/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12805300
no

>>12805300
yes

>>12805300
You should know that within string theory, all matter is an excitation of an extremal black hole of one kind or another. The duality between string matter and classical black holes is of a nature that the two differ only in size. If you dualize fundamental strings so they become heavy, and T-dualize them to become extended, and stack them up on top of each other so that they have a macroscopic mass and charge, they smoothly become classical black holes. The identity is exact enough that all properties of black holes are translatable to string theory, through AdS/CFT.

>>12805306
Uhhh.... Could you break that down for me cuz im kinda dumb

>>12805306
i guess you're too autistic or schizo alex jones to break that all down. just another retard

>>12805315
>>12805340
I'm sorry that you don't have the brainpower for /sci/.

>>12805303
>>12805305
Maybe.
If black holes evaporate per Hawking radiation, then any black hole we create would evaporate instantly. If they do not then we could potentially create one by colliding two particles in a collider. Containing it would require charging it and then electrostatically confining it. A black hole of this size would not be dangerous. With such a small event horizon, the cross section for collision would be smaller than a neutrino

>>12805362
What's stopping us from making a black hole the size of a golfball? Can we make bigger black holes than the size of particles?

theoretically it is possible to make a black hole of any size, provided you have enough pressure to compress matter to a small enough volume. a schwarzschild radius exists for any value of mass (maybe things get more complicated once your radius is on the order of the planck length, but let’s ignore quantum gravity for now.) so you could make a golf-ball size black hole for sure if you could compress matter well enough.

containing it would be hard. if you made a golf ball size black hole on earth’s surface at rest, it would immediately fall at 9.8 m/s ^2 and hit the ground and start eating anything in its way. you would need to “confine” it gravitationally. the only way i can conceive of doing that is to put it (or create if) in orbit. otherwise it starts swallowing everything

>>12805300
no. black holes have a minimum possible size, and that minimum size has a mass and gravitational pull strong enough to destroy Earth.

>>12805426
>black holes have a minimum possible size
>sauce: me acting smart and making up bullshit

>>12805414
>if you made a golf ball size black hole on earth’s surface at rest, it would immediately fall at 9.8 m/s ^2 and hit the ground and start eating anything in its way. you would need to “confine” it gravitationally. the only way i can conceive of doing that is to put it (or create if) in orbit. otherwise it starts swallowing everything


Honestly, that's a would be a cool way for humanity to be killed off. A science experiment gone wrong.

>>12805300
Funny piece of trivia: 4kids censored Yu-Gi-Oh! to an excessive extent. They called the Black Hole card "Dark Hole" just because of fear of racist connotations. They also turned the word "demon" into "fiend" and any images of pentagrams into stars of David (unintentionally based). They even censored a jack-o-lantern.

>>12805388
A golf ball sized black hole would be so dense that it's event horizon would literally contain earth.
remember the event horizon of a black hole is the part we see the black boarder is the event horizon, the point at which not even light can fight its gravity.

If you mean the mass of a golf ball then the black hole would have the same gravitational pull as the

I am literally talking out of my ass rn

>>12805446
Aren't micro black holes created in the big hardon collider and they are said to evaporate instantaneously? Is that only theoretically possible under certain circumstances, or is it likely to already have happened? If a golf ball sized black hole's event horizon could contain the Earth, what would a micro black hole's event horizon look like and what would be the consequences of one coming into existence?

>>12805454
remember that mass is what matters when it comes to gravity. if you have a 10g block of wood and a 10g diamond the diamond is going to be much smaller but they still have the same mass and gravitational attraction. a black hole so small that it evaporates instantly would have an infinitesimal mass and an even smaller size.

but also im making this shit up as i go

>>12805454
>Aren't micro black holes created in the big hardon collider and they are said to evaporate instantaneously?
no, this is a /sci/ meme. it is based on actual science though. before LHC there were theories that this would happen and they predicted that the LHC would see it if their theories were correct. LHC experiments looked for the mini black holes but did not see them, and the theories were ruled out
>Is that only theoretically possible under certain circumstances, or is it likely to already have happened?
the proposed theories are based on the idea of “large extra dimensions” and those theories have been experimentally ruled out in the parameter space where they would create detectable signatures at the LHC. large extra dimensions might still be there, but either they are too small to detect or the details of how they would manifest at LHC were off the mark
>If a golf ball sized black hole's event horizon could contain the Earth,
um, the earth is bigger than a golf ball right?
> what would a micro black hole's event horizon look like and what would be the consequences of one coming into existence?
mini black holes like those that were predicted by large extra dimension theories decay almost instantly into a big spray of particles, mostly hadrons. but they are way way tinier than a golf ball. like 30 orders of magnitude smaller than a golf ball. a golf ball sized black hole is basically stable. if one flew from space through the earth at the speed of a comet, it would pass right through leaving a weird narrow hole through the crust (you might detect such a thing using geology)

>>12805300
It would be much better to make one on pluto or something, if it were possible.

>>12805467
>large extra dimensions

>>12805489
granted, these ideas of large extra dimensions were a product of their times (late 90s-early 00s) and they came from the D-brane thought mode of the time (another name is “brane worlds”). but the models, like ADD and RS, were not specifically stringy.

in fact, “branes” were only reluctantly accepted into string theory, and given that stupid name, because for years, string theorists hated on “membrane theorists”. membranes were a big field of research stemming from supergravity stuff. but string theorists hated all that because membranes were believed to be deficient compared to strings.

however the whole game changed in 1995 when Witten came up with M theory which united supergravity with string theory. in fact his original definition of M theory was “M stands for Magic, Mystery, or Membrane.” the guys who inspired witten on M theory were Hull and Townsend, both membrane theorists.

only later did string theorists convince Witten to change his tune to “Magic, Mystey, or Matrix” to cut out the membrane folks. and in M-theory they don’t call them membranes. they have the ridiculous name “M-brane”

>>12805362
TIL black holes are a vapor and they evaporate. what the fuck anon?