Black Holes

If our galaxy has averaged one new black hole per hundred years, we now have 137 million black holes, They may have typically lost 0.1% of their mass by Hawking radiation, but most of them would have accreted more than 0.1% resulting in a net mass gain for most of the compact stars.
After a million times a million times a million years = 10E18 (close enough to the end of time for most purposes), nearly all of the galaxy's mass will be in the trillion 10E12 blackholes and other compact stars, so they will be accreting very little, resulting in some of them shrinking to nothing. 99.999999% of the stars will be compact and cold, by then, so the planets will be very cold, but typically intact.
Our galaxy will likely have about 1/2 the present mass, will rotate slower and likely will have increased in volume by several times. Collisions are quite rare now and will be even more rare in the far future. Please embellish, comment, correct or refute. Neil

Just one little idea to add.

If you believe Hawking some small black holes could possibly explode.

explode? would they not implode?

Imagine a black hole as being a really big explosion frozen by gravity.

Gravity is based on mass, so if you lose mass you lose gravity.

Imagine a black hole losing enough mass/gravity that it can't keep the explosion frozen anymore.

It's all very theoretical, the black holes that this could happen to haven't been found yet. Hawking radiation itself is disputed by some.

But a black hole can't IMPLODE because it already has. That's what a black hole is, the imploded core of a star.

Implosion of a star, with at least 2-3 times the mass of our sun, produces the black hole.

Explosion of such an extremly dense object with massive gravity is an interesting proposition.

However, Hawking recently admitting that, perhaps, it is possible that information (read radiation) may actually be able to escape the clutches of such entities suggests that this case is not exactly closed.

JM

I try to stay with the converstation, but Im just not that well read... All i have to go on is what i read in my highschool science classes...but one day I will be right there with you guys... sorry i cant hang better... all i do is throw out my answer and hope someone tells me why im wrong without tearing me down to much... thanks for not tearing me down guys

Space is expanding faster than black holes can suck it in, else the big bang would never have got started!

About 2/3 of any segment of the universe is not connected to the remaining 1/3 of the universe and this ratio is increasing over time given the Universe started with inflation! Casual disconnectedness decreases falls from 2/3 connected at the original epi-centre of creation, to only 1/3 connected towards any location near the edge of our expanding universe.

Basically at the very moment of creation reality was thrown apart too fast for gravity or any energy we know of today to interact with any other energy on the opposite side of the explosion (casually disconnectness - see Hubble spheres). For a trillionith of a trillionith of a trillionith of a second (10 ^ -35 seconds) the Universe expanded at 50,000 times c, until the average energy density levels dropped so the single force of quantum gravity seperated into the four forces we see today (strong, weak nuclear, electromagnetism and gravity) bringing with this event the age of relativity holding sway.

But most of the Universe had already flown the coup! By this time the Universe was as large as a basketball so it had outgrown its crushing gravity well by flying apart so fast its own gravity wave couldn't every catch the wavefornt of creation.

The age of the universe is around 13.8 billion years, buts its diameter is best calculated as 100 billion light years and could be growing faster than lightspeed still I guess - that's a remanent of inflation!

ah yes, the inflation theory. Also a lot of fun. When you see the Big Bang or other space phenomena 'explode', it's always flat. Does this compute with the universe being flat, even in 3d?
1unit in height, and an ellips or something 10billion units to the left, to the right and 7billion units to the front and 7 to the back. A very simplistic vision of mine on how I look at the universe, every time I visualise it. Just today it turned inside out in my mind. But that's another topic, the flatlander discussion, fit for philosophy and debate. Maybe later :-)

Anyway, the hawking radiation is slower than the expanding universe right? Otherwise black holes increasing faster than the universe would be the way it ends. The Big Crunch scenario. Which is it? Doesn't this contradict the end(slowing down) of time itself through entropy?

"Space is expanding faster than black holes can suck it in, else the big bang would never have got started!"
Maybe in the beginning, but black holes come from stars and after the big bang it took a while for stars to be created, am I wrong?

Seed,

No need for apologies, keep up the good work. And purusue your interests. If you are one of the lucky ones, you might even be able to make a deceit living doing what you enjoy.

JM

Hi reX: gday was way over my head. We don't have much hologram technology yet, so we typically illustrate in two dimensions, but I think most experts think 3 dimensions for the universe with most of the exceptions thinking 4 to 24 dimensions.
My guess is black holes rarely merge or collide. Rarely do they add even 1% except the first few days after they are born. Most of them will continue to orbit their galactic black hole for a very long time. I don't know of a mechanism that would cause them to collide with the center black hole, but they may recede slightly or even greatly over very long time.
A black hole with a mass of one ton would have a event horizon smaller than a proton, but it's accretion disk might be wider than a proton, and very destructive at the molecular level. One ton black holes are thought to evaporate rapidly and explode when the have lost most of their mass It is possible that all blackholes have more than one solar mass.

Yes, black holes colliding doesn't seem a real possibility and maybe it doesn't have to be. The Big Crunch simple requires a big enough rift in space-time does it not? Or just enough black holes in the universe causing it to collapse.
You don't know how much longer the universe is going to continue and assuming entropy takes longer to happen (or can't happen fully, slowing all movement down until time stops), so let's assume Hawkings radiation is too small/slow/practically non existent(remaining at a mere 1%...anything of the entire black hole). Like filling a bucket with water, one day, there'll be a final drop won't there?

I didn't just simplify it like that for the silent readers' sake, also for my own :p

My question has always been, that if gravity is an effect caused by a bend in space-time, then why do things not in motion just fall? That would suggest, to me anyway, that there is another force pulling it through the curve.

The description is intended to show that the "bend" in the fabric of space is what causes the force we perceive as gravity.

Think of it this way: Imagine an ant sitting on a board next to a rubber ball. If you were to raise the end of the board, the ball would start to roll. To the ant, it could appear that the ball simply started rolling of its own accord, whereas an outside observer can see that the ant ant the ball are actually on an inclined plane.

But with that example, the reason the ball rolls is gravity, so you can't really explain gravity with something that simple.

[myrandomramblethought] Is the thought that there is some force that pulls downward through a fourth dimension, like a board pressing equally on all points of a desk, even though to a resident on the surface of that desk it would abber to be pulling from everywhere, reinforced by the concept of a geometrical bend allowing it to be concieved from a different direction. [/myrandomramblethought]

But with that example, the reason the ball rolls is gravity, so you can't really explain gravity with something that simple.

[myrandomramblethought] Is the thought that there is some force that pulls downward through a fourth dimension, like a board pressing equally on all points of a desk, even though to a resident on the surface of that desk it would abber to be pulling from everywhere, reinforced by the concept of a geometrical bend allowing it to be concieved from a different direction. [/myrandomramblethought]

The ant on the board is an analogy just like "bent space" is an analogy.

Ah, so it actually has nothing to do with a geometric bend?

I believe that is correct.

So why is the analogy used if it is misleading?