On usage of charged black holes for energy production and interstellar travel

xlns

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Hello!

I'm redesigning my never-to-be-finish sci-fi novel, yet another futile to come up with scientifically based interstellar travel propulsion. My latest consideration is based on article[1] and possible extensions of those ideas. Anyway, I'm looking for an independent opinions on the subject (preferably this extension, but basic theme is a fair game).

Article [1] offers an optimal and imaginative introduction to the speculative subject of usage of black holes (BH) for energy production and spaceship propulsion and I would like to supplement their proposition with this Comment. In short, authors of [1] provide us with an assessment of possibility to manufacture a small mass black hole (~million tons, few order-of-magnitude up or down :)) and it's usage in energy production and propulsion of interstellar ship. Propulsion would be established by heating collected interstellar gas via Hawking emission of black hole right to the point where thermal fusion would go underway.

Proposition considered in this Comment assumes an additional assumption of [1] that it is possible not only to feed mass to BH therefore keeping it's temperature stable, but to feed it with charged particles to maintain a non-zero total charge of a BH. For the reasons that will become clear soon, I suggest that the total negative charge of BH is maintained by feeding it with electrons. If this is done at a certain mass range of BH, it may relax it's electric charge predominately via Hawking emission of charged muons and pions. Boltzmann factor suppresses the creation of particles with mass larger than temperature of BH, so there is a range of temperature of 100MeV - 1GeV to find a sweetspot for this. That rationale of this procedure is to have a tanker mass black hole that abundantly produces negatively charged muons via decay of emitted negative pions or through direct muon emission. The produced muon current then may be used to induce muonic fusion of hydrogen.

Muon induced fusion is a theoretically[2] and experimentally[3] well established process. This process includes formation of a muonic molecule, where proton and deuteron are binded via muon. Muon, being ~200 times more heavy than electron, forces nuclei to be much closer thus enabling nuclear reaction where He3 nucleus if formed, along with 5,5 ~MeV photon. After this reaction, muon is released, repeating this process with another proton and deuteron pair. Although muon have short time of half-life, one muon can induce up to 150 fusion reaction before it finally decays into electron, neutrino and photon.

Known drawbacks of this process today are a bottleneck of so-called alpha poisoning and the fact that the production of muons is a fairly expensive procedure. Alpha poisoning refers to a possibility for muon to remain binded to nuclear product of He3, removing it from further nuclear reactions. Production of muon is possible only on particle accelerators and are quite energetically inefficient.

Possession of a BH may solve both of these problems effectively. If proposition of the Comment and [1] turn out to be viable, it may be possible to build a spaceship propulsion system that uses BH muonic emission to burn hydrogen collected along the way via Bussard-type collectors. Unlike Bussard ramjets, it may be able to produce thrust at any speed removing know objections of Bussard's ramjet that it produces more drag than thrust at relevant speeds. Obviously, there is serious limitation to this design is scarce amount of deuterium in interstellar gas (~2.3 10^(-5) D/H ratio[4])) and that P-μ-P fusion process is weak process, probably too slow for the purpose. Even if fusion rate would be insufficient to deliver any notable thrust on object of mass comparable to that one of BH, it feels that muon captured by proton or free muons within plasma would still deliver significant part of it's rest energy to heat up plasma. I looked at Michel parameters and expecting energy of electron from muon decay is 1/2 of maximum energy and those don't go far in thick plasma. But this is only a feeling, no detailed numbers were done.

So, if there is anyone who has done work on Hawking emission of black holes, could you comment on possible process in this setup? Are there any blunt factual or reasoning errors in this post? If I can effectively "trade" an electron for a muon, does that mean that is impossible to maintain constant charge AND mass of BH? Would it be possible to feed the BH with additional proton beam to maintain mass AND charge (so that proton current be ~11x times smaller than electron beam, like 11e+1p -> 10μ)? Is it possible to "exhaust" most of BH Hawking power to muon emission (which may be preferred to be emitted) or at least significantly reduce intensity of accompanying Hawking photon radiation?

I reiterate what is clearly stated in [1], that is - to have this issue clear, we will have to wait for precises calculation within frame of Quantum Gravity or serious calculations in semi-classical approximation to determine orders-of-magnitude on the story. Also, I understand that potential naivety of this idea, stemming from the fact that I'm waaay off my area of expertize here, may render any serious response impossible, but still - while we wait for the TOE, I don't think it's harmful for us, sci-fi junkies, to speculate on the interstellar travel. Anyone care to join?

