Black holes will evaporate no matter what their size. Large black holes (millions of solar masses) can't evaporate right now because the cosmic microwave background gets absorbed by them and is enough to sustain their mass. In the far distant future the cosmic microwave background will be much weaker and won't be able to sustain the larger black holes.

[...] thinking. I hope we discover that Stephen Hawking was right after all, with experimental proof of Hawking Radiation (this would be a Nobel Prize discovery) emitting from micro-black holes. It would also be nice to [...]

[...] not yet proven, is probably responsible for the only emission from a black hole. It may even cause the black hole to evaporate. But what if this radiation could be used in the ultimate laser cavity? Some Scottish researchers [...]

I used to teach mathematics and I think the square root of -1 is not real ie imaginary!!! In fact, try ordering a set of complex numbers and all you get are contradictions! Real numbers can be ordered and no logical contradictions are created.

If I am not correct, please correct me.
Thanks.

[...] theorized to radiate energy, they will also lose mass (according to Stephen Hawking's theory, Hawking Radiation), small black holes will therefore fizz out of existence very rapidly. In a well known 1975 [...]

There are only two holes of any concern. The A-Hole and the Pink Hole. A-Holes do not get enough Pink Hole and get frustrated and contract, retaining toxic waste. This fogs the brain which becomes delusional and is unable to create an event horizon around the pink hole. The pink hole , now starved of charm retreats into a singularity and devours all that crosses it's path. A-Holes, in an effort to reduce this ferocious suction, feed the Pink Hole mega tonnes of bullshit to expand the event horizon so they have a better chance of getting some. The more complicated the bullshit the tastier it is for the pink hole which oozes in appreciation and takes on the new spin and jumps to a brand new energy level. This in turn excited the A-Hole in new and unexplored territory where entire languages are invented to further excite the Pink Hole.

Now it hasn't happened yet but one day the event horizon will expand to include the A-Hole in the Pink Hole territory and an explosion only measurable in Schwarzschild/Hawking cumletmefucku units will occur, obliterating all traces of the A-Hole and the Pink Hole, and sadly the poor old black holes.

Ahhh nature – so unforgiving!

[...] Synthetic Black Hole Event Horizon Created in UK Laboratory Researchers at St. Andrews University, Scotland, claim to have found a way to simulate an event horizon of a black hole – not through a new cosmic observation technique, and not by a high powered supercomputer… but in the laboratory. Using lasers, a length of optical fiber and depending on some bizarre quantum mechanics, a "singularity" may be created to alter a laser's wavelength, synthesizing the effects of an event horizon. If this experiment can produce an event horizon, the theoretical phenomenon of Hawking Radiation may be tested, perhaps giving Stephen Hawking the best chance yet of winning the Nobel Prize. [...]

Nada

Try this instead:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12jan_1.htm

It's a strong experimental observation that fits black holes and nothing else known.

The only all encompassing theory of everything is that there is'nt one. There will never be one ever! – since the theory itself will disprove that which is not the theory. All of you lazy, useless, pasty, unfit to live on this planet measuring maniac control freaks do something useful or f off and die!! YEAH – especial you Hawkins you fame seeking bullshit artist!

The black hole will not get more massive. These virtual particles are formed from the gravitational energy of the black hole (the energy is transformed in matter). One particle falls into black hole, and one particle escapes, so the black hole will lose gravitational energy, therefore it will lose mass.

The use of the letter i for the square root of minus one is due to i being the first letter of the word imaginary. That is because
–before the modern definition of complex numbers as ordered pairs of real numbers with a special multiplication and addition– people thought that the square root of minus one was an "imaginary" number.

It has no other significance in math.

All of this is getting fairly far from a discussion of black hole horizons. So, I think I am done here.
Sorry for the tangency–but, I was addressing the comments of others in –I hope–a helpful way.

It is true that one of the main interests of occultists in the 19th
and early 20th century was hyperdimensional geometry. That is why Flatland was written by an abbot, and why the occultist
Hinton (who was also a talented amateur mathematician) wrote a prize winning popular book on synthetic four dimensional geometry.

However, as a multidimensional geometer (that is: as a
researcher in differential geometry), I can assure you that modern mathematical investigations of hyperdimensional geometry ( such as hyperspheres) has NOTHING to do with the occult. It's just pure math!

As to the " giant atom" at the center of the galaxy idea–
it is a bit odd—but, of course a neutron star is just a giant atomic nucleus.

Sometimes occult people are laughed at, and we just have to understand that some of their ideas are not totally bizarre
( though many are). For example, I have neodruid friend who is very into "crystals" as a source of power over nature.
I informed her that modern technology is, in fact, largely based on crystals–such as quartz crystal oscillators, synthetic ruby crystal lasers etc.

For a better understanding of gravity ( in the context
of General relativity–which does use four dimensions), a non-mathematician should take a look a "Relativity for the Million" and other popular classics. I cut my teeth on them as a child–shortly after reading Flatland–and just before reading HInton's " The Fourth Dimension simply Explained",
which is available from Dover.

What you are referring to is the OCCULT study of symbols–so called "sacred math"–which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with "the calculus".

Fractals are in fact used by mathematicians–we call it geometric measure theory, and I have published extensively on it. Fractals are not "Fractions".

Indeed the ancient Kem ( aka Egyptians) were very intested in what you describe, which is the mathematical
theory of approximation by continued fractions. It has its uses and is mathematics. The ancient greeks tried to base
a theory of physics on it–See the classic book "Dynamic Symmetry", which can be obtained from Dover publications.
But, " the calculus" is a better description of physics–that is
it predicts better and with less ad hoc assumptions.

The "all seeing eye" aka the Eye of Horus has nothing to do
–except poetically to occultists–with the square root of minus one.

The point of math is that a mathematical proof is a mathematical proof and is open and accessible for checking to anyone with the intelligence to read it.

It doesn't matter what the creator of the theorem believed, what secret societies he belonged to, what his job was. All that matters is right on the page–in the proof.

Penny

p.s. Given that, yes Newton was involved in several secret societies—-such as the invisible uni, which was a multinational club of scientists that cut across class lines.
It is –irrelevant.