Why don't black holes combust? It's probably pretty obvious that it doesn't have a purity of combustible ingredients. Is it possible for the most massive stars to be greater than the smallest black holes? Probably doesn't even come close. So, do you think the impetus for creation of a black hole is just the amount of matter that has conglomerated and once it reaches a certain level of mass, maybe it just collapses in on itself, breaking the constituent atoms into a dense mess of particles? Without a fusion ignition occurring, this would probably take a while and have to be pretty massive before it collapses.

Why don't black holes combust? It's probably pretty obvious that it doesn't have a purity of combustible ingredients.

Correct.

Is it possible for the most massive stars to be greater than the smallest black holes?

Yes. Your question reveals a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature and origin of black holes. Black holes are the remains of stars that went supernova and balsted much of their mass into space. Therefore black holes are, of necessity, smaller than many existing stars.

 

So, do you think the impetus for creation of a black hole is just the amount of matter that has conglomerated and once it reaches a certain level of mass, maybe it just collapses in on itself, breaking the constituent atoms into a dense mess of particles?

It collapses when the nuclear reactions that were sustaining the pressure that kept the star in hydrodyamic equilibrium stop. It then falls in on itself.....rather rapidly.

 

Without a fusion ignition occurring, this would probably take a while and have to be pretty massive before it collapses.

Sorry, that made no sense at all.

Well, I just came to the conclusion that collapsed stars were the only way for black holes to form when previously I had thought that they could also assimilate more slowly, gradually attaining a critical amount of mass.

 

The question that still remains is what is the chemical makeup of a black hole? Most likely, there is no chemical activity, so does it break up the atoms and squeeze all the particles into a hodgepodge of junk, condensing everything to the utmost? Or is everything still somewhat structured? I still don't buy the singularity, it's just a mathematical concept, as unfeasible as infinity. I wonder why we ever got stuck on the use of infinity. Just using it as a plug, so we can screw up our calculations? Or was it dividing by zero?

Edited May 23, 201114 yr by Realitycheck