Quote:
Originally Posted by dgavin
As soon as a BH accretes it's own electron shell, it's collision rates drop to that of normal matter.
At that point hawking radiation should take over and it would evaporate. But even if it somehow didn't it would take a long long time to accrete anymore matter.
I can't think of any mechanism that would prevent an atom sized black hole from acreeting it's own electron shell.
|
Of course a black hole will ingest electrons--though they prefer protons and neutrons. Electrons are more like dietary fiber--not much nutrient, but it aids digestion. But ingesting a bunch of electrons would give the mBH a superstrong Coulomb force in addition to its gravity. The main idea is an mBH with an effective radius << 1 Angstrom is not like a meteoroid marooned in a stately solar system filled with mostly empty space with a few slowly moving objects. It would be more like if a football sized meteoroid were in a solar system where everything was moving chaotically at a quintillion times the speed of light. Thus the mBH would keep accreting matter even if it were at rest with respect to the center of the Earth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim
Seems like a version of cherry picking.
|
Hey, I'm just trying to "listen to the data".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim
Well, you did some cherry picking there, too, in an attempt to support your scenarios. So, I picked a couple of cherries that seem not to support you:
* Plaga doesn't make any sense.
* The evaporation rate by Hawking radiation (which you seem to accept now) is 1020 faster than the mBH growth rate.
* And "velocities of objects that were flying near the black hole before it was there are higher than the velocities that can reasonably be obtained by the black hole's gravitational action," which would seem to say the mBH can't capture them.
|
Good points. However, according to the Precautionary Principle, we are mainly interested in the worst-case scenarios, and that of necessity requires "cherry picking" the parameter space to see which combinations of parameters yield a catastrophic scenario. Ideally, there would be no combination of parameters that would yield a disaster. On the other hand, if there are, and these cannot be excluded by experiment, then they need to be taken seriously. Or so I would think anyway. But yes, I agree: I am a cherry picker.