What Is The 'Black Hole Bomb' Theory Scientists Proved In A Lab?
Last Updated:
Scientists Roger Penrose and Yakov Zeldovich theorised that a black hole's spin could amplify energy enough to trigger an explosion, like a cosmic bomb
Scientists at the University of Southampton have successfully demonstrated the 'Black Hole Bomb' theory in a laboratory setting, marking a historic milestone in our understanding of black holes. This term might invoke fear, but there's no need for panic; the discovery is a significant advancement in theoretical physics rather than a new threat or weapon.
What Is Black Hole Bomb
The concept of the 'Black Hole Bomb' originated in the 1970s, proposed by renowned scientists Roger Penrose and Yakov Zeldovich. They theorised that a black hole's spin could amplify energy, and if this process is repeated correctly, it could generate enough energy to cause the system to explode, akin to a bomb.
Theory Proven In Lab For First Time
Until now, the 'Black Hole Bomb' existed only in theoretical papers and equations. However, Marion Cromb and her team have brought this theory to life. They used a rotating aluminium cylinder placed in magnetic fields that rotated around it. The experiment demonstrated that the energy behaviour changed based on whether the external magnetic field was rotating faster or slower than the cylinder. When the cylinder rotated faster than the magnetic field, the energy was amplified, but if it rotated slower, the energy decreased. This setup mimics the black hole theory and has been validated in the lab, with Cromb's team publishing their study on arXiv.
Does This Reveal Black Holes' True Power
This breakthrough helps scientists understand the real power of black holes without needing to approach them directly. Through analogous experiments, such as using magnetic fields and rotating cylinders, researchers can explore the phenomena occurring in the ergosphere outside a black hole's event horizon.
The spin of a black hole drags space-time, known as frame dragging, which can impart extra energy to particles moving in the same direction, much like gaining speed on an airport moving walkway.
While it is premature to link this discovery to practical technology or weaponry, it certainly offers a new perspective on one of the universe's most enigmatic entities – black holes.
First Published:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Indian Express
City-killer asteroids orbiting near Venus could someday hit Earth without warning, says study
A swarm of giant 'city killer' asteroids hiding near Venus could someday pose a threat to Earth. Also known as co-orbital asteroids, these space rocks are difficult to track since they often travel near planets without orbiting them and have no fixed trajectory. According to a new study by astronomers at the Sao Paulo State University, Venus currently has 20 known giant asteroids around it. These include 'trojan' asteroids, which are either fixed in front or back of a planet's orbital plane and a quasi-moon named Zoozve. All of these 20 killer asteroids are said to have originated from our Solar System's asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter are likely bigger than 140 metres in size, meaning they could potentially devastate a city if they hit Earth. While these space rocks don't pose any threat from where they are right now, since they don't have a fixed orbital path, the Earth's gravitational pull could put them on a collision course with the planet. What makes the threat real is that Venus, the planet closest to Earth, is just 25 million miles or 40 million kilometres away. The research paper, published on arXiv, simulated the behaviour of these city-killer asteroids with less elongated objects over 36,000 years. The result hinted that some of these could eventually come near Earth and may be pulled by our planet's gravitational pull, but the chances of this happening are pretty unlikely. Most known asteroids near Venus have an eccentric orbit, which makes them easy to see during short observation windows. However, the study hints that there may be several more objects with lower orbital eccentricities that are hidden by the Sun's glare. As it turns out, we may not be able to spot these hidden space rocks until they approach Earth. The astronomers who published the study said that 'this is most likely caused by observational biases since asteroids with larger eccentricities may approach the Earth and are easier to detect.' But since the exact number of these hidden objects is still unknown, it is pretty hard to say what risk they pose to Earth. 'I believe that we should not underestimate their potential danger, but I would not lose sleep over this issue,' said Valerio Carruba, the lead author of the study.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
a day ago
- First Post
How a researcher plans to save the planet by detonating a nuke on the ocean floor
