This is very interesting. A way to test one of Stephen Hawking's theories

[Ruth Harris]

Dark matter and primordial black holes

The James Webb Space Telescope may provide a way to actually test this model. This could be very interesting. I hope they are successful in getting the data necessary to test the theory.

Ruth

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A thought here:

Is there a size of black hole that could interact non-destructively with normal matter?

Small enough that it can pass through normal matter without sucking down more than a few atoms, but big enough that it doesn't fry what's around with Hawking radiation?

 

[Ruth Harris]

Interesting thought, but would require some changes to current black hole theory. Seems like if this does exist it would need to be a "stable" black hole so it would never emit measurable Hawking radiation nor increase in size due to accretion of matter, and this is something that has never been observed.

Ruth

 

[rjh01]

The universe could be full of primordial black holes that are about the mass of the moon or even less. They would be very hard to detect unless they hit something. If you want to know more details then watch this video

 

[Ruth Harris]

The existence of these is what they are hoping to investigate and prove or disprove with this new data. These proposed primordial black holes are simply not observable from earth at this time. This is a very exciting time for scientists with the possibility of new discoveries - and should be exciting for the rest of us with any curiosity too.

Ruth

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting thought, but would require some changes to current black hole theory. Seems like if this does exist it would need to be a "stable" black hole so it would never emit measurable Hawking radiation nor increase in size due to accretion of matter, and this is something that has never been observed.

Ruth

No, I'm asking about current theory.

A big enough black hole will suck in matter, there will be a blazing accretion disk and it will rip things up as it goes though.

A small enough black hole will blaze with Hawking radiation.

I'm asking if there's a middle zone that does neither.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I have not read anything which states that as a possibility or an actual occurrence. It would have to be in an extremely limited range of mass if it is possible.

Ruth

 

[rjh01]

Interesting thought, but would require some changes to current black hole theory. Seems like if this does exist it would need to be a "stable" black hole so it would never emit measurable Hawking radiation nor increase in size due to accretion of matter, and this is something that has never been observed.

Ruth

No, I'm asking about current theory.

A big enough black hole will suck in matter, there will be a blazing accretion disk and it will rip things up as it goes though.

A small enough black hole will blaze with Hawking radiation.

I'm asking if there's a middle zone that does neither.

A supermassive black hole that does not have any matter too close will emit virtually no energy. An example is the black hole at the centre of our galaxy. The only way we know for sure it exists is because some stars are orbiting a very small, massive unseen object. The only thing that fits that description is a supermassive black hole.

A very small black hole will emit more and more Hawking radiation until it has no mass left. No such object has ever been observed.

 

[skepticalbip]

Interesting thought, but would require some changes to current black hole theory. Seems like if this does exist it would need to be a "stable" black hole so it would never emit measurable Hawking radiation nor increase in size due to accretion of matter, and this is something that has never been observed.

Ruth

No, I'm asking about current theory.

A big enough black hole will suck in matter, there will be a blazing accretion disk and it will rip things up as it goes though.

A small enough black hole will blaze with Hawking radiation.

I'm asking if there's a middle zone that does neither.

A black hole will only suck in matter and have an accretion disk if there is matter close enough to be effected. A couple solar mass black hole alone in interstellar or intergalactic space would be next to impossible for astronomers to detect. If it was in direct line of sight between us and some much more distant luminous body then it may be detected because of gravitational lensing of the light from that more distant body.

There ain't much 'stuff' in space for a black hole to suck in unless it happens to be in a dense region of a galaxy like near the center or is a member of binary or trinary system.

 

[Jarhyn]

Interesting thought, but would require some changes to current black hole theory. Seems like if this does exist it would need to be a "stable" black hole so it would never emit measurable Hawking radiation nor increase in size due to accretion of matter, and this is something that has never been observed.

Ruth

No, I'm asking about current theory.

A big enough black hole will suck in matter, there will be a blazing accretion disk and it will rip things up as it goes though.

A small enough black hole will blaze with Hawking radiation.

I'm asking if there's a middle zone that does neither.

A supermassive black hole that does not have any matter too close will emit virtually no energy. An example is the black hole at the centre of our galaxy. The only way we know for sure it exists is because some stars are orbiting a very small, massive unseen object. The only thing that fits that description is a supermassive black hole.

A very small black hole will emit more and more Hawking radiation until it has no mass left. No such object has ever been observed.

I recall reading an article on Reddit not too long ago (1-2 yrs?) About the concept of CMWBR stable black holes.

