this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
661 points (98.4% liked)

Science Memes

12469 readers
2332 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
661
That explains a lot (mander.xyz)
submitted 22 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DogWater 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I know a little bit but I'm not an expert.

My understanding is hawking radiation will produce a rate of mass evaporating that's fairly consistent over galactic time scales, so you just need to make sure the black hole is big enough to "suck" more mass in via gravitational attraction per given time period than evaporates through hawking radiation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I think the bigger they are faster tge evaporate. They lose mass at some ratio between their surface and mass.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

Exactly the opposite. The bigger one is, the less it evaporates. Time required to evaporate scales with Mass^3

[–] DogWater 1 points 8 hours ago

That's true the constant rate I mentioned would vary with the surface area of the black hole as it changes but the volume would increase exponentially faster