hello and how u doing, i have a question for the physic minded to ponder.

can a black hole consume other black holes and if so would singularities

merge to create a single singularity so dense as to consume the entire universe, thereby collapsing on itself into a new big bang and a new universe?

can the math be done to disprove or prove this theory?

flyin guy:

can a black hole consume other black holes and if so would singularities merge to create a single singularity so dense as to consume the entire universe, thereby collapsing on itself into a new big bang and a new universe?

can the math be done to disprove or prove this theory?

Certainly black holes could merge. A simple thought experiment should suffice to answer the question about consuming the entire universe: If galaxies harbor supermassive black holes at their cores, and eventually merge (as they are seen to do), then if the mass of the black holes were large enough to consume the entire galaxies we should be able to see evidence of that. We do not currently have any such evidence. That is, we have many photographs of galaxies disrupting one another, but no photographs of what appear to be entire galaxies disappearing into singularities.

If you look back in time to near the Big Bang, you encounter objects of indeterminate shape but very high luminosity. Perhaps these are supermassive black holes (some such objects emit copious amounts of energy at wavelengths you'd expect from high-mass black hole accretion discs, for example).

But when we see galaxies merging, or very distant (very old) supermassive/superluminous objects, these objects are separated from other galaxies by great distances. Meanwhile, spacetime continues its headlong, accelerating expansion. It therefore seems unlikely that mergers of even supermassive black holes could lead to consumption of significant portions of the universe, or that such mergers result in concentrations of mass sufficient to cause more than local collapse effects.

chipdatajeffb:

thank you for the quick reply. you reaffirmed my vision of the universe slowly{albeit at light speed}

winking out of existence star by star until the clock will stop on time itself. like having 15 minutes

behind the wheel of a corvette or 15 minutes of root canal surgery which lasts longer? the theory of 

relativity can be a mean taskmaster. i'll take the vette because someone once said it's better to

burn out than to fade away. once again thank you

p.s.does the moon rotate on its axis every 24 hours? and if a semi-automatic handgun has the trigger pulled in the vacuum of space will the bullet travel forever or split the energy between both the gun and bullet or not fire at all{lack of oxygen}? i appreciate the responses whether i win my $1 bet or not    

flyin guy:

p.s.does the moon rotate on its axis every 24 hours?

The Moon rotates once on its axis each time it appears to "orbit" the Earth. That is, it's "day" is equal to what we call a lunar month. That is once every 27.3 days (Earth days).

... if a semi-automatic handgun has the trigger pulled in the vacuum of space will the bullet travel forever ...

Essentially, until it hits something.

... or split the energy between both the gun and bullet ...

Yes, action/reaction are equal and opposite.

... or not fire at all{lack of oxygen}?

The explosive in the cartridge is self-sufficient. The primer ignites it and it burns in the cartridge with sufficient energy to propel the bullet from the cartridge and barrel. The lack of oxygen in space is of no consequence in this case.