Talk:Micro black hole

message: We ought to get rid of this sentence: "It has been suggested that the electron may be a micro black hole, for more info see the discussion here." It's self-referential: a Wikipedia article shouldn't refer readers to an editorial discussion held about another Wikipedia article in order to back up a theory. I haven't taken it out because someone who knows what they're talking about can hopefully rephrase it to explain how exactly an electron might be a micro black hole, and who has suggested this. I must say it's the first I've heard of it, but then I'm no physicist. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Reintroducing the paragraph seems like the best option for now. I don't know what to do about this unfortunately - it is not my area of expertise at all. I do feel however that we need to lose the self-reference. If anyone comes to this talk page wondering about that para the link is here for them: Talk:Electron#Is the electron a small black hole?. — Trilobite (Talk) 04:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I found this to be an absolutely fascinating exposition so I wikified it and turned it into a full-fledged article at electron black hole. linas 05:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Electron black hole

message: Can someone add numerical estimates for following: what is the Hawking decay time for a 511KeV micro black hole? a 1 GeV micro? A 1500 TeV micro black hole (the last would be creatable by LHC colliding lead nuclei.)
If Hawking radiation was "wrong", i.e. didn't exist, so we dealt with a classical black hole that doesn't decay, how long would it take a 1500TeV classical black hole to "eat" some significant chunk of mass? For example, say I plunked the a (neutrally charged) 1500TeV black hole half-an-angstrom from a hydrogen atom. How long before it ate the electron? the proton? (Clearly a charged black hole would eat "instantly" until it became neutral, and then slow way down).  How long would it take to eat a gram of material (avogadro'snumber worth of hydrogen atoms) How about a few thousand tonns (at which point it becomes gravitiationally significant)?  Just curious, and of course you know why :) linas 05:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, thanks! Care to summarize some portion of this, and place it in the article directly? This is to serve several purposes: first is that I gather that there are conflicting definitions of what constitues "micro": by some, its stuff in the million-kilogram range, not the GeV range.  The other aspect has been lay-peoples concerns on hearing that RHIC may produce black holes; an at least partly-informed discussion along the lines you give would be suitable for this article.  linas 01:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do what I can during the week. The definition I'd heard was along the lines of "sizes at which quantum effects become significant", which would be anything approaching the Planck mass (from above). However, I have no idea what definitions are accepted as authoritative (could even be a catch-all for "anything sub-stellar"). As for RHIC black holes, I'll do what I can to outline the arguments both ways (this seems to come up every time there's a new particle accelerator). For now, I'm going to sleep :). --Christopher Thomas 06:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for order-of-magnitude estimates

message: I've been bold and changed the article around quite a bit, to try to play up much more and much sooner why the Planck mass for a black hole is so important -- basically this is the mass below which we would expect Hawking radiation to be suppressed, and the gravitational entropy to get really granular.
That was my aim, anyway; which I hope was sensible.
(Note also that if the "Black hole" (if that is what it still is) becomes rather limited (quantised) in how it can emit particles, it probably also becomes similarly limited in how it can absorb them -- ie very very unlike a classical black hole). 
But I'm not sure how well what I've written reads.   For one thing, I've now made it too long as a single lump of text without subdivision.  For another, I suspect that too many of my sentences are too ungainly, so the whole thing could do with simplifying, spring-cleaning and freshening.
I also may have now too much downplayed (basically reflecting my ignorance) the discussion of what "quantum" black holes with mass less than MP might be like - which was the original focus of the article.
I hope people will think that anyway what I have done is still on balance an improvement.  But I suspect the article could now definitely benefit from a good reactive sorting-out edit from other eyes and other hands. Jheald 13:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-cast

message: Black hole analogies, are merely that -- analogies of black holes. They are not micro black holes with a new name. They do not belong in this article. For more information see User_talk:Quasarq. McKay 04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black hole analogies

message: This article needs to explain it's main points so that non-scientists may follow it's essence. 
It fails to explain it's key terms in everyday language-- for example what is a Plank mass or a Hawking measure and why are they significant to the discussion of micro-black holes? 
As it stands, this is an insular piece written for physics insiders. 
Good science writing for public consumption will speak clearly to both the scientist and the lay person-- 
And especially given the nature of Wikipedia as a public informtaion source-- translation and clarification are needed here. 
Sean7phil 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article Needs Translation

