B How would physics change if Planet 9 were a primordial black hole?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the speculation that Planet 9 could be a primordial black hole, as suggested by futurist John Michael Godier in a YouTube video. He proposes that if such a black hole were accessible, it could serve as a unique laboratory for testing physics beyond current capabilities. However, participants express skepticism about the feasibility and relevance of this idea, noting the lack of evidence and concrete examples provided in the video. The conversation ultimately concludes that the topic is largely idle speculation and not worth further exploration without substantial evidence. The thread is closed due to these concerns.
Maximum7
Messages
124
Reaction score
11
TL;DR
I am speculating on how an accessible black hole could be used for physics
I watch John Michael Godier on YouTube. He is a futurist and makes fantastic videos where he speculates on many things. Todays video was about primordial black holes and he speculated about Planet 9 not being visible because it may actually be a black hole born in the dawn of the universe. He admits it’s a long shot but also said that if we did have an accessible black hole that we could turn it into to a lab to test physics we currently can’t do right now.

He maddeningly did not give an example and the video ended. What kinda of science experiments could be done with a black hole?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How useful would be an undetectable object that probably doesn't exist but in any event we can't get to? That's a toughie.
 
  • Haha
Likes ShadowKraz
Maximum7 said:
TL;DR Summary: I am speculating on how an accessible black hole could be used for physics

He admits it’s a long shot
So it's idle speculation and hardly worth our time to discuss. We normally require some evidence .
 
That said ...
sophiecentaur said:
So it's idle speculation and hardly worth our time to discuss. We normally require some evidence .
... and given the fact that youtube isn't a source of reference we mean by evidence,
this thread is closed.
 
Quick question that I haven't been able to find the answer to. Greenhouse gasses both warm and cool the atmosphere by slowing heat loss to space. But what would happen without GHGs? I read that the earth would be colder (though still relatively warm), but why? Without GHGs the atmosphere would still be a similar mass and still warmed by conduction from the surface, yet without a means to radiate that heat to space. Why wouldn't the atmosphere accumulate heat over time, becoming warmer? How...