Create black hole with lasers? Physics project

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of creating a tiny black hole analogue using polarized laser pulses in a laboratory setting. Participants explore the practical aspects of setting up such an experiment, including the types of lasers, glass, detectors, and software that would be necessary. The conversation touches on theoretical concepts such as Hawking radiation and the distinction between artificial black holes and true black holes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that creating a tiny black hole analogue is possible with polarized laser pulses and seeks practical guidance on the experimental setup.
  • Another participant clarifies that the proposed experiment would create a black hole analogue, not a true black hole, emphasizing the difference between the two.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the expertise required to conduct such an experiment, particularly in relation to laser and optics knowledge.
  • Some participants criticize the reliability of certain sources, arguing that non-peer-reviewed articles may misrepresent the research and that primary literature should be consulted instead.
  • A specific arXiv paper is referenced as a potentially helpful resource, detailing experimental findings related to Hawking radiation from laser pulse filaments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the experiment, with some emphasizing the distinction between black hole analogues and true black holes. There is no consensus on the practicality of the proposed setup or the reliability of the sources cited.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of peer-reviewed sources and the potential limitations of relying on popular science articles. There is also an acknowledgment of the complexity involved in the experimental setup, which may depend on specific technical knowledge and resources.

FilipLand
Messages
52
Reaction score
3
Hi!

We have a projekt at the university and I have been thinking of creating a tiny tiny black hole after I've read some articles. I know one can create an artificial black hole with polarized laser pulses at a block of glass. And then one can measure a lot of things, usually hawkingradiation (in some certain way). BUT, do someone know how to making this experimental setup practically? Which lasers, what glass, what detectors and what eventual program to use? Someone with experience? We have access to a lot of laboratories and a budget if we need to order something.

Here is some articles that describe it very briefly, but know how to do it practically unfortunately.

1) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/11/physicists-create-black-hole-light-lab
2) https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22347-black-hole-laser-edges-closer-to-testing-hawking/

Thankful for some input if it is possible to do the experiment in some way.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
FilipLand said:
Hi!

We have a projekt at the university and I have been thinking of creating a tiny tiny black hole after I've read some articles. I know one can create an artificial black hole with polarized laser pulses at a block of glass. And then one can measure a lot of things, usually hawkingradiation (in some certain way). BUT, do someone know how to making this experimental setup practically? Which lasers, what glass, what detectors and what eventual program to use? Someone with experience? We have access to a lot of laboratories and a budget if we need to order something.

Here is some articles that describe it very briefly, but know how to do it practically unfortunately.

1) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/11/physicists-create-black-hole-light-lab
2) https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22347-black-hole-laser-edges-closer-to-testing-hawking/

Thankful for some input if it is possible to do the experiment in some way.
Maybe this can help https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.4634
[/PLAIN]
Hawking radiation from ultrashort laser pulse filaments
[URL='https://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Belgiorno_F/0/1/0/all/0/1']F. Belgiorno
, S.L. Cacciatori, M. Clerici, V. Gorini, G. Ortenzi, L. Rizzi, E. Rubino, V.G. Sala, D. Faccio
(Submitted on 23 Sep 2010)
Event horizons of astrophysical black holes and gravitational analogues have been predicted to excite the quantum vacuum and give rise to the emission of quanta, known as Hawking radiation. We experimentally create such a gravitational analogue using ultrashort laser pulse filaments and our measurements demonstrate a spontaneous emission of photons that confirms theoretical predictions. [/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First, this is not creating a black hole, but a black hole analogue, something that has some properties similar to a black hole, but is not a space-time singularity.

Second, if you have to ask "which laser", then you do not have the expertise to build such an experimental setup. The knowledge of lasers and optics needed to make such an experiment is huge.
 
FilipLand said:
Neither sciencemag.org nor newscientist.com are acceptable sources here; they are not peer-reviewed and often misrepresent the research they're reporting on.

In this case, they may not be actively misrepresenting anything, but you do have to read the articles more carefully than you have to see that they are NOT saying that anyone has created an artificial black hole.

If you want to understand any new development in any depth, you have to skip over sciencemag.org, newscientist.com, and the like, and go straight to the real thing - in this case the paper that mentz114 linked to. Be aware that even when the paper is behind a paywall, you can often find a preprint at arxiv.org; that's what mentz114 did for you this time.
 
Nugatory said:
Neither sciencemag.org nor newscientist.com are acceptable sources here; they are not peer-reviewed
For sciencemag.org that applies to the "News" section. The "Journals" section is peer-reviewed. However, I think sciencemag's news section is better (more reliable) than newscientist.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K