Talk-Polywell.org

Hmmm...
re the LHC:
I wonder. Would they evaporate faster than they grow as they orbit through and within the mantle and the iron core?
I'll bet all the evaporation calculations were all done assuming a vacuum environment.
OTOH The energies involved are possibly so high that even an iron planet core would look like a vacuum to it.
It's way out of my field but.....

The hard cosmic rays may have don BH if it’s possible. Even if they escape earth, they may not escape a dense neutron star. And there is lots of neutron stars not turned to BH out there.
The most pulsars seem to be neutron stars not quark stars. Hence no killer strenglons from cosmic rays. There is a few suspected quark stars but they may arise from large mass.
To heavy for be a neutron star, to light for be a BH.
Nature has already tested it. It’s safe.

Torulf2 wrote:

One then feeds the black hole, and the other feeds the universe outside the black hole.

Hawking and all literature I hade read says that the hawking radiation makes BH to shrink.
You say it makes them to growth. Source please?

Wikipedia says: "A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In reality, the process is a quantum tunneling effect, whereby particle-antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon."

Thus the black hole shrinks, but this effect is dependent upon its mass.

"As an example, a black hole of one solar mass has a temperature of only 60 nanokelvin; in fact, such a black hole would absorb far more cosmic microwave background radiation than it emits. A black hole of 4.5 × 1022 kg (about the mass of the Moon) would be in equilibrium at 2.7 kelvin, absorbing as much radiation as it emits. Yet smaller primordial black holes would emit more than they absorb, and thereby lose mass."

It is currently assumed that all primordial black holes of this lower size range are now evaporated and extinct unless they encountered a lot more mass rather quickly after their creation. Thus Hawking Radiation will only be a small component of the overall emissions of a black hole (counting interactions of matter in the BH's accretion disk and also whatever is jetted out the poles.) BH's larger than lunar mass obviously will absorb more energy from the COBE than it emits from Hawking Radiation, and thus will gain mass over time.

Ok, again, how can something that has the mass of a single particle swallow anything?
Gravity is a very weak force and for a Micro BHs mass even the distance between it and the next particle must seem wayyy to big for it to have any effect on it.

Skipjack wrote:Ok, again, how can something that has the mass of a single particle swallow anything?
Gravity is a very weak force and for a Micro BHs mass even the distance between it and the next particle must seem wayyy to big for it to have any effect on it.

Well, first it would be the mass of multiple particles. But none-the-less, if the uBH falls toward the center of the Earth and continues to orbit thru the Earth, it will eventually intersect other particles, and as it does, it will swallow them. Unless it evaporates first!

Would the extremely hot core provide thermal radiation input to the uBH?

KitemanSA wrote:

Skipjack wrote:Ok, again, how can something that has the mass of a single particle swallow anything?
Gravity is a very weak force and for a Micro BHs mass even the distance between it and the next particle must seem wayyy to big for it to have any effect on it.

Well, first it would be the mass of multiple particles. But none-the-less, if the uBH falls toward the center of the Earth and continues to orbit thru the Earth, it will eventually intersect other particles, and as it does, it will swallow them. Unless it evaporates first!

Would the extremely hot core provide thermal radiation input to the uBH?

Yes it would.

And, as stated, any quantum black hole smaller than lunar mass would be evaporative.

A micro black hole of a few particles would evaporate so fast that it would not have time to absorb other particles. This is the sort the LHC is hoping to produce: by the time an artificial quantum black hole reached any significant distance from the detector it would have evaporated. They are positioning the detectors in locations most likely to be where such quantum black holes are most likely to evaporate, so that they can catch the emissions.

IntLibber wrote:
And, as stated, any quantum black hole smaller than lunar mass would be evaporative.

In theory, and I REALLY hope the theory is correct!

A couple of speclative responces to a couple of concerns mentioned earlier. Assumeing the black hole could survive long enough-

Would a tiny black hole absorb heat from the core of the Earth? Well, I don't know the rate of change, but if a large black hole is very cold, a Moon size black hole is a few degrees warmer, by the time you get to atomic sized black holes then the Earth's core must be extreamly cold in comparison.

