8 Biggest Black Holes In The Universe | As Per Their Solar Masses

8. Central black hole of Phoenix Cluster Solar Mass: 2×10¹⁰
7. NGC 4889 Solar Mass: 2.1×10¹⁰
6. APM 08279+5255 Solar Mass: 2.3×10¹⁰
5. NGC 6166 Solar Mass: 3×10¹⁰
4. H1821+643 Solar Mass: 3×10¹⁰
3. IC 1101 Solar Mass: (4-10)×10¹⁰
2. S5 0014+81 Solar Mass: 4×10¹⁰
1. TON 618 Solar Mass: 6.6×10¹⁰

List of most massive black holes

1. Phoenix A 1×10¹¹
2. TON 618 6.6×10¹⁰
3.4C +74.13 5.13+9.66−3.35×10¹⁰

(Theoretical limit) 5×10¹⁰

4. Holmberg 15A (4.0±0.8)×10<sup>10
5. IC 1101 (4–10)×1010</sup>

NGC 1277

S5 0014+81

Ton 618

Does anyone else feel small Now?

And if that’s not enough.

There are rogue black holes travelling through space.

Are we sure we are in the right universe?

Someone’s black hole experiment did not get out of control?

Someone’s Shed?

The Russians?

Chinese?

Maybe that great attractor is something bigger?

Bigger than Phoenix A 1×10¹¹ ?

The Biggest Black Hole Ever Is Now Phoenix A* – 4 min video

Phoenix A* might eat the rest of the universe, more gravity, yum yum, you now this small…

I never thought black holes could get so big.

They are massive.

Its quite easy then to imagine larger ones joining together and even larger ones all merging together into one, then that re-bounce happens ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

How long will the biggest black hole last?

If black holes evaporate under Hawking radiation, a solar mass black hole will evaporate over 10⁶⁴ years which is vastly longer than the age of the universe. A supermassive black hole with a mass of 10¹¹ (100 billion) M ☉ will evaporate in around 2×10¹⁰⁰ years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Cluster

Phoenix A is:

• 24,100 times the mass of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way (Sagittarius A*)
• twice the mass of the Triangulum Galaxy, including its dark matter halo.
• an immense event horizon with the Schwarzschild diameter of 590.5 billion kilometres (3,900 astronomical units), assuming if it is a non-rotating black hole, 100 times the distance from the Sun to Pluto
• a circumference that would take 71 days and 14 hours to travel at light speed.

>>>* a circumference that would take 71 days and 14 hours to travel at light speed.

How long would it take the Millennium Falcon to do that lap?

Tau.Neutrino said:

List of most massive black holes

1. Phoenix A 1×10¹¹
2. TON 618 6.6×10¹⁰
3.4C +74.13 5.13+9.66−3.35×10¹⁰

(Theoretical limit) 5×10¹⁰

4. Holmberg 15A (4.0±0.8)×10¹⁰

I’m far from familiar with the physics of such monsters, but how can there be an upper limit to the mass of a BH?

These Things are so much fun to fiddle with

Ogmog said:

These Things are so much fun to fiddle with

As a man with a thing I agree

.. but really, how do we know we aren’t in one ……. or many?

Jing Joh said:

.. but really, how do we know we aren’t in one ……. or many?

I think inside a BH there is only one direction, towards the “singularity”.

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

.. but really, how do we know we aren’t in one ……. or many?

I think inside a BH there is only one direction, towards the “singularity”.

Does that preclude one engulfing another?

How nice to get a visit from Jing Joh

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

.. but really, how do we know we aren’t in one ……. or many?

I think inside a BH there is only one direction, towards the “singularity”.

Does that preclude one engulfing another?

No. I think that and neutron star mergers are what we pick up with our gravitational wave observatories.

dv said:

How nice to get a visit from Jing Joh

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

I think inside a BH there is only one direction, towards the “singularity”.

Does that preclude one engulfing another?

No. I think that and neutron star mergers are what we pick up with our gravitational wave observatories.

