Miniature Black Holes

BoJangles · Dec 15, 2008

Q1 Can 2 atoms/particles share the same physical space. By that I mean their respective subatomic components. I guess the answer is no; they can be infinitely close but not share the same space.Q2 If you could push 2 atoms/particles close enough together would they form a black hole. If you want an example let’s say 2 iron particles, or is it a case you would need more mass then just 2 atom/particles to overcome the subatomic forces.Q3 If you could form a black hole with the equivalent of 2 atoms/particles, and Hawkings Radiation doesn’t exist (well it’s never really been proven), how close would the 3rd atom/particle need to be, before gravity takes over from the sub atomic forces?---I guess in relation to the last question, what was good for the first 2 atoms/particle would be good for the 3rd, assuming it’s possible in the first place of course. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Q1 Can 2 atoms/particles share the same physical space. </DIV>Generally speaking, you are correct, two identical particles cannot occupy the same space at exactly the same time.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principleReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>By that I mean their respective subatomic components. I guess the answer is no; they can be infinitely close but not share the same space.</DIV>Actually I would say that they cannot be "infinitely" close, just "finitely" close.   The charge of the particle in question, say a positive charge of a proton, would have some affect on the overall distance that can be achieved between particles.  The particle charge would also tend to influence the movement of both particles at very close distances. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Q2 If you could push 2 atoms/particles close enough together would they form a black hole.</DIV>They would not necessarily form an event horizon because they are not massive enough to do so. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you want an example let’s say 2 iron particles, or is it a case you would need more mass then just 2 atom/particles to overcome the subatomic forces.</DIV>The nuclei of all atoms tends to be positively charged and the nuclei would tend to repel one another as the nuclei of both atoms came into close proximity to each other.  Two iron atoms wouldn't have the mass or density necessary to create an event horizon.  The periodic table contains far more massive elements than the combined mass of two iron atoms. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Q3 If you could form a black hole with the equivalent of 2 atoms/particles, and Hawkings Radiation doesn’t exist (well it’s never really been proven), how close would the 3rd atom/particle need to be, before gravity takes over from the sub atomic forces?---I guess in relation to the last question, what was good for the first 2 atoms/particle would be good for the 3rd, assuming it’s possible in the first place of course. Posted by Manwh0re</DIV>I think the notion of creating a "mini" black hole from a few atoms or particles suffers from the illusion that an event horizon can form around individual particle pairs, and around non massive gravitational fields.  I've never seen that done in a controlled experiment, and I don't believe it will by done by LHC either.  That's just my opinion of course. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

BoJangles · Dec 15, 2008

Oh ok thanks, i wonder then what's the minimum factors needed to make a Black hole with an event horizon. In that case i suppose it would come down to maybe a function of how much mass you would need in relation to compression <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

DrRocket · Dec 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh ok thanks, i wonder then what's the minimum factors needed to make a Black hole with an event horizon. In that case i suppose it would come down to maybe a function of how much mass you would need in relation to compression Posted by Manwh0re</DIV>Your questions involve two things: 1) Formation of black holes which is, in our current understanding, governed by gravitation as explained with the general theory of relativity.  2) Behavior of subatomic particles which is, in our current understanding, governed by the quantum field theories of the electroweak and strong forces.Black holes, according to general relativity are formed when there is sufficient mass density (which is I believe what you mean by "mass in relation to compression)  for there to be a surface at which the escape velocity is the speed of light.  That surface is the event horizon. The problem is that we know that general relativity and our current quantum field theories are inconsistent.  We do not have a viable physical theory that can explain simultaneous gravitational and quantum effects.  That is why our ability to explain the physics in the interior of black holes near the predicted singularity or of the universe immediately following the Big Bang is so limited.  The develoopment of such a unified theory is one of the foremost research problems in theoretical physics -- it is the reason for research in string theory and M theory for instance.There are hypotheses that suggest that if you slam subatomic particles together with enough energy that you can form extremely small black holes.  There are also hypotheses that suggest that such tiny black holes would evaporate very quickly, almost instantaneously, from Hawking radiation.  Both of these hypotheses represent responsible speculation.  But they are not amenable to evaluation with solid, proven physical theories, because such theories do not yet exist.So the bottom line is that nobody can give definitive answers to your questions.  At least not yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BoJangles · Dec 15, 2008

