Er. . . Um – Physicists Explain Baby Black Holes to One Another

Pre-Large Hadron Collider, CERN

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56569

Chroot:   The type of matter is not relevent at all. All you need to do is to put enough matter into a small enough space that its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Viola, you have a black hole.  – Warren

Aki:  Aren’t they presently creating baby black holes in labs right now?
 
J20QU3: I wouldnt of thought so, they may be trying but even for a baby black hole u need a huge mass first.
 
Da Willem:  You only need a huge mass density. But the problem (or I guess we should count ourselves lucky) with baby black holes, is that they evaporate very fast.
 
NANOTEC:   they are creating very very small blackholes, the size of a few protons. the part that is tough, is the sustainability. the minuature black holes created evaporate very very quickly as well. from what i guess, CERN(when finished) will help out with this part of the process.
 
Chronos:  There is reason to believe you need at least a planck mass to form a black hole [whose schwarzchild radius would be a planck length]. The limit may, however, be lower if certain higher dimensional theories are correct. In that case the Large Hadron Collider at CERN may be able to produce them. At present, none have yet been created of any size in colliders, so far as anyone knows. If the planck mass limit [~10E19 Gev] holds, we will never create one.
 
NANOTECH:  How could we benefit from creating these black holes at CERN?
 
Nereid:  I too am curious to know why NanoTech thinks mini-black holes have been created in colliders – AFAIK, there’s nothing in the data from any collisions that even hints at such production. Further, if they could be made in colliders, there’d be plenty of them formed from UHE cosmic ray collisions with N or O nuclei (in the air) – again, no hints of such in all the CR data.Mini-BHs would evaporate through Hawking radiation – at least that’s the theory. As no one has observed a mini-BH, this theory has not yet been directly tested (although it is consistent with a large body of indirect experimental and observational data).
 
Grogs:  You’re probably right about today’s nukes not having the ‘oomph’ to create a black hole. I hadn’t really thrown any numbers into the calculation. Focusing them precisely enough (smaller than the radius of an atom ) would probably be a huge problem too. It would probably still be easier than dragging 3 SM’s of material together, but it’s many, many years down the road, if it’s possible at all.For the sake of comparison (to the 1019 GeV number Chronos mentioned), what energies are the latest and greatest supercolliders producing?
 
————-
 
It’s the thought that counts, I reckons.
Old Jules
Advertisements

11 responses to “Er. . . Um – Physicists Explain Baby Black Holes to One Another

  1. Thank you once again for ever broadening my vistas, Jules! 😀

  2. It’s quite interesting and all, but we spend a lot of time and money messing around with primal energies that we should be careful with. I’m thinking nuclear fission and fusion. If they get a black hole strong enough to not evaporate, then what? Does the earth get swallowed up in a hurry? Yikes!

    • Hi Swabby: No way of knowing what happens if we get one too big to evaporate. Might well be one out there now that didn’t and they just haven’t noticed it yet. Eventually it ought to show up in the form of anomalies of nutation and obliquity, but it might take a while. Also depends on how black holes behave insofar as orbits, gravity, etc. If one or a million of them got into the earth orbit around the sun it would probably take a while for anything to come of it. Nothing to be concerned about, meanwhile. The earth is spinning 1000 miles an hour and CERN’s underground, so anything a black hole might do in orbit around the center of earth would [thankfully] happen down underground, too. So it oughtn’t be a problem. Thanks for the interest. J

  3. Thanks for continuing with this topic. It is very interesting.

  4. excuse me!… physicists are great…. :-p

  5. How interesting… And why do these clowns get paid four times what farmers make? If the farmers died, we’d starve. If those physicists died, I’d be pretty happy. We don’t need the world getting sucked up in a black hole.

    • Good morning Azure James: Unless they’ve figured out a fix to dying I reckons they’ll join all the rest of us on the dying adventure. Whether it happens all at once getting sucked into a black hole or scattered out over our century of choice probably doesn’t matter much. Farmers, by the way, those corporate ones that have survived so far, mostly are doing okay is my impression. Probably making more money than most physicists. They just don’t get to feel as smug about how smart they are. Have a great one if it suits you. Otherwise have whatever kind of one you prefer. J

  6. what will happen if a human is placed inside? will he travel in time?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s