Ergo

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

Does that preclude one engulfing another?

No. I think that and neutron star mergers are what we pick up with our gravitational wave observatories.

Ergo

ergo what?

Jing Joh said:

dv said:

How nice to get a visit from Jing Joh

I think that looks a little odd in hindsight and I retract it and say HNY!

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

No. I think that and neutron star mergers are what we pick up with our gravitational wave observatories.

Ergo

ergo what?

ergo, we may be inside many!

Jing Joh said:

Jing Joh said:

dv said:

How nice to get a visit from Jing Joh

I think that looks a little odd in hindsight and I retract it and say HNY!

Cheers

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

Ergo

ergo what?

ergo, we may be inside many!

No.

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

ergo what?

ergo, we may be inside many!

No.

You’ll have to do better than that.

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

ergo, we may be inside many!

No.

You’ll have to do better than that.

I have already explained.

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

No.

You’ll have to do better than that.

I have already explained.

No

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

You’ll have to do better than that.

I have already explained.

No

maybe you need to put some thought into your questions then.

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Jing Joh said:

.. but really, how do we know we aren’t in one ……. or many?

I think inside a BH there is only one direction, towards the “singularity”.

Does that preclude one engulfing another?

____

Mmm, so when a bigger black hole engulfs a smaller one then one singularity must move to another, in the end the smaller singularity must move away from it’s centre. ??

19 shillings said:

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

I think inside a BH there is only one direction, towards the “singularity”.

Does that preclude one engulfing another?

____

Mmm, so when a bigger black hole engulfs a smaller one then one singularity must move to another, in the end the smaller singularity must move away from it’s centre. ??

____

I mean, doesn’t the smaller black hole get ripped apart at
the end.

19 shillings said:

Jing Joh said:

Bogsnorkler said:

I think inside a BH there is only one direction, towards the “singularity”.

Does that preclude one engulfing another?

____

Mmm, so when a bigger black hole engulfs a smaller one then one singularity must move to another, in the end the smaller singularity must move away from it’s centre. ??

we need a quantum theory of gravity to answer this i think. singularities are all the same size. Though that is an incorrect way of looking at them. They aren’t physical. but a point where gravity becomes infinite using GR, which is inadequate for this region. Hence the need for a QToG. which we don’t have.

Bogsnorkler said:

19 shillings said:

Jing Joh said:

Does that preclude one engulfing another?

____

Mmm, so when a bigger black hole engulfs a smaller one then one singularity must move to another, in the end the smaller singularity must move away from it’s centre. ??

we need a quantum theory of gravity to answer this i think. singularities are all the same size. Though that is an incorrect way of looking at them. They aren’t physical. but a point where gravity becomes infinite using GR, which is inadequate for this region. Hence the need for a QToG. which we don’t have.

___

Maybe ask magic chicken while he is around facebook.

19 shillings said:

19 shillings said:

Jing Joh said:

Does that preclude one engulfing another?

____

Mmm, so when a bigger black hole engulfs a smaller one then one singularity must move to another, in the end the smaller singularity must move away from it’s centre. ??

____

I mean, doesn’t the smaller black hole get ripped apart at
the end.

BH aren’t physical objects like planets or stars. The BH is a description of the event horizon, the surface where the escape velocity is the speed of light, thus they are “black”. I guess you would get a distortion in the event horizons.

19 shillings said:

Bogsnorkler said:

19 shillings said:

____

Mmm, so when a bigger black hole engulfs a smaller one then one singularity must move to another, in the end the smaller singularity must move away from it’s centre. ??

we need a quantum theory of gravity to answer this i think. singularities are all the same size. Though that is an incorrect way of looking at them. They aren’t physical. but a point where gravity becomes infinite using GR, which is inadequate for this region. Hence the need for a QToG. which we don’t have.

___

Maybe ask magic chicken while he is around facebook.

___

Also Bill’s question about how can a black hole have a theoretical limit.

