[Scourge of Ages]

A hole in the <1 billion ton range will radiate more than one gigawatt! You'd be vaporized by its light before you could get close enough to get sucked in!

So, you're saying we would only need about 1,210,000,000 tons of black hole to time travel?
(also is that per second or hour?)

Is it actually only a GW? It is not that much on a cosmic scale.

No, it wouldn't be, but it's also ridiculously small. "A trillion kg, puts you at about the mass of a moderate size mountain" (src) which would be compressed to black-hole size.

EDIT: Dang it, ninja Dekker!

[Phantom Hoover]

note that the brightness of Hawking radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the mass; there’s no known way to produce black holes with masses less than a star, so these small bright holes remain entirely hypothetical

[General Battuta]

Is it actually only a GW? It is not that much on a cosmic scale.

From something smaller than a picometer and not tremendously massive? Yes it is.

[Nightmare]

Is it actually only a GW? It is not that much on a cosmic scale.

From something smaller than a picometer and not tremendously massive? Yes it is.

I don't doubt that a GW/<picometer is a lot; just compared to other things cosmic things it doesn't seem that much out of human scale.

[Colonol Dekker]

So the d'deridex was on to something....

[666maslo666]

We were doing black hole math yesterday to figure something out for a story, and discovered that very small black holes (on the order of millions or billions of tons, nothing you'd ever see up there in the sky) are actually insanely luminous

Black hole Hawking radiation was even proposed as very efficient starship propulsion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_starship

[Mito [PL]]

Back some time ago, Isaac Arthur made a couple videos on how black holes can be used as an energy source or a matter-to-energy conversion tool. I suggest you watch it, these videos are really good.

Also, isn't what happens at LHD when particles impact each other technically creating single super tiny black holes that "evaporate" via Hawking radiation?

[Phantom Hoover]

No, that’s never been observed. As far as I’m aware individual particles are not expected to exhibit black hole-like behaviour until around the Planck energy, which is astronomically far beyond the wildest dreams of the LHC.

[General Battuta]

Is it actually only a GW? It is not that much on a cosmic scale.

From something smaller than a picometer and not tremendously massive? Yes it is.

I don't doubt that a GW/<picometer is a lot; just compared to other things cosmic things it doesn't seem that much out of human scale.

I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't get it already. It's not on the cosmic scale. It is a fraction of the size of a helium atom and weighs a very earthly amount (about the mass of a large mountain).

[Nightmare]

Just that if you had used something different you might have come to more impressive results.

Here's something that's still tiny but utterly destructive from a (hard) sci-fi side (I hope they did their math right): https://orionsarm.com/eg-article/49fe3e605d052.

[General Battuta]

[Nightmare]

?

[General Battuta]

You are not making sense on a number of levels.

1. Conversations aren't about having the biggest numbers, this isn't Stardestroyer.net

2. Yes, if you make things up, you can make very big numbers. If half of the matter in the universe became antimatter, and then we teleported it all to be coterminous with the other half, we could make a very impressive 'result'.

3. Yes, if we were talking about something different, we would indeed be talking about something different.

4. Why do you think any of this is...interesting to say? What are you trying to communicate?

[Nightmare]

1. Conversations aren't about having the biggest numbers, this isn't Stardestroyer.net

Who says that?

I felt somehow that this was quite a more spectecular use of space-time things, but over the years since I read the article I forgot that it wasn't about hawking radiation, yeah...

[X3N0-Life-Form]

For those who are curious about how the EHT does its interferometry thing, in about 12 minutes:

[Luis Dias]

Battuta, during your calculations, did you figure out how much time would that mountain-mass black hole would survive before complete evaporation?

[AdmiralRalwood]

Battuta, during your calculations, did you figure out how much time would that mountain-mass black hole would survive before complete evaporation?

I mean, since it's direct matter->energy conversion and you know it's radiating at a gigawatt (to start with) you can give a rough estimate of 1 billion tons * c² / 1 GW = approximately... 2.584 * 10^12 years, or approximately 190 times the age of the universe. That's an upper bound, though; the smaller the black hole, the faster it evaporates, meaning that the actual time will be significantly less. Specifically, according to the formula for black hole lifetime I found, it would take... 1.99 * 10^12 years, or approximately 140 times the age of the universe. So, still a fantastically long time.

(A black hole the mass of an aircraft carrier would apparently last about 2 years.)

[Luis Dias]

Whoa that's quite a lot of energy.

[General Battuta]

Battuta, during your calculations, did you figure out how much time would that mountain-mass black hole would survive before complete evaporation?

I did but I forget. It wasn't short by human standards. It should probably be easy to recalculate with any number of black hole doohickies, let me check...

I get something like 8*10^9 years.