Random question about blowing up black holes

[humility]

okay basically I was wondering, since the speed of light cannot be hit, and it takes more and more energy to go faster the faster you go, what happens to the energy added to a particle moving at 99.9 percent the speed of light?

 

My first personal guess is if you took a particle moving at 99.9% the speed of light and poured an entire supernova's worth of energy into it, that would move it up to 99.99% the speed of light and all that energy would still be in the particle as potential energy so when it struck something, it would strike it with the force of that whole supernova.

 

But if thats true that makes me wonder what would happen if a particle fed more energy to make it go faster, then what is contained in a black hole, if a particle with more energy then a blackhole has in its singularity hit a blackhole, would the blackhole eat it or get blown up?

 

But then thinking about the existence of singularities made me wonder if they represent a true max speed short of the speed of light. Since energy is mass, maybe instead of a particle just constantly adding more 9s to its 99.9999999...% of the speed of light, maybe at a certain speed it just becomes a black hole?

 

But something about that doesnt make sense. So can someone clear this up for me? What happens to energy and the objects it is applied to once it hits the universal speed limit?

Edited April 24, 2017 by humility

[Delta1212]

It.you are correct. It just keeps adding smaller and smaller fractions of a percent for the same amount of energy input. Yes, the black hole would just eat it. You cannot blow up a black hole just by throwing something extremely fast at it. THR more energy it has, the more it can feed the black hole. No, you can't turn something into a black hole just by making it go fast enough.

[humility]

Why dont super fast objects, despite having potentially more mass then a black hole not exert black hole levels of gravity?

[Lord Antares]

Why would they?

For a black hole, density is key, rather than just mass. A black hole with the mass of the earth could exist, given that it was dense, i.e. small enough. An object having relatively high mass or energy has nothing to do with it becoming a black hole; it needs to be condensed.

 

Also, there are different sized black holes. An object most definitely could, in theory, exert more force than a black hole. I think the earth condensed into a black hole would exert the same amount of force as the earth itself does, because it contains the same amount of mass.

[imatfaal]

Why dont super fast objects, despite having potentially more mass then a black hole not exert black hole levels of gravity?

 

You need high rest mass for a singularity and event horizon to form. Just realised that is not what you are asking.

 

 

---

 

start again. The superfast objects we actually know of are things like neutrinos (within a few billionths of the speed of light) - but these thing are insanely small too. As a massive over estimate the maximum rest mass of a neutrino is an electronVolt. 1 eV boosted up to 0.999,999,997c would give a total mass-energy of about 13keV - which is still pretty tiny

The protons in the LHC have a much higher mass-energy - they are travelling with a speed of the same magnitude but are about a billion times heavier; they have a mass-energy of around 10^-23 kg (from memory this should be around 4TeV so I think I am a little high). Which is huge for a proton but still tiny. Just gonna work out what the lead ions pack - a little less than a 100 times more (about 300TeV).

[humility]

When you add energy to a particle, doesnt that make it denser? Because dense just means more mass inside a small volume.

the particle Im talking about would probably require a collider that circles the galaxy to make.

Edited April 24, 2017 by humility

[imatfaal]

When you add energy to a particle, doesnt that make it denser? Because dense just means more mass inside a small volume.

the particle Im talking about would probably require a collider that circles the galaxy to make.

 

Difficult to say really. Volume is a quantity which is normally measured in the rest frame - but in the rest frame the mass-energy is equal to the rest mass; in the moving frame viewed from a relative frame what is the volume?

 

To make a black hole the entire mass must be inside the schwarzchild radius.

 

[latex]r_{schwarzchild}=\frac{2GM}{c^2}[/latex]

 

That would give a proton size black hole a mass in the order of 10^11 kg. So a speed that would be many many orders of magnitude faster than LHC

 

BUT ALL THAT IS IMMATERIAL - a blackhole mass must be measured in its rest frame; ie the rest mass

[swansont]

Why dont super fast objects, despite having potentially more mass then a black hole not exert black hole levels of gravity?

 

 

They don't actually have more mass. That's "relativistic mass" which is just a proxy for the energy. But if it's a black hole, it has to be one in all frames of reference, so if it's not a black hole in its rest frame, it's not a black hole.

[humility]

Oh I thought mass was mass, and energy was mass and everything was the same. How much energy would it take to sheer apart a massive black hole like a planet's gravity sheers apart a micro blackhole?

[imatfaal]

Oh I thought mass was mass, and energy was mass and everything was the same. How much energy would it take to sheer apart a massive black hole like a planet's gravity sheers apart a micro blackhole?

 

To the best of our knowledge, things outside blackhole only interact gravitationally (and to a minuscule extent electromagnetically in the case of a charged blackhole). Once inside the event horizon, the only interaction is swallowing by the blackhole giving a change in mass (and charge and angular momentum). I have never heard of anything which shears apart a blackhole.

 

A microblackhole in the immediate vicinity of earth would be far more concern to us - those things are hot - very hot, and only getting hotter. But I do not believe they are altered by external gravity

[humility]

oh, whenever I heard anyone talked about the large hadron collider, in addition to saying how rediculous the notion was that it would produce a micro blackhole. They would add that even if it somehow did, earth's gravity would sheer the blackhole apart.

Edited April 25, 2017 by humility