Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

''The flaw in your work, as with most pseudoscience, is the use of scientific terms in a meaningless way. ''

too right, I aplogize enough...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually I think the whole idea is simpler than we think.

First a black hole is simply a sufficient gravitational mass to prevent anything, including light from escaping its event horizon. There is no limitation to the size of the event horizon. If the entire mass of all things in the universe is sufficient to pull all things back on itself in some far distant future, then, in fact, the universe is a black hole. And all that is and was and will be resides inside that black hole. The black hole is the universe entire.

However, recent cosmology asserts that space is unfolding, that the distance between stars and atoms alike is getting larger at a rate proportionate to their distance from one another. The farther away two particles are from one another, the faster the space between them is getting larger.

This means that each and every point in space appears to be in the center of an ever expanding universe. And at some distance from each point the space between the point and that distant point will be getting larger faster until at some distance the new space will be increasing faster than a beam of light could over come the new space.

Thus: each and every point in the universe maintains its own event horizon which prevents even light from escaping. Each and every point in the universe is actually a black hole that will in the far far distant future fall outside the event horizon of every other point. But curiously not by pulling light back to itself but rather by pouring more space-distance out faster than the light can overtake it.

Now there's a thinker.

Jerry

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

“ Originally Posted by Reiku
And if we where to squeeze every bit of matter the earth contained down to infinite density, it would fit into the size of a matchbox! ”

" Oili Posted
No."



Actually the statement as stated is correct. However, infinite density is a bit problematical. Cosmologists theorize just such near infinite density at the moment of the "big bang" The laws of physics whose consistency we all enjoy are not really laws. But rather they are expressions of the universes' behavior given the current circumstances.

String theory or some other future theory may be successful in explaining the true nature of the "laws" of physics but until then, we have to remain pliable to accommodate unusual or unexpected changes in the "laws" given drastic changes in the universes' organization. i.e. should the entire mass of the universe be collected in proximity to the maximum density allowed by the strong nuclear force, then the very nature of the universe and the behavior of the "laws" of nature may not adhere to our expectations. The universe may be able to get smaller, or much smaller.

Jerry

 

Um, actually the statement AS STATED is incorrect (unless you also declare that, for example, a fly would fit into the size of a matchbox).

The Earth has a finite mass, a matchbox has finite dimensions.
If the Earth is compressed to infinite denseness then its dimensions would be ~ zero.
If compressed to fit into a matchbox then although very dense it would not have infinite density.

 

Oli, its a well-known calculation. Though, i wouldn't know where to post a link. If you took the entire mass of the earth, which turns out to be 6 x 10^24 kg's of matter, and squeeze it down so that no space is found between any particle, we would have enough infinite density to fit into the comparative size of a matchbox. For sure.

 

1 earth mass = 5.9742 × 10[sup]24[/sup] kilogrammes
matchbox size = 110 x 35 x14 mm (google, near enough)

Density = 1.11 × 10[sup]29[/sup] kilogramme/ m[sup]3[/sup] = not infinite....

 

It looks like i cannot change your initial opinions, so there is no point having an arguement over something so trivial.

 

Gravitationally collapsed electron

Reiku:

I am convinced that the electron mass is the result of a quantum-gravitational effect, so I will do my best to answer any questions asked in this forum. For those readers who are interested in this but don't want to ask written questions, I have a page in "Wikipedia", User DonJStevens, where some information is presented that may be helpful.

Note that a limit gamma factor (at velocity approaching c) implies a limit time dilation factor.

 

Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne have recently concluded that the laws of nature do permit a naked singularity to be formed during gravitational collapse. This brings theorists one step closer to accepting the Burinskii concept that the electron is a naked singular ring.

Don Stevens

 

Don, can you provide some kind of link to that? The last I heard Kip Thorne was teaching Elasticity at CalTech, and I would be very surprised if he was still taking naked singularities seriously.

Can I add that no way is an electron a naked singular ring, and no way does it resemble a black hole in any respect.

