Matter decay and black holes
mike3
I've herad that if one were to accelerate, say, a proton, to the Planck
energy, it would collapse into a black hole. Now, it's theorized that
such a small black hole is EXTREMELY unstable, and hence would decay
virtually instantaneously into a shower of light.
Now, because quantum mechanics allows for uncertainty in energy,
wouldn't it be possible that, by sheer chance, the proton could
quantum-tunnel to the Planck energy, collapse to a black hole, and
decay to light? What, then, is the half-life of matter?
Sam Wormley
Physicists Hoping To Create Tiny Black Holes At CERN
http://unisci.com/stories/20014/1001012.htm
mike3
And this answers my questions... how? It doesn't give whether or not
the
quantum tunneling I talked about was possible, and if so, what the
halflife of
matter is.
noshellswill
MK3:
I believe Tipler quotes 10^130 years as the proton q.t. half-life.
nss
*************
malibu
Sam Wormley
>
> A proton *is* a black hole.
>
> John
> Galaxy Model
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
>
That's not right john... in fact, you can't have a black hole that
that little mass.
Background
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole
malibu
Thanks Sam, I needed a laugh today.
Here's a quote from that first link:
'When a spherical, electrically charges star implodes to form a black
hole, the star and other objects falling into the black hole can travel
from the hole's interior to another universe '
There's a good one.
'Another universe.'
Meaning of universe- all that is.
Another universe is an impossibility. Hello?
One of the problems with scientists today is that
they need to be able to think logically but are
untrained or incapable of doing so.
Another universe. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Thanks Sam.
John
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>malibu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A proton *is* a black hole.
>>>
>>>John
>>>Galaxy Model
>>>http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
>>>
>>
>> That's not right john... in fact, you can't have a black hole that
>> that little mass.
>>
>>
>> Background
>> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/BlackHole.html
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hole
>
>
> Thanks Sam, I needed a laugh today.
> Here's a quote from that first link:
> 'When a spherical, electrically charges star implodes to form a black
> hole, the star and other objects falling into the black hole can travel
> from the hole's interior to another universe '
John, while you were laughing you forgot to read, "However, this
conclusion breaks down with the small perturbations which always
exist".
>
> There's a good one.
> 'Another universe.'
>
> Meaning of universe- all that is.
>
> Another universe is an impossibility. Hello?
>
> One of the problems with scientists today is that
> they need to be able to think logically but are
> untrained or incapable of doing so.
>
> Another universe. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>
> Thanks Sam.
>
> John
>
Glad I made your day, John!
malibu
The conclusion had already broken down because it
was absurd.
Whenever a scientist says, "It's either A or B",
always ask yourself, "How does he exclude a
possible C or D or E.........?"
We can only imagine things based on our knowledge base.
Garbage in, garbage out.
"Peer review" is just a bunch of people with a limited
knowledge base making judgements on that base.
Keep an open mind, Sam.
No one knows all the possibilities, and
something may be just
around the corner that will change
your views 90 degrees.
After that it's just one more turn and
you're doing a complete about-face!
(-:
John
mike3
Sam Wormley wrote:
> malibu wrote:
>
> >
> > A proton *is* a black hole.
> >
> > John
> > Galaxy Model
> > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
> >
>
> That's not right john... in fact, you can't have a black hole that
> that little mass.
>
Because it would be smaller than planck?
mike3
Thanks. Guess we'll never be able to test that unless we get really,
_REALLY_ lucky.
> nss
> *************
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> malibu wrote:
>>
>>> A proton *is* a black hole.
>>>
>>> John
>>> Galaxy Model
>>> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
>>>
>> That's not right john... in fact, you can't have a black hole that
>> that little mass.
>>
>
> Because it would be smaller than planck?
