Researchers find it would require 2.4 times less energy to create a black hole than thought

Mar 14, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Researchers find it would require 2.4 times less energy to create a black hole than thought
Credit: W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013)

(Phys.org) —Frans Pretorius and William East of Princeton University have published a paper in Physical Review Letters, where they describe computer models they've developed that show that it would require 2.4 times less energy to create a black hole than previous research has suggested. They also note that despite this new finding, researchers are still very far away from being able to create a black hole, even the microscopic ones that aroused fears surrounding research at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

Black holes that exist out in space have captured the public's imagination as they are both distant and mysterious, and entail forces larger than most people can envision. Newer research, on the other hand, that has suggested that very tiny black holes can exist also and might even be created by smashing sub-atomic particles together in powerful colliders such as the LHC, have caused fear. In this new effort, the two researchers created models to help understand what happens when particles collide, what it might take to create a tiny black hole, and the likelihood of scientists ever being able to do so.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Researchers know that it is theoretically possible to create because of Einstein's —particularly the part describing the relationship between energy and mass—increasing the speed of a particle causes its mass to increase as well. The in this effort, which is based on Einstein's theories, provides a virtual window for viewing what happens when two collide—they focus their energies on each other and together create a combined mass that pushes to its limit and as a result spawns a very tiny black hole. That result was expected—what was surprising was that the team found that their model showed that such a collision and result would require 2.4 times less energy than has been previously calculated to produce such a tiny black hole.

The team also notes that despite fears of researchers building a collider to replicate in real life what their model depicts—and in the process creating a black hole that would swallow the Earth—the science just isn't there yet. It would take billions of times more energy than even the LHC is able to generate and use. Also, even if they could create such a black hole, it would disappear just as quickly as it appeared, due to Hawking radiation.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
The equations of General Relativity have been solved only in very simple cases. Frans Pretorius of Princeton University held at SISSA on February 27, 2013, a public conference to illustrate the innovative method he has employed to obtain solutions of Einstein's General Relativity in realistic problems for modern astrophysics like, for instance, the collision of black holes.


Explore further: Particles, waves and ants

More information: Ultrarelativistic Black Hole Formation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 101101 (2013) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.101101

Abstract
We study the head-on collision of fluid particles well within the kinetic energy dominated regime (γ=8 to 12) by numerically solving the Einstein-hydrodynamic equations. We find that the threshold for black hole formation is lower (by a factor of a few) than simple hoop conjecture estimates, and, moreover, near this threshold two distinct apparent horizons first form postcollision and then merge. We argue that this can be understood in terms of a gravitational focusing effect. The gravitational radiation reaches luminosities of 0.014 c5/G, carrying 16±2% of the total energy.

Related Stories

What are 'mini' black holes?

Mar 29, 2010

In films and books black holes capture unwary spaceships and planets, gobble up whole galaxies or offer portals to other parts of the Universe.

Recommended for you

Particles, waves and ants

1 hour ago

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 24

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Husky
not rated yet Mar 14, 2013
ok, but does that have any significance on the cosmic scale like the Chandrasekhar limit?
Cave_Man
1.3 / 5 (24) Mar 14, 2013
So no worries, even if they DID create a black hole, it will just "evaporate" by some unproven radiative phenomenon? Suuuuure...

Just another excuse to build an even bigger, more dangerous machine next time.
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2013
Large Hadron Collider finds no signatures of microscopic black holes.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

Translation:

We running out of eV. Lower the thresh hold.

Sean_W
3.9 / 5 (18) Mar 14, 2013
Number of black holes detected in nature that seem to have formed from gas giants being eaten by micro black holes because they are too small to have formed through stellar collapse: zero.

Number of high energy particles that exceed anything human civilization will be able to muster in the next few hundred years if ever and that hit gas giants and smaller objects: uncountable but a whole damn lot.

Number of people who have put those two facts together: Not many it seems.

Watching Chicken Littles forecast doom at the hands of reckless mad scientists: priceless.
Tausch
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2013
Well Zeph, ja gonna just have to wait. Till the rest of us have caught up to the point you reached long ago.
Be patient with us.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 14, 2013
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

Tah dah! An article and a ridiculous line of reasoning which has not even a toe hold on reality. The "dark ages" of astrophysics continues...
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
Tah dah! An article and a ridiculous line of reasoning which has not even a toe hold on reality. The "dark ages" of astrophysics continues...


Aaah, the house painter still likes to comment on what a poor artist Micheal Angelo was. Your's is a truly ridiculous line of reasoning, given the reality that ya don't even understand anything in the article. But at least ya can find your toe to hold on to.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2013
And good ol Zeph blithly pandering to his fanbase of 0.

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2013
Tah dah! An article and a ridiculous line of reasoning which has not even a toe hold on reality. The "dark ages" of astrophysics continues...


Aaah, the house painter still likes to comment on what a poor artist Micheal Angelo was. Your's is a truly ridiculous line of reasoning, given the reality that ya don't even understand anything in the article. But at least ya can find your toe to hold on to.

Good analogy, kinda like astrophysicists trying to understand plasma physics. There seems to be an overabundance of house painters trying to figure out how the electricians wired the house.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2013
they will just say: "You know, our calculations weren't exact, sorry.." ... and after then they will get sucked too.
Just one more of the many great reasons why we need to establish independent colonies elsewhere, and fast.

