Anti-nuclear bomb?

[Angrboda]

Not to mention the obvious that the sum total of energy doesn't decrease, so you still have to contend with the energy from both black hole and atom bomb, regardless.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh yeah opening a black hole stellar idea 

[Anomalocaris]

Just for readers of the topic:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-...20material.

interesting question,
Blackholes are spheres with very very high gravitational force. Even light can not escape that force. So even if the bomb explodes, we won't be able to observe it. Blackholes are made from high density neutron star. You can’t expect a blackhole to be destroyed just by an explosion of neuclear weapon.
Bomb explosion would release a huge amount of energy (assuming it reaches the “surface” of blackhole and explodes). Blackhole treats energy and mass equally. So it will absorb all the energy released by the bomb.
Lets assume we throw the bomb at event horizon. Time is slow there, much much slower then in our normal world. So before the bomb reaches the center, we might have passed 100s or 1000s of earth years. So if you are the person to drop the bomb, you probably wouldn't be the person to observe it when it explodes. Fascinating, isn't it ?

A black hole is how you make atomic bombs get lost for 100s or 1000s of earth years near the hole's event horizon.
Don't believe the misleading posts trying to cover this fact  .

Uh, no.   Long before the mass in a macroscopic object can be seriously affected by the time dilation affect near the event horizon of a small black hole, The object will have been ripped into a stream of subatomic particles by the tremendous tidal force near the event horizon.   Once that happens, outlandish things will happen long before things get so weird as Einstein predicted. 

The irony is, the smaller the black hole, the more extreme the tidal forces any object approaching it will experience as it comes close to the event horizon.

If we are talking about a black hole that can be made on earth. It would have to be pretty small.  Even if all of earth is turned into a blackhole, it would still be very small for a black hole.   The point is the tidal force your hydrogen bomb will experience before relativistic affect because really large will already be out of this world.  Suffice to rip atomic nucleus apart and dwarve the forces nuclear fission or fusion can be releases out of the same nucleus.

Any angular momentum the object previously had with respect to the blackhole will spin the stream up to millions of revolutions per second around the small black hole as the stream falls towards the hole.   The centrifugal force of the spinning cloud will slow the leading edge stream on its way into the black hole.    But trailing parts of the cloud of material that was the hydrogen bomb would still be piling in under the black holes’ a gravity.   Remember, conservation of energy says anything falling into a blackhole under the blackhole’s gravity will achieve light speed as it enters event horizon, even if the black hole is small.   So the material piling up behind the leading edge of the could will hit the leading edge at a large fraction of speed of light.   Guess what, compression we can’t even dream of reproducing on earth will heat the particles up to temperature way higher than the center of a nuclear explosion.   Guess what?   That heat, embodying about 50-100 times more evergy than if the material that generated it exploded in nuclear fusion,   Will radiate out long before these material begin to experience the scale of time dilation you quoted.

[Ferrocyanide]

WinterHold seems to be proposing to stop a nuclear explosion by blowing up a "black hole bomb".

The problem is that you need to launch your black hole bomb, make it reach the atomic bomb in time, and time it so that your bomb and their bomb blows up exactly at the same time.
That's not going to work.
Even if you get the timing right, there would be an uneven explosion.

When your enemy using a standard missile, you can launch a counter missile that will get nearby and then your missile detonates itself, which also destroys their missile. The only accuracy required is to get your missile close to their's. It doesn't matter how high in the atmosphere the explosion happens. As long as your missile gets close enough, it is good enough.
I don't know but perhaps using a standard bomb to stop your enemies nuclear bomb would be best. Just make sure that you stop them way before they come near your land since the atomic bomb still might create a large explosion or maybe there would be a weaker atomic explosion.

Like I said, the other issue is that you end up with an uneven explosion with your idea. There would still be a tremendous amount of energy output from the atomic bomb. Your black hole bomb will also give a large amount of energy output (in the form of a vacuum).

[LadyForCamus]

Just for readers of the topic:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-...20material.

interesting question,
Blackholes are spheres with very very high gravitational force. Even light can not escape that force. So even if the bomb explodes, we won't be able to observe it. Blackholes are made from high density neutron star. You can’t expect a blackhole to be destroyed just by an explosion of neuclear weapon.
Bomb explosion would release a huge amount of energy (assuming it reaches the “surface” of blackhole and explodes). Blackhole treats energy and mass equally. So it will absorb all the energy released by the bomb.
Lets assume we throw the bomb at event horizon. Time is slow there, much much slower then in our normal world. So before the bomb reaches the center, we might have passed 100s or 1000s of earth years. So if you are the person to drop the bomb, you probably wouldn't be the person to observe it when it explodes. Fascinating, isn't it ?