19 shillings said:

Bogsnorkler said:

19 shillings said:

____

Mmm, so when a bigger black hole engulfs a smaller one then one singularity must move to another, in the end the smaller singularity must move away from it’s centre. ??

we need a quantum theory of gravity to answer this i think. singularities are all the same size. Though that is an incorrect way of looking at them. They aren’t physical. but a point where gravity becomes infinite using GR, which is inadequate for this region. Hence the need for a QToG. which we don’t have.

___

Maybe ask magic chicken while he is around facebook.

He was recently on the SSSF FB page.

Link

Chris Maxwell.

19 shillings said:

19 shillings said:

Bogsnorkler said:

we need a quantum theory of gravity to answer this i think. singularities are all the same size. Though that is an incorrect way of looking at them. They aren’t physical. but a point where gravity becomes infinite using GR, which is inadequate for this region. Hence the need for a QToG. which we don’t have.

___

Maybe ask magic chicken while he is around facebook.

___

Also Bill’s question about how can a black hole have a theoretical limit.

I don’t think they have. The limit would be how much of the rest of the Universe is close enough and with enough time to be sucked in. We orbit one at the centre of our galaxy and are doing OK for now.

Bogsnorkler said:

19 shillings said:

19 shillings said:

___

Maybe ask magic chicken while he is around facebook.

___

Also Bill’s question about how can a black hole have a theoretical limit.

I don’t think they have. The limit would be how much of the rest of the Universe is close enough and with enough time to be sucked in. We orbit one at the centre of our galaxy and are doing OK for now.

Now you’ve gone and scared the kiddies.

You bastard.

sibeen said:

Bogsnorkler said:

19 shillings said:

___

Also Bill’s question about how can a black hole have a theoretical limit.

I don’t think they have. The limit would be how much of the rest of the Universe is close enough and with enough time to be sucked in. We orbit one at the centre of our galaxy and are doing OK for now.

Now you’ve gone and scared the kiddies.

You bastard.

tough love is my motto. harden the tykes up for the real world.

Bogsnorkler said:

19 shillings said:

19 shillings said:

____

Mmm, so when a bigger black hole engulfs a smaller one then one singularity must move to another, in the end the smaller singularity must move away from it’s centre. ??

____

I mean, doesn’t the smaller black hole get ripped apart at
the end.

BH aren’t physical objects like planets or stars. The BH is a description of the event horizon, the surface where the escape velocity is the speed of light, thus they are “black”. I guess you would get a distortion in the event horizons.

Hmmm, don’t know about that.

They have mass, and they have a gravitational effect on the things around them. How could they do that if they were not “physical objects”?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

19 shillings said:

____

I mean, doesn’t the smaller black hole get ripped apart at
the end.

BH aren’t physical objects like planets or stars. The BH is a description of the event horizon, the surface where the escape velocity is the speed of light, thus they are “black”. I guess you would get a distortion in the event horizons.

Hmmm, don’t know about that.

They have mass, and they have a gravitational effect on the things around them. How could they do that if they were not “physical objects”?

Purely in terms of general relativity, there is no problem here. The gravity doesn’t have to get out of the black hole. General relativity is a local theory, which means that the field at a certain point in spacetime is determined entirely by things going on at places that can communicate with it at speeds less than or equal to c. If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole. Just as the light registering late stages in my fall takes longer and longer to get out to you at a large distance, the gravitational consequences of events late in the star’s collapse take longer and longer to ripple out to the world at large. In this sense the black hole is a kind of “frozen star”: the gravitational field is a fossil field. The same is true of the electromagnetic field that a black hole may possess.

Often this question is phrased in terms of gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of spacetime distortion. If things like gravity correspond to the exchange of “particles” like gravitons, how can they get out of the event horizon to do their job?

Gravitons don’t exist in general relativity, because GR is not a quantum theory. They might be part of a theory of quantum gravity when it is completely developed, but even then it might not be best to describe gravitational attraction as produced by virtual gravitons. See the physics FAQ on virtual particles for a discussion of this.