[1] Crane, Westmoreland "ARE BLACK HOLE STARSHIPS POSSIBLE?" arxiv 0908.1803
[2] J.D. Jackson (1957). "Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions between hydrogen isotopes by μ−-Mesons". Physical Review 106 (2): 330
[3] Alvarez L.W. et al. (1957). "Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions by μ Mesons". Physical Review 105: 1127
[4] Rogers et al. The Astrophysical Journal, 630
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,620
Reaction score
2,339
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Let me throw you the first argument in a good science discussion against the head: TANSTAAFL ;)

Or better said: Can you get energy from nowhere? Where do MBHs come frome?
 

jedidia

shoemaker without legs
Addon Developer
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
10,877
Reaction score
2,132
Points
203
Location
between the planets
honestly, if you're getting yourselfes that deep into hypothetical physics, you'll just end up with a lot of Technobabble. If you need a drive which we don't know how to build, better be vague on the details.
 

Quick_Nick

Passed the Turing Test
Donator
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
4,088
Reaction score
204
Points
103
Location
Tucson, AZ
It sounds like even if it is possible, it would be very inefficient and have loads of radiation.
But I don't think I completely understand. Where is this million ton black hole? Why would it not rip you apart or hold you back? And how do you harness its energy? And are you assuming that the crew and electronics are somehow shielded?
Like jedidia said, it's too hypothetical. We can't even create sustained fusion yet. Your spacecraft is beyond any sort of technology that isn't just made up.
 
Last edited:

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,620
Reaction score
2,339
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
If you need a drive which we don't know how to build, better be vague on the details.

Like Heinlein. He just said "Cherenkov Drive" and let it be said all with that, since the main character was a ground pounder.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You apparently create this million ton MBH by firing a Ceres-sized array of gamma-ray lasers at a single point in space, to create such a high energy density that it creates a singularity. ;)

Yeah. :rolleyes:

Black holes aren't magic space-hoovers, they don't go around space "sucking stuff up". A million tons of black hole aboard your ship will not drag you back any more than a million tons of rice, but they will of course account for mass, which you have to lug around.

Similarly, the radius from such a black whole at which you would feel even 1 g of gravity is quite small, and definitely withstandable for a spacecraft structure.

I've never heard of using a black hole as a muon generator before, but to be honest, it sounds like way too much trouble to me. For one, creating the black hole would take a huge amount of energy, feeding it would be tricky, and it would emit a lot of radiation (in gamma rays, as far as I can understand).

I have, however, heard of using a black hole as a matter-to-energy converter; a sufficiently massive black hole would be created, and then placed within a parabolic reflector of whatever-the-hell-reflects-gamma-rays-ium. It would then be fed with matter to withhold its hawking decay; during operation, this would be hydrogen funneled to the ship in a similar concept to the Bussard Ramjet, and fed to the black hole by particle beams (which would also push the black hole along with the ship). The whatever-the-hell-reflects-gamma-rays-ium would... reflect the hawking radiation, and propell the ship- while perfectly or at least near-perfectly shielding the occupants and electronics from the huge amount of radiation.

Once the flight was over, the black hole would be released, and the ship would move a sufficient distance from it, to avoid being destroyed in the ensuing explosion.

To be honest it's a nice idea, but even if you can create whatever-the-hell-reflects-gamma-rays-ium, you still have to propell that black hole, and create it, which would be a huge task indeed. But it sounds simpler than using a black hole as a muon generator, for what it is worth.

You can create some propulsion concept based on real science, and fudge some details (you use muon catalysed fusion, but the muons come from... somewhere, or a space demon, or a pile of Martian Gloobersnatch droppings, or whatever). Or you could use some magic drive that converts matter directly to energy and can somehow channel it into useful thrust. Or you could use a drive that, for example, generates energy from matter by using magnetic monopoles (which, I am sure, come with their whole host of problems).

Generally explaining the drive isn't necessary, and you will end up talking technobabble (even if you're considering something like a fusion drive, which is far closer to being an actual possibility than a black hole singularity miniwhacko drive).

An astronaut going to the Moon isn't going to write in his memoirs about how to design a chemical rocket engine, with its nozzle geometry and turbopump and active cooling and whatnot. He's gonna talk about how awesome it was to look up at the Earth once he got there. And probably comment on how loud the launch was...
 

xlns

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Let me throw you the first argument in a good science discussion against the head: TANSTAAFL ;)

Or better said: Can you get energy from nowhere? Where do MBHs come frome?

