Artificial Black Hole

[5614]

i still think that black holes radiate their hawking radiation and do not explode.... i have read many websites and still think that over time hawking radiation is released from black holes and this makes the black hole decay and slowly decrease in mass (this takes billions of years)

 

that 100 tons of matter... well i dont know... what i do know is that black holes radiate slowly and do not explode!!!

 

this is kinda unrelated but interesting on hawking radiation:

http://superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh3.html

[Gilded]

"what i do know is that black holes radiate slowly and do not explode!!!"

 

If the mass of the black hole is under certain point, it will lose more energy than it gains (by sucking in the cosmic background radiation). And when it loses more energy than it gains, its mass drops, and when that happens, it will result into losing energy even faster, eventually probably resulting in a final burst of energy. Of course, the black holes of the mass category of a large star, gain (currently) more energy from the CBR than they lose.

[5614]

ok... i have always believed that black holes radiate away until they are dead... therefore there is no final explosions.

 

i have been on a hell of a lot of websites about this topic... all of course mention hawking radiation etc and all agree with my first para of this post... NOT ONE mentions a single "final burst" or explosion of energy.

 

as much as i can imagine it - it is not what i have always thought and i cannot find proof nor mention of it on any website... so i ask you - is there any reliable proof or evidence of what you are saying?

 

im not saying you're wrong here... i know little astrophysics, what im saying is that i dont believe you and i want some proof before i do!!!

[Gilded]

...Hmmh. Well, imagine a black hole that's getting quite right all its energy from cosmic background radiation. The more its mass, the colder it is (one solar mass blackhole is about at 60 nanokelvin). Now then, if a blackhole is at a temperature greater than its background (in the case of space about 2.7 Kelvin), it loses more energy than it sucks in. And due to the loss of energy (as I explained earlier), its mass decreases, causing it to become hotter, thereby absorbing even less energy. So the black hole shrinks, and shrinks, and its temperature just keeps rising. And then... BOOM! A huge burst of Hawking radiation. IIRC, it's thought that the final burst happens about at the stage where the event horizon is somewhat smaller than an atom's nucleus, the mass is over 100 million tons and the temperature is approximately 100 000 trillion K. So yes, it's generally thought that black holes go up with a BANG.

 

Check also: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1617

[TWJian]

Blackholes generate aniti-matter,which collides with matter,generate energy and radiates it,and eventually lose mass.Btw, the big bang theory suggests the universe is originally the singurality of an unstable blackhole.

[Gilded]

TWJian, wasn't it more like that when an anti-matter - matter pair is created, the black hole sucks the other particle in ejecting the other particle outwards? It wouldn't probably even work the way you said - the gamma photons created by an annihilation would probably get sucked back in immediately.

[TWJian]

Right,guess I have to reread blackholes.

[Gilded]

"Right,guess I have to reread blackholes."

 

As I'm not a physicist and don't know much (though I do know quite a bit about black hole research), perhaps we should wait for someone who actually is, to confirm my crazy talk.

[Kygron]

Sorry to post on an old topic, but I just read a paper that remended me of alot of what was said.

 

This paper is written for a non-expert audience, which means I understood about a third of it

 

Parts of it describe how a black hole evaporates. It loses mass at an excellerating rate, so it may seem to explode. Then when it gets smaller it slows down and eventually stops evaporating.

 

Reguarding what I had said earier about all collisions creating a black hole, the paper sais that the uncertainty principal usually prevents the particles from getting that close. However there is a quick reference to someone who said that all particles may be black holes, something I was considering when I originally posted. Honestly I came up with the idea myself, but the reference is for a paper 20 years ago!

[calbiterol]

There is a group in New York that believes it already has. But nobody is sure - because they have to check for Hawkind radiation, etc, to confirm that it was, in fact, a black hole. Check it out at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17315265?source=Evening%20Standard.

 

Note: This is VERY recent, as in, the article is from the 17th of March 2005. Yep, I said March 17, 2005. That's only 4 days ago.