<p>this is not really an answer to your question, but to the assumption you made.</p>

<p>The BH in the galactic center <strong>cannot grow that much</strong>. There are two problems. First, there is not enough food close by. Any potential food (gas clouds, stars, and dark matter) will have some non-zero angular momentum preventing it from coming close enough. Loosing this angular momentum is difficult (it cannot be radiated away like energy), the only way is to exchange it with other objects either via impact (of gas clouds) or gravitational interactions with other objects (not the BH).</p>

<p>The second problem is that a feeding BH is surrounded by an accretion disc of hot gas. In that disc, angular momentum is slowly transported outwards and mass inwards via viscosity (that viscosity most likely originates from turbulent magnetic fields that become unstable -- the magneto-rotational instability). This process inevitably heats the accretion disc to very high temperatures ($10^{6-9}$K) such that it emits a wind of raditation and particles (similar to the Solar wind, but much much stronger). If the BH feeds too much, this wind becomes so strong that it pushes away any further infalling material (potential food).</p>

<p>This second process limits the growth of any BH to double in mass in no less than about $10^6$ years, I think (I'm not too sure--if you want a precise value, consult the literature), even if the first problem was no issue.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-18T13:45:47.500Z
Yep, but i am more interested in the optical effects for us, not about how the black hole would grow. Perhaps you could imagine it receiving intense gamma rays directed at its center would increase its mass without us being able to see where the increase of mass came from. I don't really care how, but about the optics.
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-19T01:01:49.660Z
It is the first process, which ultimately matters. Exponential growth would give you arbitrary masses sooner or later.
Alexey Bobrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-19T19:52:33.337Z
@AlexeyBobrick Nope. The fact that these beasts grow to $10^{6-9}$ Solar masses shows that somehow they find a way to overcome the first problem. But eventually the feedback form the hole is so strong that it drives all the gas out of its host galaxy. This is thought to occur when all the energy of the wind is dumped into the galactic ISM, i.e. when the swept-up ISM cannot cool efficiently (if it can, only the wind momentum drives the outflow). Most efficient cooling is due to inverse Compton scattering off photons from the AGN itself (the shocked gas is much hotter than the accretion disc).
Walter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-19T20:16:50.950Z
@Water, well, yes, but anyway Eddington limit (or more complex analagous processes as the ones you describe) does not stop accretion. The accretion could even be long and very sub-eddington, but eventually you will run into the problem of not having enough 'accretable' mass.
Alexey Bobrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-20T10:17:42.730Z
The question wasn't about the problem of getting the required mass.
this
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-08T07:28:26.243Z
Some people have speculated that black holes are worm-holes. Could not a black hole grow from both "ends"?
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-18T10:42:17.707Z
2014-01-18T10:42:17.707Z
Walter
<p>Imagine that hypothetically the black hole in the center of the milky way gradually increased in mass by for example 50% every year. That is exponential increase in mass.</p>

<p>Which visual effects would we see on for example Alpha Centauri, stars more distant and on M31? Red or blueshift? Lensing?</p>

<p>How about linear increase in mass?</p>

<p>Are there software I can use to visualize it as seen from earth?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-04T08:52:14.717Z
Really not clear what you are asking about. What "visual effects" are you thinking about? The question is totally hypothetical and unrealistic in any case. Black holes cannot grow much faster than doubling in size every 10-100 million years because of radiation pressure.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-05T12:51:55.430Z
@RobJeffries It may be difficult to imagine this with a black hole. I suggest another object; the "Strangeularity" in the center of the milky way. It increases in mass continously, due to the "Weirdness Effect". Being in vincinity of something like this; would we see a gradual change in the redshift of for example M31?
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-05T13:05:46.510Z
Well, if it doubles in size every year, you won't need to worry about saving for a pension. This is not a forum for imaginary questions about imaginary effects.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-08T07:19:37.963Z
@RobJeffries This is also not a forum for being arrogant. The question is not imaginary and the visual effects that this would cause is what's interresting.
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-08T08:01:40.057Z
I suggest you try the question on http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ they might be able to help you out with the "weirdness effect".
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-16T18:45:36.900Z
Sound like a great question for http://what-if.xkcd.com/.
this
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-21T12:14:35.977Z
BTW: It is an assumption that there is a black hole in the center of our galaxy
Ahmed Hamdy
<black-hole>
What if the black hole in the center of the galaxy grew faster?
frodeborli
# What if the black hole in the center of the galaxy grew faster?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-01-16)

Imagine that hypothetically the black hole in the center of the milky way gradually increased in mass by for example 50% every year. That is exponential increase in mass.