Hey, hey - I ain't no free rider. :) IF this could work, and I know that is a big "if", it would effectively transform proton mass collected along the way into heat of plasma. Let's assume we can ionize and collect interstellar hydrogen (a la Bussard). I feed my BH with proton and electron beam removed from this Bussard stream, so to have: 11e+1p -> BH -> 10μ (numbers come from desire to have stationary state - mass and charge of both sides are approximately the same). Then I inject muons and pions back to Bussard stream where they decay to neutrino and electron (for pions, we have intermediate state of muon). Note that average electron kinetic energy from muon decay is around 50MeV and this energy comes from proton mass. I work every day with 20MeV electrons and those don't go much far in matter - they leave almost all their kinetic energy in 10cm of water or so.

As to, how do I get MBH - We could rob an unsuspecting alien spaceships or pick up one from center of galaxy and wait for gazillion years to starve - hell, I don't know - I just assumed the way to manufacture one from [1] is feasible :)
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,620
Reaction score
2,339
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Well, you need to grow a black hole at the suitable size first, so it does decay at the desired rate. A black hole of the mass of Earth would evaporate in about a second, and produce a lot of power in that time. Then you need to stabilize the black hole.

Finally, you need to control the black hole: Keep it suspended, never let it loose its charge, control its mass and decay rate.

The position of such a black hole is crucial: A black hole that emits as much energy as a F-1 rocket engine would be a really tiny spot, that is hard to hit by the particle beams. The Black hole with the mass of Earth would be less than a centimeter large.
 

Quick_Nick

Passed the Turing Test
Donator
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
4,088
Reaction score
204
Points
103
Location
Tucson, AZ
Some whatever-the-hell-reflects-neutrinos-ium would be nice too.
 

xlns

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
6
You apparently create this million ton MBH by firing a Ceres-sized array of gamma-ray lasers at a single point in space, to create such a high energy density that it creates a singularity. ;)

Yeah. :rolleyes:

Black holes aren't magic space-hoovers, they don't go around space "sucking stuff up". A million tons of black hole aboard your ship will not drag you back any more than a million tons of rice, but they will of course account for mass, which you have to lug around.

ROTFL - Yeah, I know. But unlike throwing rice away to propel spaceship, I hope this drive to be a little bit more efficient. Even if you had half rice, half anti-rice, you would need almost 900kg of annihilating crop with perfect engine to travel to Vega (constant thrust with deceleration to zero). No single life, interstellar travel can take place if your design requires you to take fuel with it. This is the best idea I had to collect fuel along the way and use it effectively.

Similarly, the radius from such a black whole at which you would feel even 1 g of gravity is quite small, and definitely withstandable for a spacecraft structure.

I agree, I did consider this. If there was no radiation, you would barely feel gravitational pull of million ton BH a meter away.

I've never heard of using a black hole as a muon generator before, but to be honest, it sounds like way too much trouble to me. For one, creating the black hole would take a huge amount of energy, feeding it would be tricky, and it would emit a lot of radiation (in gamma rays, as far as I can understand).

Right on the spot. These were my first remarks when I read [1]. But if concept was feasible, it may be reasonable to create such black hole for this purpose - if you could transform hydrogen mass to heat collected plasma (please, read my other reply), it may provide thrust even for ship with mass of a supertanker or two. Feeding would be tricky, to say at least. I did calculate some semi-classical total cross-section and thing don't look good much :(
As for Hawking radiation, it is an enormous problem. For classical, uncharged BH temperature of ~100MeV (~10^12K), power would be around 10 GW - about output of largest nuclear power plant in the world. What needs to be taken into account is that at some temperatures (~1MeV), Hawking radiation wouldn't be only gamma, but massive particles would be emitted. As temperature of decaying BH reaches mass of a particle, those particles get radiated too. That is why I chose ~100MeV to 1GeV - forcing muons that would, one way or the other, heat up the plasma, mass of such BH may be acceptable to drag along and gamma output may be soften because radiation of charged BH is biased to emit massive, charged particles thus removing energy that would be otherwise be emitted as gamma.