Thanks drRocket, once again very informative, I always appreciate your additions.For some reason I’ve had a natural fear of quantum mechanics, and may have neglected it a little bitI might try and watch a few video lectures, and see if I can’t understand the quantum land a bit better.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

DrRocket · Dec 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks drRocket, once again very informative, I always appreciate your additions.For some reason I’ve had a natural fear of quantum mechanics, and may have neglected it a little bitI might try and watch a few video lectures, and see if I can’t understand the quantum land a bit better.  Posted by Manwh0re</DIV>If you figure it out, don't keep it a secret.There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity.  I do not believe that there ever was such a time.  There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper.  But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve.  On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

lildreamer · Dec 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh ok thanks, i wonder then what's the minimum factors needed to make a Black hole with an event horizon. In that case i suppose it would come down to maybe a function of how much mass you would need in relation to compression Posted by Manwh0re</DIV> Hi Manwh0reI found an interesting site you might want to check outhttp://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Black-hole#Ring-shaped_singularity http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Schwarzschild-radiuswhat I think you might be suggesting than is thisthe Schwarzschild radius http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Schwarzschild-radius"The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes inappropriately referred to as the gravitational radius[1]) is a characteristic radius associated with every mass. The term is used in physics and astronomy, especially in the theory of gravitation, general relativity. It was found in 1916 by Karl Schwarzschild and results from his discovery of an exact solution for the gravitational field outside a static, spherically symmetric star (see Schwarzschild metric, which is a solution of the Einstein field equations). The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass. The Sun has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 3 km, the Earth's being approximately 9 mm.   Therefore An object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is called a black hole. The surface at the Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a static body. (A rotating black hole operates slightly differently.) Neither light nor particles can escape through this surface from the region inside, hence the name "black hole". " I hope this helps out .... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dragon04 · Dec 16, 2008

I can't get my head around the whole "mini black hole idea, and here's why.. For decades, scientists have been splitting particles by slamming them together to find more and more fundamental particles. AFAIK, we'll never be able to generate the energies involved in seeing past the Planck limit. Which means we'll never be able to produce the most fundamental particle.Black holes don't form by things splitting, so  how can anyone create a mini black hole by slamming particles into one another? It just seems counterintuitive to me, but I'm not a physicist, either. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

DrRocket · Dec 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can't get my head around the whole "mini black hole idea, and here's why.. For decades, scientists have been splitting particles by slamming them together to find more and more fundamental particles. AFAIK, we'll never be able to generate the energies involved in seeing past the Planck limit. Which means we'll never be able to produce the most fundamental particle.Black holes don't form by things splitting, so  how can anyone create a mini black hole by slamming particles into one another? It just seems counterintuitive to me, but I'm not a physicist, either. Posted by dragon04</DIV>I don't think anyone know whether or not you can slam particles together and really get a black hole.  But there are some conjectures that such might occur.  I don't know the precise mechanism, but I think it involves having enough energy, which is also mass, to get the particles sufficiently close together to have the required mass density.  Remember in the quantum world an collision is not simply two marbles bumping into one another.  Also remember that this some sort of combination of general relativity and quantum mechanics and we have no theory that can handle both simultaneously (that is code for I'm not sure anyone know what they are talking about). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jdweston · Dec 16, 2008

