Does a black hole suck things into it?

Answer 1

Not exactly. The external gravitational field of a black hole (at a point quite far away from it) is essentially like that of any massive body, so it is possible for an object to remain in orbit around a black hole, or even to escape from the orbit into space. However, once an object enters a certain zone around the black hole (the boundary of this zone is called the event horizon) there is no way it can escape from the gravitational field, because beyond this event horizon spacetime is so highly curved by the gravitational field that all paths the object can take, point inwards to the center of the black hole (the singularity). Once an object is past the event horizon, it is certainly destroyed by the black hole's intense gravitation.

Answer 2

A black hole doesn't truly "suck" things into it. Instead, its immense gravitational pull warps spacetime around it, causing objects to fall towards it. Once something crosses the point of no return called the event horizon, it cannot escape the black hole's gravitational pull.

Answer 3

no, a black hole is simply an infinitely deep gravity well. there is nothing in itself that a black hole could "suck in". everything that had been in the black hole has already fallen down the gravity well to the infinitesimal point sized singularity.

Recent re-examination of Dr. Stephen Hawking's original work shows that singularities do "evaporate" (for lack of better terminology) and disappear. How and why are not really understood yet, but one theory suggests that everything that falls into a black hole passes to somewhere (or somewhen or somehow) outside of the universe(s).

Answer 4

The term 'hole' is misleading, in a way. In one respect, a black hole is just like a planet with a gravitational field. The difference is, the 'planet' part is a singularity, matter infinitely compressed to a single point, and the gravitational field is so strong, not even light can escape once it crosses a certain threshold.

The 'hole' part is therefore the spherical area where light cannot escape from - it is not something that can suck 'itself' in.

Answer 5

We do not know how, or if, the universe might end. Recent speculations concerning the anisotropy (differentness) of the 4K microwave background radiation suggest that the universe may be somehow cyclical; that our big bang was not only the beginning of our universe, but also the end of a previous cycle of universes.

We do believe that monster black holes can and do form in the hearts of galaxies, probably including our Milky Way, and that when galaxies collide their central black holes can merge. But we haven't been observing the skies for long enough to have observed this kind of occurrence yet.

Answer 6

Yes,a Black Hole could suck in something if it gets to close but for Earth we may never get too close.

If you type in Google is the world going to end it will give you a bunch of lies no-one knows no-one will ever know intil we're in it but that's when every body dies.

So no we're not going to touch it in this Century.

Answer 7

No - The prevailing conjecture is that no single black hole can 'suck in' the whole universe. Hypothetically it has been purported that black holes self regulate their growth. This notion is partly considered because in the current span of time for the observable universe to evolve there is no evidence of black holes larger than 3 billion suns, and partly because of expected maximum rotation spin would peak upon the speed of light. [Reference - Constraints on Black Hole Growth, Quasar Lifetimes, and Eddington Ratio Distributions from the SDSS Broad-line Quasar Black Hole Mass Function; The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 719, Issue 2, pp. 1315-1334 (2010).]

Note: While general relativity provides for the theoretical possibility of black hole's growth or shrinkage, there is no real empirical evidence that Black Holes have grown or shrunken. While there are observations of the release of energy consistent the annihilation of matter, these observations are the representative behavior of conditions upon the Event Horizon of the Black Hole and not the inner works of the Black Hole itself. If fact our best evidence ever was provided with the observations of the three-telescope interferometry. The astrophysicists described their findings as a ring of hot dust that marks the transition from a more-distant mixture of gas and dust in a toroidal (doughnut-shaped) structure, to a gaseous disk closer to the black hole to its event horizon. The dusty part, he said, is interesting because it dominates the infrared emission of active galactic nuclei and can be easily observed. However there are no measurements relevant to growth such as increased density relative to its static size or increased size relative to its static density.

Rather what has been observed is that there are many Black Holes of varying sizes and behaviors. And from these collective observations scientists have conjectured upon the possible evolution of Black Holes upon the principles following the same pattern of gravitational accretion as normal matter. Problem is that there is no real empirical evidence that normal matter exists at the center of a Black Hole. Even stellar growth is more relevant to the behavioral state of nuclear reactions within the star, relative to its energy versus mass density. Other observations are more problematic - i.e. small Black Holes with a large amount galactic matter and large Black Holes with a small amount of galactic matter. These anomalous observations give rise to theories on the Black Hole's condition even unto its creation. Can the largest Black Holes be representative of titanic blow outs which scatter normal matter beyond its gravitational influence or are they rather the conglomeration of merged Black Holes formed upon galactic collisions?

Answer 8

No.

Gravity is concentrated at a black hole ...

but that same gravity can reach out and effect its surroundings.