>>7623899It would seem to behave indistinguishably from a particle. Is this what you are suggesting?
"Suppose that ducks are not really duck, but are in fact elephants that look and behave exactly like ducks."
If the premise depends on there being zero difference between the behavior of a particle and the behavior of a miniature black hole, what significance can there be for them being miniature black holes?
Also, the very definition of a black hole is a region of spacetime where the gravity is so great that even light cannot escape. If this is so, then some of the time when light falls upon a miniature black hole, the light should be absorbed entirely.
>maybe that's true for regular black holes, but not miniature black holes.Oh, I see. And regular elephants don't lay eggs, but elephants industinguishable from ducks, do. In what sense are they elephants, then? In what sense is a miniature black hole that behaves nothing like a black hole still a black hole? This is becoming a pointless converstaion. Did you intend it to be profound?