T’was the night before Everything By Daniel Weston  T’was the night before, (as if night mattered) and all through the universe,not a fermion was stirring, not a quark or it’s inverse. Everything was nothing yet in a moment later,the size of a dot, something - an energy radiator. Then a phase transition, caused a cosmic inflation,that grew exponentially towards, quark-gluon plasmatiation. An excess of quarks as it cooled In the first seconds,by the time down to a billion K, an annihilation dance beckons. Time not to rest still way too hot, just not as hot as before,particle energies drop, now the physics we can’t ignore. 379,000 light years laterthe electrons and then nuclei combine,Still 11,000 plus degrees C, now into atoms it finally sublimes. Then slowly gravitationally attracted, to nearby each others and more,two, four, eight, a million,soon sextillions and decillions galore.  Then speckles and sparkles,like first falling snow,gives a depth to space, and a pattern to the glow.  When, what to the deep and the deeper should show,But a star that lasts more then a fleeting you know.With a force super lively and light way too bright,They shine, fade, expand, and explode with the might. When out on the edge,a shutter, and chatter,from the swirls and the collapses, out-shed matter.  More and more the elements by orbital came,And they spun in layers, and periodic by name!  "Take Hydrogen first! and now Helium! too, make Lithium and Carbon to name just a few! Now, Nitrogen!, Now Oxygen! Now Beryllium and Boron!,Now more and more and more they flew on! To the column of the group and rows of little balls,Now fusion away! Fusion away! Fusion away all!" And then, in a twinkling of stars, and a swill of dust danced,Galactic arms twist to a center, that disappeared into blackness. Pulled towards the hole, with one last drift around,Down the chimney the light went with only a slight sound.  Gravity wins or does it really a few great minds must ponder,Does something leak out and fatten the warp, they now all wonder. Space-time bends and it twists, but does it break or falter.Can we ever know just one everything equation or another.  With all this and that when you add all the parts,the mass not enough to hold the whole thing should fall apart. The numbers not-exact but checked time and time again by the add-ers,There’s only one answer (maybe), it's full of Dark matter!  Will it grow forever, until it’s runs out and lapses,Just can’t stay the same, must at least relapses! But what is the mass balance and how will we know,whether times runs forever, or someday backwards to no.  We measured the shift rates and much to our surprise,not only just away they all flew but still accelerating, we weren't very wise. So we heard it exclaim,I go ‘perpetually out of sight,"Happy forever to all, and to all a very slowly dimming night!"  ---30—             ver 1.5 T’was the night before Everything By Daniel Weston  T’was the night before, as if night mattered and all through the universe,not a fermion was stirring, not a quark or it’s inverse. Everything was nothing yet in a moment later,the size of a dot, something - an energy radiator.  Then a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation,that grew exponentially towards quark-gluon plasmatiation, Yet time not to rest, still way too hot, just not as hot as before,particle energies drop, now the physics we can’t ignore.  An excess of quarks as it cooled to a few first seconds,by the time down to a billion K an annihilation dance beckons. Away to the deep following the microwave flash,And in all dimensions of time, it now does splash.  379,000 years later the electrons and nuclei combines,Still 10,000 degrees centigrade, but into atoms it finally sublimes. Then slowly gravitationally attracted to nearby each others,Itself expands space, sets a limit to the horizons.  When out on the edge a shutter, and chatter,From the swirls and the collapses out shed matter.Burr, Burr it’s now really very cold now out there,A few hot spots of grrr in the milky thin aftersphere.  Then sparkles and speckles like first falling snow,Gives a depth to space and a pattern to the glow. When, what to the deep and the deeper should show,But a star that lasts more then a fleeting you know.  With a force super lively and light way too bright,They shine, fade, expand then explode with the might. More and more the elements by orbital came,And they spun in layers, and periodic by name!  "Take Hydrogen first! and now Helium! too, make Lithium and Carbon to name just a few!Now, Nitrogen!, Now Oxygen! Now Beryllium and Boron!, Now more and more flew! To the column of the group! and rows of little balls,Now fusion away! Fusion away!Fusion away all!"  And then, in a twinkling of stars, and a swill of dust danced,Galactic arms twist to a center that disappeared into blackness. Pulled towards the center, with one last drift around,Down the chimney the light went with only a slight sound.  Gravity wins or does it really, a few great minds must ponder,Does something leak out and fatten the warp, they now all wonder. Spacetime bends and it twists but does it break or falter,Can we ever know just one everything equation or another.  With all this and that , when you add all the parts,The mass not enough to hold, the whole thing should fall apart. The numbers not-exact, but checked time and time again by the add-ers,There’s only one answer (maybe), it's full of Dark matter!  Will it grow forever until it’s runs out and lapses,Just can’t stay the same, must at least relapses! But what is the mass balance and how will we know,Whether times runs forever, or someday backwards to no.  We measured the shift rates, and much to our surprise,Not only just away they all flew but still accelerating, we weren't very wise. So we heard it exclaim, I go ‘perpetually out of sight,"Happy forever to all, and to all a very slow dimming night!"  ---30—

