Can Black Holes Be Stabilized to Prevent Decay?

[Ansuman]

Till sometime it was believed that Black Holes were impossible to create ( made by men ), now some theories which were added to the Standard Model show that the Particle Accelerators having energy levels of TeV can actually produce black holes ( like LHC ) !

Okay but now they are unstable, they are going to vaporize due to the constant loss of mass by the Hawking Radiation. Isn't there some way in which we can actually stabilize the Black Hole so that it gobbles up more mass than it loses, slowly increasing its size and effect.

The answer may be hypothetical...no worries. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks


P.S.- I am not making a black hole either, so you can help me out freely :P

 

[mfb]

The same theories that might include the possibility to produce microscopic black holes also predict its evaporation.
There is no known theory which would predict the production, but not the evaporation of microscopic black holes. In addition, that would be incompatible with astronomic observations, as it would convert all neutron stars into black holes quickly - and we do observe neutron stars.

You can stabilize a small black hole if you shoot enough mass on it to counter Hawking radiation. That needs some minimal mass of the order of millions of tons if I remember correctly. There is a hypothetical concept to generate such a massive black hole with really intense lasers - a controlled black hole would be a very useful source of radiation, and the ultimate trash bin.

 

[stevebd1]

Till sometime it was believed that Black Holes were impossible to create ( made by men ), now some theories which were added to the Standard Model show that the Particle Accelerators having energy levels of TeV can actually produce black holes ( like LHC ) !

Okay but now they are unstable, they are going to vaporize due to the constant loss of mass by the Hawking Radiation. Isn't there some way in which we can actually stabilize the Black Hole so that it gobbles up more mass than it loses, slowly increasing its size and effect.

The answer may be hypothetical...no worries. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks


P.S.- I am not making a black hole either, so you can help me out freely :P

Both spin and charge reduce Hawking radiation (see equations 2.28 & 2.29 on page 10 of http://www.fysik.su.se/~narit/bh.pdf) though the BHs would have to be virtually maximal (i.e. a²+Q²≈M²) in order for them to have any stability.

 

[dauto]

Both spin and charge reduce Hawking radiation (see equations 2.28 & 2.29 on page 10 of http://www.fysik.su.se/~narit/bh.pdf) though the BHs would have to be virtually maximal (i.e. a²+Q²≈M²) in order for them to have any stability.

What would prevent such a maximal B-hole from decaying by emitting a charged particle - such as an electron - and becoming sub-maximal?

 

[stevebd1]

What would prevent such a maximal B-hole from decaying by emitting a charged particle - such as an electron - and becoming sub-maximal?

The tricky part would be getting the BH to be maximal in the first place. The only way you could add charge or angular momentum is via objects of mass which have these properties which, in turn, also add mass, meaning that M² will almost certainly always be greater than a²+Q². A maximal BH also defies the third law of BH thermodynamic due to the Killing surface gravity (κ) and (supposedly) entropy become zero. Some larger cosmic black holes are considered 'close' to maximal with a spin parameter of a=0.998M but for a micro BH to have any kind of live span, it would have to be within 20-30 decimal places of being maximal.