|
|
"Erik Max Francis" <max@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:epadnVePLbtrnr3eRVn-qA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Paul Harman wrote:
<snippage>
> All that being said, that's not particularly relevant to
the question of
> maximum black hole size (since Hawking radiation limits
the minimum
> mass, not the maximum mass), and, as Aaron was kind enough
to remind us,
> maximum black hole mass could only come into play only in
particularly
> queer universes, of which ours does not to seem to be one.
Very true, except that, if what we now know is correct,
there is a sort of de facto "pseudo-upper-limit" on the mass
of BHs simply
due to the now accepted "hyper-expansion" of our universe
due
its so-called vacuum, or dark energy. Presumably, in deep
time, distant galactic superclusters will travel so far
apart (at relative velocities greater than c) they will,
each in turn, become causally disconnected from each other.
Local galactic superclusters may, or may not, remain
causally connected (we apparently don't know exactly yet
which of several theories is correct,) but in any event,
this would place the maximum amount of mass-energy a BH
could accrete (in arbitrarily deep time) at about that of
the largest superclusters we know of. In near-infinite time
though, even such large BHs would eventually decay by means
of emission of Hawking radiation. Still though, this
"maximum
pseudo-limit" would represent an awful large mass! :)
...tonyC
> --
> Erik Max Francis && max@xxxxxxxxxxx &&
http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM
erikmaxfrancis
> I don't like principles. I prefer prejudices.
> -- Oscar Wilde
|
|