Yeah, until we get a micro black hole that’s piloted by a competent Katamari player, then it’s over!
Comment on That explains a lot
sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Maybe not the actual referenced article, but its close:
livescience.com/black-hole-analog-confirms-hawkin…
While the study was testing for a specific kind of energy radiated by an artificial micro black hole…
What’s being glossed over is the broad concept and implactions of Hawking Radiation.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Simply put, a tiny micro black hole will evaporate itself out of existence quite rapidly.
There is no danger of such a thing growing and consuming everything like an expanding katamari damacy ball.
Benjaben@lemmy.world 3 days ago
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 3 days ago
What is the minimum size until it will grow faster than it evaporates? And can we make one if we try really hard?
sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
vttoth.com/…/311-hawking-radiation-calculator
Indeed, any black hole with a mass greater than about 0.75% of the Earth’s mass is colder than the cosmic background, and thus its mass increases for now. As the universe expands and cools, however, eventually the black hole may begin to lose mass-energy through Hawking radiation.
Size isn’t the main factor, mass is.
A teaspoon of what neutron stars are made of weighs as much as Mt. Everest.
Its the mass, and apparently the threshold for an actually stable black hole is 0.75% the mass of Earth, 4.48 x 10²² kg … or, roughly 2/3 the mass of the Moon.
So… basically 0 chance in our natural life times we’ll figure out how to convert the Moon into a blackhole, lol.
Revan343@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
We’re fucked if a black hole hits us, but we’re fucked if anything with the same mass hits us
Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 days ago
That is fascinating. Thank you.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
If you do, you may win a Nobel prize for it
DogWater@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I know a little bit but I’m not an expert.
My understanding is hawking radiation will produce a rate of mass evaporating that’s fairly consistent over galactic time scales, so you just need to make sure the black hole is big enough to “suck” more mass in via gravitational attraction per given time period than evaporates through hawking radiation.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 3 days ago
I think the bigger they are faster tge evaporate. They lose mass at some ratio between their surface and mass.
WiseThat@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
Exactly the opposite. The bigger one is, the less it evaporates. Time required to evaporate scales with Mass^3
DogWater@lemmy.world 3 days ago
That’s true the constant rate I mentioned would vary with the surface area of the black hole as it changes but the volume would increase exponentially faster
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 days ago
We know this because after testing it the micro blackhole did in fact fizzle out. /joke
Scott_of_the_Arctic@lemmy.world 3 days ago
If only it could suck up a few specific people before evaporating itself out of existence.
moody@lemmings.world 3 days ago
Damn.
Noodle07@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Thought we had an out… Nope we got to tackle fascism and climate change the hard way
moody@lemmings.world 3 days ago
Na na na na na na Katamari
LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Disappointed beyond measure. :(