4 ms·
>So they are more likely to form than small black holes. This certainly does not follow from the rest of your comment. I'm pretty sure it's false.
by sebzim4500 3y ago
>So they are more likely to form than small black holes.
This certainly does not follow from the rest of your comment. I'm pretty sure it's false.
- KolenCh 3y agoThey may have included the effect of black hole evaporation here? Small black holes evaporates much quicker and won't survive.
- sebzim4500 3y agoI guess, but even a solar mass black hole would take 10^64 years to evaporate
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoI think the claim is like this: You have the primordial universe, shortly after the big bang, with fluctuations in density. But the whole density is very high. A fluctuation over a large region could put the region over the threshold to become a black hole, because the density required for that to happen is lower than for a small region. Mind you, I don't know if this actually works. What was the density of the early universe, compared to the density required to form a black hole? How large were the fluctuations? Is this scenario plausible at all? I suppose that if you go back close enough to the big bang, then you can get a density high enough. But then, if you go back not much farther, shouldn't the whole universe have formed a black hole? And if it didn't, can we trust the logic that says that the situation should have led to the formation of giant black holes?