Nevertheless, the question in this form is still worth asking, because black holes can have static electric fields, and we know that these may be described in terms of virtual photons. So how do the virtual photons get out of the event horizon? Well, for one thing, they can come from the charged matter prior to collapse, just like classical effects. In addition, however, virtual particles aren’t confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light! Consequently the event horizon, which is really just a surface that moves at the speed of light, presents no barrier.

I couldn’t use these virtual photons after falling into the hole to communicate with you outside the hole; nor could I escape from the hole by somehow turning myself into virtual particles. The reason is that virtual particles don’t carry any information outside the light cone.

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

BH aren’t physical objects like planets or stars. The BH is a description of the event horizon, the surface where the escape velocity is the speed of light, thus they are “black”. I guess you would get a distortion in the event horizons.

Hmmm, don’t know about that.

They have mass, and they have a gravitational effect on the things around them. How could they do that if they were not “physical objects”?

Purely in terms of general relativity, there is no problem here. The gravity doesn’t have to get out of the black hole. General relativity is a local theory, which means that the field at a certain point in spacetime is determined entirely by things going on at places that can communicate with it at speeds less than or equal to c. If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole. Just as the light registering late stages in my fall takes longer and longer to get out to you at a large distance, the gravitational consequences of events late in the star’s collapse take longer and longer to ripple out to the world at large. In this sense the black hole is a kind of “frozen star”: the gravitational field is a fossil field. The same is true of the electromagnetic field that a black hole may possess.

Often this question is phrased in terms of gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of spacetime distortion. If things like gravity correspond to the exchange of “particles” like gravitons, how can they get out of the event horizon to do their job?

Gravitons don’t exist in general relativity, because GR is not a quantum theory. They might be part of a theory of quantum gravity when it is completely developed, but even then it might not be best to describe gravitational attraction as produced by virtual gravitons. See the physics FAQ on virtual particles for a discussion of this.

Nevertheless, the question in this form is still worth asking, because black holes can have static electric fields, and we know that these may be described in terms of virtual photons. So how do the virtual photons get out of the event horizon? Well, for one thing, they can come from the charged matter prior to collapse, just like classical effects. In addition, however, virtual particles aren’t confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light! Consequently the event horizon, which is really just a surface that moves at the speed of light, presents no barrier.

I couldn’t use these virtual photons after falling into the hole to communicate with you outside the hole; nor could I escape from the hole by somehow turning myself into virtual particles. The reason is that virtual particles don’t carry any information outside the light cone.

You typed that quickly.

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

BH aren’t physical objects like planets or stars. The BH is a description of the event horizon, the surface where the escape velocity is the speed of light, thus they are “black”. I guess you would get a distortion in the event horizons.

Hmmm, don’t know about that.

They have mass, and they have a gravitational effect on the things around them. How could they do that if they were not “physical objects”?

Purely in terms of general relativity, there is no problem here. The gravity doesn’t have to get out of the black hole. General relativity is a local theory, which means that the field at a certain point in spacetime is determined entirely by things going on at places that can communicate with it at speeds less than or equal to c. If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole. Just as the light registering late stages in my fall takes longer and longer to get out to you at a large distance, the gravitational consequences of events late in the star’s collapse take longer and longer to ripple out to the world at large. In this sense the black hole is a kind of “frozen star”: the gravitational field is a fossil field. The same is true of the electromagnetic field that a black hole may possess.

Often this question is phrased in terms of gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of spacetime distortion. If things like gravity correspond to the exchange of “particles” like gravitons, how can they get out of the event horizon to do their job?

Gravitons don’t exist in general relativity, because GR is not a quantum theory. They might be part of a theory of quantum gravity when it is completely developed, but even then it might not be best to describe gravitational attraction as produced by virtual gravitons. See the physics FAQ on virtual particles for a discussion of this.

