Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DJRmenace

I can has Black hole? Black hole can has mass / inertia / velocity?

Recommended Posts

An interesting Question:

 

Pre-note:

I am not an expert on Black holes and have only vaguely researched the topic from time to time in astonishment of this fascinating phenomenon.

THIS IS NOT A SCARE MESSAGE,

I AM NOT AGAINST THE EXPERIMENT, IF ANYTHING I AM OPENING UP AN IDEA OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT EVEN THE WORST BLACK WHOLE MAY REACT DIFFERENTLY TO WHAT MAY BE EXPECTED

So no hate mail please :)

 

Setting:

Lets just say the LHC in Switzerland does actually create a small black hole. The Black hole is created on the earth's surface in Switzerland

 

Given Scientific Facts / assumptions:

The earth is spinning at roughly 1670 km / hr (at the equator).

The Earth is orbiting the sun at a speed of roughly 108000 km/h in our solar system.

The Sun is probably moving "x" km / hr around god knows what within our galaxy (the point is all these movements are all relative)

 

Speculation:

Some say a small black hole "could" consume a solar system in a moment, some say it could be a much slower process and take for example 4 year to "eat" up the planet. Some say if it is small and stable enough it will not consume more than a piece of dust.

 

For this scenario lets say it is one with the potential to eat our planet say.. 1 day.

 

Note:

My question is about the inertia or mass of the black whole if there is any.

 

The question:

At point of creation would the black hole move with Switzerland? In other words would it have mass, inertia, and velocity like a a normal tangible object and hence begin and continue it's consumption of it's environment in Switzerland? (Spinning around the Earth and also spinning around the sun and the galaxy and Peter Griffin etc...)

OR

Is a Black hole an "immovable object" with either infinite mass and inertia (or none being that it is a "void")?

 

In other words what would the black hole be moving relative to? The Earth's surface? The sun's centre of gravity? Peter Griffin?

 

Would the black hole stay in one spot as the earth / sun / and peter griffin carry on moving along their little tracks, if so, the black hole would be stationary RELATIVE TO WHAT? the center of gravity of the entire universe? (If there is such a thing).

 

Imagine a tiny black hole created in Switzerland at midnight which then exists on the other side of the galaxy at 12:00:01 and is no longer visible at 12:00:02 (an example of a black hole being stationary relative to something larger than out pissy little galaxy.

 

By the way you can replace the words "Peter Griffin" with "God" or The "The dark force" if you like :)

 

Please answer intelligently, regardless whether the intelligence manifests in your Logic, whit or humour, please do not say: "It just goes woooof and stuff goes in to it and.. yeah"

 

 

Go Atomic V3!

 

DJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I'd think the black hole, even a tiny one would have sufficient mass in a small space as to not be affected by the Earth's gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quantum black hole does have a very large density, but its mass is very small (compared to a stellar mass, anyway). The hole would retain its kinetic energy, just like any other mountain-sized mass. It shouldn't have enough pulkl to significantly alter Earth's orbit, nor to tear of into space like an immovable object would.

 

--

 

Here's something to consider...

 

We know from both theory and experimental evidence that time slows with increased gravity. Einstein says it stops at the event horizon of a black hole.

 

Erm... Doesn't that mean that nothing ever actually falls into one? Stuff just gets arbitrarily close to edge, and stays there forever.

 

Meanwhile, according to Hawking, the thing's busily evapourating - spewing energy and fundamental particles all over the place. I don't think a quantum hole is going to be around for long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time slows down in a reference frame in a strong gravitational field, relative to some outside observer in a reference frame that is not in a strong gravitational field.

 

And, yes, black holes do have mass, and yes, an artificial black hole would - I guess, artificial black holes are a very speculative area - have a net momentum corresponding to the net momentum of the particle collision system in the center of mass frame, what's left over from all the other particles coming out and what have you.

 

As for the black hole, we shall consider the Schwarzchild radius, r = 2 Gm/c^2, and hence r = 2 GE/c^4, where we'll say E = 14 TeV. Now, that's a pretty simplistic, naive argument, but I'm not an expert on artificial black holes, I'll have to go and read up on it. So, from the above, we would have a Schwarzchild radius of 3.71 * 10^-50 m. For comparison, the Planck length is order 10^-35 m. That's the kind of impact parameter you'd need to be talking about.

 

A spectacular consequence of the models invoking large extra dimensions is the possibility of being able to produce black holes with the next generation of particle colliders.

 

If the centre-of-mass energy of the particle collision is indeed higher than the Planck scale, and their impact parameter b is lower than the Schwarzschild radius, a black hole must be produced. If the Planck scale is thus in the TeV range, the 14 TeV centre-of-mass energy of the Large Hadron Collider could allow it to become a black-hole factory with a production rate as high as about one per second. Conversely, if a micro-black-hole was to be detected at LHC, then that would provide incredible, compelling, empirical insights into the validity of these models invoking large extra dimensions. Incredibly cool stuff.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.3349v1

 

Here's one interesting bit of literature, but I barely understand it all.

 

Here's something to consider...

 

We know from both theory and experimental evidence that time slows with increased gravity. Einstein says it stops at the event horizon of a black hole.

 

Erm... Doesn't that mean that nothing ever actually falls into one? Stuff just gets arbitrarily close to edge, and stays there forever.

 

Meanwhile, according to Hawking, the thing's busily evapourating - spewing energy and fundamental particles all over the place. I don't think a quantum hole is going to be around for long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×