Could a black hole where the earth used to be be useful in any way? Any ideas?
baudrunner
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2013
esearchers find it would require 2.4 times less energy to create a black hole than thought
That little bit of useless information isn't even fascinating.
JIMBO
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2013
Bottom Line is that by 2010, expts. at 7 Tev did Not produce any black holes at LHC. That was the predicted threshold for quantum gravity effects. Something ventured but nothing seen. What a shame.
Mumrah
1 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2013
This made me wonder. If you could keep on pumping kinetic energy into a particle, would it eventually have sufficient kinetic energy to form a black hole?

This would be quite odd because if you had two particles doing this (with low relative speed) then they wouldn't perceive each other as black holes.

What gives?
vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2013
@Natello. In dense Cheese Hole analogy model, the cheese around the holes doesn't allow for varying vacuum density because it's a frikkin vacuum. This is supported by Casimir's dense mayonaise theory http://apod.nasa....801.html in which a fixed amount of empty space-time in vacuum will not produce more zero point energy if you make it denser in one of it's 4 dimensions.

then again, we all knew Cheese and Mayo would go well together.

Cheese hole modelling doesn't work well with French or Swiss cheese and therefore the French and Swiss bungholes @ CERN refuse this model.

Aparently, despite the fact my theory holds up with every new scientific discovery, you have to revert to alternative theories as well, which makes me suspect you are part of the Swiss/French mainstream physics conspiracy.

So please go back to your beloved FR/CH with your foamy soapbubbles and stink cheese.
vlaaing peerd
1 / 5 (1) Mar 15, 2013
sorry, here is a more accurate link, sorry for the religious side note though:

http://wdtprs.com...forever/
Tausch
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2013
They've simply their own additional degrees of motion freedom.- Zeph


You need two of anything to use the label 'side'.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2013
Number of black holes detected in nature that seem to have formed from gas giants being eaten by micro black holes because they are too small to have formed through stellar collapse: zero.


I see, you mean a planetary mass black hole.

The reason they haven't detected those yet is because even if they do exist, they would need to be VERY active, eating some material, etc, in order to detect, and then you'd need to calculate their mass and distance.

Most "planetary mass" black holes, if they exist, would be orbiting a star, so it would be incredibly difficult to see them compared to the light of the star. They would probably need to be colliding with the star's asteroid belts or Oort cloud in order to be visible, and they might only be visible for exactly one moment in their entire orbit, or even in their entire history.

Still, looking for planetary mass black hole, or a ONE solar mass black hole, would be the best way to substantiate microscopic black holes...
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2013
Still, looking for planetary mass black hole, or a ONE solar mass black hole, would be the best way to substantiate microscopic black holes...


What are you calling a "microscopic black hole"? Black holes need an immense concentration of gravity or they can never form & have a minimum diameter of about ten miles, so it's hard to understand what you mean by "microscopic".
jibbles
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2013
In dense aether model you will not pump the energy into particle itself, but into wake wave of vacuum, which is forming around it. This wake wave makes the http://www.aether...ndex.htm in similar way, like the introduction of energy into soap foam makes this foam more dense. But if you're moving with high speed, you're surrounded with the wake wave of the same density, like the object observed. So from your perspective the vacuum around object observed would exhibit nothing exceptional.


dear nutello:

please desist. please! we all love your theory, ok? we really really do! it explains everything and we're profoundly grateful for your unrecongized genius. but now that we have all been thoroughly enlightened and have surely bookmarked your url, wouldn't it be more productive for you to enlighten folks at other websites? again, thank you and (hopefully) bon voyage!
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2013
What are you calling a "microscopic black hole"? Black holes need an immense concentration of gravity or they can never form & have a minimum diameter of about ten miles, so it's hard to understand what you mean by "microscopic".


A microscopic black hole is a black hole which starts out with something like atomic scale mass. They would presumably be formed at the beginning of the universe, or perhaps during particle collisions in supernovas or in the accretion disk of ordinary black holes, and then ejected into space.

i.e. solve the Schwarzchild radius of an object with one atomic mass unit.

A "sub-stellar" mass black hole, would presumably be formed by a microscopic black hole eating planets or brown dwarf stars.
Requiem
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2013
If particle collisions could create stable black holes of any size with enough gravitational influence to consume a planet I think it's a fairly safe bet that our universe would be very different than it is today.
Osiris1
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2013
if all these small black holes existed, no stars could exist as some rogue small black hole would always be zipping around and stop for a snack.... but then again my sister in law was a black hole, a caucasian one...ate everything in sight, then waddled away with a whiff of cheap perfume under her unkempt red hair.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2013
What are you calling a "microscopic black hole"? Black holes need an immense concentration of gravity or they can never form & have a minimum diameter of about ten miles, so it's hard to understand what you mean by "microscopic".


A microscopic black hole is a black hole which starts out with something like blahblah
No lurkker as you've been told many times the proper reply to Internet posters who are too lazy to answer their own questions by themselves is LOOK IT THE HELL UP.
http://en.wikiped...ack_hole
Parsec
not rated yet Mar 20, 2013
Look guys, there really isn't such a thing as a free lunch. In order to create something with enormous energy, you have to HAVE at least that much energy to start with. A black hole that could do any damage, or cause problems, would have to be created with enough energy to start with.

So until we get perpetual motion, and can create energy from nothing, I don't think black holes will be a threat anytime soon.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.