A young Microsoft engineer has proposed a radical idea to combat climate change — detonating an 81-gigatonne nuclear bomb beneath the ocean floor to pulverise basalt and sequester carbon dioxide. Drawing inspiration from both past nuclear experiments and modern climate science, this untested geoengineering concept aims to contain radiation while offsetting decades of carbon emissions read more The paper presents a bold proposal to employ a buried nuclear explosion in a remote basaltic seabed for pulverising basalt, thereby accelerating carbon sequestration. Representational Image/AI-generated via Firstpost An out-of-the-box idea to counter climate change has surfaced from an unlikely source — Andy Haverly, a 25-year-old software engineer with no formal background in climate or nuclear science. Published in January earlier this year on the open-access platform arXiv, Haverly's paper puts forward an extreme method: burying and detonating a nuclear device deep beneath the seafloor to trigger a massive carbon capture process. 'By precisely locating the explosion beneath the seabed, we aim to confine debris, radiation, and energy while ensuring rapid rock weathering at a scale substantial enough to make a meaningful dent in atmospheric carbon levels,' the study states. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The method revolves around using the raw power of a nuclear detonation to pulverise basalt rock — abundant on the ocean floor — thereby accelerating a natural process known as Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW), which binds carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into solid minerals. What is the proposal? At the heart of the proposal lies the unprecedented yield of the nuclear device Haverly envisions. The study calls for a blast of 81 gigatonnes, which is more than 1,600 times the explosive force of the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated, tested by the Soviet Union in 1961. The target for this operation is the Kerguelen Plateau, a remote basalt-rich region in the Southern Ocean. According to the study, the nuclear device would need to be buried 3 to 5 kilometres into the basaltic seabed, which itself lies 6 to 8 kilometers beneath the ocean surface. This depth, combined with water pressure of up to 800 atmospheres, would act as a natural buffer, containing the explosive force and localising its effects. 'By burying the nuclear device kilometers underground under kilometers of water, we can be certain that the explosion will first pulverise the rock then be contained by the water,' the paper claims. The method's core aim is to accelerate basalt's chemical interaction with CO₂, a process that already occurs in nature over geological time scales. Haverly proposes artificially speeding it up on an enormous scale. What will the plan require? Haverly's calculations are based on several key assumptions drawn from existing scientific literature. The model assumes that humanity emits approximately 36 gigatonnes of CO₂ annually and aims to sequester 30 years' worth of these emissions — around 1.08 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD To accomplish this, the paper estimates that 3.86 trillion tonnes of basalt would need to be pulverised. This figure is derived using ERW models, which suggest that one ton of basalt can sequester 0.28 tonnes of CO₂. Pulverising this much basalt would require an estimated 3.05 × 10²⁰ joules of energy — equivalent to an 81-gigatonne nuclear explosion. The detonation's efficiency is assumed to be 90 per cent in pulverising basalt, based on past modelling of nuclear impacts on geological material. Is there previous research on this? The proposal echoes mid-20th-century nuclear research. Between 1957 and 1977, the United States pursued Project Plowshare, a programme that tested the application of nuclear explosions for civil engineering. One of the most famous events, the 1962 'Sedan' test, created a crater more than 300 metres wide and spread radioactive fallout across several states. Project Sedan, a Plowshare Program test, left quite the mark! 😲 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) created The Plowshare Program, in June 1957, to explore the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Project Sedan became the 2nd and largest Plowshare experiment. — Atomic Museum (@AtomicMuseum) January 29, 2024 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Project Plowshare intended to create artificial harbours, canals and mine pits. Despite its ambition, it was eventually discontinued due to public opposition, environmental consequences and limited success. Haverly's plan draws conceptually from these tests but differs in its specific aim — carbon capture through rock pulverisation, rather than excavation. What about safety concerns? Although the proposed detonation would dwarf previous nuclear tests, the study insists that the risk to human life and global ecosystems is manageable — if not minimal. The paper states: 'Few or no loss of life due to the immediate effects of radiation.' It also includes a disclaimer about long-term consequences, admitting the project 'will impact people and cause losses.' Nonetheless, Haverly downplays the scale of fallout, stating, 'this increase in radiation would be, according to Haverly, 'just a drop in the ocean.'' He adds: 'Each year we emit more radiation from coal-fired power plants and have already detonated over 2,000 nuclear devices.