Mass of a black hole - given only the diameter

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the mass of a mini black hole using its diameter, specifically that of a proton. The initial calculations were incorrect due to a misunderstanding of the Schwarzschild radius formula and the inclusion of a square root. After clarifying the correct formula, participants determined that the mass should be calculated as m = rc^2 / (2G), leading to a mass of approximately 3.37 x 10^11 kg. The conversation highlights the importance of accurately applying gravitational equations in astrophysics.
PirateFan308
Messages
91
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Cosmologists have speculated that black holes the size of a proton could have formed during the early days of the Big Bang when the universe began. If we take the diameter of a proton to be 1.0*10^{-15}, what would be the mass of a mini black hole?

Homework Equations



v=\sqrt{\frac{Gm}{r}}

The Attempt at a Solution



v=\sqrt{\frac{Gm}{r}}

m=\frac{v^{2}r}{G}

m=\frac{(3.0*10^{8})^{2}(0.5*10^{-15})}{(6.67*10^{-11})}

m=6.75*10^{11} kg

It says that this is wrong, but I can't find my mistake. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Schwarzschild radius is given by:
r_s = \frac{2 G M}{c^2}
I think you forgot the factor of 2.

EDIT: D'Oh. No square root! Fixed it.
 
Last edited:
gneill said:
The Schwarzschild radius is given by:
r_s = \sqrt{\frac{2 G M}{c^2}}
I think you forgot the factor of 2.

Isn't the schwarzchild radius simply:

R_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}

So this would rearrange to

m=\frac{rc^2}{2G}

and plugging in the values, I would get m=3.37*10^{11}kg

Is this now correct?
 
PirateFan308 said:
Isn't the schwarzchild radius simply:

R_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}

So this would rearrange to

m=\frac{rc^2}{2G}

and plugging in the values, I would get m=3.37*10^{11}kg

Is this now correct?

Yes, and yes. Sorry about the square root distraction, I don't know where my head was at!
 
Thanks for the help!
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top