I've read the wiki article L'inq which I freely admit I don't fully understand.

However, my question is ultimately derivative of a discussion we had here Will air settle into component gas layers, if sealed into a room or cave long enough? . Therein, Grant H and others pointed out, essentially that "

Within the homosphere, the bottom 100km of the atmosphere, the mean free path of the gas molecules is so short that there is no separation with gravity, and the atmosphere behaves as if it is composed of a single population of molecules with the average mass of the various components. "

and

"That being said, an ordinary room will be approximatedly homogenous from top to bottom, but Hornblower in that thread makes the point that stratification can occur under tremendous g forces--which basically makes the environment at the bottom of the "room" different enough from the top of the "room" to allow the equilibrium partial pressure to change, from the top to the bottom, and allow stratification. "

So here's the Q:

If the gravity of a planetary body the size of the earth is not sufficient to overcome the mean free path of various molecules to cause separation by weight, how can a 'mini' black hole exist (or be created in a collider) that overcomes the the mean free path of a photon (or any wavelength of light for that matter) and still be small enough to be called mini?

I can accept that a large black hole might contain enough matter to gravitationally overcome the energy / escape velocity of light - but how can a mini black hole be smaller than the wavelength of the light it overcomes?

(Or am I totally off base, out in left field, wandering around trying to push a square peg into a banana?)

I know close to nothing, but it seems to me that the Gravity felt on the surface of the Earth is much less than that that you'd feel if the Earth were compressed to "black hole" size - and you were then on the "surface" of that.

That is, it's about the distance from the mass.

If a photon were one Earth radius distance from a mini black hole that contained the mass of the Earth - then I'd expect it to not be caught by that black hole.

__________________
Measure once. Cut twice. Power tools are fun.

Interesting question. I also know close to nothing, but my feeling is that this question cannot be answered with certainty. That is because of the lack of reconciliation between general relativity and quantum theory.

It's interesting because every particle has a wavelength, e.g electrons, protons all have wave functions. If the micro BH is smaller than the wavelength of the particle, presumably it becomes unlikely to absorb the particle.

I think that a BH with an event horizon smaller than the wavelength of light would have a lifetime measured in seconds, or even milliseconds. It would be a brilliant spot of light, like a microsun, from Hawking radiation and then snuff out.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
John

This part of the article (From my L'inq and JohnD's post above) provides a bit of explanation re: Hawking radiation / that we cannot create them with colliders (I thought I'd read somewhere that we could - that they were either a byproduct or a theoretical byproduct of certain collisions).

The existence of black holes of this mass is purely hypothetical but if primordial black holes exist, they might reach this condition as the final stage of runaway evaporation due to Hawking radiation.

Such an energy is orders of magnitude greater than can be produced on Earth in particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider (maximum about 14 × 103 GeV), or detected in cosmic ray collisions in our atmosphere. It is estimated that to collide two aggregates of fermions to within a distance of a Planck length with the currently achievable magnetic field strength would require a ring accelerator about 1000 light years in diameter to keep the aggregates on track. Even if it were possible, any collision product would be immensely unstable, and almost immediately disintegrate.

But it doesn't answer the conceptual problem I have. I think kzb phrases my question better, however.

(Emphasis added)

I would presume that to be true, as well - especially after the discussions from the other thread. If it is true, doesn't the object then cease to be a black hole (because if the definition of a black hole includes its ability to absorb particles and prevent the escape of light, anything that cannot do that is not a black hole...)??

A black hole is any object compressed to within its own Schwarzschild radius, meaning that it is surrounded by an event horizon and have an escape velocity higher than c. Being able to absorb particles isn't part of the definition, though it is a consequence of the inability of anything to escape if it crosses the event horizon. If particles and electromagnetic radiation being able to avoid being absorbed meant that an object wasn't a black hole then black holes wouldn't exist at all, even supermassive black holes can be avoided by EM waves and particles with a long enough wavelength.

