sci.physics.particle

Michael Helland wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:41 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Michael Helland wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 8:40 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>> Michael Helland wrote:
>>>>> What direct evidence is there that a black hole evaporates?
>>>> No black hole remnants from cosmic rays.
>>> Is there direct evidence that a black hole is created by cosmic rays?
>> The point is that there is a lot more energy to create black holes
>> in cosmic ray collisions than in the LHC.
>
>
> The point is that I'm an idiot, and don't know much about anything,
> except that asking questions and hearing people's answers is fun for
> me.
>
> So. The cosmic rays, there is no direct evidence that black holes are
> made when they collide, correct?
>
> Besides energy levels, are there no other differences between LHC and
> cosmic rays?


This is most likely wrong*, but.... if the black hole must exist
for at least the Planck time to be considered a black hole and
using t = m^3/(1.194 x 10^16 kg^3/s) and solving for m with a
Planck time of 5.4x10^-44 sec

cube root((((5.4^(-44)) s) * 1.19400 * ((10^16) (kg^3))) / s) = 4.14215454 milligrams

using E = mc^2

cube root((((5.4^(-44)) s) * 1.19400 * ((10^16) (kg^3))) / s) * (c^2) = 2.32357854 × 10^30 electron volts

which is a bit more than the LHC can produce

*One of the real benefits of USENET is that if one is wrong... it's often
pointed out by another poster.