Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in action
- Thread starter Dondi
- Start date
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I wondered about that.
I'm certainly not versed well enough to speak with any authority, but I wondered if a black hole would require a "critical mass" in order to continue its perpetuation...
Woah, that is a theory. We haven't actually created a singularity yet. Furthermore, we have NEVER actually seen a singularity directly. And we do not know for absolute certainty, what is required for critical mass (since we are delving/plunging into quantom physics/special relativity, which we are at about kindegarten level of knowledge, and which Einstein never worked the bugs out of).
We are going where no one has actually gone before...
Even S. Hawkins was hesitant on this one...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
NOVA | Einstein's Big Idea | PBS
Einstein's Big Idea
An excellent PBS/NOVA program, I highly recommend, covers a whole lot of turf from the influential science leading up to Einstein's theory, and the lady who picked up where Einstein left off who figured out how to unleash the atom. Her nephew was a contributor to the Manhatten project.
Einstein's Big Idea
An excellent PBS/NOVA program, I highly recommend, covers a whole lot of turf from the influential science leading up to Einstein's theory, and the lady who picked up where Einstein left off who figured out how to unleash the atom. Her nephew was a contributor to the Manhatten project.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Really interesting stuff, Tao. Do they know at what point a black hole seems to be "stable" enough (wrong word, I know, but I can't think of the right one) to keep going? What has to happen for the black holes out there to have occurred and kept going?
bob x
Well-Known Member
It's not a sharp line. Under Hawking's interpretation, the more mass it has, the slower it radiates. To form a black hole without a high-speed collision, simply from gravitational pressure forcing all the particles together, requires about 2.3 times the mass of the sun; this size black hole will hardly radiate at all, something like one photon per trillion years. But that is 50 orders of magnitude larger than the black holes the LHC could theoretically produce, which Hawkings says would radiate away in a trifling fraction of a second.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
I am not sure because science is not sure. Like I said I have read reports that stellar size black holes may be radiating far more than Hawkins Radiation predicts. According to Hawkins Radiation theory a stellar mass object should be emitting very little, so little that it would be stable for many billions of years without losing much mass at all. The smallest sized object I have seen associated as reasonably stable is about the mass of a car but it does not seem very likely to me. I dont think we really understand what black holes are yet on the bigger scales but I am pretty confident that molecular size black holes cannot exist. There seems to be enough consensus among the physicists on that to be fairly confident. Till of course we make one and it gobbles the Earth.
I still tend to think galactic black holes are a whole different kettle of fish. I think the mass of these objects is far greater than we are led to believe and that they account for much of the so called missing dark matter. The dark matter that is supposedly distributed amongst the stars and galaxies is deduced looking at the movement of the galaxies and galactic clusters in relation to each other. Another explanation for their momentum would be galactic black holes that are several orders of magnitude heavier than accepted. And theses objects sit in virtually every galaxy studied. But I digress...
tao