__________________
Girl: Mister Darwin! The stupid people are breeding and taking over the planet!
Charles Darwin: Tut tut, little girl, don't worry! I'll take care of them with my CHAINSAW OF NATURAL SELECTION! Ahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
-QUeen of Wands 12/08/2003

I think this comparison of the relative sizes of a BH EH and the "wave length" of a photon is fictitious. It presumes that a photon ocillates in a direction at right angles to its direction of travel, a convention that our limited experience of the the quantum world imposes on us. This fiction is shown by Grashtel's point that very long wavelength photons could be immune from capture.

If we imagine that the photon ocillates in the same direction as it travels, then there is no question of a BH being unable to capture it however small the BHif the aim is accurate enough.

John

JohnD wrote:
<<I think this comparison of the relative sizes of a BH EH and the "wave length" of a photon is fictitious. It presumes that a photon ocillates in a direction at right angles to its direction of travel,...>>

Well whatever direction it oscillates in, the fact remains the reasoning is applied across the quantum world and is borne out by any number of experiments.

In microscopy, you cannot see objects smaller than the wavelength of the light you are viewing in. This is fundamental, and hence the invention of the electron microscope, to utilise the much shorter wavelength of the electron compared to light.

So we have the interesting possibility of a BH of a certain size BEING a black hole for protons, but NOT being a black hole for electrons.

Not as suggested, with gravity being the cause based on mass density but rather as the 'node's' change, within time, setting 'mass' within a contiuum; period.

Mass in the sense of a fixed particle does not exist.

Just food for thought and to recognize what CERN does will offer a sense to recognize the "mass" statement.

The black hole, dark matter/energy are simply consequences of Virial.

By specifying a fixed amount of mass with gravity as the key player at the 'very large' this model is used to describe what astronomist see but is flawed by these assumptions since these created values pertaining to these created ideas or forces are simply errors caused by misrepresenting energy itself with all her properties of causal momentum.

It would still be a BH for electrons, it would just be very unlikely to be able to catch one, if it got lucky and the electron did actually pass within its capture radius it would still be absorbed. Another odd situation with BHs is that very small ones (IIRC up to ~300 tons) actually repel matter because the radiation pressure from the Hawking radiation is higher than their gravitational attraction, though despite that they are still black holes (though not for very long as they will be loosing mass faster and faster from the Hawking radiation).

__________________
Girl: Mister Darwin! The stupid people are breeding and taking over the planet!
Charles Darwin: Tut tut, little girl, don't worry! I'll take care of them with my CHAINSAW OF NATURAL SELECTION! Ahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
-QUeen of Wands 12/08/2003

I take your point Grashtel about it still being a black hole, I realise that and was being a bit loose with the terminology to make a point.

However, is this bit really true:
<<...and the electron did actually pass within its capture radius it would still be absorbed>>

It's position is fundamentally uncertain. Surely therefore it only has a certain PROBABILITY of being captured at any distance from the BH.

Hawking radiation: I believe the existence of this is not fully accepted. (I actually don't accept the existence of black holes themselves to be honest.)

A friendly piece of advice bishadi, promoting ATM ideas like yours outside of the Against The Mainstream forum is a really bad idea, people have been banned for doing it repeatedly.

__________________
Girl: Mister Darwin! The stupid people are breeding and taking over the planet!
Charles Darwin: Tut tut, little girl, don't worry! I'll take care of them with my CHAINSAW OF NATURAL SELECTION! Ahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
-QUeen of Wands 12/08/2003

[quote=kzb;1032044]JohnD wrote:
Well whatever direction it oscillates in, the fact remains the reasoning is applied across the quantum world and is borne out by any number of experiments.

In microscopy, you cannot see objects smaller than the wavelength of the light you are viewing in. This is fundamental, and hence the invention of the electron microscope, to utilise the much shorter wavelength of the electron compared to light.
QUOTE]

Thank you kzb, for that teling riposte!
And yet, and yet.
You point out in another reply that the position of the electron is uncertain, a probability. So the path of a free electron is not the simple harmonic motion of an undamped ocillating spring, translated into forward motion, that we think of as a 'wave', but a fuzzy strip, denser at the edges, as a simple wave spends more time there than in the centre? Can such a strip have a parameter called 'wavelength'? The shorter the 'wavelength the denser the edges.

