How to create stable mini black hole

[rogerl]

Hi,

What would it take to produce a stable black hole in a particle laboratory? Must one use some kind of focuser and shielder to prevent the initial point from evaporating? In some entanglement experiements, they use laser to remove the thermal agitations in the particles. Can we do the same to mini black hole so we can create stable ones and make it grow to say 1 meter?

 

[fzero]

A laboratory sized black hole would emit extremely high frequency radiation (1 kg BH radiates at >10³³ Hz) so that it would be impossible to shield it. The gamma rays would pass directly through the shield allowing the black hole to quickly evaporate (10^-17 seconds).

 

[Drakkith]

I don't think it's a good idea to feed a black hole and let it grow lol.

 

[rogerl]

I don't think it's a good idea to feed a black hole and let it grow lol.

Supposed we found a way to spark one. Maybe we can let it grow to only a maximum of 20 meters and we can maybe drop it at the Fukushima Nuclear Plant, then problem solved. No more meltdown as the reactors are sucked into the singularity.

Or are you saying that once a 20 meter black hole forms, it will continue to suck the surrounding forever? No way to maintain the size?

 

[Antiphon]

This is truly doomsday technology. But it's all in good fun, right?

You need to create a controlled implosion just like for a plutonium a-bomb. But instead of squeezing a softball into a ping-pong ball, you need to squeeze the Sierra-Nevada mountain range into the tip of a needle. A very very sharp needle. After that the resulting black hole will fall to the center of the Earth and suck it all in. End of all stories.

 

[rogerl]

This is truly doomsday technology. But it's all in good fun, right?

You need to create a controlled implosion just like for a plutonium a-bomb. But instead of squeezing a softball into a ping-pong ball, you need to squeeze the Sierra-Nevada mountain range into the tip of a needle. A very very sharp needle. After that the resulting black hole will fall to the center of the Earth and suck it all in. End of all stories.

In other words, it is theoretically possible but not possible in our technology, right? I guess it's like probing the Planck scale.. you need a particle accelerator the size of a galaxy to probe it. Or is there a shortcut? I mean. Can a 1 Million A.D. civilization do it? Or does it still require galactic size particle accelerator... more of engineering and resources problem than skill?

 

[Drakkith]

In short, we don't know how to create one yet. There were many many objections against the LHC being built due to the supposed possibility that it will generate micro black holes that wouldn't evaporate and would consume the earth.

 

[Vanadium 50]

"A 20m black hole" would weigh more than the earth. (Indeed, more than the sum of masses of every planet ever discovered) This is fantasy, I'm afraid.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm going with Vanadium on this one, a black hole massing as much as the Earth would be only 9mm across. The sun would be the size of a small ball. You can't scale up a black hole without adding mass to it and I don't see how you could trap it if you did make it; supposing you had a miniblack hole machine, the black hole would (if it didnt evaporate first) fall through the floor of your machine sucking in matter as it went. It would sink right down to the centre of the Earth and continue, eventually oscillating backwards and forwards until it sits in the middle of the Earth. It will suck in all matter until eventually there's nothing left but a black hole, hardly a solution to a minor problem with a nuclear reactor.

 

[rogerl]

I researched a bit about black hole and found out that when astronomers refer to the "size" of the black hole, they are talking about the event horizon. So, when one says that the black hole has a size of 4 km, it means that the event horizon is at a distance of 4 km from the center of the black hole. And all the mass would be concentrated in the singularity. Now question, Just as the Big Bang singularity exploded. How big was the event horizon? But since the Big Bang give birth to spacetime, how is the event horizon related to the "space" before space? Or are you saying the event horizon of the Big Bang was prevented from forming because there was no space before the Big Bang?

Anothing thing. Some said inside the singularity is an opening and white hole to another universe. Lee Smolin mentioned in his book Life in the Cosmos that inside black holes are doorway to a new universe that is on the other side of the singularity. Now supposed our Big Bang is a white hole from the black hole of the other side. Should the mass of the black hole before the Big Bang be equal to all the mass of the universe now? I'm asking this because they say the singularity has infinite curvature and infinite mass. If infinite, then even a normal black hole in the galaxy can give birth beyond its singularity to the same size as the universe we have now?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Now question, Just as the Big Bang singularity exploded. How big was the event horizon? But since the Big Bang give birth to spacetime, how is the event horizon related to the "space" before space? Or are you saying the event horizon of the Big Bang was prevented from forming because there was no space before the Big Bang? Some said inside the singularity is an opening and white hole to another universe. Lee Smolin mentioned in his book Life in the Cosmos that inside black holes are doorway to a new universe that is on the other side of the singularity.

