logo
How to Build a ‘Black Hole Bomb'

How to Build a ‘Black Hole Bomb'

Yahoo13-05-2025

A bomb from a black hole would probably be the most destructive weapon in the universe. Hypothetically, it could be created by wrapping one of these cosmic monsters in mirrors and waiting for it to go 'boom.' Now Hendrik Ulbricht of the University of Southampton in England and his colleagues have demonstrated this principle, called superradiance, in the lab using a rotating metal cylinder instead of a black hole. They submitted their results, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, to the preprint server arXiv.org in late March.
'This work shows that a 'black hole bomb' can actually be built in the laboratory,' says physicist Vitor Cardoso of the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark, who was not involved in the study. 'It thus provides a solid basis for studying the entire physics of black holes.'
Among the strangest objects in the universe, black holes pack so much mass into such a small space that they can radically warp spacetime. A black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that within a certain distance, nothing can escape it—not even light. Theorist Roger Penrose is one of the pioneers who first studied black holes mathematically in detail—work for which he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020. And amid that early work, he realized something surprising.
[Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter]
As Penrose knew, nothing stands still in our cosmos, not even black holes. These massive monsters can spin, distorting spacetime in the process to form a kind of vortex. An approaching object can be caught up in this vortex and spiral around the spinning black hole. Even before the object passes the event horizon, beyond which not even light can escape gravity's clutches, it reaches an area that physicists call the 'ergosphere.' There the object would have to move faster than light to escape the rotation around the black hole.
This ergosphere is a strange place, as Penrose noted, because objects there can possess negative energy. A particle, for example, could split into two equal-but-opposite parts: one with negative energy and another with positive energy. The former would then crash into the black hole (thus reducing the black hole's energy), allowing the latter to escape the cosmic behemoth's mighty grip. An external observer would see a particle with a certain energy falling toward the black hole, only to apparently rebound outward with higher energy. The black hole loses part of its rotational energy in the process.
In principle, this would allow black holes to serve as gigantic sources of energy. The process could not only imbue massive objects with more energy but also amplify electromagnetic waves in a phenomenon called superradiance. This realization spurred some physicists to even imagine how advanced alien civilizations might use superradiance to generate energy. But despite how relatively simple it is to describe on paper, no one knew how the signal of superradiance could be observed in real black holes. Thus, the concept initially remained mere speculation.
In 1971, however, two years after Penrose first described this phenomenon, physicist Yakov Zel'dovich published research that suggested that black holes aren't the only objects that can be tapped as superradiant energy sources. Any rotating, axially symmetrical body that absorbs electromagnetic radiation—such as a metal cylinder—can also exhibit superradiance under certain circumstances. 'Roughly speaking, the rotating absorber must rotate faster than the phase rotation of the incident radiation,' explains physicist Maria Chiara Braidotti of the University of Glasgow in Scotland, who was involved in the latest work. 'If this condition is met, the absorption coefficient of the cylinder changes sign, thus amplifying the radiation.'
Zel'dovich even went one step further by showing that superradiance could also take place in a vacuum and wouldn't require an incoming electromagnetic wave. That's because on quantum scales the vacuum is anything but empty. At any time, pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles can pop into existence, although they typically immediately annihilate each other again. The phenomenon is known as vacuum fluctuation. And these fluctuations could also be amplified in the vicinity of black holes —or a rotating metal cylinder. 'Stephen Hawking didn't believe this idea and tried to refute it,' explains Marion Cromb, a researcher in Ulbricht's group at the University of Southampton and a contributor to the new work. 'Not only did [Hawking] admit that Zel'dovich was right but he was also able to prove that even nonrotating black holes—without an ergosphere—spontaneously emit radiation.' This realization led to the discovery of Hawking radiation.
According to the theoretical calculations, however, vacuum-based superradiance would be so faint that it could not be detected—unless, that is, it was somehow amplified. As Zel'dovich described, the rotating body (black hole or metal cylinder) could be encased in mirrors to reflect the amplified radiation back to the rotating body, intensifying it over and over again. As physicists William Press and Saul Teukolsky realized, so much energy could accumulate inside the mirrors that a gigantic explosion would occur. Press and Teukolsky, therefore, referred to the setup as a black hole bomb.
Depending on how much rotational energy the black hole or the metal cylinder has, a result other than a gigantic explosion is conceivable, though. Cardoso and his colleagues described this possibility in a paper published in 2004 that showed how superradiance can cease if the black hole or metal cylinder loses too much angular momentum, thus defusing the explosion.
