I've got a Black Hole theory,and I need feedback.

So I've got this theory about black Holes that I came up with one night. Now don't get me wrong here, I' not a big head honcho at NASA or anything, but I definately know my fair share about black holes. My idea is that you have 2 black holes that meet. Nobody knows what would really happen, but some people think it would cause a massive explosion. Well, my theory is that the larger of the 2 black holes sucks the other one up, in some more childish terms. Black holes are not allowed to go through complete spaghettification, so the black hole that is inside would still be a black hole. The one in the middle eats all the stuff that comes in through the BH on the outside. Soon, the inside BH swallows the outside BH, and once the peices from the former outside black hole meet in the singularity of the newer outside black hole, they peice together again and cause a new black hole inside the other black hole. This will continue on and on, and each time one BH eats the other BH, the entire thing gets smaller, but retains the same mass. Finally, it gets so small that the gravitational slope is narrow enough to puncture spacetime, causing a hole in the walls of the universe. This "wormhole" if you will, is somewhat, if not exactly like an Einstien-Rosen Bridge. It would be exteemly unstable and would probably destroy itself in due time, but the power of such an object would be unimaginably powerful.
Anyway, that's just my little idea, and I would be really happy if someone out there who knows more about this stuff than me could give me some constructive criticizm.
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll take a shot. But keep in mind that any claim as to what *relally* happens at a singularity seems forever doomed to be unsubstantiated.

Black holes can indeed merge. But, one shouldn't think of it as one black hole 'entering inside' the other. For black holes, there's no such thing as 'inside'. What we normally think of as the 'surface' of a black hole -- the event horizon -- is only a mathematical surface. When you go through the event horizon, you are still in 'empty' space. In fact, a black hole is empty all the way through down to the very singularity.

The singularity itself is already a tear in spacetime. By definition, it denotes an infinite slope, or infinite curvature. It is also infinitesimally small -- smaller than even the smallest elementary particle (or so we think). When two singularities merge, you *do not* get a larger singularity, or a larger tear in spacetime; you get a more 'potent' one that results in a larger event horizon and greater total gravity and inertia.

When black holes merge, it's incorrect to conceptualize the event as one of them 'swallowing' the other. Singularities are infinitesimally small, so you can't talk of one singularity being inside another. What supposedly happens is that the two singularities simply merge into one -- like two raindrops on your windshield. And it's the 'heavier' singularity of the two that will always 'eat' more -- regardless of how close to each other they are -- because material falls in from all sides.

Finally, let me touch on the fact that once the two singularities are sufficiently close to each other, they will be enclosed within a common, *spherical* event horizon. There is a theorem to that effect. The outside observers will never see the singularities actually merge -- they will simply observe a larger black hole.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks a lot for the reply. It's been bugging me for quite some time now and I'm glad that someone finally took me seriously. You see, I'm only 13 years old, and no one ever seems to think that I would know anything about such a complex subject, so I thought that this way, someone would actually listen to me. You seem to know quite a bit about this stuff because I have taken my idea to a couple of college proffessors who worked in physics, and they could not find any flaws in my idea. As far as your reply, I don't think you quite understood me. Some of the things you said didn't realy have anything to do with what I said. But that's my fault. You see, this idea is hard to explain just with words. But some of what you said did prove me wrong, so thank you very much for setting me strait.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you are a very interesting kid, Shorty. I hope you are planning to continue on this path and make as much theories about the universe as you can dream of. But remember, always be critical of them, don't hold on to them like they are precious stones sometimes, you'll see you just have to let go.

Good luck !

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato