arXiv:0908.1803gr-qc
We investigate whether it is physically possible to build starships or power sources using the Hawking radiation of an artificial black hole as a power source. The proposal seems to be at the edge of possibility, but quantum gravity effects could change the picture.
Linked by 11 identifiable commenters in 25 comments across 22 threads, from Jun 2011 to Nov 2025. Found in 3 HN submissions from Dec 2009 to Mar 2023. Open submission discussions.
See also: https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803 "Are black hole star ships possible?"
The paper you linked, https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803, is also a fun read.
I skimmed over Crane and Westmoreland's paper[1] and an article that discusses specific designs[2], and I'm still unsure how one would keep the vehicle and black hole moving together while also generating thrust. It seems like there would be a conservation of energy problem…
Crane and Westmoreland looked into this: "Are Black Hole Starships Possible" (2009) https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803v1 A black hole is generated when mass-energy density is above a certain threshold. You need to pack about a megatonne of mass-energy in a sphere 3 attometers in…
Hawking radiation propulsion has the perfect specific impulse: exhaust velocity is the speed of light. Black hole hawking radiation also is perfectly efficient: 100% of the mass is converted into energy. D-T fusion only converts 0.4% of the mass to energy. There are many awful…
I like black holes because once you have one you don't need an accelerator for refueling. https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
Creating a microscopic black hole is not completely out of our reach. https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803 discusses this topic a bit. If the assumptions there are not wrong, and climate change doesn't get us first, creating small black holes might be become possible an a couple of…
If you have a small black hole, you'd rather build a dyson sphere around that. They're pretty good matter-to-energy converters: https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
The best way I know is creating small artificial black holes, feeding them matter at just the right rate and harvesting the Hawking radiation. That's actually a lot easier than building a Dyson sphere. https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
Does it make sense to build the FCC, when it costs so much money and doesn't necessarily have enough energy to discover any new physics, at 10x the energy of the LHC? Maybe it makes more sense to start working towards producing microscopic black holes in space, where results…
Manufacturer's notice: the event horizon temperature goes up as well. By the time it has just five thousand years left, it'll be radiating super-energetic x-rays at (an average) 1.57 giga-electronvolts each. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803v1.pdf#15
This paper has some interesting ideas. They want to manufacture really tiny black holes (radii of "a few attometers") and use Hawking radiation (which is inversely related to mass) to drive the vehicle. The black hole serves as both engine and fuel tank.…
Artificially creating microscopic black holes is not extremely difficult [1], and after that you can "just" feed them a few stars. Probably you can harvest them while travelling less than 25000 LY. [1] Section V of this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
It's not as hard as you think. Check out this paper here for some pointers https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
I like to think that black hole propulsion is the way to go https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
The title of this article sounds like a password [1]. Whenever one of these articles comes out I like to think of this fun paper: [2] Are Black Hole Starships Possible?", http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803 [1] https://xkcd.com/936/ [2]…
You are mistaken. http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803v1 (See the table on page 15) The lifespan of a 108,000 tonne black hole is ~350 hours. At that mass, its event horizon is .32 attometres across, and the Hawking radiation it emits is measured in gigaelectronvolts.
One efficient way to convert mass to energy is using the Hawking radiation of artificial black holes. This seems to by allowed by the laws of physics according to this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
Microscopic Black Holes are cooler than anti-matter if you ask me. We are only centuries of progress away from this: "Are Black Hole Starships Possible", http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803 My question is, how long before we can build an accelerator that deliberately aims at creating…
Reminds me of one of my favourite reads, "Are Black Hole Starships Possible", http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
Reminds me of one of my favourite reads, "Are Black Hole Starships Possible", http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
This kind of thing would require large scale industrialization of space (in orbit around various places). If we are doing that, why not create a black hole starship? Microscopic black holes have been theorized as power sources for starships. The power source is the Hawking…
That's a good, grounded assessment of the scale of the problem. I too believe that the human colonization of space, even near-space (ie within the orbit of the Moon) is a long way off. The energy costs are simply too high and resources too cheap on the Earth to make it viable…
Most of their science paper is in layman English http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803v1 and explains such questions. The black holes they would build are very very tiny, about the size of a proton. They are relatively light, about 600,000 tons. Such a body doesn't have noticeable…
Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.
There have been several proposals. This paper proposes a feasable mechanism[1]: -"a SBH could be artificially created by firing a huge number of gamma rays from a spherically converging laser. The idea is to pack so much energy into such a small space that a BH will form." 1.…
octaaneView on HNParent context