If you condense an atom, would it make a black hole?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Carobouy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atom Black hole Hole
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of condensing an atom or group of atoms and whether such a process could theoretically lead to the formation of a black hole. Participants explore the implications of atomic density, gravitational forces, and the definitions of "condensation" in the context of atomic structure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that condensing an atom, which is mostly empty space, could create a significant gravitational force, potentially leading to a black hole.
  • Others challenge the notion of "condensing" an atom, arguing that atoms cannot be condensed in the way suggested, and that a condensed group of atoms would simply be a liquid or solid without forming a black hole.
  • A participant questions the meaning of "condensing an atom" and how one might condense an atom already in its ground state.
  • Some participants discuss the concept of density and the definitions of "empty" space in relation to atomic structure, noting that neutron stars, despite their high density, do not form black holes.
  • One participant calculates the Schwarzschild radius for a carbon atom and argues that a black hole of such small mass cannot exist according to current theories, referencing the Planck scale.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the implications of the Planck mass, time, and length, questioning why they are considered the smallest physically meaningful quantities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility of condensing an atom to create a black hole, with multiple competing views on the definitions and implications of atomic structure and density. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the possibility of black hole formation from atomic condensation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying definitions of "empty" space, assumptions about atomic states, and the implications of quantum mechanics on black hole formation. There are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the conditions under which a black hole might form.

Carobouy
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
If you were to condense an atom or group of atoms, the gravitational force would be very large because the atom is 99.9999999999996% empty, so making it 100% full would be like crushing a pound of tin foil into the size of a pen dot. If the density is so much it would make a huuuuge gravitational force right? So it theoretically create a black hole. Right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Carobouy said:
If you were to condense an atom or group of atoms, the gravitational force would be very large because the atom is 99.9999999999996% empty, so making it 100% full would be like crushing a pound of tin foil into the size of a pen dot. If the density is so much it would make a huuuuge gravitational force right? So it theoretically create a black hole. Right?
do you exclude all other interaction?
 
Carobouy said:
If you were to condense an atom or group of atoms, the gravitational force would be very large because the atom is 99.9999999999996% empty, so making it 100% full would be like crushing a pound of tin foil into the size of a pen dot. If the density is so much it would make a huuuuge gravitational force right? So it theoretically create a black hole. Right?

What does it mean to “condense an atom”? How do you condense an atom already in its ground state?

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
There is nothing you could "condense" about an atom.

A condensed group of atoms is a liquid or a solid.

In both cases there is no black hole.
Carobouy said:
the atom is 99.9999999999996% empty
Only for very strange definitions of "empty". If you go by the space where wave functions are, it is exactly 0% empty. If you go by volume physically used by particles, it is exactly 100% empty. To get a number close to 100% but not exactly 100% you have to consider the electrons as point-like and ignore their wave functions, but use the size of the wave functions of the nuclei to define their volume.

Neutron stars have a very high density, roughly the same density as nuclei but with a larger volume. They are not black holes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: QuantumQuest, Dale, russ_watters and 1 other person
mfb said:
There is nothing you could "condense" about an atom.

A condensed group of atoms is a liquid or a solid.

In both cases there is no black hole.Only for very strange definitions of "empty". If you go by the space where wave functions are, it is exactly 0% empty. If you go by volume physically used by particles, it is exactly 100% empty. To get a number close to 100% but not exactly 100% you have to consider the electrons as point-like and ignore their wave functions, but use the size of the wave functions of the nuclei to define their volume.

Neutron stars have a very high density, roughly the same density as nuclei but with a larger volume. They are not black holes.
Thank you. This answers my question.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
If you somehow could condense a carbon atom (mass 2x10^-26 kg) down to its Schwarzschild radius (the size at which it would become a black hole) then that is 3x10^-53 m, which is much smaller than the Planck length (1.6x10^-35 m). Furthermore a black hole of mass less than the Planck mass (2x10^-8 kg) would evaporate by Hawking radiation in less than the Planck time (5x10^-44 s). The Plank length, mass and time are believed to be the smallest physically meaningful length, mass and time respectively (according to quantum mechanics). In a nutshell, a black hole as small as an atom can't exist, according to current theories.
 
DOH! of course the Planck mass is not the smallest physically meaningful mass. But now wonder why that is though to be true of the Planck time and length? Anybody know?
 
dgwsoft said:
DOH! of course the Planck mass is not the smallest physically meaningful mass. But now wonder why that is though to be true of the Planck time and length? Anybody know?
Pop-science presentations most likely
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Looking closely at the descent into a black hole
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
High School A question about quarks and black holes
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
High School How Do Physicists Explain Black Hole Formation and Electromagnetic Repulsion?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad Supermassive black hole, surface gravity and tidal forces
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
9K
Undergrad If electrons can be pointlike particles, why can't black holes?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
High School Can Matter Enter a Black Hole Intact? Debate & Advice
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Question about the Entropy of a Black Hole Singularity
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
High School Theories about light and time near a black hole
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
High School Can Relativistic Mass Create a Black Hole?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Effect of Black Hole Spin on Gravity
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K