Talk:Black hole: Difference between revisions
imported>Greg Woodhouse (Rotating?) |
imported>Dmitrii Kouznetsov (→Collider: new section) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
}} | |||
==Moving forward== | ==Moving forward== | ||
| Line 23: | Line 12: | ||
This article simply says that black holes may be rotating or "stationary" without any context or explanation. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 22:13, 20 June 2007 (CDT) | This article simply says that black holes may be rotating or "stationary" without any context or explanation. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 22:13, 20 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Schwartzchild radius == | |||
Add something about the Schwartzchild Radius | |||
== Collider == | |||
Since past year, there is some bzz around creating of a small blackhole by the Big Hadron Collider (and, of course, the hole grows, and all the civilization should die, as it is usual in the Hollywood movies). | |||
What is the minimal mass of a black hole that would not have vaporization faster than acctetion, | |||
while it travels through a condenced matter? | |||
What energies are required to create such a hole at the collision? | |||
Does anybody have a link to the simple estimate? | |||
Such a link would be good to conclude the discussion mentioned. | |||
[[User:Dmitrii Kouznetsov|Dmitrii Kouznetsov]] 04:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:03, 22 March 2010
Moving forward
I appreciate the cleanup of the article I wrote, but I have a couple of thoughts for future development of this article:
- Given the conjectured existence of "quantum black holes", wouldn't it be better to lead with the defining characteristic of black holes - that their escape velocity is greater than c (and then define the event horizon) before introducing one of the ways in which black holes are created?
- A distinction between rotating and non-rotating black holes is introduced at the beginning, but nothing is made of it. Clearly, the subject is worth a paragraph or five as this article is expanded, but I don't know that mentioning it in the first paragraph is worthwhile, unless some major consequence of the difference is also mentioned.
- The rewrite of the Hawking radiation paragraph, while generally an improvement, has taken my clumsy attempt to explain Hawking radiation (the name of which I'd forgotten), and left the paragraph with a better exposition, but lacking an explanation of the cause of Hawking radiation. Perhaps the first two sentences would read better something like:
- According to quantum mechanics, the location of the matter within a black hole is uncertain. As a result, black holes can "leak" a very small amount of mass, a phenomenon called Hawking radiation.
- I introduced the concept of black holes "evaporating", but left out parts of the explanation - that black holes lose mass through Hawking radiation, and eventually, in theory, will disappear completely. This needs better exposition in the article. This may also be a good place to introduce quantum black holes, as those are the only ones which will actually evaporate in a reasonable amount of time (less than the age of the universe).
Rotating?
This article simply says that black holes may be rotating or "stationary" without any context or explanation. Greg Woodhouse 22:13, 20 June 2007 (CDT)
Schwartzchild radius
Add something about the Schwartzchild Radius
Collider
Since past year, there is some bzz around creating of a small blackhole by the Big Hadron Collider (and, of course, the hole grows, and all the civilization should die, as it is usual in the Hollywood movies). What is the minimal mass of a black hole that would not have vaporization faster than acctetion, while it travels through a condenced matter? What energies are required to create such a hole at the collision? Does anybody have a link to the simple estimate? Such a link would be good to conclude the discussion mentioned. Dmitrii Kouznetsov 04:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)