jdweston · Dec 16, 2008

sorry about the formating T’was the night before Everything By Daniel Weston    T’was the night before, (as if night mattered) and all through the universe,not a fermion was stirring, not a quark or it’s inverse.   Everything was nothing yet in a moment later,the size of a dot, something - an energy radiator.   Then a phase transition, caused a cosmic inflation,that grew exponentially towards, quark-gluon plasmatiation.   An excess of quarks as it cooled In the first seconds,by the time down to a billion K, an annihilation dance beckons.   Time not to rest still way too hot, just not as hot as before,particle energies drop, now the physics we can’t ignore.   379,000 light years laterthe electrons and then nuclei combine,Still 11,000 plus degrees C, now into atoms it finally sublimes.   Then slowly gravitationally attracted, to nearby each others and more,two, four, eight, a million,soon sextillions and decillions galore.    Then speckles and sparkles,like first falling snow,gives a depth to space, and a pattern to the glow.        When, what to the deep and the deeper should show,But a star that lasts more then a fleeting you know.   With a force super lively and light way too bright,They shine, fade, expand, and explode with the might. When out on the edge,a shutter, and chatter,from the swirls and the collapses, out-shed matter.    More and more the elements by orbital came,And they spun in layers, and periodic by name!    "Take Hydrogen first! and now Helium! too, make Lithium and Carbon to name just a few!   Now, Nitrogen!, Now Oxygen! Now Beryllium and Boron!,Now more and more and more they flew on!   To the column of the group and rows of little balls,Now fusion away! Fusion away! Fusion away all!"   And then, in a twinkling of stars, and a swill of dust danced,Galactic arms twist to a center, that disappeared into blackness.   Pulled towards the hole, with one last drift around,Down the chimney the light went with only a slight sound.    Gravity wins or does it really a few great minds must ponder,Does something leak out and fatten the warp, they now all wonder.   Space-time bends and it twists, but does it break or falter.Can we ever know just one everything equation or another.    With all this and that when you add all the parts,the mass not enough to hold the whole thing should fall apart.   The numbers not-exact but checked time and time again by the add-ers,There’s only one answer (maybe), it's full of Dark matter!    Will it grow forever, until it’s runs out and lapses,Just can’t stay the same, must at least relapses!   But what is the mass balance and how will we know,whether times runs forever, or someday backwards to no.    We measured the shift rates and much to our surprise,not only just away they all flew but still accelerating, we weren't very wise.   So we heard it exclaim,I go ‘perpetually out of sight,"Happy forever to all, and to all a very slowly dimming night!"     ---30—

chris1996 · Nov 5, 2009

Mini black holes may or may not exist.
It has been said that scientists can create them for fractions of a second in the LHC.
(Large Hadron Collider) They do this by smashing protons together at almost light speed.

harper05 · Nov 6, 2009

Ill offer some "speculation", based on the work of Dr.Lisa Randall's (Harvard physics prof.)theory of gravitation. In it she surmises that gravity is leaking in to our universe via the gravity dimension. And if you could get 2 protons super close maybe 10-20th m(guessing, can't remember the distance) maybe closer, they will get a boost from the g dim. (Because g becomes way more intense at these close proximity's). Alowing them to orbit and try to merge, shrinking down to a mini black hole and evaporating almost instantaneously. The lhc does have the energy requirements for this. And if she and Dr. Hawking are correct, the probability this will occur at lhc is likely. In wich case they would both be in the running for a nobel prize.

