Can a Black Hole theoretically explode?

If a Supernova is bad, can you imagine if a massive Black Hole exploded? A Meganova or Ultranova

I'm not sure a black hole can explode...

I mean, black holes are black holes because of how they've been so dense that they collapse in on themselves...

Lord knows what it would take to blow up a black hole, since it has to be strong enough to managed to survive being spaghettified and crushed and what not...

Likely that they can't, the immense gravity won't allow it, and if happen the explosion still would be capped at the speed of light, as in hypernovas.

I'm not sure they can. I know in theories like the Big Freeze, black holes eventually evaporate.

I don't think so man.

Theoretically, yes. We don't really know though. This documentary explains how black holes may eventually explode as well:

I don't believe there is any record of a black hole exploding. Although there are few theories of a "quantum bounce". That isn't to say an exploding black hole isn't possible. We know almost nothing about the universe.

The closest thing to an explosion of a black hole I can think of is when two black holes collide. This collision is extremely violent. It was just earlier this year that this was first observed and we could see the effects. This is where the gravitational waves you likely heard about earlier this year came from. These gravitational waves are so powerful they are actually ripples in the very fabric of space-time!

Yes, in theory.

When a massive star runs out of nuclear fuel, the fusion reaction keeping the star alive pushes out. Without the energy from the fusion, the star can no longer resist its own gravitational pull and collapses in on itself. If the star is massive enough, the collapsing core squeezes into such a dense ball that it forms an event horizon and becomes a black hole.

If black holes do experience a quantum bounce and form neither singularities nor event horizons, we wouldn't necessarily see them.

Near a collapsing star, time will distort so much that a tiny amount of time near the star will appear to be billions of years to a distant observer.

it's called a white hole and it's all theory

If Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan Super Kaioken Goku uses a times ten Super Kamehameha on the black hole than it will explode.

This reminds me of my "Is The Big Rip & The Big Bang one in the same" thread.

A White Hole huh...I'm looking it up right now.

Oh cool...so I've never heard of The Big Bounce Theory until now but I was thinking that The Big Bang was caused by A Big Rip in a previously existing universe & the expansion of our universe is another Big Bang in progress but to those existing in this universe it will take eons.So the ripping apart of our known universe & The Big Bang in the new universe are happening simultaneously

I don't know

They can't.

Can confirm I am black hole.

Too much information.

Where in the video does it say that?

Also, just because some physicists have a paper or some pet theory that they came up with, it doesnt make this theoretically possible. We have to go with accepted science to determine what's theoretically possible, because otherwise everything would be theoretically possible and the term would be meaningless.

As far as we know Black Holes can evaporate away over long periods of time, but that's it. I've never seen a valid piece of science that suggests otherwise.

37:55.

And you're some curator of what's scientifically valid? Dismissing papers purely off the premise that "it's just a paper, doesn't mean it true"? That's no different than dismissing Hawking radiation when it was first jotted down on paper because it was new. Using your logic, there's no way to distinguish between reality and fiction--it lends no more validity when you apply it to aether, the Earth being flat or black holes themselves. You're essentially disregarding evidence because it's new, which of course, is meaningless. As it stands, there is no "accepted" bastion of what really happens to black holes.

The video at 37:55 is talking about Hawking Radiation, which is not even close to a Black Hole "exploding". In fact Black Holes evaporating due to Hawking Radiation would take much longer than the life the the universe because it happens so slowly.

Where did I say "it's just a paper, doesnt mean it true?" I'm pointing out that when you say "theoretically possible" you're appealing to known science, which means you're appealing to the scientific consensus. Papers show up all the time with all kinds of claims that are never supported by any evidence, or eventually disproved. But whatever, I'm not interested in arguing over what your definition of "theoretically possible" is because that's a pointless argument.

The fact is that according to what we know about Black Holes today (i.e. the scientific consensus) Black Holes dont explode nor are they in any danger of ever exploding. They'll be around long after all the stars in the universe have disappeared.

Then what happens? All I know is that Hawking said something about anything that goes into a black hole no longer exists "or something like that" & later said something about the multiverse & some universes don't have black holes thus his theory didn't violate the whole "energy can't be created or destroyed" thing.

"The video at 37:55 is talking about Hawking Radiation, which is not even close to a Black Hole "exploding"."

