432:
very sensitive to the mass of the black hole. Also, for black holes smaller than the radius of a proton (pretty much all of these examples), the actual interaction mechanism will be absorption of a single quark. The result will be a black hole that carries color charge, which is bound into the nucleon it interacted with until it eats the other quarks. Cross-section for this depends on the wavefunctions of the bound quarks, which is a bit iffy (quark masses and nucleon binding energies aren't precisely known). Alternatively, if the black hole is moving very quickly, it might fail to drag the remaining quarks with it, which gives you a quark/antiquark pair forming when the bonds between the hole and the remaining quarks break. This is important because it affects how quickly the black hole slows down in matter (energy for pair production is sapped from the hole's kinetic energy). Speed threshold for a hole lighter than the nucleon is when the hole's kinetic energy exceeds pair production energy, and for the case where the hole is much heavier, it's where the energy required to accelerate the remaining quarks to the hole's speed is greater than the pair production energy. This is at least a really nifty problem, even if it isn't likely to happen much in the real world. --
101:
31:
584:
electron and the corresponding wavelength. Within that region they cannot be said to move or have a definite position. All we know is the probability of something reacting with them, such as a photon of the right energy being absorbed and moving the electron to a higher quantum number state with a higher energy, or conversely (as in a laser) a passing photon of the right energy stimulating emission of another photon of that energy as the electron moves to a lower quantum state.
91:
64:
204:: a Knowledge article shouldn't refer readers to an editorial discussion held about another Knowledge article in order to back up a theory. I haven't taken it out because someone who knows what they're talking about can hopefully rephrase it to explain how exactly an electron might be a micro black hole, and who has suggested this. I must say it's the first I've heard of it, but then I'm no physicist. —
304:
a hydrogen atom. How long before it ate the electron? the proton? (Clearly a charged black hole would eat "instantly" until it became neutral, and then slow way down). How long would it take to eat a gram of material (avogadro'snumber worth of hydrogen atoms) How about a few thousand tonns (at which point it becomes gravitiationally significant)? Just curious, and of course you know why :)
748:
INSULT US WITH THE 'COSMIC RAYS CAUSE THESE PARTICLES ALL THE TIME!' ARGUMENT, THE PARTICLES CREATED BY COSMIC RAYS DON'T GET CREATED AT REST, OR CLOSE ENOUGH TO BEING AT REST TO BE CAPTURED BY EARTH'S GRAVITY (OR SO I READ). NOW THAT'S NOT PROVEN EITHER, BUT YOU DON'T SEE ANY MENTION OF IT IN THE ARTICLE. JUST REASSURANCES THAT NOTHING WILL GO WRONG. NO BIAS IN THIS ARTICLE AT ALL, HEY?
22:
983:" Stephen Hawking also said in chapter 6 of his Brief History of Time that physicist John Archibald Wheeler once calculated that a very powerful hydrogen bomb using all the deuterium in all the water on Earth could also generate such a black hole, but Hawking does not provide this calculation or any reference to it to support this assertion."
470:
thousands to millions of times bigger than electrons. Plank length is much smaller than an electron or proton and plank temperature is much hotter than the center of the hottest stars which are trillions of degrees in r,k,c or f = rankine, kalvin, celcius or farenheit. Modern writters seem reluctant to give us numbers.
