3 ms·

Here's a summary I posted a few days ago of an article I found explaining why it's absolutely impossible, not just unlikely, for the LHC to create a black hole

by ufmace 12y ago

Here's a summary I posted a few days ago of an article I found explaining why it's absolutely impossible, not just unlikely, for the LHC to create a black hole that destroys the earth: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/could-the-lhc-make-an-earth-killing-black-hole-886d9e600c28 https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/could-the-lhc-make-an-... TL:DR: 1.) If these miniature black holes exist, the Earth has been getting hit by them for billions of years, and it’s still here. 2.) If you do create a miniature black hole, they will decay, via Hawking Radiation, on ridiculously small timescales. 3.) You can compute the rate at which a black hole eats matter, and it’s not even close to being as small as the lifetime of our planet

kamaal 12y ago
>>Capturing 66,000 nucleons per second, how long will it take to get the black hole up to even one kilogram? Three trillion years Thanks for the wonderful article. A small question. Is this rate of consumption linear? Correct me if I'm wrong, the heavier the black hole gets, more and faster it can absorb matter. Of course given there is matter around it.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The article addresses that (It states that the growth will be linear until it reaches a certain mass).
- ufmace 12y ago
  I'm not a physicist or anything, but the idea I'm getting from that is that the event horizon of such a micro-black hole would be much smaller than a subatomic particle. It's too small to actually draw anything into it from a distance, so it would only be able to absorb something by running into it. The rate of consumption can't increase until the mass gets large enough to actually draw matter in from a greater distance than something like the size of an atomic nucleus. The article author calculated how big that would be, and the black hole would reportedly need to accumulate about a billion tons of mass before it could start to grow exponentially.

by ufmace 12y ago

kamaal 12y ago

>>Capturing 66,000 nucleons per second, how long will it take to get the black hole up to even one kilogram? Three trillion years Thanks for the wonderful article. A small question. Is this rate of consumption linear? Correct me if I'm wrong, the heavier the black hole gets, more and faster it can absorb matter. Of course given there is matter around it.

maxerickson 12y ago
The article addresses that (It states that the growth will be linear until it reaches a certain mass).
ufmace 12y ago
I'm not a physicist or anything, but the idea I'm getting from that is that the event horizon of such a micro-black hole would be much smaller than a subatomic particle. It's too small to actually draw anything into it from a distance, so it would only be able to absorb something by running into it. The rate of consumption can't increase until the mass gets large enough to actually draw matter in from a greater distance than something like the size of an atomic nucleus. The article author calculated how big that would be, and the black hole would reportedly need to accumulate about a billion tons of mass before it could start to grow exponentially.