# Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Reiku, Sep 18, 2007.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
When you hypothetically enter a black hole, the gravitational distortions are so powerful, they twist time and space together so violantly, space and time switch roles. For an observer, this would potentially be dreadful, as it would i assume rip your particles into a stream. However, you can pass into an inner horizon (if you are lucky enough to escape the singularity), and in the inner horizon, space and time switch yet again, back to normal. If our universe is a black hole, and we are inside the black hole, then our universe would be located inside the inner horizon...
Now, let us consider the facts which the scientists hold to this theory. First, let us assume the following > M is for mass, R is for radius, D is for density and V is for volume.
The radius of a balck hole is found to be directly proportional to its mass.
(R- M)
The density of a black hole is given by its mass divided by its volume,
(D=M/V)
... and since the volume is proportional to the radius of the black hole to the power of three,
(V- R^3)
... then the density of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass raised by the second power.
(D- M^2)
But what does all of this mean? Well, it means that if our universe is a black hole, the mass content would not appear to be very dense... 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! Thus our universe does not seem very dense at all, and according to the theorists, could very well be a black hole. For the record, i'm not convinced.
There is the superfluous paradox of the unievrsal acceleration to consider, and as far as i can tell, a black hole should not give off these characteristics, unless of course it is expanding very fast, but for that to happen i presume, it would need to be absorbing energy from outside... a great deal of it for that matter.

Reiku :m:

3. ### EnmosRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
Just a simple viewpoint, how can the universe as a black hole consume energy/matter from the outside ? Wouldn't the outside also be universe ?

5. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Good question.
Here is the paradox. Relativity explains that there is no outside to the universe... There is simply nothing. Thus, all concepts of what ''universe'' means must break down inside a blach hole, and that relativity would be proven to be falsified, and that what we consider as the outside is really the universe which we are existing in as a subreality... because that is all the interiors of black holes are... gravitational wells, or as i like to call them, subspacetime realities.

Reiku :m:

7. ### EnmosRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
So you are saying that the 'universe' is actually a local subspace phenomenon of the 'real' universe ? That begs the question of what that 'real' universe is, is it also a 'subspace phenomenon' in a super universe ? If so, is that super universe also a subspace phenomenon ? You get the picture.. lol
What I am saying is that this theory solves nothing

8. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Your right, it doesn't... That is why is said i did not believe in the theory, but to remain scientific, i have to admit it is possible, but there is a very slim chance. But what does make sense, is that the universe is accelerating, and this is thought to be caused by exotic matter, and balck holes are indeed threaded with this exotic substence... it begs the question...

9. ### one_ravenGod is a Chinese WhisperValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,406
I really don't think it does.

10. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Is the electron a black hole?

Brian Greene postulated that the tiny electron could possibly be a micro black hole, but it

was briefly hypothesized by Sir Arthur Eddington. If it where a black hole with

corresponding values for the mass of the electron and charge, then it would share many

intrinsic properties to that of magnetic moments and even Compton wavelength.

In a rotating charged particle, causes a dipole effect, causing the two poles to have

magnetic charge, much like the earth has a south magnetic pole and a northern magnetic pole.

But the electron must exhibit both spins simultaneously before a strong magnetic field pulls

it out of its superpositioning. We use the SchrÃ¶dinger equation with a 'correction term'

which takes into account the interaction of the electron's intrinsic magnetic moment with

the magnetic field giving the correct energy. This is what we mean by a magnetic moment. But

it is a non-relativistic concept, and accordingly, spin leads the electron into all sorts of

disasters... This incongruity is still to be resolved.

The Compton Wavelength is given by the following equation:

Lambda=\frac{h}{mc}=2\pi\frac{\hbar}{mc}

'c' is the speed of light,
'h' is the Planck constant,
m' is the particle's mass.

When one takes into consideration quantum and relativistic properties, then one can view the

Compton wavelength as an expense of knowledge on measuring the position of a particle - this

is of course related to the uncertainty principle. We can measure the position of a

particle, by hitting light of the particle. However, to measure with accuracy, we need to

use a photon with very short wavelength... and here is the ineteresting part. One may use a

photon that exceeds Mc^2 and it may create a new particle when it hits off the object!

Since we have briefly covered magnetic moments and the Compton wavelength, let us continue

with the micro black hole hypothesis.
Whilst the idea seems very ineteresting, many problems arise from percieving the electron as

a black hole. First, there is the question to why the electrons do not radiate away energy

due to Hawking Radiation... This is a property of all black holes, saying that over time,

they will loose mass by radiating it. Electrons don't seem to exhibit this property.