Ulbricht, Braidotti and their colleagues now wanted to test all these theoretical predictions in the laboratory. 'Originally, we thought it would be too difficult to observe the actual effect,' Braidotti says, nothing that a cylinder would have to rotate so fast that it would be destroyed in the process. For this reason, she initially turned her attention to simpler systems in which superradiance can occur, including a setup with sound waves. 'The breakthrough was our noticing how to reduce the frequencies of electromagnetic fields in a very simple way so that they are smaller than the rotation frequencies of the metal cylinders,' Ulbricht explains. The researchers only needed alternating current circuits for this. 'This finding opened up the possibility of conducting the experiment with electromagnetic waves,' Braidotti says.
The team then turned its attention to electromagnetic superradiance. 'The experimental setup itself is quite simple: it consists of a rotating cylinder and the stator coils of a commercially available induction motor, combined with some capacitors and resistors,' Cromb says. These devices were placed around the metal cylinder to generate a magnetic field inside it, which produced electromagnetic radiation. At the same time, these devices also served as mirrors because they reflected the electromagnetic waves back toward the cylinder.
'The biggest difficulty was that things were constantly exploding,' Cromb says. 'It was a balancing act between measuring a reasonable signal and overloading the system. When the current through the coils became too high, the resistors in the circuit exceeded their rated voltage and burned out. This interrupted the electrical circuit, thus destroying the 'mirror.''
The researchers initially feared that these overloads would prevent any observation of superradiance. But they were lucky. 'The reinforcement was large enough to overcome the loss and enter the area of instability,' Cromb says. In fact, the team was able to show that the voltage in their structure increased exponentially, as predicted by Zel'dovich. This underpins the researchers' claim of the first-ever lab-based demonstration of an electromagnetic version of a black hole bomb.
Note, however, that despite the martial connotations of the name, the 'bomb' Ulbricht and his team built in their lab isn't anything like a military-grade munition—or even a firecracker. It would be quite useless as a weapon because its yield is only on the order of a millijoule of energy—that is, about the same amount involved in pressing a single key on a mechanical keyboard.
Next, Cromb and the team used their setup to study whether superradiance can also take place in a vacuum: Would an electromagnetic signal arise in their apparatus even without a magnetic field? Because the experiment took place at room temperature, thermal fluctuations overshadowed any vacuum fluctuations—meaning that the team could not directly detect the latter. But that very same thermal background noise, the researchers realized, would spontaneously generate electromagnetic waves that could theoretically be amplified.
And that is what they did manage to demonstrate: by choosing the appropriate rotation speed of the cylinder, they generated electromagnetic waves out of nowhere, so to speak. Their work also confirmed the 'defusing' scenario predicted by Cardoso: the metal cylinder was able to lose enough rotational energy to halt superradiance and stave off any explosion.
According to Ulbricht, the most special thing about the work is its sheer simplicity. 'Many physicists think that all the simple experiments have already been done and that new insights into the fundamentals of physics can only come from very complex and very expensive projects,' he says. 'We proved the opposite.'
'I didn't expect that someone would be able to carry out such an experiment now,' Cardoso says. On the day the new work was posted to arXiv.org, he recalls, he was giving a series of lectures at Bangalore University in India. 'I talked about superradiance and told the audience that no one had ever proven the electromagnetic superradiance or the bomb effect in the laboratory. So you can imagine my surprise when I saw the paper shortly afterwards!'
The new work could lead to deeper insights about black holes, Cardoso says. 'Superradiance is a little-known classical effect that plays an important role in the physics of black holes,' he explains. For example, extremely light particles, such as axions or special types of photons considered candidates for dark matter, could absorb the rotational energy of black holes, amplifying their signals. 'This means that black holes can be used as gigantic particle detectors,' Cardoso explains. With a lab-based black hole bomb, physicists could test such hypotheses more precisely than ever before.
In the future, Ulbricht would like to carry out the quantum version of the experiment, which would entail observing the spontaneous generation of electromagnetic waves and their amplification from the vacuum. Such direct experiments with vacuum fluctuations could open up completely new possibilities for the scientific community and the world, he says, potentially representing 'a major breakthrough for physics.' Perhaps, Ulbricht muses, that work could allow researchers 'in a few decades to understand whether it is possible in principle to generate energy from the vacuum—which would be an inexhaustible new source of energy.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Mathematicians Solve Multidimensional Shape-Slicing Dilemma
Mathematicians Solve Multidimensional Shape-Slicing Dilemma

Yahoo

time10 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Mathematicians Solve Multidimensional Shape-Slicing Dilemma