303:
If
Hawking radiation was "wrong", i.e. didn't exist, so we dealt with a classical black hole that doesn't decay, how long would it take a 1500TeV classical black hole to "eat" some significant chunk of mass? For example, say I plunked the a (neutrally charged) 1500TeV black hole half-an-angstrom from
226:
Thanks. Reintroducing the paragraph seems like the best option for now. I don't know what to do about this unfortunately - it is not my area of expertise at all. I do feel however that we need to lose the self-reference. If anyone comes to this talk page wondering about that para the link is here for
902:
and got a headache. From the present article's subsection "Conjectures for the final state", it looks to me like maybe daemons are supposed to be these Planck-scale stable black holes. But I'm not sure how much credence the majority of physicists give to the experiments allegedly detecting them. I'm
799:
The topics may appear similar, but micro black holes and primordial black holes are not the same thing. Microscopic black holes have a mass that is lower than what is needed for them to form through a gravitational collapse. Hence, they must be formed by some other kind of process, but this may have
702:
Whilst on the subject of LHC, the article states that the maximum energy is "about 1.15 × 10 GeV". However, the published material on the LHC seems to concur that the energy of the collisions will be approximately 14 TeV (or 1.4 x 10 GeV) which is two orders of magnitude less. Am I missing something
456:
I'll do what I can during the week. The definition I'd heard was along the lines of "sizes at which quantum effects become significant", which would be anything approaching the Planck mass (from above). However, I have no idea what definitions are accepted as authoritative (could even be a catch-all
923:
I keep reverting the edits of manmade for humanmade, with the tag of POV edit. Though I can understand, but don't agree with, the PC element, the change itself is pointless as the the etymology of the word human is directly derived from 'belonging to man'. So the editor is changing one POV term, in
431:
As for "time required to eat things", to get numbers for that, you calculate the interaction cross-section between the black hole and protons/neutrons, and then plug in the density of whatever matter you assume it's orbiting in. I'll grind out numbers on Monday. I expect it to give a result that's
632:
The introduction to this page does not seem to be editable (sorry but I'm new to Wiki editing). Shouldn't the sentence "However, such quantum black holes would instantly evaporate, either totally or leaving only a very weakly interacting residue. " read "Hawking's theory states such quantum black
469:
We use to think the proton was about 1700 times smaller than an electron, but about 1700 times heavier, thus making the density about 3 million times greater. Electrons and protons are much too small to view with a microscope, but we have had some recent success imaging larger molecules which are
747:
AND NOT ONLY THAT JIM... IT'S QUITE OBVIOUS FROM READING THE ARTICLE, THAT THE AUTHOR WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE READER THAT MICRO BLACK HOLES POSE NO THREAT TO EARTH, WHEN THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN. DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M NOT AGAINST THE LHC, I SAY SWITCH THAT BAD BOY ON! BUT DON'T
214:
There was a short paragraph concerning the possibility of an electron being a black hole, however, I felt the text was redundant and there should simply be a link to a more thorough discussion of the topic. I agree that the sentence should be taken out, but should I then just re-enter the random
442:
Wow, thanks! Care to summarize some portion of this, and place it in the article directly? This is to serve several purposes: first is that I gather that there are conflicting definitions of what constitues "micro": by some, its stuff in the million-kilogram range, not the GeV range. The other
583:
This statement is nonsense and should be removed. Electrons do not orbit. Having both position and momentum simultaneously defined by orbital parameters violates
Heisenberg Indeterminacy. Bound electrons are encountered somewhere near nuclei, mostly within a radius defined by the energy of the
724:
GeV, with no reference next to the number to indicate where this value comes from. BTW. Is it just me, or do other people find it strange to give the number as like 1.15 * 10 GeV. Why not: 1.15 * 10 eV or 1.15 PeV ? It is really confusing to mix SI prefixes with 10 notation together.
260:
The electron is shown to be gravitationally collapsed to its photon orbit radius. The electron angular momentum prevents collapse to its
Schwarzschild radius and so the electron is not a black hole, though it is gravitationally confined. The electron mass has a specific relationship to the
498:
But I'm not sure how well what I've written reads. For one thing, I've now made it too long as a single lump of text without subdivision. For another, I suspect that too many of my sentences are too ungainly, so the whole thing could do with simplifying, spring-cleaning and freshening.
488:
and changed the article around quite a bit, to try to play up much more and much sooner why the Planck mass for a black hole is so important -- basically this is the mass below which we would expect
Hawking radiation to be suppressed, and the gravitational entropy to get really granular.
250:
The electron spin may explain its stability. Black hole theory predicts that a rotating black hole with maximal spin will not have the elevated temperature needed to emit
Hawking radiation. See book "Hidden Unity In Nature's Laws" by John C. Taylor, pages 370 and 371.---
495:(Note also that if the "Black hole" (if that is what it still is) becomes rather limited (quantised) in how it can emit particles, it probably also becomes similarly limited in how it can absorb them -- ie very very unlike a classical black hole).
903:
very skeptical myself. Is it worth linking to the daemons article or should a remark be added to "Conjectures for the final state" stating that recent experiments have claimed to detect them but they are still generally considered theoretical? .
1161:
The
Hawking citation(2) and the text disagree. Hawking posits minimum mass of 10^-5 g. No mention of Planck mass, only Planck length. I'm just trying to learn this stuff, so it would be good if someone who knew something could repair this.