Such a strip would have difficulty resolving objects smaller than a certain size, not because of wavelength but because it is so denser at the edges and diffuse in the middle - or rather the probability of sensing an object would increase, then decrease and increase again as the 'beam' scanned across the object.

Moreover, a particle that moved in that SHM way would also have an amplitude that would be a measure of its energy. But sub-atomic particles do not have amplitude - I think! A photon is a photon is a photon, and it is the frequency that measures its energy. A quantum level particle like an eletron would be similar - oops, getting out of my depth here.

Hope this is not seen as ATM. It's just a different way of looking at the same thing. And if so, one man's way is as good as anothers, if it makes it clear.

Jhn

(my bolding)

Curious, the idea I had from the Sir Isaac Asimov micro black hole was that it would fall to the centre of gravity. I believe a lot of work has been done since then.

Is it possible that a micro black hole could choke as some of the larger black holes apparently do?

Given that mass is not significant could they float in a choked state and "float" as they repel matter before dissolving?

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

If people are not allowed to think then why are they here.

Apparently this site is a conformists dream, please make sure they do not quote the Newtons, Gallileos and the great who basically thought mainstream was for complacent idiots.

I often thank them for being honest and taking the risked even if they are banned from society.

The more I read how conformity is a rule on this site, it makes me sad for the few kids who are continually lied too basically because the group herein are simply happy with what little they know.


Let another rebel spell it out

"virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."


Socrates

JohnD, we are free to visualise the quantum world in any way we like. As others have said on these forums many times, we might want to see things as waves or particles, but the actual truth on the ground is neither of these things.

In chemistry it is commonplace to visualise electrons as clouds of probability density, much as you describe. This is a helpful way of visualising things at the molecular level.

In nuclear physics, particle reactions are envisaged as having a "cross section". For example, every atomic nucleus has a distinct cross section for absorbing a neutron out of a neutron beam. It's actually a probability, but is commonly visualised as an area in square centimetres (actually in barns, 1 barn = 10^-24 sq cm). This area can be far larger than the actual physical size of the nucleus, and also varies over orders of magnitude from one nucleus to another.

The problem we have here though is gravity is not covered by quantum theory. This is why I think the experts would say this question cannot be answered at present.

Thanks, kzb,
Is that a 'barn', as in 'Barn-door'? It would fit with the surreal nomenclature of other sub-atomic physics - quantum chromodynamics for instance.

But does the absence of a GUT allow the cop-out? The dimensions of the event horizon should be well known, even if we have no idea what happens inside. While a very small BH might rarely capture something material, as it is so small, the idea above that a very long wavelength particle would be immune from even a full sized BH seems illogical, Captain. And if that is untrue, then it must be untrue for small BHs and short wavelengths.

John

JohnD wrote:
<<The dimensions of the event horizon should be well known>>

But is this true? Would the precise boundary of the event horizon not be subject to the very same quantum fuzziness at small scales?

<<the idea above that a very long wavelength particle would be immune from even a full sized BH seems illogical, Captain.>>

But why?

<<And if that is untrue, then it must be untrue for small BHs and short wavelengths.>>

Well don't forget quantum fuzziness affects smaller things disproportionally more than larger things. It may well be that the very same effects happen in the macroscopic world, but we don't notice them and for the most part do not have to take them into account. But we do in the microscopic world.

Time out, folks. As I recall (the big hedge that means I don't want to go look up the references), what is known about mini black holes is limited:

1. The math allows them.

2. Hawking radiation disappates them quickly.

3. They are suspected as by products of high-energy cosmic rays by the particles in the secondary shower.

4. CERN can probably make them.

5. They are not the danger Dr. Asimov and others thought, because the Hawking radiation eliminates them so quickly.

6. Also, and relevant to the question, they are so tiny that it is improbable that they will interact with anything else in their very brief lifetime. I don't think photon wavelength is an issue, however.

Thank you John Mendenhall for your answers.

Without having to bring out the books just with respect to answers 1 to 3.

Has there been or is there any way to detect Hawking radiation if these do form due to high energy cosmic rays?

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."