I have, however, heard of using a black hole as a matter-to-energy converter; a sufficiently massive black hole would be created, and then placed within a parabolic reflector of whatever-the-hell-reflects-gamma-rays-ium. It would then be fed with matter to withhold its hawking decay; during operation, this would be hydrogen funneled to the ship in a similar concept to the Bussard Ramjet, and fed to the black hole by particle beams (which would also push the black hole along with the ship). The whatever-the-hell-reflects-gamma-rays-ium would... reflect the hawking radiation, and propell the ship- while perfectly or at least near-perfectly shielding the occupants and electronics from the huge amount of radiation.

Well, I did hope to have some original ideas in my novel. :) As for gamma reflector, I couldn't come up with this whaheregaramium (LOL!), so didn't want to recycle this particular idea.

Once the flight was over, the black hole would be released, and the ship would move a sufficient distance from it, to avoid being destroyed in the ensuing explosion.
...
its nozzle geometry and turbopump and active cooling and whatnot. He's gonna talk about how awesome it was to look up at the Earth once he got there. And probably comment on how loud the launch was...

:) Yeah, but Stanislaw Lem never shied to get all technical - I know, it is poor choice to pick a true giant of sci-fi for a roll model, but what the hell .... thanks for the input!

---------- Post added at 07:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------

... A black hole of the mass of Earth would evaporate in about a second, and produce a lot of power in that time...

produce a lot of power? That is wonderful euphemism for a cosmic cataclysm :thumbup::lol: Anyway, I'm not sure you are right about this time-to-live, I calculated it to be:
TTL = M^3 c^2 / ( 3 * 3.56 * 10^32 ),
so a million tone BH would be quite stable - Earth sized BH even more.

---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

But I don't think I completely understand. Where is this million ton black hole? Why would it not rip you apart or hold you back? And how do you harness its energy? And are you assuming that the crew and electronics are somehow shielded?

Where is BH? If you are asking for real, author of [1] gave a potential way to make one up. In my novel, MBH actually floats in Solar system by chance. Actually, holding it wouldn't be such problem, especially if it was charged - you could use electric fields to push it along. As for shielding, forcing BH to emit charged particles (muons), I'm hoping to soften gamma radiation plausible. It would be quite inefficient to drag along a million tones of lead to do shielding.

Like jedidia said, it's too hypothetical. We can't even create sustained fusion yet. Your spacecraft is beyond any sort of technology that isn't just made up.

:) That's why I write sci-fi novel. Thank for the input!
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,620
Reaction score
2,339
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
produce a lot of power? That is wonderful euphemism for a cosmic cataclysm :thumbup::lol: Anyway, I'm not sure you are right about this time-to-live, I calculated it to be:
TTL = M^3 c^2 / ( 3 * 3.56 * 10^32 ),
so a million tone BH would be quite stable - Earth sized BH even more.

Yeah, you are right, a one second black hole weights just 20 tons, Earth would last around 16 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 trillion years. :lol:
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If your black hole produces even a (relatively) small amount of gamma rays, it could fry your crew (and your ship). Another problem is that the smaller you get, the more shortlived such a black hole would be, and the smaller it would be (and thus more difficult to 'feed' with mass).

The other factor is that conversion from mass to energy is the most efficient process, it'll give you a far more efficient thruster than something that is attempting to heat propellant using particles (that is possible, and you might get an appreciable exhaust velocity with it, but on the other hand it could end up being quite low, relatively speaking).

And propellant efficiency is important, even if you're picking your propellant up along the way, because it means you can reduce the size of your ramscoop, for example. And get more thrust, or more power, out of a set amount of mass. You've paid for every gram of that black hole in mass-energy, so you'd want to use it as efficiently as possible, I suppose.

There's nothing wrong with using an unoriginal idea, if it is a very good one. As for the photon rocket, it was originally speculated about in the 1950s by Eugene Sanger, who proposed a spacecraft propelled by the gamma rays produced from positron anihillation.

photon_rocket.jpg


EDIT:

Here is the black hole starship paper.

It's a pretty funny paper... his suggestion is that a gigantic construct "built by an army of robots" producing million ton black holes is overall a more feasible concept than an antimatter rocket... :shifty:
 
Last edited:

xlns

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Points
6
If your black hole produces even a (relatively) small amount of gamma rays, it could fry your crew (and your ship).
Hey, I said I will make the ship, but I ain't gonna ride the damn thing :)
Another problem is that the smaller you get, the more shortlived such a black hole would be, and the smaller it would be (and thus more difficult to 'feed' with mass).
Million tone BH has a time-to-live around 100,000 years, so I'm good on that part. Feeding really is a problem and total cross-section is quite small in classic theory.
The other factor is that conversion from mass to energy is the most efficient process, it'll give you a far more efficient thruster than something that is attempting to heat propellant using particles (that is possible, and you might get an appreciable exhaust velocity with it, but on the other hand it could end up being quite low, relatively speaking).

