Page 1 of 1

1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 5:32 am UTC
by Linux0s
Image

Title Text: It also brings all the boys, and everything else, to the yard.

It's still a challenge to find curtains that go with a singularity.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 5:33 am UTC
by Mikeski
The gift shop at the LHC has some cool stuff.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 5:44 am UTC
by flicky1991
"What do you do when you want to put your drinks down?"
"Oh, we usually put them on this frictionless plane... very carefully."

(Actually, that's starting to sound less like BHG's house and more like Beret Guy's.)

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 5:51 am UTC
by rhomboidal
Everything goes with black.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 6:26 am UTC
by orthogon
Best comic in ages, IMHO. Bonus points for including a nod to The Big Lebowski.

EDIT: actually, I think The Dude's rug "really held the room together", so it was more like the electromagnetic force.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 7:11 am UTC
by FOARP
Hmm . . I realise that I am guilty both of pedantry and of taking a comic statement seriously, but wouldn't it actually blow the room apart? Small black holes are unstable.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 7:22 am UTC
by Neil_Boekend
flicky1991 wrote:"What do you do when you want to put your drinks down?"
"Oh, we usually put them on this frictionless plane... very carefully."

If that frictionless plane is perpendicular to the netto gravitational pull then the drinks should stay put perfectly.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 7:25 am UTC
by Wee Red Bird
You'd never have to worry about dusting the room.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 8:07 am UTC
by StClair
It can repel you, but I'd have to reverse its charge.
(Or possibly its spin.)

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 8:16 am UTC
by Echo244
OK, so where does BHG keep his non-miniature version?

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 8:26 am UTC
by FOARP
OK, so over-thinking this one totally:

1) The Schwarzschild radius of this black hole can be estimated from the radius of the black dot at its centre. This appears to be roughly 0.5cm (i.e., the diameter appears roughly 1cm) assuming the characters are of average height.

2) The mass of this particular black-hole can therefore be calculated based on this radius as ~0.5 times the mass of the Earth using Rs=2MC/c^2.

This creates a few issues:

- There's no known mechanism by which a black hole of this size could form in the present-day universe. Black hat guy therefore has access to some incredibly wild physics, but this isn't surprising in and of itself.

- No black holes of this size have been observed. Since the universe should have formed many such objects in its early days there may be a mechanism that precludes their formation/existence.

- I guess it's possible that, rather than producing one, Black Hat guy captured a primordial black hole. Since current theory has this as being basically impossible (micro-black holes are predicted to simply pass straight through stars, planets without interacting with them sufficiently to be observable), again, Black Hat guy has access to some pretty wild physics.

- Contra what I said earlier, it would be stable within the lifetime of the universe (The mass would be ~3x10^24 kg and is estimated that a ~1x10^11 kg black hole would be stable over the present lifetime of the universe) and would not quickly evaporate and then eventually explode.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 8:27 am UTC
by Hawknc
Cosmology was a long time ago for me, but if we assume the Schwarzchild radius is about 3cm (based on the small black dot in the middle), I get roughly 2 x 1025 kg equivalent mass, or about 3 times the size of Earth.

"Bringing the room together" may be an understatement.

Edit: well, I was almost fast enough. Let the endless nitpicking about our assumptions commence!

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 8:53 am UTC
by PM 2Ring
Just how small is this black hole? Assuming that black spot is supposed to be the event horizon then it looks like it has a Schwarzschild radius of a centimetre or so. That's a rather heavy object to support with a regular coffee table. :) Maybe the coffee table and stand are made from unobtainium...

According to this Hawking Radiation Calculator a black hole of 1 cm radius has a mass of around 1.128 Earth masses, a Hawking temperature of 0.018 kelvin, and a lifetime of 8.1378e+50 years, which is rather stable. Of course, with that much mass it has considerable gravity: at the event horizon its gravity is 4.4938e+18 m/s² which dwarfs Earth's gravity for quite a distance.

If we use a radius of 0.8768 femtometres, the charge radius of a proton, then the mass is a much more modest 5.905e+8 metric tons. The lifetime is 5.4854e+11 years, which is still fairly stable, although the temperature is 2.078e+11 kelvin, which is rather toasty, and the surface gravity is 5.125e+31 m/s².

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 10:06 am UTC
by Soupspoon
If the black hole mass is >1Mearth, as per the three prior posts, then the coffee-table isn't supporting the weight of the hole against the Earth's gravity so much as the inverse...

(Which doesn't make the scenario any more explicable!)

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 11:18 am UTC
by cellocgw
FOARP wrote:Hmm . . I realise that I am guilty both of pedantry and of taking a comic statement seriously, but wouldn't it actually blow the room apart? Small black holes are unstable.


It only looks small from that angle.

StClair wrote:It can repel you, but I'd have to reverse its charge.
(Or possibly its spin.)

Duuuuuude get your memes straight: you have to reverse the polarity.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 11:51 am UTC
by Plasma Mongoose
Also, the gamma ray bursts are bad for the environment as well as your roof.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 12:01 pm UTC
by dbam987
If black hat guy's hat got sucked into the black hole, he'd probably go in after it.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 12:42 pm UTC
by Flumble
dbam987 wrote:If black hat guy's hat got sucked into the black hole, he'd probably go in after it.

