Can a microscopic black hole exist that is the size of a planck length?
If so would it be able to consume anything? Or would it just be a mutator of local space-time? Would the force created from this microscopic black hole overpower the strong and weak forces?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Theoretically that is the smallest possible black hole (one with the Planck area). How can it consume anything if the smallest object is the Planck length?

That sounds like an interesting theory, good creativity.

What would have started this microscopic black hole?

__________________
We'll have to outwit the fiend with our superior intelligence.
Yukon Cornelius

simple.. just use some energy to make the black hole...

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

but how would it get started ? this micro-blackhole

just use some of the energy created by the creation of every micro black hole that came before it...

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

maybe a tiny black hole could be all that is left of a big black hole, after enough time has passed.

Enough time has not yet passed.

Maybe they are remnants of an ancient strange civilization that built and destroyed themselves seeking a Higgs Boson.

Hrm. If a Planck length is the shortest meaningful distance, and all the mass of a black hole must fit inside its Schwarzschild radius, then no, right? Or is that just semantic quibbling?

I mean, the Schwarzschild radius can't be any shorter than a Planck length, which means the diameter of the black hole can't be any shorter than two Planck lengths. So how "real" is the Planck length, anyway?

As I mentioned in post #2 the smallest possible black hole that can exist is theoretically one that is the planck area (before anyone gets more confused, the planck area is of the event horizon)[and oddly enough it's mass will be the planck mass]. The oddest part is that it will only exist for the planck time.

That seems really neat, but how do you figure it?

The Planck length, is the distance light will travel in the Planck time, which is the shortest time possible. Or at least that's how I understand it. That sounds fairly 'real' to me.

__________________

Easiest way is to read it in a science text. The only other way is to derive it from equations and you can find those equations online in various places.

ETA - T_ev is the time to evaporate, plug the planck mass in for M. hbar is the reduced planck constant and G is the gravitational constant.

t_ev = (5120*Pi*G²*M³)/(hbar*c⁴)

energy itself. If you think about it any omount of energy should be able to start a black hole if you were close enough to it right? However maybe most black holes cant consume because of their size? Maybe because of strong and weak forces

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

OK ... so now for the big question ... where does the energy go when it evaporates ( after one planck time)?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

You must be kidding Tommac? When the sun radiates energy where does it go...

Yes agreed about the sun. But please answer my question without asking another question. But we are talking about very small amounts of energy and very small amounts of space-time. In fact I am talking about the smallest pieces of space-time and the smallest units of energy. So if a microscopic black hole ( planck length, planck mass ) disingrates in planck time does that mean that ... and let me work off of your quote here ... does it mean that in all directions ( 3d ) we get an infinitely small ( or at least very small ) amount of energy in say all of the planck volumes surrounding this microscopic black hole? Or since we are at a planck mass are we limited to the number of photons or whatever energy waves / particles that can be created by the disinigration of a planck mass?

How many photons would the disinigration of a planck mass create?

Would the disinigration of many microscopic black holes in the same area lead to the creation of other microscopic black holes when their radiation combines?

Why is the smallest black hole limited to one planck length?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

The question was an answer to yours. Answer it and you have your answer.
In theory a black hole can have any mass from the planck mass up. The planck mass is the lowest possible mass. If you have any doubts as to the size of a planck mass black hole. You can find the equation all over the internet and check the radius and the area of the event horizon yourself.

Thanks again for the avoidance of both questions and totally ignoring the rest of my post there.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

No problem. If I fell a question is in the same category as "why is the sky blue" I simply won't answer...wait, I did that so what is the problem.

I believe the limitation of 1 planck mass is only a limitation of some quantum theories ( I believe it to be a limitation because of hawking's radiation not sure about this though). In any case I am not sure if what I am describing could even transcend the definition of a classical black hole. What I would like to envision is a gravitational force so small that pieces of space disappear when that particle ( black hole, photon, whatever ) is in that area. It does not devour it surroundings because of other forces that are going on on the quantum level. Rather it bends/ curves space but can never consume.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

OK ... you are the first person since neverfly ( but I made it to his and we are both back ) to make it to my ignore list.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

As Lepton implied, when the black hole evaporates, it would do so by emitting radiation, just like any black hole. In fact, for any black hole that evaporates, there will always be the moment one Planck time before the evaporation completes when the remaining mass is the Planck mass. Note also that the Planck mass is quite large, about 0.022 milligrams. That's a huge mass for something on the subatomic scale. So you'd expect a burst of high energy photons (and probably other miscellaneous particles as well) coming from such an event.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

About time. I actually feel honored

That however assumes that hawking radiation is real correct?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

Yes. Although that seems pretty likely, given the evidence. Specifically, an accelerating observer will see an event horizon (unsurprising, given the equivalence principle), and the predicted Unruh effect is essentially the same thing as Hawking radiation. Now, Hawking radiation has never been directly observed, but a few years ago, someone showed that if you take your accelerating observer to be a high speed electron in a magnetic field, the Unruh effect should produce exactly what is already seen as the Sokolov-Ternov effect. That's pretty good corroboration that Unruh and Hawking radiation are real phenomena.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

What happens at lengths smaller than the planck length? Is it possible to have mass just not enought to form a black hole?

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)

We don't know. Some people think that the Planck length is the smallest length that has any physical meaning, and you just can't have anything smaller. Whether that's true or not, once you get down to the Planck scale, the strong force, the weak force, electromagnetism, and gravity are all significant enough that to be able to describe what's going on at that scale, you'd need a theory that encompasses all of those forces: a theory of quantum gravity. Although we know some features that such a theory would need to have to be consistent with observation, we do not have such a theory. Whatever the universe is like at that scale, we know enough to be able to say that we don't know how it would behave.

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Thanks! I was trying to link this thread with my thread about binary gravity. I need to do more work on it and come back. I will consider this ATM debunked. Thanks for the info.

__________________
http://www.whatisorganicliving.com
http://www.cancerfightforums.com/forum/
http://www.nycbrownies.com
"Banned by BAUT" Alumni (2008)