theyoda55 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I know that across the world there are seizemographs that they use to determine epicenters of earthquakes. If there was a BH, it should be detectable through what those pick up. Unless we are THAT technologically inferior, i dont see why we cant find one on earth. I ask this here b/c those who watch this have a better chance of knowing more about that black hole evaporation from hawking radiation.

theyoda55 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Yes, a black hole COULD cause that, but wouldn't a slight irregularity in the inner core's density do the same? This is just an idea i came up with that's more reasonable than an earthly black hole. I read that it needs to be such a size to sustain itself. Like a bus length or something in diameter. Even if it was smaller, it should be pretty easy to detect.

theyoda55 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Like, pin-head sized black holes. Doesnt a black hole need to be a certain size so that the event horizon is actually larger than the diameter of the BH? I ask b/c this stupid documentary on the history channel is talking about "Is there a black hole on earth?". Well it must be pretty damn big not to evaporate. If it's big enough to sustain itself, that leaves the possibility of it engulfing earth if it has the ability to grow. It's talking about slightly differed gravity and wordly magnetism.

theyoda55 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I'd say it wasnt matter/anti-matter b/c they said the positive particle with mass would escape. Id think it would go the other way. We see gravity affecting matter by pulling it in all around us. If anti-matter is the direct opposite, wouldn't it react opposite when it comes to gravity? If any "normal" matter escapes, its got to be limited to neutrinos and photons and other sub-atomic particles w/ negl. mass. Also, doesnt that radiation cause small (very small) black holes to evaporate?

knowledgeis4me (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thanks. I always took Einstein's side. I never could really like the randomness of quantum mechanincs either.

Parasiva (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

hence why relativity and quantum mechanics have yet to be reconciled. the particle that escapes is exhibiting quantum tunneling.

knowledgeis4me (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I'm guessing these particles they are talking about are matter-antimatter anihilation? if so, why would the positive particle have sufficient enrgy to escape the black hole...i know there are certain things that can move faster than the speed of light? but this particle has mass and to escape a black hole it would have to move faster than the speed of light to escpae it...wouldn't this be completely impossible with special relativity?

slipknot911 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

their mass is like 1/8436 or something, energy does not have mass. its just considered they have no mass. take away all electrons from an atom and the RAM will stay the same tbh

omnipotentfish (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

umm. electrons do have mass since they are a part of the fermion family. so basically what you are saying is wrong.i am not a particle physicist myself ,but i know that electrons do have mass a small one but it sure exists. anyway if i'll find out ,i will let you know. good to see other people who like science here on the tube.

slipknot911 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

just to add to this conversation, the matter particle has energy, the antimatter particle does not. think of it as Negative and Positive. the black hole itself is just nothing. particles with energy will overcome the gravitational force of a black hole. think if it was the opposite situation. eg : a ball of mass comes and spins violently, the positive particles get drawn in and the negative not. ( situation based on if antimatter won matter in the beginning)