>
Evaporation of a mini black hole
http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html#evaporation
Black holes get the energy to radiate Hawking radiation from their
rest mass energy. So if a black hole is not accreting mass from
outside, it will lose mass by Hawking radiation, and will
eventually evaporate. For astronomical black holes, the evaporation
time is prodigiously long - about 1061 times the age of the
Universe for a 30 solar mass black hole. However, the evaporation
time is shorter for smaller black holes (evaporation time t is
proportional to M^3), and black holes with masses less than about
10^11 kg (the mass of a small mountain) can evaporate in less than
the age of the Universe. The Hawking temperature of such mini black
holes is high: a 10^11 kg black hole has a temperature of about
10^12 Kelvin, equivalent to the rest mass energy of a proton. The
gravitational pull of such a mini black hole would be about 1 g at
a distance of 1 meter.
It is not well established what an evaporating mini black hole
would actually look like in realistic detail. The Hawking radiation
itself would consist of fiercely energetic particles,
antiparticles, and gamma rays. Such radiation is invisible to the
human eye, so optically the evaporating black hole might look like
a dud. However, it is also possible that the Hawking radiation,
rather than emerging directly, might power a hadronic fireball that
would degrade the radiation into particles and gamma rays of less
extreme energy, possibly making the evaporating black hole visible
to the eye. Whatever the case, you would not want to go near an
evaporating mini black hole, which would be a source of lethal
gamma rays and energetic particles, even if it didn't look like
much visually.
The animation at left is a fanciful depiction of the final moments
of the evaporation of a hypothetical mini black hole. In the final
second of its existence, the mini black hole radiates about 1000
tonnes of rest mass energy. Such an explosion is large by human
standards, but modest by astronomical standards. An evaporating
black hole would be detectable from Earth only if it went off
within the solar system, or at best no further away than the
nearest star.
Because the lifetime of a black hole is propotional to the mass cubed
you can see that really low mass black holes have exceetingly short
lifetimes. There's a limit!
malibu
Sam Wormley wrote:
black holes with masses less than about
> 10^11 kg (the mass of a small mountain) can evaporate in less than
> the age of the Universe.
This is the most stupid thing
ever said.
John
mike3
Because the lifetime would be smaller than planck, right? Is that why
there's the limit?
Sam Wormley
That's a problem isn't it!
hanson
news:6puDg.87824$FQ1.56418@attbi_s71...
malibu wrote:
>>>> A proton *is* a black hole.
>>>>
>>> That's not right... in fact, you can't have a black hole that
>>> that little mass.
>>
mike3 wrote:
>> Because it would be smaller than planck?
>
> Evaporation of a mini black hole
> http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html#evaporation
> Black holes get the energy to radiate Hawking radiation from their
> rest mass energy. So if a black hole is not accreting mass from
> outside, it will lose mass by Hawking radiation, and will
> to the rest mass energy of a proton.
> a black hole is propotional to the mass cubed you can see that
> really low mass black holes have exceetingly short lifetimes.
> There's a limit!
>
... True but only along as you have no electrical charge involved.
The moment electric charges appear with such mini BH, the
evaporation stops and VERY stable entities emerge such
as the electron with mass m_e as.
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
or the proton with mass m_p as
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
which you still can label as mini black holes, if you so wish.
See detailed explanation for that here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/msg/53371ffd43fe32b9
....of course you can make the case/conjecture that an uncharged
mini black hole of 1 Planck mass having the radius of 1 Planck length
manifests/has half-life of only one 1 Planck time unit after which
it disintegrates into exactly 1 mole of particles that consist of stable
charged particles with the average mass of the electron. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/4ab31e372f1dfee7
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c78fb8dd36d24968
hanson
Sam Wormley
Holy smokes!
Sorcerer
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:zb3Eg.12307$hH1.5506@trnddc08...
ahahahahaha... HAHAHAHAHA... hahahaha
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:P4Hqg.60105$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
| Henry Haapalainen wrote:
| > There is no commonly accepted proof of a black hole, but I don't say
that
| > they cannot exist.
|
| This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant.
Black hole... BH... Bloody hot ... ahahahahaha... HAHAHAHAHA... hahahaha
Score 2 for Humpty Roberts, hahahe hahahas hahahanson and hahaHappy
hahaHenry hahaHaapalainen eating out of hahahis hahahand without a haha.
==================================
Humpty 2 ---- Androcles 0
==================================
ahahahahaha... HAHAHAHAHA... hahahaha
Androcles
mike3
Guess so. Thanks.