Talk:Primordial black hole/Archive 1

General relativity does not predict black hole evaporation

Quantum effects are needed for BH to evaporate. This paragraph needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.53.252.100 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Untitled comment

Muh.. I think Ive heard rumors that *inside* very, very large, exploding, fusion bombs the pressure could theoreticly grow byond the schwarzschild-thingy and create a small black hole. That someone had calculated that if all of humanitys nuclear/fusion-boms should go off at once at one place, this would happen. Or is it just my hallucionary mind that tricks me..? // Noone

That would be a low mass black hole but not primordial. -- Arvindn 09:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget the black microholes made by energetic cosmic ray events in the upper atmosphere, 100 a day(?) I read. lysdexia 23:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

stupid picture

I have the urge to get rid of that picture and replace it. Everybody seems to want to use it for a black hole illustration, but it's really a terrible illustration. I mean, look at the starfield behind the hole - it's completely undistorted!! And what's with all the blue streaky stuff? Eh. --Bmk 15:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We used it as an exercise in my relativity class - see how many GE concepts are completely disregarded in that illustration. (Hint: no gravitational lensing, no doppler shift on the accretion disk, blue streaks resembling magnetic field lines?! for starters)

Ball lightning = Black holes?

Removed bolded text: "...the low number of primordial black holes (they have never been verifyiably detected, although there is very vague speculation that at least some ball lightning might be an example) aids cosmologists by putting constraints on the spectrum of density fluctuations in the early universe." Uh, right. If we want to put this back in the article, let's find a cite from a reliable source. Cf Ball lightning. -- 201.51.231.176 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See Also

This article references itself in the See Also?

It does? --Art Carlson 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why, or can we remove it? 128.250.6.243 23:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what standard WP policy is, but it appears that "See also" is showing five types of black holes, one of which is the current article and is thus not a hyperlink. --JD79 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

micro black holes

“ Under some theories, re-creation of these early conditions in particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider might possibly allow for creation of the smallest versions of such micro black holes. ”

What is the connection of this paragraph to Primordial black hole/Archive 1? Fuzzy (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Micro black hole and Primordial black hole

Why are these topics in different pages? In this chart they seem to be used interchangeably. 173.32.11.67 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Micro black hole. This question is answered there -- RBM 72 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

lifetime of the universe?

"cannot lose all of its mass within the lifetime of the universe"

Lifetime according to which theory? I'm no expert, but it doesn't appear that any of the theories listed on Ultimate fate of the universe would fit with this statement. If it does, it should be explained here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.171.160 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

armonpogosyan

www.armonpogosyan.com Samwel Pogosyan-"Lattice from Primordial black holes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.7.246 (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)