He'd torture the black hole until it gives the hat back.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 12:56 pm UTC
by Echo244
Flumble wrote:
dbam987 wrote:If black hat guy's hat got sucked into the black hole, he'd probably go in after it.

He'd torture the black hole until it gives the hat back.


The one time he lost his hat, it... ended rather well for him. Or rather, seems to be continuing rather well.

Less well for, say, witnesses of affection, or physics professors.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 1:52 pm UTC
by terjung
Meanwhile, across the pond, Kelis has an idea and starts writing the follow-up to her 'Milkshake' single.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 3:05 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
PM 2Ring wrote:Just how small is this black hole? Assuming that black spot is supposed to be the event horizon then it looks like it has a Schwarzschild radius of a centimetre or so. That's a rather heavy object to support with a regular coffee table. :) Maybe the coffee table and stand are made from unobtainium...

According to this Hawking Radiation Calculator a black hole of 1 cm radius has a mass of around 1.128 Earth masses, a Hawking temperature of 0.018 kelvin, and a lifetime of 8.1378e+50 years, which is rather stable. Of course, with that much mass it has considerable gravity: at the event horizon its gravity is 4.4938e+18 m/s² which dwarfs Earth's gravity for quite a distance.

If we use a radius of 0.8768 femtometres, the charge radius of a proton, then the mass is a much more modest 5.905e+8 metric tons. The lifetime is 5.4854e+11 years, which is still fairly stable, although the temperature is 2.078e+11 kelvin, which is rather toasty, and the surface gravity is 5.125e+31 m/s².


If you're looking at stability of black holes, you should consider the surroundings - since it's indoors, it'll be around 300K, which puts the radius somewhere around 600nm (293K gives 620nm). Masses come in around 10^20kg or so (~10^(-4) Earths). So, still heavy enough to be the largest contribution to local gravity for a hundred miles or so, but not going to significantly affect planetary orbits...

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 3:12 pm UTC
by Himself
I'd be worried about the micromicroquasar that would result from placing it in Earth's atmosphere.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 3:20 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
Hawknc wrote:Cosmology was a long time ago for me,
Really? I was under the impression the Australia was created much more recently than the rest of the universe.
Cosmogony was 13.7 billion years ago for me.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 4:59 pm UTC
by Jackpot777
Mikeski wrote:The gift shop at the LHC has some cool stuff.


They might have bought it at Bed Bath & Beyond (in the "beyond" section).

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 8:34 pm UTC
by moody7277
FOARP wrote:- I guess it's possible that, rather than producing one, Black Hat guy captured a primordial black hole. Since current theory has this as being basically impossible (micro-black holes are predicted to simply pass straight through stars, planets without interacting with them sufficiently to be observable), again, Black Hat guy has access to some pretty wild physics.


I'm guessing he probably knows a guy.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 8:38 pm UTC
by Coyoty
Jackpot777 wrote:
Mikeski wrote:The gift shop at the LHC has some cool stuff.


They might have bought it at Bed Bath & Beyond (in the "beyond" section).


From Emo Philips.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 8:52 pm UTC
by Reecer6
Linux0s wrote:It's still a challenge to find curtains that go with a singularity.


On the plus side, pretty soon, no one will care if the carpet doesn't match.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Fri May 13, 2016 9:01 pm UTC
by Keyman
Am I the only one who heard the ol' vaudevillian - ba-doom-boom *cymbal crash* - in my head after the punch line?

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Sat May 14, 2016 11:39 am UTC
by StClair
cellocgw wrote:
StClair wrote:It can repel you, but I'd have to reverse its charge.
(Or possibly its spin.)

Duuuuuude get your memes straight: you have to reverse the polarity.


Wrong meme; I was riffing on the song lyric in the alt text. "have to" and "charge" need to be in there.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Mon May 16, 2016 11:43 am UTC
by The Moomin
StClair wrote:
cellocgw wrote:
StClair wrote:It can repel you, but I'd have to reverse its charge.
(Or possibly its spin.)

Duuuuuude get your memes straight: you have to reverse the polarity.


Wrong meme; I was riffing on the song lyric in the alt text. "have to" and "charge" need to be in there.


Don't cross the memes.

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 1:12 am UTC
by Gingercat
Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Hawknc wrote:Cosmology was a long time ago for me,
Really? I was under the impression the Australia was created much more recently than the rest of the universe.
Cosmogony was 13.7 billion years ago for me.


Gives a whole new meaning to "finding God" doesn't it? Turns out he's been hanging around the xkcd fora ;)

Re: 1680: "Black Hole"

Posted: Tue May 17, 2016 7:57 am UTC
by Soupspoon
Gingercat wrote:Gives a whole new meaning to "finding God" doesn't it? Turns out he's been hanging around the xkcd fora ;)
Well, He has to be somewhere. (If not everywhere!)

Could it be that we are we a Gap?