665:
I think there's a little too much reference to the Large Hadron
Collider in this article. There should be separate articles for Micro black holes, and the potential issues (including but not limited to them) that may arise from the LHC.
215:
paragraph, take it out entirely, or create a complete and official section on the possibility? Feel free to change it yourself if you think you know what to do. (in the mean time I will replace the sentence with the original paragraph.
556:
07:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Mainstream resently has decided electrons don't orbit, they vibrate. If they orbit at accelerating speeds they would approch the speed of light and approach infinate mass relative to an ouside observer.
420:, making these results unphysical (read: "really suspicious"). In practice, this reflects the fact that objects that small can't be black holes if our understanding of physics is correct (the smallest black hole is roughly the
875:
There are increasing calls and research pointing to a new prespective, seeing Atoms themselves as mini black holes from the space-vacum-zero-point energy around them. I found some really interesting info on the subject
512:
I hope people will think that anyway what I have done is still on balance an improvement. But I suspect the article could now definitely benefit from a good reactive sorting-out edit from other eyes and other hands.
457:
for "anything sub-stellar"). As for RHIC black holes, I'll do what I can to outline the arguments both ways (this seems to come up every time there's a new particle accelerator). For now, I'm going to sleep :). --
719:
There really should be a reference for these numbers in the article. Here I am reading the internet and I see everyone talking about a 7 TeV for the LHC. Then I go to
Knowledge and I see the number 1.15
1229:
390:
35:
296:
Can someone add numerical estimates for following: what is the
Hawking decay time for a 511KeV micro black hole? a 1 GeV micro? A 1500 TeV micro black hole (the last would be creatable by
443:
aspect has been lay-peoples concerns on hearing that RHIC may produce black holes; an at least partly-informed discussion along the lines you give would be suitable for this article.
1130:
that gave his name to the radius, Schwarzchild himself contemplated the possibility ("If similar laws exist for the molecular forces, this circumstance could be of interest there").
612:
It fails to explain it's key terms in everyday language-- for example what is a Plank mass or a
Hawking measure and why are they significant to the discussion of micro-black holes?
1219:
1234:
531:
Black hole analogies, are merely that -- analogies of black holes. They are not micro black holes with a new name. They do not belong in this article. For more information see
800:
happened at any time. Primordial black holes were formed in the extreme conditions directly after the big bang, but they may have any size from microscopic to super massive.
312:
well, you could probably get a rough estimate based on newton's universal gravitation. I don't know exactly how accurate this would be compared to an all out GR calculation.
1249:
1133:
Could the second sentence of this article thus be amended to say something along the lines of, 'The concept that black holes may exist that are smaller than stellar mass was
169:
74:
877:
729:
14TEV is the center of mass energy for a proton-proton collision which means 7TeV per charge. for a Pb-Pb collision the center of mass engergy is therefore 1150TeV
1068:
1064:
1050:
244:
I added the paragraph concerning the electron being a black hole because it seemed interesting and informative. If this is not appropriate please delete it. User:
989:
Harrison, B. K.; Thorne, K. S.; Wakano, M.; Wheeler, J. A. Gravitation Theory and Gravitational Collapse, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965 pages 80-81
924:
their mind, to one which has greater POV connotations. Gender neutrality is not obtained by changing one word for another of the same etymological background.
157:
1214:
1244:
691:
This article is about mBH not CERN or the LHC's production of them or it's consequences. There is an article already dedicated to LHC safety issues
147:
1224:
100:
502:
I also may have now too much downplayed (basically reflecting my ignorance) the discussion of what "quantum" black holes with mass less than
1254:
568:
692:
549:"...an electron constantly accelerating round an atom does not radiate, despite the apparent predictions of classical electrodynamics."
485:
958:
785:
649:
123:
1239:
1046:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
682:
1209:
1127:
755:
201:
621:
And especially given the nature of Knowledge as a public informtaion source-- translation and clarification are needed here.