Cosmology isn't my main field but as I understand it we don't know what conditions were like at the start of the universe. We can get back really far but the universe didnt start with a black hole. There's also no evidence that black holes lead anywhere, black holes are objects so massive that their escape velocity exceeds the speed of light (hence the event horizon). A lot of physics breaks down at this point, the simple answer is we don't know but beware of people trying to tell you they have an idea but no evidence

 

[rogerl]

Cosmology isn't my main field but as I understand it we don't know what conditions were like at the start of the universe. We can get back really far but the universe didnt start with a black hole. There's also no evidence that black holes lead anywhere, black holes are objects so massive that their escape velocity exceeds the speed of light (hence the event horizon). A lot of physics breaks down at this point, the simple answer is we don't know but beware of people trying to tell you they have an idea but no evidence

Oh. I'm mistaken. I think Lee Smolin said our Big Bang might be the result of White Hole from a Black Hole on the other side. So White Hole doesn't have Event Horizon.

String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity both blur the Planck scale by making the smallest object Planck size. But we heard the Big Bang came from inside the Planck scale. You mean it's just conjecture that all came from inside the plack scale in the Big Bang and it's possible the entire universe with billions and billions of galaxies where maybe the size of an egg instead?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Oh. I'm mistaken. I think Lee Smolin said our Big Bang might be the result of White Hole from a Black Hole on the other side. So White Hole doesn't have Event Horizon.

String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity both blur the Planck scale by making the smallest object Planck size. But we heard the Big Bang came from inside the Planck scale. You mean it's just conjecture that all came from inside the plack scale in the Big Bang and it's possible the entire universe with billions and billions of galaxies where maybe the size of an egg instead?

Like I said cosmology isn't my field. But plank scale is a measurement within a dimension, remember that the 'beginning' of the universe was dimensionless so size of an egg/smaller than plank/500km is all meaningless. I could be chatting BS here so perhaps you should wait until an expert in the field answers. Id take it as read though that any speculation about black holes creating white holes spawning new universes is just speculation. There is no evidence or mechanism that I know of that suggests such a thing.

I think you should take a greater look into big bang theory and what it says and knows. We have a pretty good idea of what happened near the beginning but we don't know the conditions before that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

[bcrowell]

Giddings and Mangano, "Comments on claimed risk from metastable black holes," http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4087

The basic answer is that according to what we know about physics (a) they can't be produced and (b) even if they could, they would evaporate immediately. (Radiation shielding doesn't prevent an object from emitting radiation.) If we turn out to be wrong about what we think we know about physics in two different and very major ways, then both a and b could be wrong. The Giddings paper has calculations of how long it would take the black hole to eat the Earth in that case.

Zero people have been killed by radiation at Fukushima. 20,000 people have been killed by the earthquake and tsunami. Personally I would find a black hole far scarier than either of those.

Oh. I'm mistaken. I think Lee Smolin said our Big Bang might be the result of White Hole from a Black Hole on the other side. So White Hole doesn't have Event Horizon.

Smolin's theory of cosmological natural selection has been disproved by the recent discovery of a high-mass neutron star. It's still possible that black holes form baby universes, but that is speculation about a possible result from a possible theory of quantum gravity, which we don't have yet.

String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity both blur the Planck scale by making the smallest object Planck size. But we heard the Big Bang came from inside the Planck scale. You mean it's just conjecture that all came from inside the plack scale in the Big Bang and it's possible the entire universe with billions and billions of galaxies where maybe the size of an egg instead?

No, not the size of an egg.

FAQ: How big was the Big Bang?

There are two kinds of cosmological models. One is spatially infinite and always has been spatially infinite. The other is spatially finite and always has been. Current measurements of curvature are statistically consistent with flatness, which puts us on the fence between these two cases.

In either case, it's not valid to imagine the Big Bang as an explosion with a certain size that happened against a backdrop of empty space. In all cosmological models, the Big Bang is a process in which space itself stretches out. Every region of space on a cosmological scale increases its own volume over time. In the early universe, all of space was always uniformly filled with hot matter and radiation.

In the spatially infinite case, the universe has been spatially infinite at all times, so there is no way to measure the diameter or volume of the Big Bang with a real number.

In the spatially finite case, the universe wraps around on itself spatially, like a sphere. There is no edge. It does have a well-defined volume at any given time. According to general relativity, this volume approaches zero in the limit as time approaches zero. GR does not describe t=0 itself as a moment in time.

The above picture of the finite case would presumably be modified by quantum effects at early times. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity, but there is only one length scale that you can make by combining Planck's constant with c and G, and that's the Planck scale.

So in summary, there are three possible answers to the question: infinity, approaching zero, or the Planck scale.

A somewhat different question is the initial size of the *observable* universe. The current radius of the observable universe (i.e., the region of space from which light has had time to reach us since the Big Bang) is about 46 billion light years. (This is greater than the result you get by naively multiplying the age of the universe by c, because space has been expanding.) Yesterday the observable universe was smaller, and tomorrow it will be bigger. In all cosmological models (in GR), the radius of the observable universe for an observer at time t approaches zero as t approaches zero (although of course there were no actual observers present in the very early universe). A hypothetical theory of quantum gravity might change this answer to the Planck length.