Is a Black Hole Gun Possible? [closed]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?

How can I close a gap between my fence and my neighbor's that's on his side of the property line?

What does a yield inside a yield do?

How can I support myself financially as a 17 year old with a loan?

Why is Arya visibly scared in the library in S8E3?

Why wasn't the Night King naked in S08E03?

How to get a product new from and to date in phtml file in magento 2

Answer "Justification for travel support" in conference registration form

Which industry am I working in? Software development or financial services?

Why do we use caret (^) as the symbol for ctrl/control?

In Avengers 1, why does Thanos need Loki?

If 1. e4 c6 is considered as a sound defense for black, why is 1. c3 so rare?

Should I replace my bicycle tires if they have not been inflated in multiple years

Identifying my late father's D&D stuff found in the attic

What to use instead of cling film to wrap pastry

Is Cola "probably the best-known" Latin word in the world? If not, which might it be?

Enumerate Derangements

What are the differences between credential stuffing and password spraying?

What is Shri Venkateshwara Mangalasasana stotram recited for?

Automatically use long arrows in display mode

Using DeleteCases with a defined function with two arguments as a pattern

How to reply this mail from potential PhD professor?

Can the 歳 counter be used for architecture, furniture etc to tell its age?

Would a 1/1 token with persist dying trigger on death effects a second time?

Is there a legal ground for stripping the UK of its UN Veto if Scotland and/or N.Ireland split from the UK?



Is a Black Hole Gun Possible? [closed]


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?













-2












$begingroup$


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?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



closed 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
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




















    -2












    $begingroup$


    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?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$



    closed 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
    If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


















      -2












      -2








      -2





      $begingroup$


      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?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Apr 9 at 8:17









      Jens

      2,44811632




      2,44811632










      asked Apr 9 at 4:48









      James S.James S.

      114




      114




      closed 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
      If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







      closed 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
      If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8












          $begingroup$

          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?






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




















            1












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



















              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              8












              $begingroup$

              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?






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                8












                $begingroup$

                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?






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  8












                  8








                  8





                  $begingroup$

                  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?






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  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?







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 9 at 6:11









                  Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

                  10.7k21532




                  10.7k21532





















                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      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.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$

















                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$















                          1












                          1








                          1





                          $begingroup$

                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          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.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Apr 9 at 8:32









                          LuaanLuaan

                          4,5231523




                          4,5231523













                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

                              Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

                              Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?