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. https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803
Are Black Hole Starships Possible
Louis Crane, Shawn Westmoreland
2009 · arXiv
- HN score
- 0
- Mentions
- 18
- Readers
- 10
- Months
- 16
From the abstract
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.
Metadata: arXiv. Abstracts retain their original authors’ rights.
In the conversation
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
18 selected excerpts · 18 total mentions
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, regardless of the design. I'm not a physicist, so I'm probably missing something. Most things one would use for thrust in space are inherently repulsive. The part I'm having trouble with is that it seems like even though a black hole would put out a lot of energy, it wouldn't be inherently repulsive, and so any vehicle would have to exert a station-keeping (or orbit-keeping) force equivalent to…
Read the full comment
whatever the over-all black hole engine was emitting, making the engine itself useless. This seems especially true for the design in the second article, where the Dyson shell weighs 600 times as much as the singularity. But again, I'm probably missing something obvious since it's outside my areas of expertise. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803 [2] https://www.space.com/24306-interstellar-flight-black-hole-p...
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 engineering problems of a black hole drive, but they're not so bad as to dismiss out of hand. See https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803v1
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 generations.
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 about quantum gravity can be gained [1]. [0] https://www.technologyreview.com/f/612766/cern-wants-to-buil... [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803 , Are Black Hole Starships Possible
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. 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] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship
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.
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 gravity, it's too light to attract anything and too small to absorb it. The big danger from these are explosions at the end of their life. The explosions are serious if they happened near Earth, but safe at the distance of Earth to Sun. They're built near the host star anyway.
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 (in spite of typical SF fodder of asteroid mining). This is a problem because with 6.5 billion people we're using up resources. Fast. Anyway, I see two potential solutions to this problem: one not-so-far-fetched and one incredibly far-fetched. The not-so-far-fetched version is... hitch-hiking. Our understanding of the Universe is that it is full of mass wandering between stars. IIRC recently a…
Read the full comment
planet-sized body was detected traveling between the stars. Simple probability dictates that it is only a matter of time before a sufficiently large body travels through the Solar System with sufficient velocity (including direction) to reach somewhere else in sufficient time (but not too fast that we can't perform an orbital intercept) that we can essentially build a colony on it. The far-fetched version is to use back holes as power sources [1] as this is, as far as I've read anyway, the only remotely viable method of providing propulsion without reaction mass to speak of and reaction mass is the death of any form of interstellar propulsion. The answer to the Fermi Paradox [2] may simply be that it's too hard to leave our comfortable gravity wells and most (all?) civilizations simply run out of stuff before they get there. I've also given the thought to "footprints". If you think about, say, a primitive tribesman. What do they need to survive in a sustainable fashion? They need a sufficient sized population (measured in the hundreds or low thousands) to avoid inbreeding and sufficient land area to provide a food source. This is probably measured in the tens or hundreds of square miles. Imagine all they need as the footprint of a sustainable colony as that then dictates the minimum size of any spaceship. Now imagine a more advanced society. 1000 modern humans would need an ENORMOUS footprint. Just think about computer chips. On any long voyage they'd break down so you need to be able to make new ones. That means a sufficient lab, technology, materials (or, in reality, the means to get more materials), all that knowledge and so on. Plus the size of the population goes up given required specializations. This of course assumes that people would do all of these things instead of, say, an AI of some kind (which would actually solve a lot of problems). That footprint is currently way too large to build any kind of interstellar vessel (IMHO). One of the trends I see in coming centuries is that footprint will reach a point of reducing in size. By 2100 I expect we'll be able to keep the sum of all human knowledge (or a close enough approximation) on an essentially mobile device. Advanced manufacturing techniques and materials may solve many of the footprint problems and so on. As the footprint goes down, the viability of any isolated colony being able to survive increases. The hitchhiking idea would also be ideal for the survival of humanity overall. With sufficient isolation, there will be cultural and genetic drift. If we're able to influence each other, that's a recipe for conflict. But a large mass passing through the Solar System is very likely a one-way ticket. There's no way to follow and no way to return (barring astronomically small odds of a repeat or inverse body). [1]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803v1 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
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 diameter to get a black hole approaching a useful lifespan. You could do it with bosonic matter, but photons are easier. Well, "easier": >In Section V below, we discuss the plausibility of creating SBHs with a very large spherically converging gamma ray laser. A radius of 1 attometer corresponds to the wavelength of a gamma ray with an energy of about 1.24 TeV. Since the wavelength of the Hawking…
Read the full comment
radiation is 8π^2 times the radius of the BH, the Hawking temperature of a BH with this radius is on the order of 16 GeV, within the limit of what we could hope to achieve technologically. >[...] >In a previous paper by the first author [9], it was proposed that 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. An advantage of using photons is that, since they are bosons, there is no Pauli exclusion principle to worry about. Although a laser powered black hole generator presents huge engineering challenges, the concept appears to be physically sound according to classical general relativity. The process of aligning the laser array will be interesting, however. From Wikipedia: >Unlike most objects, a black hole's temperature increases as it radiates away mass. The rate of temperature increase is exponential, with the most likely endpoint being the dissolution of the black hole in a violent burst of gamma rays. A complete description of this dissolution requires a model of quantum gravity, however, as it occurs when the black hole's mass approaches 1 Planck mass, when its radius will also approach two Planck lengths. See table 2 from the paper. A 0.32 attometer wide black hole has a surface temperature of 98.1GeV and is losing 61.4 kilograms per second-- 5,519 petawatts of ultra-hard gamma radiation! Even at that diameter it has a sizable weight of 108,000 tonnes, but it doesn't have long to live-- a couple weeks. A poorly collimated laser array will produce undersize black holes which will rapidly evaporate. The paper suggests keeping them well away from Earth, on the other side of the Sun if possible. Not hard-- you'd want to put the array well within the orbit of Mercury for better solar power flux.
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
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
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
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 black holes, so we can understand the Quantum effects? (In space hopefully).
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 radiation that is intense for microscopic black holes, with a mass of around a million tonnes according to calculations in [1]. Apparently, creating a black hole "would require millions of times less energy than a comparable amount of antimatter" [2]. We would need to learn more about quantum gravity first though. [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1803 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship
Keep following the thread.
More in PhysicsMore from the same topics.
The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine
Scott Aaronson
In honor of Alan Turing's hundredth birthday, I unwisely set out some thoughts about one of Turing's obsessions throughout his life, the question of physics and free will.
Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe
Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver
We use standard general relativity to illustrate and clarify several common misconceptions about the expansion of the Universe.
Ultimate physical limits to computation
Seth Lloyd
Computers are physical systems: what they can and cannot do is dictated by the laws of physics.
There are no particles, there are only fields
Art Hobson
Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society.