How would you make a black hole?

We have the ability to recreate the effects of a star, but what about the galactic center?

It stands to reason that at some scale we should be able to recreate an object that already exists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You really think so? We currently don't have the technology to even run a self sustaining fusion reactor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That sounds like a problem... Maybe it's because our fake sun isn't rotating around a fake center of gravity. Have you ever seen a star not bound by the gravity of a galaxy?

Or maybe it's because we close the fake sun in a concrete jar instead of being exposed to the vacuume filled with hydrogen like all the real stars.

I don't think anything ever.... I just make incredibly general observations and a couple stupid questions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uh... OK.

 

Point is. If the universe were a puzzle you would have to have all the pieces.

 

OK I'll play. But we don't know where the pieces go, and we don't even have a picture of the finished puzzle!

 

We could make a star and a black hole, if we did it exactly how it naturally occurs. Just need two things...a lot of gas and dust, and gravity. It'll even self-ignite if you have enough mass of the right quantities.

Same with a black hole, but you either have to prevent the fusion ignition so that gravity can do its thing, or let it run its course. Only 10-15 million years if you have the right mix to make a red giant.

One of the many problems with creating a black hole in the lab is the mass problem. The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass. A black hole with Earth's mass would have a radius of around 8.87×10^-3 meters, so scale that down to lab masses, and aside from the practical problems, you wouldn't be able to see it anyway.

 

I thought extraterrestrial Nordid (phenotype) demigods from Pleiades (the ones that genetically crafted Faelid/Nordids from Cro-magnon) already have this technology and actually were the ones to create many of the galaxies? I also heard they were working with National Socialist occultist astrophysicists to develop this.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m:

 

I have heard that in some of the particle accelerators around the world have been able to create black holes. Unfortunately, they are only atom sized, thus, they only exsist for an extremely short amount of time.

 

Question: How would you make a black hole?

Answer: Begin with a large cardboard box. The size variant upon the ambient light outside of the box. Cover the interior of the box with carbon black and close it. Then cut a smaller hole in one side. Preferably the side with the least ambient light.

The result is a black hole in the side of a card board box.

 

Well I guess you have to start somewhere. What pieces do you have?

 

I'm not sure I believe that...

 

I don't think a "huge" mass makes a difference as long as you have the right statistical quantity of ingredients it should condense down on it's own. The first black hole was technically massless and now look at it....

 

Supposedly, a powerful particle accelerator can theoretically produce black holes that survive for a very short time before evaporating. I heard of a fella in Hawaii who tried to prevent the Large Hadron Collider from being powered up because he said it could form black holes that could gradually eat up Earth.

 

You must mean this legendary thread.

The biggest problem with that argument is that if these miniature black holes are formed, they can't draw in enough matter into their event horizon to grow before they dissipate.

Or maybe Paul is right. There's always a first time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's equivalent to the westerlies being consumed by a wave 12 inches tall...

If an atom is larger than the radius of the BH how is it going eat up anything. It would have to directly interact with the nucleus which is like a player stepping on a single needle placed on a football field.

 

.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I just wanted to point out that IF a purported micro-black-hole is subject to all the other forces which are overwhelmingly stronger than the minuscule cumulative gravity effect at that scale (ie, electric, nuclear and quantum/uncertainty etc forces), then how can we even consider calling such a putative micro/quantum feature anything at all except some sort of 'RESONANCE PARTICLE' or even "QUANTUM SUPERPOSED FEATURE" etc 'in transition' between the quantum and macro scale?

For if such a 'feature' is supposed to 'explode' because of quantum/radiation processes/decays, then it was NEVER a 'black' gravitational feature to begin with.

I pointed all this out to BOTH rpenner AND ubavontuba years ago, when BOTH were arguing the toss as if such putative micro-holes could form/exist. Neither of them could refute that obvious observation which mitigates against micro-black-holes in principle as well as in obsrvable fact (since the neither the LHC nor any other facility been able to produce let alone detect as 'existing' any such putative micro-black-holes).

It's obvious from what is known of all the other forces, which mitigate against gravity strength at those minuscule 'cumulative gravity' scales, that micro-holes cannot form let alone exist.

In which case, discussions which still assume that they can form/exist will be futile and misleading from the very starting premise that they can form and exist as claimed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just a word of caution, that's all. Enjoy your discussion anyway. Good luck!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I read a paper that contended the interior of black holes is like a large number of Rubik's cubes. It was about the so-called information paradox, but I saw a subsequent paper that refuted the first and its model of Hawking radiation.

But, anyhoo, the Rubik model is still applicable to the idea of information "loss" (and so is any permutation puzzle). This is because, if someone scrambles a cube then hands it to you, you don't know what exactly was done to it--the information contained in all the moves which changed the positions and orientations of a cube's elements (before you get to see it) has been lost. But you can still recover what the authors of the first paper called a "vacuum state" which is the solved state.

This is what the authors of the first paper tried to connect to the Hawking process (which according to the refutation, they didn't because they didn't satisfy all of the conditions, which I won't go into); according to the Rubik black hole model, every cube in the interior is being permuted randomly so some of them will eventually reach this vacuum state.

Unfortunately, this is, as the refutation claimed, no different from burning a piece of paper. Again, information is lost about the initial configuration of paper molecules.

 

Ho. Lee. Crap.

I had no idea Paul went all Believer on us!

 

The Black Hole

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!