1126:
Mention is made in the second sentence that Hawking first conceived of black holes smaller than a stellar mass. In fact, in
1036:
114:
69:
1259:
1111:
816:
328:
44:
262:
279:
I found this to be an absolutely fascinating exposition so I wikified it and turned it into a full-fledged article at
940:
1196:
ps: to me, mini black holes mean something else, but that's not in the topic of wikipedia as it is hypothetical :3
1067:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
925:
572:
899:
1102:
1028:
962:
789:
645:
458:
433:
425:
618:
Good science writing for public consumption will speak clearly to both the scientist and the lay person--
1024:
853:
678:
552:
Is there an article anywhere which details this phenomena (or lack of)? - Inquiring minds wish to know. --
759:
710:
1086:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1074:
994:
936:
774:
269:
50:
1027:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
641:
1186:
1167:
1163:
1144:
954:
908:
804:
751:
674:
670:
637:
633:
holes would instantly evaporate, either totally or leaving only a very weakly interacting residue."
564:
706:
21:
861:
838:
553:
536:
280:
237:
208:
122:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
808:
730:
417:
219:
1071:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
609:
This article needs to explain it's main points so that non-scientists may follow it's essence.
1087:
594:
532:
320:
1020:
990:
932:
812:
770:
734:
265:
252:
245:
1094:
1182:
1140:
904:
589:
Many of the significant statements in this article are unreferenced or false, or both.--
1053:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1037:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100314064756/http://www.ostina.org/content/view/3547/1077
857:
834:
624:
234:
205:
106:
1093:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1203:
558:
471:
313:
229:
216:
197:
263:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discussionpost/Electron_as_a_ring_singularity_56595
951:
www.armonpogosyan.com Samwel Pogosyan - "Lattice from Primordial black holes".
590:
1060:
1040:
514:
421:
413:
90:
63:
1059:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
879:, yet saw non here. Am looking for more data on this intriguing observation.--
781:
444:
305:
284:
96:
1139:
introduced in 1971 by Stephen Hawking.'? (with reference as provided above)?
880:
1190:
1171:
1148:
1116:
998:
966:
912:
888:
865:
842:
820:
793:
763:
738:
714:
696:
653:
627:
598:
576:
539:
517:
474:
461:
447:
436:
273:
255:
193:
852:
Do we really need this section? Why not a merge and a see also link to
561:
09:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Or are they just a combination of strings....
416:, and the temperatures of the black holes would be much higher than the
119:
1004:
All particles when their wave function collapses are micro black holes
615:
As it stands, this is an insular piece written for physics insiders.
192:
We ought to get rid of this sentence: "It has been suggested that the
297:
15:
509:
might be like - which was the original focus of the article.
196:
may be a micro black hole, for more info see the discussion
1031:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
545:
Article on the lack of radiation from orbiting electron?
398:
is in kg. 1 eV is about 1.78e-36 kg, So decay times are:
833:
Appears out of proportion to the rest of the article.
424:, unless extra dimensions or the like skew things). --
1230:
Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
331:
492:
That was my aim, anyway; which I hope was sensible.
118:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1063:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
385:{\displaystyle t_{ev}=8.38\times 10^{-17}M_{0}^{3}}
261:fundamental mass (hc/12pi G) exponent 1/2 kg. See,
384:
780:Why are these topics in different pages? In this
230:Talk:Electron#Is the electron a small black hole?
1049:This message was posted before February 2018.
931:Why not just say Artificial micro black hole?
1220:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences
1041:http://www.ostina.org/content/view/3547/1077/
8:
1136:considered by Schwarzchild but more formally
703:here, or do the numbers need to be changed?
1235:C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
1250:C-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
1019:I have just modified one external link on
58:
376:
371:
358:
336:
330:
323:. Subbing in constants, it works out to:
292:Request for order-of-magnitude estimates
60:
19:
1012:External links modified (January 2018)
784:they seem to be used interchangeably.
412:All of these are far shorter than the
408:1.5 PeV (RHIC total energy): 1.6e-78 s
1122:Article Lead-in (first two sentences)
7:
112:This article is within the scope of
402:511 keV (electron mass): 6.3e-107 s
319:The evaporation time is derived at
49:It is of interest to the following
14:
1023:. Please take a moment to review
976:Wheeler and artificial black hole
1215:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
980:This statement in the article :
99:
89:
62:
29:
20:
1245:Mid-importance physics articles
152:This article has been rated as
1225:C-Class level-5 vital articles
967:06:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
605:This Article Needs Translation
540:04:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
405:1 GeV (proton mass): 4.7e-97 s
1:
1181:Very good I would say. Sr :)
1149:01:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
942:13:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
927:13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
794:22:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
715:16:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
697:10:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
167:This article is supported by
132:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics
126:and see a list of open tasks.
