Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

Farsight, I am disappointed to learn that you did not find anything interesting in Burinskii's paper. I think we can agree that elementary particles are entities confined to travel with the velocity of light in circular paths. Burinskii believes these particles are confined because they are superdense geometrodynamical entities. Brian Greene, John Wheeler, Alexander Burinskii, B. G. Sidharth, Tony Smith and a number of other theorists share this view. If you want to defend your position, you will want to know what the opposition is thinking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or that Farsight doesn't seem to understand that the vacuum is an infinitely unlimited boundless realm expanding... A finite age farsight, but infinitely expanding... this is why we are creatures of infinity. And they say nature abhores an infinity. Well, i like them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your complete lack of understanding of science does not preclude another's understanding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that applies to all three of the triad who have taken over this thread, but lets not say that. It is better they tell each other here in one thread about their ad hoc ideas. Rieku has already escaped and posted this nonsense elsewhere at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1640017&postcount=1221

but I corrected it, explaining why it is nonsense, in next post there 1222.

 

It's not that I didn't find anything interesting about the paper, Don. It's just that every time I marked a tick at something that I thought sounded logical, I found myself marking a succession of question marks and crosses along with comments like "How do you justify that?" or "Where did that assertion come from?". I think I'd agree that these particles are confined because they are geometrodynamical entities, but not superdense geometrodynamical entities. But, regardless of what I think, your point noted.

 

Yes, it's boundless, Reiku. But not infinite. It appears to have been expanding since the big bang 13.7 billion years ago. You might imagine that the radius of the universe is therefore limited to 13.7 billion years, but the expansion is exponential. The universe is bigger than that. But it is not infinite. It will only be infinite after an infinite amount of time has passed, and that's never. Have a read of this article by Robert Britt interviewing Neil Cornish of Montana State University:

Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide!

This is the paper behind it: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310233v1

Here's another paper, called Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe by Tamara M. Davis and Charles H. Lineweaver at the University of New South Wales in Sydney:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0310/0310808v2.pdf.

All this is a little off-topic, but makes interesting reading.


Billy: I didn't expect this sort of stuff from you. Can I point out that Reiku started this thread. So to suggest that he has is one of three who have "taken it over" is somewhat uncharitable.

 

Farsight, The questions "How do you justify that?" and "Where did that assertion come from?" are the right questions to ask. You may find some explanations in a related paper by B. G. Sidharth, titled "Quantum Mechanical Black Holes: Towards A Unification Of Quantum Mechanics And General Relativity".

Readers who are interested can see this paper by going to

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9808020

Note section 7, page 15, "Particles as Black Holes". It is reasonable to expect that the observer "Sidharth" is "partly in the right".

 

Thanks Don. I've printed it and will get back to you. I note this section near the end:

"Hestenes [45] takes a slightly different view treating the zitterbewegung as
arising from self interaction, there being an electro magnetic wave particle
duality, though electron spin is again the orbital angular momentum with
respect to an instantaneous rest system of radius equalling the Compton
wavelength. But a number of assumptions are made for getting consistency
with the Dirac equation.

Chacko [46, 47] following a cue of John A. Wheeler models in a somewhat
adhoc scheme, elementary particles as superdense geometrodynamical (that
is General Relativisitc) entities confined to travel with the velocity of light
in circular paths, again of radius equalling the Compton wavelength. Unfor-
tunately properties like spin, magnetic moment, charge etc. are not incorpo-
rated in this scheme."

Looks interesting.

 

I might agree

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ok! electrons can be classified as special case black holes. they give off electro magnetic radiation due to a fluctuation of an in inhabited energy level. a black hole gives off hawking radiation because of the strong geometrical curvarture that stimulates it also when it receives matter. electrons and black holes are both stimulated!!!!!!!!

 

would you not believe in the muultiuniverse theory then. what is it pulling energy from. maybe time is being sucked in from a flat area of geometry we are expanding into converting time into space giving us room to expand into more time fully defying Newton.

 

Thanks for doing that... I was about to post something similar... Because... wow... Anyway, the earth may not have infinite density in a matchbox, but I know someone who's got it in their head...

 

Whether or not you agree with me, doesn't remove the fact that you could squeeze the matter of earth into an infinite density and sit it inside a matchbox. I already had problems with that duck concerning this. Just remember, Jerry agreed this was actually true. I didn't pull the cocnept out of thin air.

 

Corrected me? Excuse me if i say HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Whatever.

I explained that Prof. Sakai wanted to release the energy from a monopole...

Then you spouted off a load of baloney concerning splitting them... I never even said that.

People like you jump in to discredit something, without weighing the variables... pure dunse attitude if you ask me.

I'll answer your question now. No... It wasn't to split the monopole. Instead, he wanted to collid two of them together.

You corrected me on nothing, other than you wanting to give praise to Farsight for something absolutely ridiculous. It makes you just look as stupid.

 

By the way Farsight, that wasn't a general dig at you. We all make mistakes from time-to-time. I'm a bit shocked by Billy's unprofessionalism concering all of this.

 

The problem here is the BB idea in that the universe starts with a set amount of matter and energy so the black hole is there from the very first instant so no inflation or expansion. The universe requires that matter and energy are being created at the edges so there is every more matter and energy, with a balance as to it's area so never enough in a small enough area to cause the whole lot to collapse.

 

There is no "infinite density". It is just another mathematical idiocy. A multiverse is a mathematical convenience, so far,

 

Yes... Quite right on the first point. Expansion is a problem, unless there was a source of matter or energy being fed into the black hole from some source... oh lets say perhaps, the natural ZPE expected in the vacuum. There is suffice energy in the Zero-Point Fluctua to provide a self-contained black hole, forcing it to expand...

 

That was just a quick idea though.

 

Again, the matter and energy in the early universe were in a spacetime that was incredibly less "expanded" than it is today. If you insist on applying the same rules to matter and energy under wildly differing spacetime metrics, you will be heading down a path of complete hopelessness. Which you already seem to be insisting on.

 

While I tend to agree, there is no better current description for what is at the center of a BH.

It's just one approach to explaining some things.