And propellant efficiency is important, even if you're picking your propellant up along the way, because it means you can reduce the size of your ramscoop, for example. And get more thrust, or more power, out of a set amount of mass. You've paid for every gram of that black hole in mass-energy, so you'd want to use it as efficiently as possible, I suppose.
You're probably right on this on.
There's nothing wrong with using an unoriginal idea, if it is a very good one. As for the photon rocket, it was originally speculated about in the 1950s by Eugene Sanger, who proposed a spacecraft propelled by the gamma rays produced from positron anihillation.

photon_rocket.jpg


EDIT:

Here is the black hole starship paper.

It's a pretty funny paper... his suggestion is that a gigantic construct "built by an army of robots" producing million ton black holes is overall a more feasible concept than an antimatter rocket... :shifty:

As for paper, you can find new version of it at black hole starship paper. It actually won first prize at FQXi contest "On the limits of Physics".

Anyway, problem with positron annihilation are well known : on-board safety and fuel production. If you compare the cost of LHC against the amount of antimatter it produces (even if you assume that dedicated facility would be million times more efficient), then space-borne army of construction robots don't look too bad, lol! Like I said, it would take almost a tone of antimatter per kilogram payload to get us even across moderate distances, let says 10 parsecs - non-stop thrust assumed. OTOH With large cruise phase, requirements drop sharply, but still - enormous amount. Anyway, I'll rethink this through ...
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,620
Reaction score
2,339
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
...by Eugene Sanger

It is written Eugen Sänger or, if you lack the ability to make two dots to spice up your words ;), you can write it as Eugen Saenger.

It also sounds completely different to Eugene Sanger, despite Eugene being the English variant of the Greek Eugenios name. The Eu is pronouced like "Oi" and the Ge is spoken like in Galley, not like in Generator.
 
Last edited:

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Anyway, problem with positron annihilation are well known : on-board safety and fuel production. If you compare the cost of LHC against the amount of antimatter it produces (even if you assume that dedicated facility would be million times more efficient), then space-borne army of construction robots don't look too bad, lol!

The problem is scale, primarily. If you want to produce antimatter, you can produce as much as you want, but if you want to produce a black hole, you have to suddenly go all the way to megaengineering.

The other issue is how to handle everything. Antimatter on its own is as stable as normal matter, but a black hole will undergo decay all the time (it's a power-source that can't be switched off).

Granted, we can't capture and contain antimatter as of yet, but that doesn't necessarily make the antimatter situation worse than the black hole situation.

One must remember that the LHC is a scientific apparatus, not an industrial production facility at any rate, its cost isn't optimised for antimatter production. The gigantic black hole generating laser array is not "dumb" technology in comparison- after all, you have to aim a huge array of lasers at a small enough space for the whole thing to work.

In addition, we currently don't know how to make a gamma ray laser that doesn't destroy itself (current concepts use nuclear devices to generate radiation to 'pump' the laser, and they happen to shoot beams out of both ends of the lasing array).

In addition, it might become somewhat inconvenient when your spacecraft is many times less massive than the black hole it is carrying around. He assumes that any spacecraft will be absurdly massive (due to shielding constraints- perhaps too pessimistic ones, IMO), and that black hole propulsion would automatically be the best option, though this does not necessarily have to be the case. On the other hand, for an absolutely gigantic spacecraft, black hole propulsion might be an attractive option, because it can effectively be used to convert matter to energy, and make the interstellar ramjet concept possible.

It is written Eugen Sänger or, if you lack the ability to make two dots to spice up your words , you can write it as Eugen Saenger.

It also sounds completely different to Eugene Sanger, despite Eugene being the English variant of the Greek Eugenios name. The Eu is pronouced like "Oi" and the Ge is spoken like in Galley, not like in Generator.

It seems I have finally become my own worst nightmare, someone who minces names on the internet...

I didn't know this, I guess it would pay to be more observant than I usually tend to be. :facepalm:
 
Last edited:
Top