|
|
|
|
|
|
by jfengel
1818 days ago
|
|
|
Correct. It's not so much that the small ones are unstable, but just that there's a continuous curve of lifetimes that's a function of mass. For the LHC, the lifetime of a black hole it could conceivably create would be 10^-86 seconds. It didn't even do that, but if it had, it would have evaporated before it moved the diameter of an electron. There's no functional difference between that black hole and a vastly bigger one besides the mass... but it's a difference of many, many, many orders of magnitude. |
|
|
> Black holes [above a certain mass] can't evaporate now because the cosmic background radiation is too hot
And that mass--the Stable-Black-Hole-In-A-Vacuum mass--it's decreasing. And whatever it is at a given time, more massive holes grow, and less massive holes shrink. Do I have that right?
----
I'm trying to extrapolate backwards to a time when the universe was hotter and the SBHIAV mass was smaller. It seems like there ought to have been a point when the universe was so hot that holes expanded greedily, perhaps to the point where the expanding universe couldn't escape. Golly I wish they taught cosmology at my local university...