Ok, one black hole with mass of mountain will produce light energy output 10 Gwt in first billion years and much-much more until the end (10 billions years). You can literaly create star for your purpose. But how realisticly(theoretical) we can create one(with mass of mountain +/-)?
Let's create a black hole 101
Hunter Nguyen
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Matthew Long
Well we have two possibilities.
Take the mass of a mountain and compress it into a singularity, or take the energy of a mountain and compress it into a singularity.
Either way is going to require energy well above what we can provide at this point.
Nathaniel Butler
i mean concrete action. Is it possible to use something like laser thermonuclear ignition(but much more powerfull) to create first mini hole and then feed it with mass or there are some physics laws that can stop me from that?
William Edwards
No.
You have to remember that black holes follow the same laws as other matter but also that smaller black holes loss mass faster than larger ones.
The micro black holes that are created in the LHC and even in our atmosphere evaporate in microseconds, but while they exist their mass is just what their mass is. They're compressed to a singularity but their mass is minute, they can't exhibit a gravitational effect greater than their mass.
Robert Anderson
Small black holes evaporate. And also take like LHC or greater tier energy levels. Some thought LHC might create some baby black holes but iirc no evidence has been found of any being made. I am not extremely well researched with this topic so take with a grain of salt
Benjamin White
can we stop evaporating with some kind of relativistic shit?(for example accelerate small black hole to +/-speed of light)
Easton Morgan
At that point you'll be using more energy than you hope to produce.
Kayden Adams
You have a problem with trying to contain it. Some of the largest electromagnets in the world are used to accelerate protons in particle accelerators, but now you want to accelerate a particle that has the mass of a mountain the same way? That is going to take a lot of energy.
Also, you wouldn't be able to create the black hole then accelerate it, as it would evaporate well before it gets up to time dilation speeds. So you would have to accelerate a bunch of mass up to speed then make the black hole.
Finally, the black hole would pass through solid material, including the earth, like a brick through air. Well, maybe more like a brick turned plasma through air. It would super heat shit as it goes, consuming anything it directly touches, accelerating towards the center of earth at 9.81m/s^2 unless you have some truly magnificent electromagnets or some shit to accelerate this thing thing with the mass of a mountain at 1g against the pull of gravity (even if you weren't trying to get it to near the speed of light). You can just put it in a box cuz it will eat the box
Lincoln Torres
Hm, so basicly main problem is how expand hole's posibility to eat atoms and energy, right?
Julian Moore
Main problem is creating a blackhole that doesn't die nearly instantly.
After that the main problem is stopping it from destroying the earth.
Sebastian Jenkins
ok, i see 5 points plan:
1) create 1 gramm black hole
2) accelerate it to 99% of c in space direction
3) make something to increase ability to "eat"
4) create long ray of protones with smaller acceleration than hole on it way with mass of 1% of mountain
5) when it will be live longer then 1 year we can feed it constantly with mass of space garbage.
Juan Brooks
BY FIRIN OUR LAZARZ!
youtube.com
youtube.com
Seriously, do you people even kugelblitz?
Gabriel Martinez
>anime poster
>retarded
Every single time, without fail.
Ethan Walker
Problem with 1: we can't create 1 gram black holes. Reason? Not enough energy
Problem with 2: part a: we can't accelerate a gram to 99% c. Reason? Not energy energy
Problem with 2: part b: if we accelerate it into space, by 1 year it will begin to approach 1 light year away. Reason? We have to accelerate it really quickly (like, before it leaves atmosphere because that is about how big of a rail gun we can build to accelerate it) so it is traveling 99% the speed of light since it leaves earth, therefore after 1 year it has traveled 99% of a light year.
3. Checks out, we could just use the rail gun and accelerate the "food" faster than the black hole. If our aim is good enough then the black hole will eat it.
Problem with 4: if the ray of protons is traveling slower than black hole, they will never catch up and black hole will evaporate.
Problem with 5: it will never live longer than a year because a 1 gram black hole will evaporate almost instantly even at 99% speed of light
Logan Myers
Something like that. Particles are slower because we want to slow hole in end of "flight eating" if we want to manipulate with it.
Adam Thomas
Oic, put the stuff in front of the black hole.
Problem with that is the earth spins in axis and orbits the sun.. So it would be a bit more complex than your drawing. But you our rocket scientists are pretty good at hitting stuff at distance so let's say we somehow manage that.
Even still, the 1 gram black hole would evaporate long before it gets to any of the particles, not that we would be able to create a black hole of 1 gram in the first place, nor would we be able to accelerate it to any significant percentage of the speed of light. And even then, it will end up very very far away and receding with the inverse square law exponentially decreasing how much light we get from it as it gets further away
Parker Ward
Every problem from part 2b onwards is easily solved by accelerating the black hole and its “food” in a closed ring in opposite directions. It would have to be an enormous ring but what we are talking about requires fantasy technology anyway. Why not make a ring larger than Earths orbit? Its not any more far fetched than any other part of OPs half baked plan.
Luis Nguyen
Indeed... But even for such a large ring we still could not accelerate the tiny initial black hole up to speed quick enough to avoid evaporation. So let's use a giant ring and just accelerate two mountains in opposite directions from the get go. A bet two mountains colliding at near speed of light could give us a black hole big enough to start feeding at a rate similar to what it evaporates.
Oliver Ward
Honestly, i was just playing devils advocate while pointing out the absurdity of this idea. You would be better off just making a kugelblitz like other anons have suggested. All you need at that point is high powered lasers and presumably a dyson shpere to power them(which you would likely need for this retarded plan anyway).
Jayden Miller
Hopefully it as least shows OP how off he is with his assumptions about the energies and technologies needed
Jaxon Sanchez
Actually, I remember some folks running the numbers, and figured, even with modern solar efficiency, you'd only need enough solar panels in orbit to cover a good sized state.
Albeit, still nothing to sneeze at, and you also need that less than the core of an atom thick accuracy. On top of that, once you have your black hole, you need some sorta mystical gamma reflecting material to actually do much of anything with it, or at least anything that you couldn't have done with the power you put into it.
Aaron Morales
Black holes are already fully relativistic.