Proof that micro black holes can't exist?

zeromodz
Messages
244
Reaction score
0
I was playing around with some equations and I found a reason why I think micro black holes cannot exist. This proof requires a few assumptions which I have tended to find to be a scientific consensus. They are the following.

1) The smallest mass a black hole can have is the Planck mass which by definition will give the schwarchilds radius of the black hole the Planck length.
2) The smallest meaningful increment of time in the universe is the Planck time.

Lets start with the uncertainty principle.

ΔXΔP <= h / 4π

This can also being written as.

ΔEΔT <= h / 4π
ΔE <= h / 4πΔT

This tells us that the amount of energy uncertainty created from the vacuum is inversely proportional to the time. Now let us change our units of energy to mass by dividing the equation by c^2

Mtotal <= h / 4πΔTc^2

The maximum amount of mass that can be created from nothing out of the uncertainty of the vacuum can now be written as the following.

Mtotal = h / 4π(Tplanck)c^2
Mtotal = (6.626 * 10^-34) / ((4π)(5.39 * 10^-44)(299792458)^2)
Mtotal = 1.088 * 10^-8 kg

The Planck mass is 2.17 * 10^-8 kg. So it turns out the maximum amount of mass that can be created from nothing for 10^-44 seconds is exactly half the Planck mass. Am I missing a factor of two anywhere? Or is it just Planck masses and micro black holes cannot be created from the uncertainty principle? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, what if you have a black hole moving at relativistic speeds? (so E =/= mc^2) :P

I don't know quite enough about QM to comment about anything else...
 
n1person said:
Well, what if you have a black hole moving at relativistic speeds? (so E =/= mc^2) :P

I don't know quite enough about QM to comment about anything else...

Well, at least you tried.
 
n1person said:
Well, what if you have a black hole moving at relativistic speeds? (so E =/= mc^2) :P

I don't know quite enough about QM to comment about anything else...

You just go in the reference where it is at rest (which exist becausse M_{BH} &gt; 0)



zeromodz said:
I was playing around with some equations and I found a reason why I think micro black holes cannot exist. This proof requires a few assumptions which I have tended to find to be a scientific consensus. They are the following.

1) The smallest mass a black hole can have is the Planck mass which by definition will give the schwarchilds radius of the black hole the Planck length.
2) The smallest meaningful increment of time in the universe is the Planck time.

Lets start with the uncertainty principle.

ΔXΔP <= h / 4π

This can also being written as.

ΔEΔT <= h / 4π
ΔE <= h / 4πΔT

This tells us that the amount of energy uncertainty created from the vacuum is inversely proportional to the time. Now let us change our units of energy to mass by dividing the equation by c^2

Mtotal <= h / 4πΔTc^2

The maximum amount of mass that can be created from nothing out of the uncertainty of the vacuum can now be written as the following.

Mtotal = h / 4π(Tplanck)c^2
Mtotal = (6.626 * 10^-34) / ((4π)(5.39 * 10^-44)(299792458)^2)
Mtotal = 1.088 * 10^-8 kg

The Planck mass is 2.17 * 10^-8 kg. So it turns out the maximum amount of mass that can be created from nothing for 10^-44 seconds is exactly half the Planck mass. Am I missing a factor of two anywhere? Or is it just Planck masses and micro black holes cannot be created from the uncertainty principle? Thanks
Well, first you need to reverse all the inequalities: It's \Delta X \Delta P \geq \hbar and \Delta E \Delta t \geq \hbar.
 
Last edited:
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top