Nevertheless, the question in this form is still worth asking, because black holes can have static electric fields, and we know that these may be described in terms of virtual photons. So how do the virtual photons get out of the event horizon? Well, for one thing, they can come from the charged matter prior to collapse, just like classical effects. In addition, however, virtual particles aren’t confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light! Consequently the event horizon, which is really just a surface that moves at the speed of light, presents no barrier.

I couldn’t use these virtual photons after falling into the hole to communicate with you outside the hole; nor could I escape from the hole by somehow turning myself into virtual particles. The reason is that virtual particles don’t carry any information outside the light cone.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

Link

sibeen said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Hmmm, don’t know about that.

They have mass, and they have a gravitational effect on the things around them. How could they do that if they were not “physical objects”?

Purely in terms of general relativity, there is no problem here. The gravity doesn’t have to get out of the black hole. General relativity is a local theory, which means that the field at a certain point in spacetime is determined entirely by things going on at places that can communicate with it at speeds less than or equal to c. If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole. Just as the light registering late stages in my fall takes longer and longer to get out to you at a large distance, the gravitational consequences of events late in the star’s collapse take longer and longer to ripple out to the world at large. In this sense the black hole is a kind of “frozen star”: the gravitational field is a fossil field. The same is true of the electromagnetic field that a black hole may possess.

Often this question is phrased in terms of gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of spacetime distortion. If things like gravity correspond to the exchange of “particles” like gravitons, how can they get out of the event horizon to do their job?

Gravitons don’t exist in general relativity, because GR is not a quantum theory. They might be part of a theory of quantum gravity when it is completely developed, but even then it might not be best to describe gravitational attraction as produced by virtual gravitons. See the physics FAQ on virtual particles for a discussion of this.

Nevertheless, the question in this form is still worth asking, because black holes can have static electric fields, and we know that these may be described in terms of virtual photons. So how do the virtual photons get out of the event horizon? Well, for one thing, they can come from the charged matter prior to collapse, just like classical effects. In addition, however, virtual particles aren’t confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light! Consequently the event horizon, which is really just a surface that moves at the speed of light, presents no barrier.

I couldn’t use these virtual photons after falling into the hole to communicate with you outside the hole; nor could I escape from the hole by somehow turning myself into virtual particles. The reason is that virtual particles don’t carry any information outside the light cone.

You typed that quickly.

I had a ghost writer do it for me.

Bogsnorkler said:

sibeen said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Purely in terms of general relativity, there is no problem here. The gravity doesn’t have to get out of the black hole. General relativity is a local theory, which means that the field at a certain point in spacetime is determined entirely by things going on at places that can communicate with it at speeds less than or equal to c. If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole. Just as the light registering late stages in my fall takes longer and longer to get out to you at a large distance, the gravitational consequences of events late in the star’s collapse take longer and longer to ripple out to the world at large. In this sense the black hole is a kind of “frozen star”: the gravitational field is a fossil field. The same is true of the electromagnetic field that a black hole may possess.

Often this question is phrased in terms of gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of spacetime distortion. If things like gravity correspond to the exchange of “particles” like gravitons, how can they get out of the event horizon to do their job?

Gravitons don’t exist in general relativity, because GR is not a quantum theory. They might be part of a theory of quantum gravity when it is completely developed, but even then it might not be best to describe gravitational attraction as produced by virtual gravitons. See the physics FAQ on virtual particles for a discussion of this.

Nevertheless, the question in this form is still worth asking, because black holes can have static electric fields, and we know that these may be described in terms of virtual photons. So how do the virtual photons get out of the event horizon? Well, for one thing, they can come from the charged matter prior to collapse, just like classical effects. In addition, however, virtual particles aren’t confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light! Consequently the event horizon, which is really just a surface that moves at the speed of light, presents no barrier.

I couldn’t use these virtual photons after falling into the hole to communicate with you outside the hole; nor could I escape from the hole by somehow turning myself into virtual particles. The reason is that virtual particles don’t carry any information outside the light cone.

You typed that quickly.

I had a ghost writer do it for me.

