Black Hole creation

[Floxy178]

I want to propose a method for Black Hole creation feats.

To estimate the energy required to create a black hole, we look at the last possible stable state an object can have before collapsing. According to general relativity, that limit is when the object’s radius reaches the Buchdahl limit:

R = 9/8 * Rs (schwarzchild radius)

By modeling the object as a polytropic star with a polytropic index 0.75 like a neutron star, we can estimate how much energy would need to be released to reach the Buchdahl limit.

Once it reaches this critical point, collapse into a black hole happens automatically. So the GBE needed to reach that limit gives us a minimum energy requirement for black hole formation.

Formula:

3/(5-0.75) * GM^2/(9/8Rs) = 3/8.5 * Mc^2 *8/9 = 8 / 25.5 * Mc^2

 

[Arkenis]

Can do one for the moon and earth

 

[Mizuki67]

So what are you saying?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't really see how that would make sense.

If you talk from a compression perspective, the GBE isn't what you want to take. Gravity works for you in compression.

While from a reality warping perspective, the object never goes through the neutron star phase, making it a very arbitrary equalisation.
Furthermore, we generally try to be rather conservative with reality warping estimates, as unquantifiability shouldn't be rewarded, and this would be anything but.

 

[Floxy178]

I don't really see how that would make sense.

If you talk from a compression perspective, the GBE isn't what you want to take. Gravity works for you in compression.

While from a reality warping perspective, the object never goes through the neutron star phase, making it a very arbitrary equalisation.
Furthermore, we generally try to be rather conservative with reality warping estimates, as unquantifiability shouldn't be rewarded, and this would be anything but.

In this method, we're not calculating the energy to compress the object. Instead, we're estimating the minimum energy required to directly create an object that's already at the Buchdahl limit, the most compact, stable configuration possible before BH collapse.

We're not saying the character "compresses" a star into a black hole.

We're saying: "They created an object so massive and dense, it's already right at the tipping point, any denser, and it collapses."

Creating a BH can't cost less energy than creating a larger object of the same mass.

This is why using GBE at the Buchdahl limit gives a safe lower bound.

 

[DontTalkDT]

In this method, we're not calculating the energy to compress the object. Instead, we're estimating the minimum energy required to directly create an object that's already at the Buchdahl limit, the most compact, stable configuration possible before BH collapse.

We're not saying the character "compresses" a star into a black hole.

We're saying: "They created an object so massive and dense, it's already right at the tipping point, any denser, and it collapses."

Creating a BH can't cost less energy than creating a larger object of the same mass.

This is why using GBE at the Buchdahl limit gives a safe lower bound.

Creating a black hole in a manner that is neither mass-energy conversion or compression can literally cost whatever the hell it wants since it's physics breaking reality warping. The assertion that "Creating a BH can't cost less energy than creating a larger object of the same mass" is entirely unjustified.

Furthermore, why impose the arbitrary limit of "stable". Nothing in the scenario in any way relates to that restriction. It's an arbitrary assumption chosen for the sole purpose of having some finite cut-off point.
Why not assume an object that is 0.00000000000001% larger than the Schwarzschild radius? That still has a non-infinite GBE and by your reasoning of "Creating a BH can't cost less energy than creating a larger object of the same mass" creating a black hole should take more power than to destroy that as well!
The fact that it would collapse without an outside force acting on it doesn't really matter for any part of this scenario.

Our general philosophy when it came to reality warping creation feats was always that at least the obvious "tiers" should match up. As in, the Earth-case (whatever that is in a scenario) should be ranked planet level and the sun case (again, whatever that is) should align with star level. That's the whole reason we use GBE. Not because GBE has any actual significance for creation, but for the sole reason that it happens to be how we defined planet and star level.
This formula fails there, essentially inflating unquantifiable creation feats beyond their destructive counterparts.
Consider that for reality warping there is no real reason to assume that creating matter densely is harder than creating it loosely. So there is no actual good reason to rank black hole creation as high tier.

In summary, I remain in favor of maintaining our conservative estimate.

 

[Floxy178]

Furthermore, why impose the arbitrary limit of "stable". Nothing in the scenario in any way relates to that restriction. It's an arbitrary assumption chosen for the sole purpose of having some finite cut-off point.
Why not assume an object that is 0.00000000000001% larger than the Schwarzschild radius? That still has a non-infinite GBE and by your reasoning of "Creating a BH can't cost less energy than creating a larger object of the same mass" creating a black hole should take more power than to destroy that as well!
The fact that it would collapse without an outside force acting on it doesn't really matter for any part of this scenario.

Because such an object won't even have GBE to begin with. You can plug in numbers, but what you get won't correspond to any real, physically valid object since it's not a stable structure.

Our general philosophy when it came to reality warping creation feats was always that at least the obvious "tiers" should match up. As in, the Earth-case (whatever that is in a scenario) should be ranked planet level and the sun case (again, whatever that is) should align with star level. That's the whole reason we use GBE. Not because GBE has any actual significance for creation, but for the sole reason that it happens to be how we defined planet and star level.
This formula fails there, essentially inflating unquantifiable creation feats beyond their destructive counterparts.
Consider that for reality warping there is no real reason to assume that creating matter densely is harder than creating it loosely. So there is no actual good reason to rank black hole creation as high tier.

That's literally how we assume currently, isn't it? If we're given a feat of planet creation where mass is same as Earth's but it's smaller in size, don't we just calculate GBE? We don't give it same planet level for conservative estimate based on how reality warping works.

If creating objects denser isn't supposed to be a better feat (or at least not worse) then why we're even allowed to use GBE for creation feats in the first place? It directly contradicts the idea of size not mattering. I agree that it's unquantifiable, but I'm going with what we already accept.

Not to mention assumption like that also means that anyone with creation hax can create a Black Hole.

 

[Floxy178]

In summary, I remain in favor of maintaining our conservative estimate

Hi. If you still disagree, what do you think about it being used for feats not involving creation? Like compression feat for example.

 

[CodeCCLL]

Hi. If you still disagree, what do you think about it being used for feats not involving creation? Like compression feat for example.

I was wondering about this too.

If the abyss core at its foundation was left unattended, it'd balloon in size until it triggered a Nuclear Flame-but in the forbidden Gravity Collapse spell, it was instead suppressed and compressed to create a super-gravitational field-in laypeople's terms, an artificial black hole.

The hyper-compressed space soon reached its breaking point, and in another moment, all its energy was focused on a single dot in space. Then it imploded and the planet was greeted with an extremely miniature version of a supernova.

Carrera is Menace's itself

vsbattles.fandom.com

It will probably not be accepted, but would the formula you suggested work in such a case?

 

[Floxy178]

I was wondering about this too.

Carrera is Menace's itself

vsbattles.fandom.com

It will probably not be accepted, but would the formula you suggested work in such a case?

To be honest, after thinking about this, I doubt that it can be used for compression feats except when we know what's being compressed.

 

[CodeCCLL]

To be honest, after thinking about this, I doubt that it can be used for compression feats except when we know what's being compressed.

What if I say anti-matter?

 

[Floxy178]

What if I say anti-matter?

I don't think it helps, as if I said "what's being compressed is matter".