Let me quote it verbatim:

Some of those particles radiate away, taking minute amounts of mass from the black hole, like water evaporating from the ocean. Over time the radiation grows stronger and stronger, as the black hole shrinks and finally explodes.

This isn't some foreign concept, that's why it's in the video, that's why there's papers on it, that's why Stephen Hawking entertains the idea in A Brief History of Time. A black hole, as it radiates mass, increases in temperature. This can potentially lead a final violent burst of gamma rays.

"Where did I say "it's just a paper, doesnt mean it true?" I'm pointing out that when you say "theoretically possible" you're appealing to known science, which means you're appealing to the scientific consensus. Papers show up all the time with all kinds of claims that are never supported by any evidence, or eventually disproved. But whatever, I'm not interested in arguing over what your definition of "theoretically possible" is because that's a pointless argument."

You didn't say it verbatim, nor did I say you did. I stated that's what your argument amounted to, because you're not actually making any arguments against the evidence so much as you are the premise of new information. If you're not interested in arguing, why did you initiate a pointless semantical argument then? I mean, it's such a terrible thing to imply there's insufficient information, so we don't really know, but hey, here's an idea that has some evidence going for it, take a gander at it and form an opinion. You act as though I'm talking in absolutes, like I'm a Sith or something.

"The fact is that according to what we know about Black Holes today (i.e. the scientific consensus) Black Holes dont explode nor are they in any danger of ever exploding. They'll be around long after all the stars in the universe have disappeared."

So what? There was a scientific consensus about aether at one point as well. What it boils down to is, arguments stand on their own merits. The scientific method is set up so that it can appropriately amend itself if need be. The consensus isn't quite as rigid as you're stating it to be either.

@cruelestashley: isn't that due to the Black hole losing mass and therefore losing gravity meaning that it's force can no longer trap light so it all escapes?

@agent9149: It's because the loss of mass is inversely proportional to the rate Hawking radiation is emitted, assuming the temperature of the black hole is significantly greater than the cosmic microwave background's temperature. Light doesn't escape the outer event horizon, it's just that the quantum fluctuations create particles and antiparticles at said event horizon. Because of this, one particle can escape while one's trapped in the black hole's gravity. Escaping requires energy, so the trapped particle has negative energy, making the black hole lose mass (see: Energy Balance).

The fact is, we don't have sufficient information to know what happens at the end of a black hole's lifespan, mainly because our quantum gravity theories are inadequate. But the "explosion", that is the violent bursts of gamma rays, wouldn't be anything like a bomb exploding, so much as something that appears that way due to the increasing emission rate.

@cruelestashley: Did you hear Hawkings comment about Black Holes being portals to other universes at the end of them? If so what do you think.

If I recall correctly, he posited the idea because he believes the information in a black hole has to go somewhere. It's possible for a black hole/white hole model to exist, basically like an inter-dimensional wormhole, but to accurately discern the probability is another monster entirely. It requires acceptance of the multiverse premise, which stems around the notion that our universe is merely a region that's expanding in an even larger expanding region. The only evidence of this--that I'm aware of--has to do with a cosmic microwave background anomaly found last year.

Yes that's right. The evidence you speak of with the "cosmic microwave background" that we first saw last year is still being debated I think. The goal was to look for a similar anomaly on the other side of the chart or region of space since if the imprint has something to do with Multiverse Theory a parallel one would be located somewhere, don't remember much but that's the gist of what's currently going on.

No. They can implode though.

Well, anything that goes into the Black Hole still exists as energy within the Black Hole. I'm not sure what he said about a multiverse, so I cant comment on it. The question is what happens to the "information" that goes in. Personally I dont know enough about that to give you an answer. But guess is that it's just smeared around the event horizon and probably due to Quantum effects it disappears forever. But that's just a guess.

As far as the conservation of energy, yes that's mostly true. Within the universe energy normally just changes from one form to another. You can think of matter as just a different form of energy. But I do know of one case were energy is lost, and that's the red shift of light due to the expansion of the universe. But, that's a whole separate topic onto itself.

They're talking about the very end of a Black Hole through evaporation by Hawking Radiation. Yes, that increases towards the end, and I suppose you could call it an explosion. But, that's not the kind of explosion that I thought people were talking about here. It's also not an explosion that can happen randomly to a Black Hole. It's just an exponential increase in energy output at the very end, and it's nowhere near the comparison to a supernova that the OP was talking about.