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

[Carobouy]

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?

 

[pangru]

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?

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

 

[mfb]

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.

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.

 

[Carobouy]

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.

 

[dgwsoft]

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.

 

[dgwsoft]

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?

 

[phinds]

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