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD To mitigate radiological impact, the paper recommends using a standard fission-fusion hydrogen bomb, optimised to reduce persistent radioactive contamination. The surrounding basalt is expected to trap and contain most of the emitted radiation locally. Even so, the detonation would render a section of the seabed 'uninhabitable for decades', according to the study. The total affected area would be restricted to a few dozen square kilometres, minimising ecosystem destruction compared to the widespread environmental disruption projected from unchecked climate change. Is it worth the risk in the long term? The proposal positions this destruction as a tolerable trade-off when compared to the catastrophic effects of a warming planet. The report argues that climate change will pose a far more extensive and persistent threat to global ecosystems by the year 2100. Rising temperatures, altered rainfall patterns, ocean acidification and extreme weather events are already contributing to biodiversity loss and food insecurity. In this context, the local environmental cost of the explosion, the study suggests, is justified by the potential for large-scale carbon sequestration. The idea has emerged as the world increasingly entertains controversial geoengineering solutions. The United Kingdom's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) has backed an experimental programme worth £50 million to explore sunlight-dimming methods, including stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD These strategies aim to temporarily cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or enhancing the reflectivity of oceanic clouds. How much will the plan cost? Beyond environmental trade-offs, Haverly's proposal touts its cost-effectiveness. According to the study, the nuclear device would cost approximately $10 billion, while climate change-related damage is projected to exceed $100 trillion by the year 2100, based on estimates by IPCC and economists like Nicholas Stern. 'This is a 10,000x return on investment,' the paper argues. The author suggests that even though the proposal is 'radical,' it offers immense economic value, particularly if executed in time to prevent worst-case climate scenarios. Haverly also sets a tight timeline, proposing that the explosion could be deployed within a decade, pending testing, design and political approval. Can this method succeed? The study lays out several conditional assumptions necessary for the success of this idea: That the detonation will not trigger a global catastrophe. That the device is too large for military use and would not escalate global tensions. That current climate trajectories continue without major decarbonisation breakthroughs. That the explosion can sequester 30 years of CO₂ emissions. Haverly maintains that this proposal must be evaluated seriously, not as an act of desperation, but as a calculated intervention. 'This is not to be taken lightly,' he warns in the study, acknowledging both its potential and its dangers. The conclusion summarises the proposition as a scientifically structured yet radical climate mitigation strategy. 'By specifying the necessary parameters, we demonstrate the potential for effective carbon sequestration while minimising adverse side effects,' the paper states. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
NDTV
a day ago
- NDTV
US Researcher Proposes Detonating Massive Nuclear Bomb Under Ocean To Save Earth
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. A US researcher proposed detonating a nuclear bomb under the ocean to combat climate change. The plan aims to confine debris and radiation while accelerating rock weathering to reduce CO2. The study suggests a nuclear explosion could sequester 30 years of carbon emissions in one event. A 25-year-old Microsoft software engineer has suggested detonating the world's biggest nuclear bomb under the ocean to eviscerate the carbon-absorbing rocks that make up the seabed. Published in arXiv, a non-peer-reviewed website, Andy Haverly has claimed that the move could help solve the "escalating threat of climate change" through this innovative and large-scale intervention. "By precisely locating the explosion beneath the seabed, we aim to confine debris, radiation, and energy while ensuring rapid rock weathering at a scale substantial enough to make a meaningful dent in atmospheric carbon levels," the study highlighted. The study claimed that every year, 36 gigatons of carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere every year. Using a nuclear explosion yield of 81 gigatons, scientists can sequester 30 years' worth of carbon dioxide emissions, the study claimed. The explosion would be well over a thousand times bigger than the 50-megaton 'Tsar Bomba' test, conducted in 1961 by the Soviet Union in 1961. According to Mr Haverly, who doesn't have a background in climate science or nuclear engineering, he got the idea from Christopher Nolan's Academy Award-winning movie. 'Seeing the movie Oppenheimer really brought nuclear power to the front of my mind," said Mr Haverly as per Vice, adding: "There are elements of this idea that are already well known, like Enhanced Rock Weathering, and detonating nuclear weapons underground but combining all of these ideas has not been considered seriously before. And that's the reason I posted this paper." Dimming sunlight This is not the first instance when such a radical plan has been proposed to slow down climate change. The UK government is mulling a Rs 567 crore (50 million pound) experiment to dim the sunlight. The Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) is backing the solar geoengineering project, which has piqued the interest of scientists worldwide. One of the experiments involves releasing tiny particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. Another potential solution is marine cloud brightening in which "ships would spray sea-salt particles into the sky to enhance the reflectivity of low-lying clouds". If successful, it could temporarily reduce surface temperatures, delaying the climate crisis and giving more time for the deep cuts in global carbon emissions needed.