1172:01:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
1117:06:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
999:13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
913:18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
898:I had a look at the article
889:17:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
866:13:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
256:14:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
135:Template:WikiProject Physics
1255:C-Class relativity articles
764:05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
1276:
1080:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1016:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
739:18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
158:project's importance scale
1191:00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
599:10:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
577:22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
518:13:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
462:06:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
448:01:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
437:00:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
274:13:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
170:the relativity task force
166:
151:
84:
57:
1240:C-Class physics articles
1177:My thoughts on this page
843:00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
821:21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
654:06:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
628:23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
475:08:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
428:9 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)
316:9 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
308:05:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
300:colliding lead nuclei.)
222:02:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
211:17:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
986:does have a reference:
900:Daemons in astrophysics
287:05:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
240:04:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1210:C-Class vital articles
854:Black holes in fiction
386:
775:Primordial black hole
387:
36:level-5 vital article
1061:regular verification
871:Atoms as black holes
527:Black hole analogies
329:
1260:Relativity articles
1051:After February 2018
381:
281:electron black hole
188:Electron black hole
115:WikiProject Physics
1105:InternetArchiveBot
1056:InternetArchiveBot
941:_Manmade_POV": -->
926:_Manmade_POV": -->
459:Christopher Thomas
434:Christopher Thomas
426:Christopher Thomas
418:planck temperature
382:
367:
45:content assessment
1197:
1128:the seminal paper
1081:
957:comment added by
824:
807:comment added by
754:comment added by
687:
673:comment added by
657:
640:comment added by
579:
567:comment added by
533:User_talk:Quasarq
321:Hawking radiation
185:
184:
181:
180:
177:
176:
1267:
1195:
1115:
1106:
1079:
1078:
1057:
1021:Micro black hole
969:
918:Humanmade =: -->
886:
823:
801:
771:Micro black hole
766:
686:
667:
656:
634:
562:
391:
389:
388:
383:
380:
375:
366:
365:
344:
343:
202:self-referential
140:
139:
138:physics articles
136:
133:
130:
109:
104:
103:
93:
86:
85:
80:
77:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1200:
1199:
1179:
1159:
1157:Minimum Mass of
1124:
1109:
1104:
1072:
1065:have permission
1055:
1029:this simple FaQ
1014:
1006:
978:
952:
949:
921:
896:
882:Procrastinating
881:
873:
850:
831:
802:
778:
749:
723:
668:
663:
635:
607:
554:Ceriel Nosforit
547:
529:
507:
482:
397:
354:
332:
327:
326:
294:
190:
137:
134:
131:
128:
127:
105:
98:
78:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
1273:
1271:
1263:
1262:
1257:
1252:
1247:
1242:
1237:
1232:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1202:
1201:
1178:
1175:
1158:
1155:
1153:
1123:
1120:
1099:
1098:
1091:
1044:
1043:
1035:Added archive
1013:
1010:
1008:add more data
1005:
1002:
977:
974:
972:
948:
945:
920:
916:
895:
892:
872:
869:
849:
846:
830:
827:
826:
825:
777:
768:
744:
742:
741:
721:
700:
699:
662:
659:
606:
603:
602:
601:
586:
585:
569:82.217.115.116
546:
543:
528:
525:
523:
505:
481:
478:
467:
466:
465:
464:
451:
450:
410:
409:
406:
403:
395:
379:
374:
370:
364:
361:
357:
353:
350:
347:
342:
339:
335:
311:
293:
290:
289:
288:
