In theory. The surface conditions of black holes aren’t technically part of the known universe.
And although the black hole would release minimal radiation, which would technically make it quite cold, the amounts of matter streaming in would be at least as great as the background radiation of the universe, so arguably the temperature there is still greater than the experiments’.
Well matter streaming in actually lowers the surface temp., which propotional to mass, but as the two temps are measured in completely different ways, direct comparision beyond their magnitude is not easy.
Yes, you can. But Occam tells us to just analytically extend the solutions which we know work outside. And according to those analytically-extended solutions, one could answer questions like “What is the temperature inside the event horizon?”.
And the stuff falling into a black hole is usally pretty hot (there’s an awful lot of gravitational potential energy available to be converted to heat), but that’s not the same as the temperature of the black hole. Interestingly enough, by the way, the hole itself has a negative specific heat: Add energy to it, and it gets colder; let energy radiate away from it, and it gets hotter.
a really stupid question: have scientists ever tried to make mini black holes to measure temperature and other things and then adapt those properties to a much larger scale?
You’re joking, right?
No. Creating a black hole requires the manipulation of energies far beyond the human scope. Even if we tried to create a micro-singularity through quantum effects, the free energy necessary would be considerable.
If it were possible, it would probably lead to the destruction of the Earth.
It would be very difficult, TTVA, and probably pointless, but I don’t think that creating the smallest possible black holes would destroy the Earth;
A tiny black hole would be very, very hot,
rather than cold like the biggest ones,
and would immediately irradiate all its tiny mass as energy.
So it is not as if a tiny black hole is going to swallow the Earth.
Surprisingly, it’s a balmy 74º.
I think Chronos’ explanation is pretty clear. It’s an accepted fact that the horizon is a coordinate singularity and not a real singularity. Therefore there is no way for a free falling observer to know when he crosses it. And therefore there cannot be an abrupt temperature difference at the horizon or the observer would know when he crossed it.
And by the way temperature is not such a simple thing. Here’s what the eminent physicist John Baez says
If your temp is in a black hole, you’re going to need a new temp, I guess.
Absolutely not! Temping is bad enough, but inside a black hole? Can you imagine the pressure?
On preview, I see I’m going to have to kill Princhester for stealing my joke
That’s what I was going to ask about: The work environment at ManPower must really suck.
Heh…maybe. Some conspiracy theorists were saying the LHC would produce a black hole that would gobble up the earth - visibly it hasn’t.
OK, so there would be many scientific applications. It’d be really cool. But I’m not convinced you could directly measure anything inside it
Re: creating a micro-singularity
How in the world would you contain it? It would immediately escape and (if it were stable enough to exist for just a few miliseconds) could easily begin to absorb matter. Once it did so, it wouldn’t be at all difficult for it to gain mass faster than it lost it through Hawking radiation. After that, it’s only a matter of time before it swallows the entire planet.
I like to refer people to this thread about micro black holes, where someone who knows the math calculates the duration of a 1000 tonne artificial black hole;
Thanks. Achernar;
So much energy would be rushing out of a microblack hole, you would find it very difficult to try to cram any more in.
So I think we are probably safe from that threat…
Radius: 10-[sup]21[/sup]m. Much smaller than a proton.
Luminosity: 10[sup]20[/sup]W. About 6-7 orders of magnitude less than the luminosity of the sun.
Mass loss rate due to Hawking radiation: 1.5 tons/sec
Lifetime: 220 seconds.
is what I meant to quote- superscript changes everything
thanks, DarrenS. so, i’m not the only crazy one here.
That’s a trivial problem. Singularities can hold an electric charge, and will retain the net electric charge of its constituent matter. So, you just give your micro-singularity a net charge, and you can then contain and manipulate it with magnetic fields.
Not necessarily. Given that we cannot accurately predict the conditions inside a black hole’s event horizon, maybe this is it. 