Interesting. I got 530 billion light years for the radius. Is this correct? This is only ~37x the current estimated size of the universe, so at least the orders of magnitude are close. Perhaps it is the estimate of the mass of the universe that is off? Perhaps we're inside the black hole, and that microwave background we see is our own event horizon? BTW, Planck's initial insight into the solution to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" (I would have called it the "purple paradox", but I guess that phrase wasn't dramatic enough for the popular press) was to posit energy in quanta. Then Rutherford developed the "planetary model" of the atom, but the problem with this is that a classical electron would almost immediately radiate way all of its orbital energy. The solution was that electrons could be in resonant "orbits" which didn't radiate (or more accurately, would radiate in particular energy jumps; for long-lived atoms, these jumps were far larger than normally available). I suspect that something similar may be happening to black holes at the smallest sizes -- there may be resonances which allow very small black holes to survive far longer than the standard Hawking radiation model would predict. At 02:57 PM 1/16/2013, Wouter Meeussen wrote:
along similar lines,
playing with http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/hrcalc.js I came unto a surprise: fill in the estimated mass 3.4 10^54 kg of the the known (?) universe into the formula for a black hole, and estimate the diameter (or circumference/Pi for you singularophobics out there), what diameter do you get?
to be (inside) or not to be (inside), that's the question
Wouter.