242:
241:
189:
186:
183:
182:
179:
178:
175:
174:
165:
162:
161:
154:Mid-importance
150:
144:
143:
141:
124:the discussion
111:
110:
107:Physics portal
94:
82:
81:
79:Mid‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1272:
1261:
1258:
1256:
1253:
1251:
1248:
1246:
1243:
1241:
1238:
1236:
1233:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1221:
1218:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1198:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1176:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1131:
1129:
1121:
1119:
1118:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1076:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1011:
1009:
1003:
1001:
1000:
996:
992:
987:
984:
981:
975:
973:
970:
968:
964:
960:
956:
947:armonpogosyan
946:
944:
943:
938:
934:
929:
928:
917:
915:
914:
910:
906:
901:
893:
891:
890:
887:
885:
878:
870:
868:
867:
863:
859:
855:
847:
845:
844:
840:
836:
828:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
798:
797:
796:
795:
791:
787:
783:
776:
772:
769:
767:
765:
761:
757:
753:
745:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
717:
716:
712:
708:
704:
698:
694:
690:
689:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
660:
658:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
630:
629:
626:
622:
619:
616:
613:
610:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
582:
581:
580:
578:
574:
570:
566:
560:
555:
550:
544:
542:
541:
538:
534:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
510:
508:
500:
496:
493:
490:
487:
479:
477:
476:
473:
463:
460:
455:
454:
453:
452:
449:
446:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
429:
427:
423:
419:
415:
407:
404:
401:
400:
399:
392:
377:
372:
368:
362:
359:
355:
351:
348:
345:
340:
337:
333:
324:
322:
317:
315:
309:
307:
301:
299:
291:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
264:
258:
257:
254:
248:
247:
239:
236:
232:
231:
225:
224:
223:
221:
218:
212:
210:
207:
203:
199:
195:
187:
172:
171:
164:
163:
159:
155:
149:
146:
145:
142:
125:
121:
117:
116:
108:
102:
97:
95:
92:
88:
87:
83:
76:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1194:
1180:
1160:
1152:
1135:
1134:
1132:
1125:
1103:
1100:
1075:source check
1054:
1048:
1045:
1018:
1015:
1007:
988:
985:
982:
979:
971:
959:46.130.7.246
953:— Preceding
950:
930:
922:
897:
883:
874:
851:
832:
829:Lead section
786:173.32.11.67
779:
746:
743:
718:
705:
701:
664:
642:Kittykatzoid
631:
623:
620:
617:
614:
611:
608:
551:
548:
530:
522:
511:
503:
501:
497:
494:
491:
483:
468:
430:
411:
393:
325:
318:
310:
302:
295:
259:
249:
243:
228:
213:
191:
168:
153:
113:
51:WikiProjects
34:
991:aajacksoniv
933:aajacksoniv
919:Manmade POV
803:—Preceding
750:—Preceding
675:65.92.53.6
669:—Preceding
636:—Preceding
563:—Preceding
422:planck mass
414:planck time
266:DonJStevens
253:DonJStevens
246:DonJStevens
1204:Categories
1183:SR.1111111
1164:Zwesterner
1141:Gaussgauss
1112:Report bug
905:Puzl bustr
695:. Cheers
75:Relativity
1095:this tool
1088:this tool
858:Viriditas
835:Viriditas
756:66.8.57.2
707:Spaghetti
625:Sean7phil
486:been bold
235:Trilobite
206:Trilobite
39:is rated
1101:Cheers.—
955:unsigned
817:contribs
805:unsigned
752:unsigned
683:contribs
671:unsigned
650:contribs
638:unsigned
565:unsigned
559:Ccpoodle
472:Ccpoodle
314:Cpl.Luke
217:rmrfstar
200:." It's
194:electron
1025:my edit
894:Daemons
848:Fiction
591:Cherlin
480:Re-cast
394:Where M
156:on the
129:Physics
120:Physics
70:Physics
41:C-class
809:RBM 72
731:Berndf
515:Jheald
238:(Talk)
227:them:
220:(Talk)
209:(Talk)
47:scale.
782:chart
537:McKay
484:I've
445:linas
306:linas
285:linas
28:This
1187:talk
1168:talk
1145:talk
995:talk
963:talk
937:talk
909:talk
862:talk
839:talk
813:talk
790:talk
773:and
760:talk
735:talk
711:talk
693:here
679:talk
646:talk
595:talk
573:talk
349:8.38
270:talk
233:. —
198:here
1189:).
1069:RfC
1039:to
720:*10
661:LHC
298:LHC
148:Mid
1206::
1170:)
1147:)
1082:.
1077:}}
1073:{{
997:)
965:)
939:)
911:)
864:)
856:?
841:)
819:)
815:•
792:)
762:)
737:)
713:)
685:)
681:•
652:)
648:•
597:)
575:)
535:.
520:.
363:17
360:−
356:10
352:×
283:.
272:)
73::
1185:(
1166:(
1143:(
1114:)
1110:(
1097:.
1090:.
993:(
961:(
935:(
907:(
884:@
860:(
837:(
811:(
788:(
758:(
733:(
722:6
709:(
677:(
644:(
593:(
571:(
506:P
504:M
396:0
378:3
373:0
369:M
346:=
341:v
338:e
334:t
268:(
173:.
160:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