In 1986 Belgian mathematician Jean Bourgain posed a seemingly simple question that continued to puzzle researchers for decades. No matter how you deform a convex shape—consider shaping a ball of clay into a watermelon, a football or a long noodle—will you always be able to slice a cross section bigger than a certain size? A paper by Bo'az Klartag of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and Joseph Lehec of the University of Poitiers in France, posted to the preprint site has finally provided a definitive answer: yes. Bourgain's slicing problem asks whether every convex shape in n dimensions has a 'slice' such that the cross section is bigger than some fixed value. For three-dimensional objects, this is like asking whether an avocado of a given size, no matter the exact shape, can always be split into two halves with each side revealing at least some sizable slice. Bourgain, a titan of mathematics, is said to have spent more time on this problem than any other; although it may seem deceptively easy to resolve in the physical world's two or three dimensions, it quickly balloons in difficulty when we consider four or five. This added complexity makes determining anything in n-dimensional space seem impossible. 'If you believe in this so-called curse of dimensionality, you might just give up,' Klartag says. Fortunately, he adds, he and Lehec 'belong to a different school of thought.' The pair's breakthrough builds on recent progress by mathematician Qingyang Guan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who approached the problem with a technique based on physics rather than geometry. Specifically, Guan showed that modeling how heat diffuses out of a convex shape can reveal hidden geometric structures. Researchers could calculate filling any convex shape with warm gas and carefully observe the heat's dissipation according to physical laws. Guan's key insight—a precise limit on how rapidly the rate of dissipation changes during this heating process—proved to be just what Klartag and Lehec needed. 'Guan's bound tied together all the other key facts' known for the problem, says mathematician Beatrice-Helen Vritsiou of the University of Alberta. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] The result let Klartag and Lehec resolve the problem in only a few days. Klartag notes that 'it was lucky because we knew [Guan's result] was exactly one of the things we needed' to connect several seemingly disparate approaches to the puzzle. With this final piece in place, the geometry of convex bodies in high dimensions is now a little less mysterious—although, as always in mathematics, each new slice reveals more questions to explore.

How We Solve the Climate Crisis
How We Solve the Climate Crisis

Yahoo

time10 hours ago

  • Yahoo

How We Solve the Climate Crisis

I spend a lot of time on the Internet; it's become my second home in the 20 years I've communicated science online. And recently I came across an image that stuck with me: a cartoon of a sad, crying Earth covered in cut-down trees that says, 'No intelligent species would destroy their own environment.' I think this cartoon and the ideas it represents are both wrong and destructive. I don't want my son, who is eight years old, to believe that humans are dumb and evil—both because that's a pretty big bummer and because it's obviously untrue. But I often find myself quite lonely in having that perspective, and I'm wondering if, perhaps, there are other folks out there who feel the same as I do. Humans didn't cause climate change by being stupid; they caused it by being extremely smart. We started burning coal to solve problems. We did it to grow more food, to heat and light our homes, to power refrigerators, to connect the world in a way that made the past few centuries of scientific advancement possible. We are here precisely because of our intelligence—and yes, the greed and selfishness of people in the fossil fuel industry who have certainly slowed our transition away from fossil fuels. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] But we are problem-solving machines, and we will solve this problem too. Our intelligence is geared toward survival. We want to provide a good life for ourselves and our children. The results have been staggering. In the U.S. in 1895 one quarter of people died before age five. Today, it's under 6 percent, and we will keep striving until it hits zero. Imagine the essays Ben Franklin or Mark Twain would write about this level of advancement. How would they keep tears from their eyes if they saw what we've achieved? So much of that achievement has been based on energy, and the fossil fuels we've burned to generate it, whether coal, natural gas or oil. We've learned that this harms both the environment and people, and to our credit we aren't always bad at addressing this. It was not long ago that London could be so clogged with coal smoke that you had to clean it off the windows every day. When rivers catch on fire, the U.S. changes its policies. When rain becomes acidic, the world changes its policies. When harms are done locally, we tend to be pretty good at cleaning things up. But with climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions, we're facing a much harder problem. That's for two reasons. First, on a psychological level, the effects of greenhouse gases on the climate are often invisible to us. Weather is always messy, and climate works on such big and long scales that it's hard to detect, communicate and respond to what's happening. And second, unlike the sulfur and nitrogen pollution that caused acid rain, or the chlorofluorocarbons that threatened to wear a hole in the ozone layer, carbon dioxide is not an unintended byproduct; it is the goal of burning fossil fuels. If you burn fossil fuels as cleanly as possible, all you get is carbon dioxide and water vapor. Responding to climate change means we must reduce the amount of CO2 that burning fossil fuels creates. It requires us to completely reimagine how we power our planet. Here's where I feel hope: we have already done this, and we know it is possible. In the U.K. CO2 emissions are now at their lowest levels since 1879 following a shift from coal to renewable energy! This is possible; we can see it being done. And it's the responsibility of the biggest polluters, the countries like the U.S. who have benefitted most from burning fossil fuels, to make those changes happen. And here is where I think we should absolutely feel some shame at our species. Humans are greedy. Humans are shortsighted. Humans will tell stories to make themselves believe that the things that they already want to do (like delaying climate action) are the right things to do. This is our nature, and I do think we could have done a better job at overcoming it. I am frustrated by the amount of time we've spent arguing instead of acting. I am frustrated by the extent to which we will not accept any inconvenience or sacrifice in exchange for making the world more livable for people in other places in the world, and even for our own children. It's worth acknowledging that this amount of foresight is unique to humans. It requires a great deal of intelligence, and, frankly, it's remarkable to me that we're able to do it at all. We are not like trees, which caused a mass extinction of their own when they evolved on land; we know that our actions today are threatening up to a million species worldwide. This is both an indictment of our failure to act sooner, and a reason to believe we can succeed if we dedicate ourselves to this fight. I don't want my son growing up thinking that his species is in some way evil. I want him thinking humans are problem solvers, and that solving problems always creates new ones. Whatever strategies we take to fix global warming will create more new problems, too. Renewable technologies like solar panels and wind turbines, for example, use way more land than coal-fired power plants, contributing to their own environmental impact. They're the best solution in many places right now, but maybe in the future we will replace them with better ways of generating energy, like advanced geothermal, more nuclear fission or maybe even nuclear fusion. The people of the future will be mad at us for the flawed work that we did, just like we're kind of mad at all the people who tried to make the world a better place by burning a bunch of coal. And that's all right. Humans are not evil. We solve problems, and when we do, we create new problems. And I think that, ultimately, this is a pretty normal story for intelligent species. One day, if we ever make contact with another species like our own, I bet they'll have a lot of stories about how they did the same thing—and how they found their way through. This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

