Primordial black holes

[jillery]

The following is a link to a Spacetime video which describes the
possibility of millions of atom-sized primordial black holes, remnants
from the Big Bang and candidates for Dark Matter:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK44wAvv2E4>

A mass of a large asteroid compressed into a black hole would have an
event horizon the circumference of hydrogen atom. If such a tiny
black hole hit the Earth, it would go right through like a bullet, and
continue on its journey.

On a related note, it has been argued that such small black holes
should evaporate with Hawking radiation within the lifetime of the
Universe. It turns out that a black hole's temperature and so its
evaporation rate is inversely proportional to its mass cubed. A black
hole with a mass of the Moon would have about the same temperature as
the CMB, about 2.7K. Any primordial black hole currently more massive
than the Moon would still be growing, absorbing photonic mass faster
than it emits Hawking radiation, and shrink only as the background
temperature gets ever colder as the universe expands ever larger.

Primordial black holes less massive than the Moon will evaporate and
get smaller and hotter in a positive feedback. For example, the
formula says a black hole the mass of blue whale, and so a diameter of
about 10^-22 meters, would disappear in a spectacular explosion,
evaporating all its mass in about a second.

However, there is speculation that a black hole with a diameter of
about 10^-35 meters and a mass of just 10^-8 grams would not have
enough energy to evaporate, and so theoretically exist forever.

[Mario Petrinovic]

I am not interested in this, I would only like to inform you that all
the evidence about Big Bang turned out to be false (recently).
There were two evidences, Big Bang echo, and "red shift". For the Big
Bang echo scientists used only the original picture, 56 years old.
Recently they got the idea to make new picture, since now they have
better instruments. And they pointed those better instruments to the
sky, and they didn't find anything, there is no Big Bang echo.
"Red shift" was another "evidence". Whenever you expressed the doubt
in "Big Bang echo", they would always mention this second evidence. Now,
if you would express doubt in that evidence too, they would say that you
are nuts. But, few months after it was found out that there is no Big
Bang echo, a new interpretation of "red shift" suddenly emerged, lol.
The Big Bang idea is sneaked into science by Vatican. It includes the
idea of Creation. The Big Bang theory was made by Catholic priest,
Georges Lemaitre. Of course, you can sell anything to science, with
ease. Science is very shallow.

--
https://groups.google.com/g/human-evolution
human-e...@googlegroups.com

[jillery]

I posted this to the wrong froup. My apologies.

> There were two evidences, Big Bang echo, and "red shift". For the Big
>Bang echo scientists used only the original picture, 56 years old.
>Recently they got the idea to make new picture, since now they have
>better instruments. And they pointed those better instruments to the
>sky, and they didn't find anything, there is no Big Bang echo.

Since you mention it, there have been multiple surveys of the CMB aka
Big Bang echo, most famously COBE, WMAP, and PLANCK, and all reported
2.7 degree Kelvin black-body background radiation with variations +/-
0.00005 degrees. If you have the right kind of radio, you can tune in
and hear it yourself.

> "Red shift" was another "evidence". Whenever you expressed the doubt
>in "Big Bang echo", they would always mention this second evidence. Now,
>if you would express doubt in that evidence too, they would say that you
>are nuts. But, few months after it was found out that there is no Big
>Bang echo, a new interpretation of "red shift" suddenly emerged, lol.

Right here would have been a good place for you to have specified your
basis for your "doubts" instead of baselessly alluding to them. But
like you said, you're not interested.

I apologize again for waking you.