Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

Yes you did. Here is EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID:

" ...splitting the magnetic monopole, allows for such energy to be released... " TO QUOTE FORM YOUR POST. See the link again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are you going on about? Engage brain before quoting. Whether space is "expanded" or not has no effect on the matter within it. Or perhaps you think early black holes formed by magic?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please read this. It explains why, according to GR, the expansion of spacetime has a great deal to do with matter and energy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr...misconceptions

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fine i made a mistake. You where still an ignorant little sod.

 

"Ignorant" is inherently a relative adjactive. Yes, I probably am "ignorant" compared to some life forms that probably exist in the vast universe; but here on Earth, if I am "ignorant" what adjactive describes you? Perhaps others can suggest one.

 

Here's a counter-attack my poor friend.

What was your book published for? - To make sure that the next generation of scientists to be a recruited no???

What an example you are showing, by not giving hope to those who are studying science, (such as me as a prime example), and yet you are older, so where is the wisdom?

 

The crucial question is, if the Universe is formed by black hole (BH), whether some BH can contain some other holes of the same or higher density. Surprisingly enough, such question is not so trivial, as it appears at the first sight. While the answer "Yes" seems inprobable, we should consider, only inertial matter can become the subject/cause of gravity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The fully chaotic interior of black hole lacks the gravitational behavior nearly completely. We should consider not just the action of hydrostatical pressure here, but even the fact, such pressure will be leveled by the very low speed of energy spreading due the incredible density of BH core.

If you're interested about details of inertial model of Universe, please consider, it's subject of my private theory, not the mainstream science and as such it should be discussed therein to keep the mutually consistent ideas together.

 

"Son, I don't understand a thing you just said." - Farmer dude to Napoleon in Napoleon Dynamyte

 

Because you even didn't understood the introductory question of this topic. By mainstream science, the black hole is the final stage of matter collapse. The mainstream science is believing, it's pin-point object, but I'd recommend to consider somewhat more realistic model. You can think, the black hole is sort of very dense star, i.e. collapsar similar to neutron star or white dwarf, just even much more dense. The AWT explains many reasons, why we cannot expect the formation of pin-point object during matter collapse. In general, such process would take an infinite time, which we haven't inside of Universe of limited age.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, now we can ask, how the environment inside of such star would appear? We can imagine it as a very dense gas (?) or maybe fluid (??) or some mixture of the above (a foam ???). But if such system wouldn't very homogeneous, every subtle density fluctuation would behave like the massive particle here. In normal fluid such fluctuation wouldn't have apparent gravitational effects, but inside of such dense environment it will focus the surrounding energy waves into itself like tiny lens, it can collapse and it will attract the other density fluctuations into more complex objects, similar to atom nuclei or maybe whole atoms. We can even expect the formation of whole stellar and planetary systems, or maybe a daughter generation of black holes....

Now it's legitimate question - if all the above phantasies are possible, even with respect to mainstream models, like the LQG - where are limits of this Matryoshka or onion model? Can some Universe generation/black hole really contain a substantially larger Universe inside it? Or is it a complete utter nonsense from physical point of view? To answer such question unbiased by our intuitive experience, we should consider some new models of black hole formation, which the AWT is proposing.

 

I do encourage you and others to STUDY science. To do this is work. I.e. you must learn what is known, why it is believed (the experiments that caused the current POV). "Hope" (to make a contrubution) is useless without this first. When you suggest ideas that violate the most funadmental laws that have been discovered, such as conservation of energy, you are not being scientific.

I am sorry but a lot is now known. Mankind is not starting from scratch - speculation is fine, but should not conflict seriously with the already well established. To avoid this, you need to know what is established. I.e. study science first, then see if you have any ideas that can be fit into the existing web of knowledge with out destroying it totally.

For example, even your attempt to repair the nonsense you posted about getting energy from "splitting the magnetic monopole" - i.e. your claiming that you really ment only to collide two of them, is also nosense. As energy is conserved, you could at best recover the kinetic energy you accelerated them with.

Also you will note that I have not attacked you, only the nosense you have posted. You would be well advised not to attack me, call me ignorant, unprofessional, etc.* Fortunately for you, I do not respond in kind.
-----
*You also called me a "little sod" but I have no idea what that is. (Are you dyslexic, as I am slightly? Perhaps the "d" was susposed to be a "b"? I.e.your were trying to call me an SOB? Few know it but originally SOB was sort of a complement or at least recognition of their elevated status. It stood for Southside, Out Bound. The experienced and wealthy English travelers going to India in England's empire days had SOB on the luggage so it would be deleivered to a preferred side of the ship sailing to India.)

 

No? You attacked me, by adopting the general ignorance of those around here, who don't actually know what they are saying half the time... i get the same impression of you sometimes...

 

please give an example (of a time when I do not know what I am talking about.)

 

Well

1. You are not a physicist. You are an experimental physicist...

2. You avoided becoming a physicist, you admitted to me, because of the mathematics involved...

therego

3. You argue point blank when concerning people roung here who do have physics dosctrines, such as Paul Dixon...

Getting the picture?

