Okay, this is a light hearted question... but serious answers are
equally invited!

Suppose a black hole enters a binary system or a triple star system or
even a small, tightly-packed open cluster. Once it's finished
swallowing the first star, can it go onto swallowing a second star, and
then a third star, and so on... as it continues along its destructive
path? What is the *limit* (if any) as to how much theoretical mass that
can go into a black hole, before it's 'filled to capacity' as it were?

It's one of those questions that's been bugging me for a while, and I'm
not certain what the latest theoretical assumptions are about black
holes.


AA
------------------------------**-----------------------------
http://www.publishedauthors.net/aa_spaceagent/
"The ultimate dream adventure awaiting humanity..."
------------------------------**-----------------------------

AA Institute wrote:
Okay, this is a light hearted question... but serious answers are
equally invited!

Suppose a black hole enters a binary system or a triple star system or
even a small, tightly-packed open cluster. Once it's finished
swallowing the first star, can it go onto swallowing a second star, and
then a third star, and so on... as it continues along its destructive
path? What is the *limit* (if any) as to how much theoretical mass that
can go into a black hole, before it's 'filled to capacity' as it were?

Where did you get the idea that a BH _has_ a "capacity"?

It's one of those questions that's been bugging me for a while, and I'm
not certain what the latest theoretical assumptions are about black
holes.

There is serious speculation that the entire Universe is a BH.


Mark L. Fergerson

"Mark Fergerson" wrote in message
news:wqJTe.7720$sx2.6737@fed1read02...
| AA Institute wrote:
| Okay, this is a light hearted question... but serious answers are
| equally invited!
|
| Suppose a black hole enters a binary system or a triple star system
or
| even a small, tightly-packed open cluster. Once it's finished
| swallowing the first star, can it go onto swallowing a second star,
and
| then a third star, and so on... as it continues along its
destructive
| path? What is the *limit* (if any) as to how much theoretical mass
that
| can go into a black hole, before it's 'filled to capacity' as it
were?
|
| Where did you get the idea that a BH _has_ a "capacity"?
|
| It's one of those questions that's been bugging me for a while, and
I'm
| not certain what the latest theoretical assumptions are about black
| holes.
|
| There is serious speculation that the entire Universe is a BH.
|
|
| Mark L. Fergerson
There is serious speculation that bright green flying elephants lay
their eggs in black holes. I guess it depends on your definition of
"serious".

Androcles.

:: There is serious speculation that the entire Universe is a BH.

: "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
: There is serious speculation that bright green flying elephants lay
: their eggs in black holes. I guess it depends on your definition of
: "serious".

Possibly it does. However, I fail to see what it is about the
possibility that the universe might end in a singularity some
billions of years hence that makes you compare it to
egglaying emerald elevating elephants.

It seems to me no worse than speculating about the possibility
that the universe originated in a big bang. (Though evidence
is for the latter and against the former, it would seem.)

And certainly the *reasons* for such speculations seem to have
very very little in common with reasons to speculate about
oviparous pachyderms.

"What happened to your boadile?"
"My megadonaplaty ate it."

--- Exchange in Zelazny's "This Immortal"


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

AA Institute wrote:

Suppose a black hole enters a binary system or a triple star system or
even a small, tightly-packed open cluster. Once it's finished
swallowing the first star, can it go onto swallowing a second star, and
then a third star, and so on... as it continues along its destructive
path? What is the *limit* (if any) as to how much theoretical mass that
can go into a black hole, before it's 'filled to capacity' as it were?

There is no theoretical limit.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
To understand is to forgive, even oneself.
-- Alexander Chase

Mark Fergerson wrote:

There is serious speculation that the entire Universe is a BH.

Outside of popularizations, not really. The Schwarzschild geometry and
cosmologies are not really comparable. Beyond a cursory "you can't
escape either of them," there really aren't any quantitative similarities.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
To understand is to forgive, even oneself.
-- Alexander Chase

Wayne Throop wrote:

Possibly it does. However, I fail to see what it is about the
possibility that the universe might end in a singularity some
billions of years hence that makes you compare it to
egglaying emerald elevating elephants.

It seems to me no worse than speculating about the possibility
that the universe originated in a big bang. (Though evidence
is for the latter and against the former, it would seem.)

The Universe potentially ending in a singularity doesn't make it a black
hole in any meaningful sense, unless you decide to play semantic games
with what "black hole" means. A closed FRW universe and a Schwarzschild
geometry really have nothing useful in common except a bad day at the
end of the journey.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
To understand is to forgive, even oneself.
-- Alexander Chase

:: I fail to see what it is about the possibility that the universe
:: might end in a singularity some billions of years hence that makes
:: you compare it to egglaying emerald elevating elephants.

: Erik Max Francis
: The Universe potentially ending in a singularity doesn't make it a
: black hole in any meaningful sense, unless you decide to play semantic
: games with what "black hole" means. A closed FRW universe and a
: Schwarzschild geometry really have nothing useful in common except a
: bad day at the end of the journey.

Ah. OK, but even so, the structure of such speculation seems
widly divergent from that related to oviparous primary-colored pachyderms.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message
...
| :: There is serious speculation that the entire Universe is a BH.
|
| : "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
| : There is serious speculation that bright green flying elephants lay
| : their eggs in black holes. I guess it depends on your definition of
| : "serious".
|
| Possibly it does. However, I fail to see what it is about the
| possibility that the universe might end in a singularity some
| billions of years hence that makes you compare it to
| egglaying emerald elevating elephants.
|
| It seems to me no worse than speculating about the possibility
| that the universe originated in a big bang. (Though evidence
| is for the latter and against the former, it would seem.)
|
| And certainly the *reasons* for such speculations seem to have
| very very little in common with reasons to speculate about
| oviparous pachyderms.
|
| "What happened to your boadile?"
| "My megadonaplaty ate it."
|
| --- Exchange in Zelazny's "This Immortal"
|
|
| Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

Ahh... Droopy Throopy returns!
Got a question for ya, phuckwit.

Is it true, given that
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
and given that
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle?

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.

Androcles.
"An educated fool is more foolish than an ignorant one." -- Molière

AA Institute wrote:
Okay, this is a light hearted question... but serious answers are
equally invited!

Suppose a black hole enters a binary system or a triple star system or
even a small, tightly-packed open cluster. Once it's finished
swallowing the first star, can it go onto swallowing a second star, and
then a third star, and so on... as it continues along its destructive
path? What is the *limit* (if any) as to how much theoretical mass that
can go into a black hole, before it's 'filled to capacity' as it were?

It's one of those questions that's been bugging me for a while, and I'm
not certain what the latest theoretical assumptions are about black
holes.

What we don't know about black holes could fill one so to speak.

There is no "capacity" in any sense we would think of it. There is no reason to assume there is a
limit.

The practicality of swallowing more than one would appear limited to the very few binaries which
are very close and rapidly revolving around each other, most binaries are not. But then we have to
ask how a BH could hang around long enough to eat even one. Even relativistic mechanics says it is
going to pass near, if near enough swing around a common center of gravity and leave again. There is
no conceivable way to decelarate it so it could take up close orbit. Even in a universe this size a
"head on" collision may have never occurred.

A sufficiently massive BH might pass by a rapid binary and pull them along and slowly feed on both
but again one of those rare events as such dynamics tend to expell one -- at least by playing a
simple simulation many times.

Also close binaries are themselves a likely source of BHs as the larger feeds on the smaller.

--
No one expects the Jewish Inquisition!
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3508
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
commentary http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/running.phtml a5