Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

But hence, there is no upper limit, so you can say that a blck hole, instead of being it's least size, 10^-80cm, can be in fact 10^80cm, and even further into infinity oo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

''A black hole size has no upper limit, if an entire universe is one itself''

.....

Because if it is, it is expanding, and therego, it has no upper limit of expansion, unless matter makes it contract.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Billy: A large black hole can clearly absorb an electron so that the black hole grows in mass and with some very special conditions, a proton, hydrogen nucleus, can absorb an electron. In order to explain why all electrons have the same mass, we need to define an extremely stable configuration that is quantized and has a minimum mass value so it cannot decay to a lower mass. An electron can absorb a high energy photon but if the new state is not stable, the excess energy is radiated away. Nature gives the stable mass value.
The task for the theorist is to determine what conditions are satisfied at the electron level that provide stability. The works by Sidharth, Greene, Burinskii and Wheeler are some examples of effort to define these conditions. I believe a clear first step is to define the electron mass as a function of fundamental constants, using just the same constants that define the Planck mass.

See my input #4, page 1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly.

 

I did but like here there is no link to published articles. I did find in you post 4:
"When an electron is analyzed as a black hole, a quantized mass value can be specified." that does not surprize me, nor make it a black hole.

While back on the first page I noted BentheMan's post 3, with good link to a journal Reference, which I skimmed (It is more math than I wish to struggle thru in detail)

Can you give some links that support your claims? I will not try to find them from just the names of the people you are citing.

Again I have no doubt that one can postulate stablity and quantized mass for the electron and call it a special type of black hole, but why is this to be believed, if only a postulate? Can I not equally well postulate the electron is a very tiny duck? I.e. what part of currently accepted physics supports these postulates.

 

The key concept equating black holes to universes is that both have a horizon beyond which observation is not possible.

Like Reiku points out, it's not mass or size alone that makes this possible, but a combination of both (\(R_s = \frac{2GM}{c^2}\)).

If a black hole's radius is of exactly Planck length, it's still a "universe", even though its mass is miniscule.

I believe that the Motion Mountain textbook demonstrates that our universe's mass and size combination is roughly on par with that of a black hole.

 

Rubbish Billy... ansolutely terrible arguement.

 

Quite right.

 

No, Billy T is exactly right in his arguement. There is nothing to support the speculation that an electron is a black hole any more than there is support for the speculation that an electron is a tiny duck.

 

Duck Dodgers would be proud.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Billy: For some of us, the black hole electron concept has the potential of answering some basic questions that are waiting to be explained. Each person looks at these questions with a bias that is developed from his experience. Some will say the questions are not even important while others will say that answers are essential before any significant progress can be made. The Following quote may be helpful to explain what I mean.

In his book "Geons,Black Holes & Quantum Foam", J. A. Wheeler writes (page 236) "All of physics, both classical and quantum, faces a conceptual problem in dealing with point particles. We think of electrons and neutrinos and quarks as existing at mathematical points. We think of photons as being created and being absorbed at mathematical points. Yet we cannot really deal with the infinite density of mass or the infinite density of charge implied by point particles and point interactions. These points are annoying pinpricks in the body of physics. We endure them because we have to, while hoping that someday we will identify and understand an inner structure in what today seem to be points".

If you are seriously interested in this, I will explore some possible answers with you. On the other hand, I have no intention to try to sell the concept to persons who are biased toward a different view. There is not sufficient proof presently available to take on that task.

 

Hi DonJStevens:

I do not seen any progress in replacing even a "point electron fundamental particle" with another singularity of infinite density, I.e. "the back hole electron."

Most of us think that the electron is not a point, but has a finite radius. Infact, as I recal from years ago, if you imagine that the electron charge were unifromly distributed on a large spherical surface and calculate the work that must be done to push this mutually repulsive negative charge down to the very tiny "classical radius" of the electron, you get the energy (or work required) that is the "mass energy" of the electron! Other measurements of the elecron radius (when treated as a particle) also give this same, non-zero radius. The very reference you made me aware of (which give a very reasonable mathematical explaination of its spin) also has as its core a spatial operator and finite, non zero size. Why throw all this mutually self consistent POV out for a POV that is inherently a singularity and has all the problems you are objecting to?

So what you are proposing is to replace a finite classical radius electron of finite density and self consistency between that radius and its MC^2 energy and consistency with measurement of electron size with a point singularity and then claiming to have made some progress on removing the infinities associated with singularities! - That just does not make any sense.

 

Hi Billy: If it doesn't make sense to you, I will disagree and still respect your opinion, knowing that what is correct will eventually prevail.

 

I can go along with that and respect yours too as you do seem to have investigated the question some and found some support for your POV. I will note, however, that as always, the reformer must not only achieve all that is good in the currently accepted POV (the consistencies I mentioned and lack of singularity problems) but also offer reason for changing to a new POV.

 

Hi Billy: That is a fair and honest reply along with a challenge; good communication.

 

Again... I say... ridiculous. If the math presents this, then one should keep one eyes outside of that enclosed box you confine yourselves within.

 

Hum,
The `box` is thinking that blackholes are pointlike entities.
Blackholes have size, volume, area and mass.

 

So does an electron, with a size of something like 10^-16.117

 

By searching through google.com, I found that the rest mass of an electron is \(M = 9.109382e-31 kg\), and the "classical" (or Compton) radius is \(Re = 2.8179e-15 m\).

The Schwarzschild radius of that amount of mass is \(Rs = \frac{2GM}{c^2} = 1.35289e-57 m\).

\(Re/Rs = 2.082874e+42\). It appears that \(Re\) is gargantuan in magnitude compared to \(Rs\).

Is there an electron radius other than the Compton radius?

 

Hi Shalayka; If the electron is gravitationally collapsed, it will have a photon capture radius equal to 3 G m/c squared. At this radius that is 1.5 times the Swarzschild radius, the space curvature due to the (self) gravitational field, is just enough to cause an electromagnetic wave (a photon) to orbit the field, like a snake chasing it's tail.

Curved space is required to confine an electromagnetic field so that it can have the known "spin" property with angular momentum. The only known way to obtain the necessary space curvature is with an extreme gravitational field. This implies gravitational collapse and an extremely small size. The resulting size is so small that it appears to only a point. When electron collision experiments are performed, the indicated electron radius is found to be too small to resolve so it is treated as a point with no extension, though many theorists do not accept the zero radius concept.

This has led Brian Greene and some other theorists to conclude that the electron has the properties of a quantum black hole. The radius is then too small to resolve, as observed.