A black hole created in the LHC would probably* have tremendus kinetic energy (speed), so it would not be confined by Earth gravity, but go zipping off- much like a neutrino.

* of course it would only take one... then it would only be a matter of time, somewhere between 1 second and 1 ziptillian years.

Again, if miniture black holes can be created in this way and survive long enough to achieve runaway mass acumulation, we would not be here due to the same thing happening with energetic cosmic rays in our atmosphere.

Dan Tibbets

D Tibbets wrote:A couple of speclative responces to a couple of concerns mentioned earlier. Assumeing the black hole could survive long enough-

Would a tiny black hole absorb heat from the core of the Earth? Well, I don't know the rate of change, but if a large black hole is very cold, a Moon size black hole is a few degrees warmer, by the time you get to atomic sized black holes then the Earth's core must be extreamly cold in comparison.

Again, this is based on the theory that black holes evaporate. If they don't, would they absorb IR radiation from the hot core? IS there IR in the core?

A black hole created in the LHC would probably* have tremendus kinetic energy (speed), so it would not be confined by Earth gravity, but go zipping off- much like a neutrino.

* of course it would only take one... then it would only be a matter of time, somewhere between 1 second and 1 ziptillianyears.

Doesn't the LHC collide beams head on? If so, wouldn't the total momentum be almost nil? Picture it, head on collision, stationary uBH, falling thru the Earth, absorbing matter (rarely) and energy (continuously) as it grows to gobble up the world... except (I hope) that it evaporates.

Again, if miniture black holes can be created in this way and survive long enough to achieve runaway mass acumulation, we would not be here due to the same thing happening with energetic cosmic rays in our atmosphere.

Unlike the LHC, the momentum of the uBH here would be that of the energetic CR and as you say, would likely take off into the intergalactic depths.

KitemanSA wrote:Unlike the LHC, the momentum of the uBH here would be that of the energetic CR and as you say, would likely take off into the intergalactic depths.

If uBH were nonevaporative, then the current day universe would be filled with them zooming around eating up everything, we would not exist because after 13.5 billion years, this universe would be mostly black holes by now.

Which is perhaps evidence for evaporation. It may also be evidence that making a uBH is much harder than suggested!

To make a BH its ned for some Super symetry theory to be right.

A new article by Garret Moddel, haven't had a chance to go through just yet, but those who are interested in this line of physics.

http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Moddel_VacExtrac.pdf

CalPhysics is Bernard Haisch's website. Haisch, Putoff, and Davis are the guys who are into the ZPF concept. Their organization is EarthTech (www.earthtech.org), where they have many presentations available for download. These guys and their ZPF theory is sort of a competitor to Woodward, March, and others working on the MLT.

As with everything else, the proof is in the pudding. Their case means that they are able to fabricate any one of their proposed MEMS devices and show that can generate energy in the manner they claim it will.

BTW, Earthtech's main activity appears to be falsification of cold fusion claims. I have corresponded with one of their guys (Scott Little), who seems to be quite level-headed about any of this stuff.

kurt9 wrote:CalPhysics is Bernard Haisch's website. Haisch, Putoff, and Davis are the guys who are into the ZPF concept. Their organization is EarthTech (www.earthtech.org), where they have many presentations available for download. These guys and their ZPF theory is sort of a competitor to Woodward, March, and others working on the MLT.

As with everything else, the proof is in the pudding. Their case means that they are able to fabricate any one of their proposed MEMS devices and show that can generate energy in the manner they claim it will.

BTW, Earthtech's main activity appears to be falsification of cold fusion claims. I have corresponded with one of their guys (Scott Little), who seems to be quite level-headed about any of this stuff.

Interesting, I've corresponded with Haisch a for a few years. I wouldn't take them as competitors, as they are the only ones who really are consistently working on stochastic electrodynamics theories of inertia.