Reiku :m:

11. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Cont.

In spacetime, black holes very close to each other will eventually collide, and when they

do, they will shudder space and time, sending out massive gravitational waves... And they

will merge into one black hole... So inside an atom, two electrons, assuming they are black

holes, would also do the same, but they don't. And even an antiparticle-particle collison

would produce a neutral balck hole, but they don't, and instead give off two gamma ray

energies.

It seems very unlikely that electrons are black holes. Until we can find a more acceptable

theory, it will be seen as nothing but a curious hypothesis.

I wonder... :shrug

Reiku :m:

12. ### EnmosRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
Black holes in this universe are perhaps, but if the universe itself is a black hole how is it that there are black holes in this black hole. And are they the same kind of black holes ? Black holes are still hypothetical bodies, there is really nothing much you can say about their structure with any certainty.

Messages:
8,967
14. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Hi

Well, let us assume we could create a universe in the lab. I'll tell you a way we could do it. First, we need to discover those tiny magnetic monopoles. They contain a massive amount of false energy. If we could make two collide, they would release an anormous amount of energy (on its scale), and it will pressurize the vacuum so much, that every square cube of value 1.616 x 10^-33, and it will become very dense indeed.
The would cause a rip in spacetime, and connect a baby universe into another universe. What is interesting here, is that if we looked at this universe, it would look exactly like a black hole...
This wasn't to spook you, as i don't expect it will with anyone, but rather it is an indiction that a black hole-universe-like objects can exist onto spacetime. I believe it is string theory that this would only work in though.

If our universe is a black hole, we need to answer two major questions:
1. What about the background temperatures?
To answer the first, we need to fully understand what background microwaves really are... They are not only isotropic in spacetime, but they are also in everything around us. You can even measure a background radiation in a tomato!
Then if this is true, it isn't really telling us much about the big bang, because then we need to ask wy they are so linear. The big bang should have left differential temperatures, but it did not. Thus we needed to bring in inflation, but even this is under dispute, because it just doesn't add up on the long-run, no matter how well it has predicted things, because acceleration, the 2nd point conflicts with it. It is a total oxymoron.

According to the classical veiw of inflation, the universe should have remained expanding at a steady rate until the force of gravity was too strong on the fabric of spacetime, and a big crunch as inevitable.:bugeye:

Now we think the universe is actually ''open'', and that it will expand into eternity... But this doesn't quite help us, because if this aggressive acceleration continues, then we will inevitably either suffer not being able to move out of our galaxy, or perhaps not being able to avoid cosmic collision, the big rip will still happen, when force signals no longer communicate at long distences, and every bit of matter is ripped apart.

If our universe is open, this also describes a type of black hole, just as much as saying a contracting one would. An open universe would mean a black hole gathering mass from an outside source, which is [probable]. Or if it was collapsing, this would be a black hole rapidly loosing energy due to Hawking Radiation.

Reiku :m:

15. ### DonJStevensRegistered Member

Messages:
51
Micro black hole electron

When a black hole has maximal spin, theory predicts it will not have elevated temperature. Without elevated temperature, it will not lose mass by Hawking radiation. Same charge electrons will not merge because they repel with increasing force as they approach closer to each other. When an electron and a positron merge, the opposite sign angular momentum values are added. The resulting sum is zero. Without angular momentum, the particles have high temperature and will annihilate, losing all of their mass energy by Hawking radiation; radiating two or more photons.

When an electron is analyzed as a black hole, a quantized mass value can be specified. The mass value is, m = (h/4pi c) times (c/3pi hG) exponent 1/4. This is strong evidence supporting the concept that electrons and black holes are closely related.

16. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I'm sorry... But i am kinda confused and astonished simultaneously!
Your theory seems to add up. It would make sense that two electrons would merge due to increasing force made by by becoming closer to each other... ... ...

Where did you get this idea from?

Have i missed a fundamental model?

I know for sure that there is a force working on the heart of all matter. It is electromagnetic in nature, being the zero-point field, it gives new meaning to the antiquated Dirac Sea.

The force or should i say, ''the reason why all matter has perminance,'' is because the zero-point field drags against the atoms/neutrons center of mass. I am not sure how to look at this from a quarks point of veiw.

If this is true, then the zero-point field acts analogous to a Higgs Field. I will not simply beleive in a theory with superfluous concepts. Some of them involve consciousnesss..
1. That consciousesness is not an oxymoron/paradox. It also cannot be unexplainable. It needs to be understood by quantum theory...

