Talk:Primordial black hole
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Primordial black hole article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Physics / Relativity||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
General relativity does not predict black hole evaporation
Muh.. I think Ive heard rumors that *inside* very, very large, exploding, fusion bombs the pressure could theoreticly grow byond the schwarzschild-thingy and create a small black hole. That someone had calculated that if all of humanitys nuclear/fusion-boms should go off at once at one place, this would happen. Or is it just my hallucionary mind that tricks me..? // Noone
- That would be a low mass black hole but not primordial. -- Arvindn 09:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Don't forget the black microholes made by energetic cosmic ray events in the upper atmosphere, 100 a day(?) I read. lysdexia 23:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have the urge to get rid of that picture and replace it. Everybody seems to want to use it for a black hole illustration, but it's really a terrible illustration. I mean, look at the starfield behind the hole - it's completely undistorted!! And what's with all the blue streaky stuff? Eh. --Bmk 15:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- We used it as an exercise in my relativity class - see how many GE concepts are completely disregarded in that illustration. (Hint: no gravitational lensing, no doppler shift on the accretion disk, blue streaks resembling magnetic field lines?! for starters)
Ball lightning = Black holes?
Removed bolded text: "...the low number of primordial black holes (they have never been verifyiably detected, although there is very vague speculation that at least some ball lightning might be an example) aids cosmologists by putting constraints on the spectrum of density fluctuations in the early universe." Uh, right. If we want to put this back in the article, let's find a cite from a reliable source. Cf Ball lightning. -- 184.108.40.206 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This article references itself in the See Also?
- It does? --Art Carlson 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Any reason why, or can we remove it? 220.127.116.11 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what standard WP policy is, but it appears that "See also" is showing five types of black holes, one of which is the current article and is thus not a hyperlink. --JD79 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
micro black holes
|“||Under some theories, re-creation of these early conditions in particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider might possibly allow for creation of the smallest versions of such micro black holes.||”|
- See Talk:Micro black hole. This question is answered there -- RBM 72 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
lifetime of the universe?
"cannot lose all of its mass within the lifetime of the universe"
Lifetime according to which theory? I'm no expert, but it doesn't appear that any of the theories listed on Ultimate fate of the universe would fit with this statement. If it does, it should be explained here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
This article measures mass in both g and kg. We should pick one unit and adjust the others to match. I suggest kg, since I've never seen grams used to measure a mass greater than a few kg. (Similar to how the distance from New York to Chicago is measured in kilometers or miles, never meters or yards.) Piojo (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)