 

Hi Farsight

In the November 2007 issue of Discover magazine an interview with Kip Thorne is narrated. On page 53 it is noted that Hawking had a bet with Kip Thorne and John Preskill (Caltech). The bet was over - whether the laws of nature peremit an implosion to produce a naked singularity - a singularity that is not inside a black hole. We (Thorne & Preskill) bet that it could, and Hawking bet that it couldn't. Hawking had to concede when a naked singularity was created in a finely tuned implosion, simulated on a computer. Thorne said "Now we have a new bet over whether a naked singularity could occur naturally in the universe".

There is much disagreement amoung theorists regarding the relationship of electrons and black holes. In his book "The Elegant Universe" Brian Greene writes (page 332) "--we see that black holes and elementary particles, like water and ice, are two sides of the same coin. We see that black holes snugly fit within the framework of string theory". In his other book "The Fabric Of The Cosmos" (page 358) he explains that the electron mass is about 10 exp -23 times the Planck mass. He writes "Our goal is to better this approximation and show that string theory explains the tiny deviations from 0 times the Planck mass characteristic of the particles--".

Another theorist who finds a black hole/electron relationship is Alexander Burinskii, Gravity Research group, NSI Russian Academy of Sciences. You may want to read his paper "The Dirac-Kerr electron". He writes, page 2 "Recall, that angular momentum J = h bar/2 for parameters of electron is so high that the black hole horizons disappear and the source of the spinning particle represents a naked singular ring."

As you can see, some theorists with impeccable credentials find a black hole/electron relationship and it then becomes important to know if a naked singularity can "occur naturally in the universe".

 

Don: thanks for all that. I have to confess I take Brian Greene with a pinch of salt. And singularities too. Not black holes, just singularities. I'll read the Burinskii paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0507/0507109v3.pdf

 

Farsight: you are correct to take singularities with a pinch of salt. I like the words from John C. Taylor, "Mathematicians talk about a singularity---. But this is just a word to describe our ignorance. The effects of quantum theory on gravity are usually very tiny, but near the singularity these effects certainly become important". See his book "Hidden Unity In Nature's Laws" (page 358).

It is my expectation that an improved understanding of electrons will provide an improved understanding of the thing that we call a singularity.

 

''as proposed by physicist John Wheeler, it will have a photon capture radius value 3Gm/c squared.''

I didn't know that Billy. I still treat spin as a classical concept though. I don't know how else to envision the spin of the electron, because math dictates that it is erroneous.

 

And yeh... i take the Singular questions with a pinch of the old salt as well. At first, Hawking believed that there might have been a infinite number of them, but now, he only thinks there are a few. On top of this, something else awaits in his design because in 1985, Hawking was able to remove singularities using quantum mechanics, so instead of singularities forming, there would be instead topological openings we call wormholes.

 

Reiku; Electron spin is a property that is related to the concept of rotation but has no exact counterpart in the classical world. The spin of a K-N black hole includes significant inertial frame dragging and time dilation so there is no classical equivalent. The fact that electron spin is twice as effective in producing magnetic moment as it is in producing angular momentum is evidence linking the electron to the K-N black hole. A gravitational lense effect is required to achieve this condition.

 

Oh i know. Don't get me wrong. I'm usually right in there with the normal interpretations of physics, and in this case, normally, spin cannot be a classical concept...
But when we apply the electron to a stationary point, and rotate it round 360 degrees, we would expect the reverse to be true. I know that it isn't, and instead it would need to make a 720^o rotation. Now, spin is found to be related to the momentum of the object. The spin of a particle is then found to be rotating on an axis, but this appears to be erroneous.

But i don't think any current explanation can handle this adiquately.

 

Mass Conflux of Black Holes!

An electron is a glob of expired g omegons! G omegons are end confluxes - a single black hole remnant - of a former universe. The globular electron is the dimension of end parallel universes! The proton is the alternate universes which were once combined with the parallel universes. The omegons are the U.P.A.s (Ultimate Physical Atoms) described in Leadbeaters Occult Chemistry.
The universe now! is an single expired g omegon. Within the Multiverse or higher dimensions (diameters) are the forms which are lower, such as electrons, protons and atoms! Age and the end of particles are the particles of larger forms!

 

Well at least you do not make Reiku's mistake of using scientific language you do not fully understand.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW, welcome to sciforums, but be warned: It sometimes gets rough around here, but I try to be polite about that.

PS how is that for "two birds with one stone"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!