Also, you called me a crackpot, well before i even made any insultive comment towards you... In summery, you like to think you know what you are talking about, but without a library of knowledge in physics, you find yourself sometimes coming across as rater dogmatic and thick.

 

Billy/Reiku: come on guys, don't argue like this. It's a discussion forum, can't we have discussions without falling out?

Don: I read the Sidharth paper. I thought it wasn't bad actually. I was a little surprised that it was dated 1998 and I found myself putting down a lot of ticks and positive remarks. I've just turned to the introduction, and whilst I don't like "negative energies" or "quantum mechanical black holes", I feel a degree of accord with a lot of the other things he says. On page 4 I've got a big cross against "thin ring" and a tick against "in three dimensions" lower down. On page 3 I say CRUCIAL ERROR where he's talking about probability of finding a point particle. On page 6 I've got a question mark against "effective mass" because surely that's all mass ever is. (Maybe I need to read up on that). On page 9 and 10 it feels like he's getting somewhere, and realising that a "particle" is not some local point. But then on page 12 he seems to revert to point particles. And I have a FFS on page 13 where I circled "two incoherent Hilbert space or universes" and "negative energy solutions show up as antiparticles". I like his section title A Classical Viewpoint but then he started talking about faster-than-light ghost particles on page 14, and I thought it started going wrong on page 15. I just didn't understand the leap, and I made the note "crap" next to the cosmic censorship conjecture. I liked the fine structure constant stuff on page 18, and lots of the other material thereafter, but I couldn't follow the maths, and can't spare the time to get to the point where I can. When I read his discussion I made the note NO! next to "fermions are primary" and YES! next to "material density". You won't find me using the phrase "material density" because I think it delivers the wrong concept, but I know what he means and I agree with the sense of what he's saying. And I noted YEP! against "in this picture monopoles disappear". Then on page 29 he seemed to be saying the electron is like a black hole, not is a black hole, and that's OK by me. Maybe I misread it, but overall, an interesting paper, with interesting references. It felt like he was groping in the dark but getting somewhere. I wonder where he's at now? Anyhow, thanks Don.

 

Ha! Billy, as a trivial, and off-topic, correction, this is the wrong way around! Wealthy English passengers to India wanted to stay on the shady side of the ship travelling East, which would have been North-facing, i.e. port. Hence the luggage was marked "Port Out, Starboard Home", or POSH for short. We still use that term in the same way here (UK)

 

superluminal. Your link didn't work. Those dots I think. I shall try to get back tomorrow. Wednesday I'm stuck in Paris for the day for an early flight to Thailand on Thursday, arriving Friday.

 

superluminal. I checked talkorigins on tired light and it just had some vagueries plus a link to a godawful apologist BB site that I always treat with the contempt it deserves. They really should stick to religion and evolution rather than spreading into fields where they are just going to quote text books because they don't have a clue themselves.

 

zephir. Welcome to the site. It is said that this universe could be inside a black hole so presumably the idea that there could be black holes inside larger black holes is not so far-fetched since it may already have happened HERE.

It would also suggest that "normal matter" can exist in a large enough black hole. I think the largest one found so far (without checking) is about 2,400,000,000 solar masses. I would think it would still have to be magnitudes bigger before we found other than electrons, quarks and maybe something as large as occasional protons wandering around in it, out from the central core.

 

You are probably correct. I have no idea now where I read that meaning for SOB, but it does make sense, I think. Port is the left side of the ship and when traveling east (to India) and south of the equator the left side would have more sun shining on it, but the southside would be the shaddy one.

Note: Although India is north of the equator, most of the trip to India is well south of the equator when there is a significant eastward heading of the ship. (To clear the tip southern tip of Africa, gets you to almost 40 degrees south of the equator.) Thus, POSH would put you on the sunny side, but SOB puts you on the shaddy side, at least where it matters (I.e. the trip basically south from England to the equator would have sun on the port side in the moring and on the starboard in the afternoon. A late rising English gentileman might prefer the Starboard when leaving cold and damp England but still well north of the equator. The starboard side would be the side which became the south side of the ship later when ship was going eastward and south of the equator.

SUMMARY: You may be correct, but the geometry ot the trip wrt the sun seems to make "Southside Out bound" (SOB) more desirable than POSH, but who can tell what English men on the way to India will want and do?* :shrug:
----------------
* English men going to India or living there did strange things as Gilbert and Sulivan observed: "Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the noonday sun."

 

Farsight: Some theorists expect that the electron has the mass density needed to achieve gravitational confinement. This implies that electrons have a number of properties in common with a black hole. Sidharth wrote another paper dated 19 Aug 1998 titeled "The Universe Of Fluctuations". First sentence of Abstract reads "We discuss a recent model of a Quantum Mechanical Black Hole (QMBH) which describes the most fundamental known particles the leptons and approximately the quarks in terms of the Kerr-Newman Black Hole with a naked singularity shielded by Zitterbewegung effects". See:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9808031

Maybe I should send an e-mail to Sidharth explaining that a person who has infallible judgement in these matters has said these ideas are silly and that electrons "--share no property in common with other black holes" (#17). I won't do this right away.