black holeBlack Holes as a collection of unreachable eventsSmallest possible black hole containing any information?
Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?
The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551
Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?
Can a 1st-level character have an ability score above 18?
Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?
How to delete random line from file using Unix command?
Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive
How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?
Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?
Simulation of a banking system with an Account class in C++
Take groceries in checked luggage
How many people can fit inside Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?
Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?
First use of “packing” as in carrying a gun
Why is the object placed in the middle of the sentence here?
Wolves and sheep
Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments
"... to apply for a visa" or "... and applied for a visa"?
What are these Gizmos at Izaña Atmospheric Research Center in Spain?
How are presidential pardons supposed to be used?
Match Roman Numerals
Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?
How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?
Who or what is the being for whom Being is a question for Heidegger?
Is a Black Hole Gun Possible? [on hold]
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is there a limit as to how fast a black hole can grow?What is the capture cross-section of a black hole region for ultra-relativistic particles?Black hole related questionsWhat happens when one black hole eats another black hole?Is the new Hawking black hole all about photon launch angles?Are black holes in a binary system with white holes, and are they both wormholes?Will a disco ball really end up inside a black hole?What does black hole formation and evaporation actually look like as viewed from far away?Do gravitational waves impart linear momentum to objects? (e.g. Quasar 3C 186)Black hole within a black holeBlack Holes as a collection of unreachable eventsSmallest possible black hole containing any information?
$begingroup$
I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?
black-holes
$endgroup$
put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop Apr 10 at 22:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?
black-holes
$endgroup$
put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop Apr 10 at 22:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
4
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46
$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
Apr 10 at 8:01
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?
black-holes
$endgroup$
I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?
black-holes
black-holes
edited Apr 9 at 8:17
Jens
2,41611431
2,41611431
asked Apr 9 at 4:48
James S.James S.
112
112
put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop Apr 10 at 22:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop Apr 10 at 22:41
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
4
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46
$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
Apr 10 at 8:01
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46
$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
Apr 10 at 8:01
4
4
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46
$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
Apr 10 at 8:01
$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
Apr 10 at 8:01
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.
In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.
The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.
Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.
If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.
What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.
Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.
The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.
There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.
The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.
In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.
The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.
Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.
If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.
What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.
Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.
The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.
In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.
The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.
Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.
If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.
What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.
Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.
The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.
In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.
The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.
Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.
If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.
What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.
Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.
The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?
$endgroup$
The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.
In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.
The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.
Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.
If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.
What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.
Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.
The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?
answered Apr 9 at 6:11
Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg
10.3k21530
10.3k21530
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.
There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.
The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.
There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.
The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.
There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.
The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.
$endgroup$
Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.
There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.
The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.
answered Apr 9 at 8:32
LuaanLuaan
4,5131523
4,5131523
add a comment |
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46
$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z♦
Apr 10 at 8:01