The strength of gravity is determined by the concentration of mass - not the amount of mass. A two-atom black hole would very rapidly acquire more mass by sucking in more atoms. Unless it evaporated.

Not that I've the slightest concern about it actually happening. The energy in each collision is around the same as the calories in half a million chocolate bars.

But only if Hawkins is correct.

Well quite - that's why I put in the "unless".

Er, no. The force of gravity is dependent on the amount of matter (mass). Newton's Law from high school first states this. General Relativity generalises it. It generalises it to consider deformed spacetime and and the paths we follow in this spacetime. A black hole has an event horizon (resulting from dense enough material) within which all paths stay within the horizon.

And the guy's name is Hawking.

Hawking, got it.

Yes but where does matter get mass?

Ummm No...

I doubt a two atom size black hole would have enough power to attract other atoms over the relatively large distances involved.
Nor would the black hole have enough strength to "dismember" or crush down another atom & suck it in.

From today's newspaper "Researchers at the European Nuclear Research Centre (CERN), in Geneva claimed that they had trapped dozens of hydrogen "antimatter" atoms"
Interesting stuff - now anti matter - that could feed people's dreams of world destruction caused by these experiments.....

Migros, like everybodyelse

If anyone is interest they just trapped some anti-matter
Ask a Scientist

A high density black hole of two atoms would yield high gravity to the space around it, but augmented atoms would not have equally high mass or density and the process would eventually decay to negligible density compared to the earth. Its not positive feedback.

...cross your heart and hope to die?

Well, if I am wrong we are all going to die anyway, so I might as well. =)

I trapped some antimatter once - but my mother made me open the matchbox and let it go again

Er no. A black hole with the mass of the sun has surface gravity rather more that that of the sun as it is now. It is the density = concentration of mass that matters. (hah!) Which is what I said.

You talked about the force of gravity which is a classical concept. In relativity, you can use such coarse-grained concepts most of the time but now for what you attempt to refer to.

sounds like eddie's in the space-time continuum again!

will he never learn?


and another thing - when's he going to come and pick up that d@mned sofa?

Of coarse there will be a chain reaction .All this walking around , results in a big Durst then you have to go for beer ,lots of it ,getting happy , and drink more beer ,at closing time you try to get home .Sorry I can`t go on my keyboard is moving

No God Particle found? (95% sure?)

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ysics-history/

I read they just had to try another "range"...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14596367


According to Cern, Atlas and CMS have excluded the existence of a Higgs over most of the mass region 145 to 466 GeV with 95% certainty.

The ranges left after these results suggest that the Higgs is either quite a light particle, below about 145 GeV, or a heavy one, above 466 GeV. A couple of islands in the middle, around 250 GeV, have not been fully excluded yet.