Which visual effects would we see on for example Alpha Centauri, stars more distant and on M31? Red or blueshift? Lensing?

How about linear increase in mass?

Are there software I can use to visualize it as seen from earth?

**Tags:** black-hole

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Sound like a great question for http://what-if.xkcd.com/.  
> **username_3**: BTW: It is an assumption that there is a black hole in the center of our galaxy  
> **username_1**: Really not clear what you are asking about. What "visual effects" are you thinking about? The question is totally hypothetical and unrealistic in any case. Black holes cannot grow much faster than doubling in size every 10-100 million years because of radiation pressure.  
> **username_0**: @RobJeffries It may be difficult to imagine this with a black hole. I suggest another object; the "Strangeularity" in the center of the milky way. It increases in mass continously, due to the "Weirdness Effect". Being in vincinity of something like this; would we see a gradual change in the redshift of for example M31?  
> **username_1**: Well, if it doubles in size every year, you won't need to worry about saving for a pension. This is not a forum for imaginary questions about imaginary effects.  
> **username_0**: @RobJeffries This is also not a forum for being arrogant. The question is not imaginary and the visual effects that this would cause is what's interresting.  
> **username_1**: I suggest you try the question on http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ they might be able to help you out with the "weirdness effect".  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2014-01-18. Score: 3

this is not really an answer to your question, but to the assumption you made.

The BH in the galactic center **cannot grow that much**. There are two problems. First, there is not enough food close by. Any potential food (gas clouds, stars, and dark matter) will have some non-zero angular momentum preventing it from coming close enough. Loosing this angular momentum is difficult (it cannot be radiated away like energy), the only way is to exchange it with other objects either via impact (of gas clouds) or gravitational interactions with other objects (not the BH).

The second problem is that a feeding BH is surrounded by an accretion disc of hot gas. In that disc, angular momentum is slowly transported outwards and mass inwards via viscosity (that viscosity most likely originates from turbulent magnetic fields that become unstable -- the magneto-rotational instability). This process inevitably heats the accretion disc to very high temperatures ($10^{6-9}$K) such that it emits a wind of raditation and particles (similar to the Solar wind, but much much stronger). If the BH feeds too much, this wind becomes so strong that it pushes away any further infalling material (potential food).

This second process limits the growth of any BH to double in mass in no less than about $10^6$ years, I think (I'm not too sure--if you want a precise value, consult the literature), even if the first problem was no issue.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Yep, but i am more interested in the optical effects for us, not about how the black hole would grow. Perhaps you could imagine it receiving intense gamma rays directed at its center would increase its mass without us being able to see where the increase of mass came from. I don't really care how, but about the optics.  
> **username_5**: It is the first process, which ultimately matters. Exponential growth would give you arbitrary masses sooner or later.  
> **username_4**: @username_5 Nope. The fact that these beasts grow to $10^{6-9}$ Solar masses shows that somehow they find a way to overcome the first problem. But eventually the feedback form the hole is so strong that it drives all the gas out of its host galaxy. This is thought to occur when all the energy of the wind is dumped into the galactic ISM, i.e. when the swept-up ISM cannot cool efficiently (if it can, only the wind momentum drives the outflow). Most efficient cooling is due to inverse Compton scattering off photons from the AGN itself (the shocked gas is much hotter than the accretion disc).  
> **username_5**: @Water, well, yes, but anyway Eddington limit (or more complex analagous processes as the ones you describe) does not stop accretion. The accretion could even be long and very sub-eddington, but eventually you will run into the problem of not having enough 'accretable' mass.  
> **username_2**: The question wasn't about the problem of getting the required mass.  
> **username_0**: Some people have speculated that black holes are worm-holes. Could not a black hole grow from both "ends"?  

---