Ya can’t get away with nuffin at this place.

:)

Bogsnorkler said:

sibeen said:

Bogsnorkler said:

Purely in terms of general relativity, there is no problem here. The gravity doesn’t have to get out of the black hole. General relativity is a local theory, which means that the field at a certain point in spacetime is determined entirely by things going on at places that can communicate with it at speeds less than or equal to c. If a star collapses into a black hole, the gravitational field outside the black hole may be calculated entirely from the properties of the star and its external gravitational field before it becomes a black hole. Just as the light registering late stages in my fall takes longer and longer to get out to you at a large distance, the gravitational consequences of events late in the star’s collapse take longer and longer to ripple out to the world at large. In this sense the black hole is a kind of “frozen star”: the gravitational field is a fossil field. The same is true of the electromagnetic field that a black hole may possess.

Often this question is phrased in terms of gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of spacetime distortion. If things like gravity correspond to the exchange of “particles” like gravitons, how can they get out of the event horizon to do their job?

Gravitons don’t exist in general relativity, because GR is not a quantum theory. They might be part of a theory of quantum gravity when it is completely developed, but even then it might not be best to describe gravitational attraction as produced by virtual gravitons. See the physics FAQ on virtual particles for a discussion of this.

Nevertheless, the question in this form is still worth asking, because black holes can have static electric fields, and we know that these may be described in terms of virtual photons. So how do the virtual photons get out of the event horizon? Well, for one thing, they can come from the charged matter prior to collapse, just like classical effects. In addition, however, virtual particles aren’t confined to the interiors of light cones: they can go faster than light! Consequently the event horizon, which is really just a surface that moves at the speed of light, presents no barrier.

I couldn’t use these virtual photons after falling into the hole to communicate with you outside the hole; nor could I escape from the hole by somehow turning myself into virtual particles. The reason is that virtual particles don’t carry any information outside the light cone.

You typed that quickly.

I had a ghost writer do it for me.

In that case I won’t feel guilty for responding with:

OK, but it’s still a physical object.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

sibeen said:

You typed that quickly.

I had a ghost writer do it for me.

In that case I won’t feel guilty for responding with:

OK, but it’s still a physical object.

meh.

19 shillings said:

19 shillings said:

____

Mmm, so when a bigger black hole engulfs a smaller one then one singularity must move to another, in the end the smaller singularity must move away from it’s centre. ??

____

I mean, doesn’t the smaller black hole get ripped apart at
the end.

That is actually a darn good question. One I’d never considered before.

OK, let’s ignore theories outside general relativity.
Further limit the discussion to rotating uncharged black holes – Kerr black holes – because these are by far the most common type.
And let a tiny black hole fall into a humongous one.

Naive thought for starters.

Angular momentum is conserved. Given a relatively large sideways velocity the combination of conservation of angular momentum and mass-energy leads to the smaller black hole orbiting the larger one inside the event horizon away from the larger singularity. This is not in any sense an elliptical orbit like those of Kepler, but it is an orbit and therefore stable. There’s no energy loss because there’s no friction or viscosity to slow down the small black hole. Theoretically you could have a whole planetary system of small black hole singularities inside a giant black hole. The small black hole is not ripped apart.

Slightly more advanced.

But let’s suppose that inside the black hole although total energy-mass in conserved, energy is transferred through (for want of a better term) tidal action from the small black hole to the large one. I don’t know enough about the equations of General Relativity to confirm or deny this. In that case the small black hole spirals in to the large black hole and doughnut of the large black hole singularity expands slightly towards the small black hole singularity. When the two meet (at the exact moment of the small black hole has no intrinsic momentum, before then if does) the small black hole singularity is ripped apart into a doughnut to merge with the large black hole singularity doughnut. The result is the stable system with the smallest kinetic energy.

> I mean, doesn’t the smaller black hole get ripped apart at the end?

In other words, probably. It’s true if the large black hole has a way of leaching kinetic energy away from the singularity at the centre of the small black hole.