The Backrooms

sniped

professionals have standards

black hole go wooooosh

Great article in all honesty. +1

YEaaaah space is cooool
Edit: I just noticed that it has 5C as it’s IET. C is low human intelligence.
Why does a black hole have low human intelligence. That’s creepy af

Upvote!

I like the concept, black holes haven’t been done before so it’s a bit novel. I do think it could be a bit hard to access for younger readers due to how heavily scientific it is and the terminology, but I didn’t have much of an issue with it, nor do I think it’ll condemn the article.

Well as a space lover I definetly upvoted it. I love how scientific it is too.

I like this. I like how unique the concept of a "world destroying" entity is handled. It's not some self insert that has its level destroying powers left ambiguous, it actually has some explanation with the anti particles and being a black hole thing.

Also, where'd you get the IETS format in this one?

black hole + a whole lot a science? very quick upvote from me

I loved space

Mysterious, creepy, professional and wonderful!

This article did seem to contain some actual science, but there were some glaring flaws, most noticeably its horrendous explanation of antimatter. Antimatter particles do not have any special property that allows them to blip from one location to another — low energy antimatter particles are simply produced alongside their matter counterparts randomly as part of pair production before mutually annihilating. Antimatter is nothing more than mirror matter and has no special properties that are not inversions of their matter counterpart's. The idea that the black hole consumes antimatter to teleport is nothing more than technobabble.

Many things in the article are also unclear — for example, how is it different in the sense that it can be seen by the naked eye? From the image you showed it seems to be silhouetted against its accretion disc, which would be glowing quite intensely even for a normal black hole, making it quite visible from such close range.

You also clearly attempted to integrate the science news about the new computer simulations which show escaping plasmoids formed by magnetic reconnection as being responsible for the gas jets we see in some black holes. However, both your explanation of the phenomenon and your adaptation of it into the entity are incorrect. The magnetic fields are produced by the infalling plasma of the accretion disc, and where the fields are antiparallel an unstable current sheet is formed which will release magnetic energy by reconnecting the field lines, expelling plasmoids at near lightspeed in the process. Not only does this not match the description in your footnote, it also does not mesh with your supposed adaptation of the phenomenon into your so-called "magnetic re-consumption." Plasmoids either escape or they do not. When a plasmoid is accelerated away from the black hole it is because the magnetic force propelling it is greater than the black hole's gravitational force — so for it to suddenly turn around and fall into the black hole is simply nonsensical. What's more, you describe these absorbed plasmoids as "building the black hole's magnetic field." First of all, black holes themselves cannot have magnetic fields. It is only the accretion disc which creates the magnetic field, so when plasma from that accretion disc is consumed it ceases to contribute to the magnetic field, so eating plasmoids would not help the black hole increase its magnetic field strength in any way. Second of all, plasmoids barely have any magnetic field strength compared to the fields that produced them. They are little more than a bullet in a gun being accelerated by the rapidly shifting magnetic field lines of the accretion disc, so even if the black hole somehow could add their magnetic field strength to their own, it wouldn't be all that much.

The unit of magnetic field strength you used (the tesla) is meaningless in the context you gave it. A tesla is a unit of flux density and tells us the strength of a magnetic field at a specific location, not the strength of the magnetic field itself. As you failed to specify the distance from the black hole at which this measurement was taken, it tells us nothing about the black hole's magnetic field. The other statement you made, that the black hole has a magnetic field three times that of Earth's is also quite preposterous when taken in combination with the previously stated fact that the black hole is ejecting plasmoids through magnetic reconnection. While a black hole with a very small accretion disc might have such a weak field, a black hole which is capable of spitting out loops of plasma at near lightspeed is certainly not going to have so weak a field.

You used ascension declination coordinates to describe the black hole's location, which are, need I remind you, oriented based on Earth. While it is likely that the MEG created their own ascension declination coordinate system relative to the station, this is never mentioned and could use a footnote. The coordinate you gave also specify only the location in the sky the black hole can be seen at, and not its distance from the station, which would presumably be important enough to mention.

The figures given for the pulses emitted by the black hole are quite frankly ridiculous. Given the fact that it is close enough to be visible to the naked eye, a sudden increase in luminosity by so many orders of magnitude would kill all observers and destroy all observation equipment. The first figure is equivalent to the energy output of a large quasar, and the second to a black hole merger.

The figures given for its initial size and mass check out, as they are copied from the supermassive black hole at our galaxy's core; however, the figures for the size and mass of its post-growth form are completely impossible. A black hole with 73 billion solar masses would have a radius of 215 billion kilometers, not "2,000 × 10¹⁴." The figure given for the radius is off by six orders of magnitude. (On a much more nitpicky point, no one would ever write the number as "2,000 × 10¹⁴," it would be written as either 2 × 10¹⁷ or 200 quadrillion.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "released its magnetic field." The closest I can think of is that its magnetic field ceased to exist as it consumed its accretion disc, and that this sudden magnetic flux produced an EMP. Regardless, this effect would be completely insignificant compared to the absolutely ridiculous amounts of power you gave for its emissions during the event, and observation equipment would have a lot more to worry about with regards to being vaporized than an EMP.

The final piece of scientific nonsense is the claim that this black hole somehow increases its tidal forces as it increases mass. One should always remember that tidal forces are the decrease in gravitational field strength over distance. The reason larger black holes have weaker tidal forces at their event horizons is because their event horizons are farther out so the drop-off in gravitational field strength is not as great at that distance. If this black hole somehow has a stronger tidal force at its event horizon, that means its gravitational field strength drops off at a rate greater than the square of the distance. This means that beyond a certain distance as the black hole grows larger its gravity somehow grows weaker. It also destroys any possibility of stable elliptical orbits and dooms anything that orbits the black hole with even the slightest bit of eccentricity to fall in.