message: I think there's a little too much reference to the Large Hadron Collider in this article. There should be separate articles for Micro black holes, and the potential issues (including but not limited to them) that may arise from the LHC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.53.6  (talk • contribs) 
:This article is about mBH not CERN or the LHC's production of them or it's consequences. There is an article already dedicated to LHC safety issues here. Cheers Khukri 10:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 14TEV is the center of mass energy for a proton-proton collision which means 7TeV per charge. for a Pb-Pb collision the center of mass engergy is therefore 1150TeV Berndf (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: LHC

message: Why are these topics in different pages? In this chart they seem to be used interchangeably. 173.32.11.67 (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The topics may appear similar, but micro black holes and primordial black holes are not the same thing. Microscopic black holes have a mass that is lower than what is needed for them to form through a gravitational collapse. Hence, they must be formed by some other kind of process, but this may have happened at any time. Primordial black holes were formed in the extreme conditions directly after the big bang, but they may have any size from microscopic to super massive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBM 72 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Micro black hole]] and [[Primordial black hole]] 

message: Appears out of proportion to the rest of the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Do we really need this section?  Why not a merge and a see also link to Black holes in fiction? Viriditas (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction 

message: There are increasing calls and research pointing to a new prespective, seeing Atoms themselves as mini black holes from the space-vacum-zero-point energy around them.
I found some really interesting info on the subject , yet saw non here. Am looking for more data on this intriguing observation.--Procrastinating@talk2me 17:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atoms as black holes 

message: I had a look at the article Daemons in astrophysics and got a headache. From the present article's subsection "Conjectures for the final state", it looks to me like maybe daemons are supposed to be these Planck-scale stable black holes. But I'm not sure how much credence the majority of physicists give to the experiments allegedly detecting them. I'm very skeptical myself. Is it worth linking to the daemons article or should a remark be added to "Conjectures for the final state" stating that recent experiments have claimed to detect them but they are still generally considered theoretical? .Puzl bustr (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daemons 

message: I keep reverting the edits of manmade for humanmade, with the tag of POV edit. Though I can understand, but don't agree with, the PC element, the change itself is pointless as the the etymology of the word human is directly derived from 'belonging to man'. So the editor is changing one POV term, in their mind, to one which has greater POV connotations. Gender neutrality is not obtained by changing one word for another of the same etymological background. Khukri 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanmade => Manmade POV 

message: www.armonpogosyan.com    Samwel Pogosyan - "Lattice from Primordial black holes".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.7.246 (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  armonpogosyan 

message: This statement in the article :
" Stephen Hawking also said in chapter 6 of his Brief History of Time that physicist John Archibald Wheeler once calculated that a very powerful hydrogen bomb using all the deuterium in all the water on Earth could also generate such a black hole, but Hawking does not provide this calculation or any reference to it to support this assertion."
does have a reference:
 
Harrison, B. K.; Thorne, K. S.; Wakano, M.; Wheeler, J. A.
Gravitation Theory and Gravitational Collapse, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965
pages 80-81
aajacksoniv (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheeler and artificial black hole 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Micro black hole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100314064756/http://www.ostina.org/content/view/3547/1077 to http://www.ostina.org/content/view/3547/1077/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Mention is made in the second sentence that Hawking first conceived of black holes smaller than a stellar mass. In fact, in the seminal paper that gave his name to the radius, Schwarzchild himself contemplated the possibility ("If similar laws [i.e. gravitational collapse] exist for the molecular forces, this circumstance could be of interest there").
Could the second sentence of this article thus be amended to say something along the lines of, 'The concept that black holes may exist that are smaller than stellar mass was considered by Schwarzchild but more formally introduced in 1971 by Stephen Hawking.'? (with reference as provided above)?Gaussgauss (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Lead-in (first two sentences) 

message: The Hawking citation(2) and the text disagree. Hawking posits minimum mass of 10^-5 g. No mention of Planck mass, only Planck length. I'm just trying to learn this stuff, so it would be good if someone who knew something could repair this. Zwesterner (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimum Mass of 

message: Very good I would say. Sr :) SR.1111111 (talk). 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: My thoughts on this page