Essentially, there IS a breaking point on the stability of a black hole: whether or not CMWBR feeds it.

The smaller a black hole is, the hotter it's radiation. This implies that there must be some black holes out there from the beginning that were just a shade too large to evaporate. I'm not sure how big they would have to be. Maybe some clever physicist could fill it out but I'm pretty sure I read something in that same reddit article about them being roughly sportsball sized.

This means that, probabilistically, there would be the occasional otherwise inexplicable gravity wave resulting from two very small, very massive objects colliding in what is otherwise a vacuum while emitting little if any other radiation.

The deliverable of that article was a revelation of occasional observation of such blips of gravity waves at about the probabilistic rate described by the theory of their existence.

Maybe somebody a little less lazy than me looks it up?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The smaller a black hole is, the hotter it's radiation. This implies that there must be some black holes out there from the beginning that were just a shade too large to evaporate. I'm not sure how big they would have to be. Maybe some clever physicist could fill it out but I'm pretty sure I read something in that same reddit article about them being roughly sportsball sized.

This means that, probabilistically, there would be the occasional otherwise inexplicable gravity wave resulting from two very small, very massive objects colliding in what is otherwise a vacuum while emitting little if any other radiation.

The deliverable of that article was a revelation of occasional observation of such blips of gravity waves at about the probabilistic rate described by the theory of their existence.

Maybe somebody a little less lazy than me looks it up?

Small black holes aren't going to make gravity waves we can detect.

 

[Jarhyn]

The smaller a black hole is, the hotter it's radiation. This implies that there must be some black holes out there from the beginning that were just a shade too large to evaporate. I'm not sure how big they would have to be. Maybe some clever physicist could fill it out but I'm pretty sure I read something in that same reddit article about them being roughly sportsball sized.

This means that, probabilistically, there would be the occasional otherwise inexplicable gravity wave resulting from two very small, very massive objects colliding in what is otherwise a vacuum while emitting little if any other radiation.

The deliverable of that article was a revelation of occasional observation of such blips of gravity waves at about the probabilistic rate described by the theory of their existence.

Maybe somebody a little less lazy than me looks it up?

Small black holes aren't going to make gravity waves we can detect.

They are when they strike other small black holes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The smaller a black hole is, the hotter it's radiation. This implies that there must be some black holes out there from the beginning that were just a shade too large to evaporate. I'm not sure how big they would have to be. Maybe some clever physicist could fill it out but I'm pretty sure I read something in that same reddit article about them being roughly sportsball sized.

This means that, probabilistically, there would be the occasional otherwise inexplicable gravity wave resulting from two very small, very massive objects colliding in what is otherwise a vacuum while emitting little if any other radiation.

The deliverable of that article was a revelation of occasional observation of such blips of gravity waves at about the probabilistic rate described by the theory of their existence.

Maybe somebody a little less lazy than me looks it up?

Small black holes aren't going to make gravity waves we can detect.

They are when they strike other small black holes.

Why would that make powerful waves?

 

[Jarhyn]

The smaller a black hole is, the hotter it's radiation. This implies that there must be some black holes out there from the beginning that were just a shade too large to evaporate. I'm not sure how big they would have to be. Maybe some clever physicist could fill it out but I'm pretty sure I read something in that same reddit article about them being roughly sportsball sized.

This means that, probabilistically, there would be the occasional otherwise inexplicable gravity wave resulting from two very small, very massive objects colliding in what is otherwise a vacuum while emitting little if any other radiation.

The deliverable of that article was a revelation of occasional observation of such blips of gravity waves at about the probabilistic rate described by the theory of their existence.

Maybe somebody a little less lazy than me looks it up?

Small black holes aren't going to make gravity waves we can detect.

They are when they strike other small black holes.

Why would that make powerful waves?

You have an object with (maximum) gravitational potential at it's event horizon doing a pinball-down-a-funnel towards C, with an equally fucked up surface until they collide, an event that happens in a microsecond.

Just Google the graph of gravitational forces we have observed and simulated from such events.

It does not matter that they have "low" mass, it matters that they are singularities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The smaller a black hole is, the hotter it's radiation. This implies that there must be some black holes out there from the beginning that were just a shade too large to evaporate. I'm not sure how big they would have to be. Maybe some clever physicist could fill it out but I'm pretty sure I read something in that same reddit article about them being roughly sportsball sized.

