Black Holes May Not Grow Beyond Certain Limit

That's interesting, I just saw a show on a similar topic last week. It went into black holes colliding and ending up merging into a single larger black hole while sending a shockwave through space.

My own hypothesis from that show was that eventually all matter could amass into a single black hole which would eventually lead to another big bang?? If that's the case, our "big bang" might not have even been the first.

But this article seems to go against that theory, so who knows. I'm definately no expert in black holes.

10 billion solar masses is around the (visible?) size of our galaxy.

So in theory this is interesting but in reality it will never occur.

But on merging 2 ordinary black holes (also if only a few solar masses) there is so much energy "generated" that we all will be burnt and x-rayed to nonexistence if this occurs in our galaxy.

Enjoy your life and it's beauties.

RHABE

Recent estimates are 200 to 400 billion stars in our galaxy. Our sun is on the lower end of the mass of an average star in the galaxy. Questions: 1. If the Universe is expanding, and apparently the rate of expansion is increasing, how does all the matter of the Universe end up in one gigantic black hole? 2. Wouldn't there be a limit to the mass of any black hole before it squeezed itself completely out of our Universe by closing "space-time" around itself, an effect of the huge mass condensed into one very localized "core"? 3. What happens between the density of a neutron star and the density of a black hole? 4. If a neutron star is mainly composed of neutrons, are there quark stars that are denser? 5. Would a quark star be a solid, a liquid, or some form of matter than we have yet to discover? 6. Can quarks be fused into ever denser forms? 7. What form would gravity take in or near such a dense body? Hmmm.

Recent estimates are 200 to 400 billion stars in our galaxy. Our sun is on the lower end of the mass of an average star in the galaxy.

Questions:

1. If the Universe is expanding, and apparently the rate of expansion is increasing, how does all the matter of the Universe end up in one gigantic black hole?

No chance, only theoretical play.

2. Wouldn't there be a limit to the mass of any black hole before it squeezed itself completely out of our Universe by closing "space-time" around itself, an effect of the huge mass condensed into one very localized "core"?

No such squeeze out known but black-holes as big as 10 million solar masses are known.

3. What happens between the density of a neutron star and the density of a black hole?

Nothing, seems to be an abrupt change.

4. If a neutron star is mainly composed of neutrons, are there quark stars that are denser?

No, if the mass of the neutron star exceeds a certain value (<3 solar masses) it will collapse to a black hole. Heavy neutron stars near the collapse may be internally quark-gluon plasmas (speculative) but the surface will remain as neutrons.

5. Would a quark star be a solid, a liquid, or some form of matter than we have yet to discover?

This cannot be considered in ordinary terms. This is a quantum dynamics material, no probing possible, but theory and observations of supernovae predict that the neutron material is incompressible.

6. Can quarks be fused into ever denser forms?

That is the hypothetical transition to a quark-star.

7. What form would gravity take in or near such a dense body? Hmmm.

Same as everywhere, two masses see an attractive gravitational force: F is G.m1.m2/R²

G is gravitational constant, m1 and m2 the two masses, R is the distance between m1 and m2.

RHABE

Thanks, Rhabe. I'm familiar with all your comments. I was posing questions to possibly get a discussion going, but you answered all very well.

One more non expert speaking writing,

A black hole has a size (mass) less than the whole universe?

Someone have "see" the Big Bang background radiation (noise) not long ago?

If we assume Big Bang really happened, wasn't the "initial ball" (at any time before reaching instability and exploding) a huge black hole? Or just a "white brilliant hole" Think about the gravity level at these moments...

Someone sees a contradiction between both statements?

I would thank some light, more light

Kind regards

This result is cool and all, but only takes account of a single blackhole system. In a multibody system (with multiple radiation and gravitational sources present) this may not, and most likely isn't the case. The idea is really cool though and should be utilized, I don't know much about astrophysics (or anything for that matter) but I wouldn't be surprised if there are blackholes with larger masses due to the multibody effects present in our universe. Progress is progress, and this is definetly progress so I'm not hating on them. All I'm saying is this idea of a limit for black hole size shouldn't be applied in astrophysics because the multibody nature should be calculated and is most likely dramatic in increasing this size.

Here's an example:

So with this effect there will be a point where the radiation pushes back incoming mass. So, this mass will "consolidate" at this boundary. A supernova happens a distance away and this radiation pressure pushes the mass through this boundary towards the event horizon of the blackhole where this effect has less meaning, and once that mass is in the blackhole it will remain relatively stable (hawking's radiation is pretty slow right?). This happens over a billion years with a bunch of these powerful radiation pulses and it accumulates faster than the possible decay of a blackhole mass. I'm not saying the possible blackhole mass is infinity, it isn't, but its higher than what this research proposed. Interactions of radiation pressures and focusing of these pressures and whatnot.

That sounded like complex enough just solving this case, but lets keep going with it.