Basically the protons would get so close they would be a proton distance apart and rotate each other at c. then evaporate.

Its like this,

Gravitational attraction between two contiguous Schwarzschild protons can easily accommodate both nucleon and quark confinement. In this picture, we can treat “strong” gravity as the strong force. We calculate that two contiguous
Schwarzschild protons would rotate at c and have a period of 10-23s and a frequency of 10 to the 22Hz which is characteristic of the strong force interaction time and a close approximation of the gamma emission typically associated with nuclear decay. Using a semi-classical model, we find that a proton charge orbiting at a proton radius at c generates a good approximation to the measured anomalous magnetic moment.

Quantum vacuum density, Vp= 9.66*10 to the -39cm3
quantity of the density of the vacuum available in the volume of a proton is Rp=PvRp
then Rp=4.98*10^ 55th gm/proton volume

One can obtaian a similar result by utilizing the proton volume Vp, and dividing the planck volume given by Vpl=l^3
Therefore Vpl=4.22*10^-99 cm^3 whare l is the planck length given by l=1.62*10^-33cm.
Then N=Vp/Vpl yields the quantity 2.29*10^60, where N is the ratio of the proton volume to the planck volume.
Since the planck mass Mp is given as Mp=2.18 *10^-5gm, the the mass density within a proton is Rp=MpN
Then Rp=4.98*10^55gm/Pv.

Interesting note:
This is typically the value given to the mass of matter in the universe. We calculate then what portion of the total vacuum density available in a proton volume is necessary for the nucleon to obey the schwarzchild condition. May be evidence of all protons entangled on a universal level.

Rs=2gm/c^2. The mass needed to obey the sch. cond. for a radius of Rp=1.32fm is
m=c^2Rs/2g where we choose the condition that Rs=Rp=1.32fm, and the g constant is given as
g=6.67*10^-8cm^3/Gms^2
The value of speed of light is c=2.99*10^10cm/s
then m=the s mass of m=8.85*10^14gm which is derived from the density of the vacuum available in a proton volume Vp.

note that only a very small proportion of the available mass-energy density from the vacuum within Vp
is required for a nucleon to obey the Schwarzschild condition. In fact, the ratio of the quantity of density of the vacuum in the volume of a proton, Rp=4.88*10^55 to the quantity sufficient for the proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition,
M=8.85*10^14gm is
M/Rp=1.78*10^-41

Therefore, only 1.78*10^-39% of the mass-energy density of the vacuum is required to form a
“Schwarzschild proton.This contribution from the vacuum may be the result of a small amount of the vacuum energy becoming coherent and polarized near and at the boundary of the horizon of the proton due to spacetime torque and Coreolis effects as described by the Haramein-Rauscher solution.

Now let us consider the gravitational force between two contiguous Schwarzschild protons. In a semi-classical approach the force between these protons is given as
f=gm^2/(2Rp)^2
where the distance between the protons’ centers is 2Rp=2.64fm, yielding force of 7.49*10^47 dynes

We now calculate the velocity of two Schwarzschild protons orbiting each other with their centers separated by a proton diameter. We utilize the force to calculate the associated acceleration a=f/m
yields A=8.46*10^32cm/s^2
We utilized this acceleration to derive the relativistic velocity as
2*square root of 2ARp
the period of rotation of such a system is given by t=2(pi)Rp/v wich yields t=5.55*10^-23
Interestingly, this is the characteristic interaction time of the strong force.

This is from my notes on schwarzchild protons and
Ive tried to shorten the math hopefully not leaving anything out, there is more if anyone is interested.

Search

Miniature Black Holes

BoJangles

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

dragon04

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

jdweston

Guest

jdweston

Guest

chris1996

Guest

harper05

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page