The big bang is not logical

If you want the texbook answer, read a textbook. Because that's all I can give you.

It may be the grand-daddy of all gravitational fields, but the only time a particle is irretrievably lost is when it is within the event horizon. There is a statistical probability that one of the pair formed at the penultimate boundry of the event horizon will have enough energy to escape. Hawking radiation is statistical in nature. It's not proven, but it comes from the math.

You can get far more detail from any number of good websites, although I suspect I already know your response to that idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you speaking of the black hole evaporating very, very slowly by Hawking Radiation? Seems it would take an eternity for a black hole with the mass of several hundred galaxies to evaporate by Hawking radiation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Absolutely right. But the theory is that if a "small" hole were to "evaporate" it woulf do so in an accelerating way and end in a final burst of gamma rays, since the 'evaporation' is exponential (? or some other high order function?).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think you can sap energy from a black hole. Basically it is not going to lose gravity because it cannot lose mass. It's mass is what causes it's rotation so it is not going to lose rotation either.

In the early days of black holes, there was talk of naked singularities, black holes could be stationary, etc but I don't think anyone believes these early ideas any more (?)

If black holes can evaporate, we should be able to see that in cyclotrons. However, I think a black hole any size is stable. If you have a proton that has been turned into a mini-black hole, it isn't going to end up swallowing the Earth because it has the gravitational pull of a proton, which all the other protons will ignore.

 

@2inquisitive
yeah, there is no other known way a blackhole can explode.
(And no, the big bang was not a black hole exploding)

Hum,
that may be correct, and the final fate of the universe is to be empty, filled with isolated back holes (the end).
But i suspect most scientists would disagree. On paper, the general quantum mechanism of Hawking radiation is simple to understand and work out, and provides a slightly more eloquent solution to the final fate of the universe.
ie The BH loses mass, and the radiation cloud fades away to leave an `empty` universe. - (the end...er, or until the sequel is made...)

 

Kaneda:

You are correct that the gravitational attraction would be exceptionally weak for a miniature black hole with a mass of a few thousand protons.

However, they would 'drift' about [if stable, as you suppose], and upon 'contact' with protons [or more likely, nuclei of atoms], would absorb that mass, and grow larger. That process would be slow at first, but eventually the miniature black hole would grow to the size of an atom, and the process would become much faster.

Several persons have done calculations on the rates of these processes, and they vary from hundreds to trillions of years to consume the earth, for a single miniature black hole. Production of millions of them, of course, would substantially increase the rate of consuming the earth.

 

Can anyone explain to me how such a mini-blackhole comes into existence ? According to 'normal' blackhole theory those mini-blackholes can't exist.. (?)

 

Why not?

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_black_hole

Many others available on the web.

 

Super, thanks for the explanation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So they are purely hypothetical, like their big brothers then.
Does this theory then demands that the universe for some sort moment after the big bang was itself a black hole of this kind ? If so, does that mean that in the primordial universe black holes were being ripped apart to form smaller ones and 'free' material ?

 

Sure!

Well... ummm... I'd have to say yes. There is a 99.9% certainty that they exist based on tons of model-based and observational data, but until astronomers can directly prove that an event horizon actually exists (which several future astronomy satellites hope to do) then yes.

That's not how I read it. What I gather is that the overall density was such that a BH would not form, but that due to quantum fluctuations, isolated miniature ones could possibly form.

As a note, the GLAST gamma ray telescope could possibly detect bursts characteristic of primordial holes that would be just now "evaporating".

 

Superluminal... give it a rest. It's clear you are only here to cause troubles, rather than solve them... it's also clear he (that is K) knows more than you.

 

Excuse me?

Son, you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. That's all I have to say. Bye.

 

Hum,
yeah, discount that - what i meant to say was that i am unaware of any mainstream theory that allows such removal of mass from a blackhole, apart from the trickery of hawking radiation. The physics of wormholes and quantum tunnelling are not robust enough, IMHO, to make a plausible theory to remove the mass either. We just don't know what is inside blackholes; and Black holes, by definition, reside in a spacetime that does not allow for speeds greater than light speed, therefore once inside a blackhole a particle cannot escape into our spacetime.

While the big bang has superficial similarities to a blackhole, the bigbang event is thought to be the `folding` or `freezing` of spacetime itself. The universe by definition includes everything - there isn't an `outside` for it to `explode` into. It is perhaps better to regard it as an implosion, or in M-Theory, the splitting up of multi dimensions. Blackhole could be regarded as the unfolding of spacetime.
But, saying the `big bang was not a black hole exploding` was a simplified statement, (and it may indeed be wrong).

 

Why would it need to be removed?

Does that need to happen? Who said it needs to come out?

Precisely.

Yes. Why don't we start a new thread on the subject. Just gimme a couple of minutes...

 

Here it is: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1673978#post1673978

 

Walter LW. Mini black holes could be formed by SINGLE particles in accelerators. You now have a proton a trillion times smaller than usual with the mere gravitational force of a single proton. I think it would bve small enough to drift through everything else, not affecting them or being affected itself in any way.

Gravity is a force of size and quantity. I don't think even a thousand proton mass is going to have any attractive force for another proton as the nuclear forces are far greater.

 

Kaneda:

In colliders, the mass of the protons increases due to their near-relativistic speeds. This is about a 30,000 fold increase in mass, and collider produced MBHs would likely be several thousand a.m.u. in mass.

Again, this would not have any appreciable gravitational pull on nearby particles, and would not cause other particles to be drawn in to them while so small.

However, as they drift about, it might be possible that they would randomly 'collide' with the nuclei of atoms, and being in the 'midst' of the nucleons, would absorb that matter. There is currently debate about how quickly such a process would occur, if at all. Of course, this presupposes that Hawking Radiation does not exist, which would cause such MBH to 'evaporate' before coming into contact with such nucleons.

 

Proverbial and... that's all need to say

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Very wekk said, sir.... very well said.