A black hole is how you make atomic bombs get lost for 100s or 1000s of earth years near the hole's event horizon.
Don't believe the misleading posts trying to cover this fact  .

But do they mew like horny kittens?

[Paleophyte]

Just for readers of the topic:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-...20material.

interesting question,
Blackholes are spheres with very very high gravitational force. Even light can not escape that force. So even if the bomb explodes, we won't be able to observe it. Blackholes are made from high density neutron star. You can’t expect a blackhole to be destroyed just by an explosion of neuclear weapon.
Bomb explosion would release a huge amount of energy (assuming it reaches the “surface” of blackhole and explodes). Blackhole treats energy and mass equally. So it will absorb all the energy released by the bomb.
Lets assume we throw the bomb at event horizon. Time is slow there, much much slower then in our normal world. So before the bomb reaches the center, we might have passed 100s or 1000s of earth years. So if you are the person to drop the bomb, you probably wouldn't be the person to observe it when it explodes. Fascinating, isn't it ?

A black hole is how you make atomic bombs get lost for 100s or 1000s of earth years near the hole's event horizon.
Don't believe the misleading posts trying to cover this fact  .

Just a few pesky facts to ruin your day:

 - What the researchers made in the article you cited was not a black hole. It was a black hole analog. That's something that has certain properties that we might expect a black hole to have without being an actual black hole. What was actually produced was a Bose-Einstein condensate made of 8000 super-cooled rubidium atoms. It was so fragile that they destroyed it every time they took a picture of it. Needless to say, this won't be stopping any nukes any time soon.

 - Black holes are not your friend. They are top contenders for the most destructive phenomena ever discovered. The small ones "evaporate" with a detonation that outstrips any bomb that humans have ever conceived of. The mid-sized ones simply swallow the entire planet. The really big ones devour the solar system in one gulp. Do I need to explain why this would be a bad idea?

 - Throwing a nuke into a black hole, or a black hole at a nuke, is one of the more absurd ways of actually making a nuclear bomb worse. Nuclear weapons are relatively inefficient at converting mass to energy, managing only a percent or two at the best of times. By contrast, a black hole can liberate more than 50% of the energy equivalent of any infalling mass. This is how astronomers can study black holes in other galaxies by looking at the gamma radiation that they emit. So your "solution" makes an explosion an order of magnitude larger than the nuke itself would have. And that's just the nuke. Once your black hole started pulling in atmosphere, ocean, and bedrock you'd have real trouble. It would effectively turn any nearby mass into a nuclear explosion.

TL;DR We can't do this and that's a very good thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just so I'm clear.


If the us could create and deploy a pocket black hole as a weapon.....that...to you...seems like an anti-weapon? In some way that a nuke isn't an anti weapon for naval guns or bombs? For some odd reason, I hope that the first weaponized black hole is called winterhold. It would actually fit. It's strange to me that I sit here, as a former american soldier, wishing for the day that no one so much as throws a rock at anyone else. Meanwhile, you're over here hoping that some extremist gets ahold of a goddamned black hole.

Fully beyond the pale - your entire worldview is unwell.

[Ferrocyanide]

 - Black holes are not your friend. They are top contenders for the most destructive phenomena ever discovered. The small ones "evaporate" with a detonation that outstrips any bomb that humans have ever conceived of. The mid-sized ones simply swallow the entire planet. The really big ones devour the solar system in one gulp. Do I need to explain why this would be a bad idea?

 - Throwing a nuke into a black hole, or a black hole at a nuke, is one of the more absurd ways of actually making a nuclear bomb worse. Nuclear weapons are relatively inefficient at converting mass to energy, managing only a percent or two at the best of times. By contrast, a black hole can liberate more than 50% of the energy equivalent of any infalling mass. This is how astronomers can study black holes in other galaxies by looking at the gamma radiation that they emit. So your "solution" makes an explosion an order of magnitude larger than the nuke itself would have. And that's just the nuke. Once your black hole started pulling in atmosphere, ocean, and bedrock you'd have real trouble. It would effectively turn any nearby mass into a nuclear explosion.

TL;DR We can't do this and that's a very good thing.

Yes, when particle/atoms fall into a black hole, there is a full spectrum, from radio wave to gamma-ray, emission.
Another way is to observe background stars to see if the light is deflected.
Another way is to see the gravitational effecting the pathway of other moving objects, sort of how it was done to detect Pluto and Neptune.
Another way that I think has not been done yet is gravitational lensing.