Proof that micro black holes can't exist?

zeromodz
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
I was playing around with some equations and I found a reason why I think micro black holes cannot exist. This proof requires a few assumptions which I have tended to find to be a scientific consensus. They are the following.

1) The smallest mass a black hole can have is the Planck mass which by definition will give the schwarchilds radius of the black hole the Planck length.
2) The smallest meaningful increment of time in the universe is the Planck time.

Lets start with the uncertainty principle.

ΔXΔP <= h / 4π

This can also being written as.

ΔEΔT <= h / 4π
ΔE <= h / 4πΔT

This tells us that the amount of energy uncertainty created from the vacuum is inversely proportional to the time. Now let us change our units of energy to mass by dividing the equation by c^2

Mtotal <= h / 4πΔTc^2

The maximum amount of mass that can be created from nothing out of the uncertainty of the vacuum can now be written as the following.

Mtotal = h / 4π(Tplanck)c^2
Mtotal = (6.626 * 10^-34) / ((4π)(5.39 * 10^-44)(299792458)^2)
Mtotal = 1.088 * 10^-8 kg

The Planck mass is 2.17 * 10^-8 kg. So it turns out the maximum amount of mass that can be created from nothing for 10^-44 seconds is exactly half the Planck mass. Am I missing a factor of two anywhere? Or is it just Planck masses and micro black holes cannot be created from the uncertainty principle? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, what if you have a black hole moving at relativistic speeds? (so E =/= mc^2) :P

I don't know quite enough about QM to comment about anything else...
 
n1person said:
Well, what if you have a black hole moving at relativistic speeds? (so E =/= mc^2) :P

I don't know quite enough about QM to comment about anything else...

Well, at least you tried.
 
n1person said:
Well, what if you have a black hole moving at relativistic speeds? (so E =/= mc^2) :P

I don't know quite enough about QM to comment about anything else...

You just go in the reference where it is at rest (which exist becausse M_{BH} &gt; 0)



zeromodz said:
I was playing around with some equations and I found a reason why I think micro black holes cannot exist. This proof requires a few assumptions which I have tended to find to be a scientific consensus. They are the following.

1) The smallest mass a black hole can have is the Planck mass which by definition will give the schwarchilds radius of the black hole the Planck length.
2) The smallest meaningful increment of time in the universe is the Planck time.

Lets start with the uncertainty principle.

ΔXΔP <= h / 4π

This can also being written as.

ΔEΔT <= h / 4π
ΔE <= h / 4πΔT

This tells us that the amount of energy uncertainty created from the vacuum is inversely proportional to the time. Now let us change our units of energy to mass by dividing the equation by c^2

Mtotal <= h / 4πΔTc^2

The maximum amount of mass that can be created from nothing out of the uncertainty of the vacuum can now be written as the following.

Mtotal = h / 4π(Tplanck)c^2
Mtotal = (6.626 * 10^-34) / ((4π)(5.39 * 10^-44)(299792458)^2)
Mtotal = 1.088 * 10^-8 kg

The Planck mass is 2.17 * 10^-8 kg. So it turns out the maximum amount of mass that can be created from nothing for 10^-44 seconds is exactly half the Planck mass. Am I missing a factor of two anywhere? Or is it just Planck masses and micro black holes cannot be created from the uncertainty principle? Thanks
Well, first you need to reverse all the inequalities: It's \Delta X \Delta P \geq \hbar and \Delta E \Delta t \geq \hbar.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top