This ‘Tower of Worms' Is a Squirming Superorganism
This ‘Tower of Worms' Is a Squirming Superorganism

Yahoo

time10 hours ago

  • Yahoo

This ‘Tower of Worms' Is a Squirming Superorganism

When food runs out, certain tiny roundworms, barely visible to the naked eye, crawl toward one another and build living, wriggling towers that move as one superorganism. For the first time, we've caught them doing that in nature on video. Scientists spent months pointing their digital microscope at rotting apples and pears to finally catch a glimpse of these living towers formed by Caenorhabditis roundworms in an orchard that is just downhill from the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior's location in Konstanz, Germany. 'It wasn't that hard to find. It's just the people didn't have the interest or time or funding for this kind of research,' says biologist Daniela Perez, lead author of the study. Perez and her team at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior then studied this behavior in a laboratory to learn more. To spur the towering, they placed groups of Caenorhabditis elegans in a dish without food, alongside a toothbrush bristle that could work as a scaffold. Dozens of worms quickly climbed on top of the bristle and one another to form a structure that moved in an eerily coordinated manner. The tower responded to the touch of a glass pipe by attempting to latch onto it; it stretched to bridge the gap between the bottom of the dish and its lid; and it even waved its tip around to probe the surrounding environment. The results were published Thursday in Current Biology. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] Researchers had previously observed this towering in the lab but didn't know that it was an actual survival strategy in the wild. 'Discovering [this behavior] in wild populations is really important as it shows this is a part of how these animals live and not just a lab artifact,' says William Schafer, a geneticist at the University of Cambridge, who studies C. elegans and was not involved in the study. Why do the worms do this? The researchers think towering helps worms set out to find richer food sources. When resources are limited, 'it probably makes sense for microscopic organisms to cooperate for dispersing by forming something bigger,' says the study's senior author Serena Ding. The towers could allow some of their members to reach new places or to hitchhike on other organisms such as fruit flies. The bigger question is how the worms communicate within the towers. If the worms on top latch onto a fly, how do those at the bottom know to detach from where they're anchored? They could communicate chemically through pheromones and mechanically through movement patterns, Schafer suggests. Perez says her team plans to test this next. 'Every time we have a meeting, we end up with 10 new project ideas,' she says. 'There are so many directions we can take this.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store