This means that, probabilistically, there would be the occasional otherwise inexplicable gravity wave resulting from two very small, very massive objects colliding in what is otherwise a vacuum while emitting little if any other radiation.

The deliverable of that article was a revelation of occasional observation of such blips of gravity waves at about the probabilistic rate described by the theory of their existence.

Maybe somebody a little less lazy than me looks it up?

Small black holes aren't going to make gravity waves we can detect.

They are when they strike other small black holes.

Why would that make powerful waves?

You have an object with (maximum) gravitational potential at it's event horizon doing a pinball-down-a-funnel towards C, with an equally fucked up surface until they collide, an event that happens in a microsecond.

Just Google the graph of gravitational forces we have observed and simulated from such events.

It does not matter that they have "low" mass, it matters that they are singularities.

Locally it would be a big bang, but it will be over extremely quickly because the gravitational effects don't extend very far. Even if LIGO could see it it would be outside the frequencies it can detect.

 

[Jarhyn]

The smaller a black hole is, the hotter it's radiation. This implies that there must be some black holes out there from the beginning that were just a shade too large to evaporate. I'm not sure how big they would have to be. Maybe some clever physicist could fill it out but I'm pretty sure I read something in that same reddit article about them being roughly sportsball sized.

This means that, probabilistically, there would be the occasional otherwise inexplicable gravity wave resulting from two very small, very massive objects colliding in what is otherwise a vacuum while emitting little if any other radiation.

The deliverable of that article was a revelation of occasional observation of such blips of gravity waves at about the probabilistic rate described by the theory of their existence.

Maybe somebody a little less lazy than me looks it up?

Small black holes aren't going to make gravity waves we can detect.

They are when they strike other small black holes.

Why would that make powerful waves?

You have an object with (maximum) gravitational potential at it's event horizon doing a pinball-down-a-funnel towards C, with an equally fucked up surface until they collide, an event that happens in a microsecond.

Just Google the graph of gravitational forces we have observed and simulated from such events.

It does not matter that they have "low" mass, it matters that they are singularities.

Locally it would be a big bang, but it will be over extremely quickly because the gravitational effects don't extend very far. Even if LIGO could see it it would be outside the frequencies it can detect.

The gravitational effects are waves caused by the presence and absence of singularity levels of mass. Research on LIGO seems to indicate not only that it can but has seen such collisions.

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The smaller a black hole is, the hotter it's radiation. This implies that there must be some black holes out there from the beginning that were just a shade too large to evaporate. I'm not sure how big they would have to be. Maybe some clever physicist could fill it out but I'm pretty sure I read something in that same reddit article about them being roughly sportsball sized.

This means that, probabilistically, there would be the occasional otherwise inexplicable gravity wave resulting from two very small, very massive objects colliding in what is otherwise a vacuum while emitting little if any other radiation.

The deliverable of that article was a revelation of occasional observation of such blips of gravity waves at about the probabilistic rate described by the theory of their existence.

Maybe somebody a little less lazy than me looks it up?

Small black holes aren't going to make gravity waves we can detect.

They are when they strike other small black holes.

Why would that make powerful waves?

You have an object with (maximum) gravitational potential at it's event horizon doing a pinball-down-a-funnel towards C, with an equally fucked up surface until they collide, an event that happens in a microsecond.

Just Google the graph of gravitational forces we have observed and simulated from such events.

It does not matter that they have "low" mass, it matters that they are singularities.

Locally it would be a big bang, but it will be over extremely quickly because the gravitational effects don't extend very far. Even if LIGO could see it it would be outside the frequencies it can detect.

The gravitational effects are waves caused by the presence and absence of singularity levels of mass. Research on LIGO seems to indicate not only that it can but has seen such collisions.

ShieldSquare Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

Oh, I see--two of them manage to get into orbit and the orbit decays. I was picturing a direct smash.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, I see--two of them manage to get into orbit and the orbit decays. I was picturing a direct smash.

Even a direct smash would have a gnarly gravity wave, possibly much stronger, on a much shorter wavelength. Each singularity, for a split second would approach C. The same energy is expended over a shorter time. And that shift in angular momentum...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh, I see--two of them manage to get into orbit and the orbit decays. I was picturing a direct smash.

Even a direct smash would have a gnarly gravity wave, possibly much stronger, on a much shorter wavelength. Each singularity, for a split second would approach C. The same energy is expended over a shorter time. And that shift in angular momentum...

For a very split second. One blip far above the frequencies LIGO can see.