2. That the large cosmological constant is 120 powers of magnutude less than what it should be, as i beleive that the zero-point energy field is a single force that determines the predicted renormalization. In other words, the ZPF cancels out the Cosmological Constant.

I am not sure what comes out of this. If our being was part of the function that created a ZPF energy, then we where the odd-energy. We need to be involved to renormalize reality... Which math to use is up for debate.
It is very difficult to devise a mathematical notation for consciousness. Right now, we have to imagine three concepts:

1. We are aware through electromagnetic interactions of the ZPF.

2. That my thoughts are determined through statistical dependancies of the ZPF.

3. That the Zero-Point Field is intimately-related to the Dirac Sea.

Electricity, [if] i is existant to reality, then it must be considered that weak and strong forces are tied with the weak force and electroweak and electrostrong are in related forces of electromaginetism.

Gravity is also one side of all of this.

Out of Quantum Gravity does consciousness makes appearance.

Reiku

17. ### DonJStevensRegistered Member

Messages:
51
A fundamental model

You have not missed a fundamental model. The idea comes from the writings of John Wheeler, Brian Greene, Malcolm MacGregor and the Russian theorist Alexander Burinskii. Wheeler evaluated the possibility that self-gravitational attraction could confine electromagnetic wave energy with his study of geons. He has written "What else can a particle (electron) be but a fossil from the most violent event of all, gravitational collapse?" This is his way of saying the electron is a black hole.

Greene is the first theorist that I am aware of (with impeccable reputation) who has said clearly, electrons are black holes. He said "--we see that black holes and elementary particles, like water and ice, are two sides of the same coin".

MacGregor has written, electron negative charge elements repel one another so that a force is required to hold the electron together. No combination of electric and magnetic forces has been proposed yhat can produce a stable state. He said that gravitational forces could solve the stability problem if the electron is extremely small and dense.

Burinskii has written the paper "The Dirac-Kerr electron". He writes "-- angular momentum J = h bar/2 for parameters of electron is so high that the black hole horizons disappear and the source of the Kerr spinning particle represents a naked singular ring". With this statement, Burinskii confronts the criticism that a black hole electron would violate the "cosmic censorship hypothesis. Roger Penrose has said this hypothesis is neither proved or refuted.

I found that when the electron is analyzed as a black hole, a quantized value for the electron Compton wavelength and electron mass can be specified.

18. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
''He said that gravitational forces could solve the stability problem if the electron is extremely small and dense.''

This is a concept i have thought of concerning. I find another reason why electron mass and charge have a great importance into our understanding of reality.

We attribute quarks to having a mass. This can be made plausible with a Higgs Field and allow a superheavy Boson called the Higgs. However, not every scientist believes it is real. I don't believe it exists, though instead mass is given as a back-reaction to spacetime. The interesting part is that it is caused as a field back-reaction from the Dirac Sea. Electrons will be effected, and cause repulsive forces.

All electrons in this case will all push against each other like tiny little magnets. This i called electrostatic repulsion.

This sparks matter to have a presence of being. Entire objects will not pass through each other but rather move away from each other. It for me is the major reason that everything has perminance. No room for a Higgs Boson.

We will not find any evidence of it... Does anyone truely believe matter should just be material...? Because some physicists beleive that matter does not need any mechanism but rather its electromagnetic repulsive forces. Solid and diffused matter just turned out to be compact space and time.

Reiku

19. ### DonJStevensRegistered Member

Messages:
51
Your statement "--matter turned out to be compact space and time" is closely related to the John Wheeler concept that particles (electrons) can be accounted for by an inner spacetime structure. Wheeler wrote "We think of photons 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. We endure them because we have to, while hoping that some day we will identify and understand an inner structure in what today seem to be points."

In his book "Three Roads To Qantum Gravity" Lee Smolin points out that physicists currently explain particles in terms of fields but the theory of fields is full of infinite quantities. He writes "There are two ways to solve ths problem--. One way is to deny that space is continuous, which then makes it impossible to get arbitrarily close to a particle. -- What one can do is replace the particles by strings. This may work because from a distance one cannot really tell if something is a point or a little loop". The little loop is consistant with the Burinskii ring singularity.

20. ### NasorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,221
Okay, out of curiosity I actually ran the numbers for the surface gravity of an electron using both the Compton and relativistic de Broglie equations for the electron's diameter, and I always get numbers in the neighborhood of 10^-16 m/sec.

21. ### DonJStevensRegistered Member

Messages:
51
As a gravitational singularity is approached, the rules for gravitational acceleration are not well defined. It is expected that gravitational space curvature at the electron radius 3Gm/c squared is just enough so that the space curvature can cause an electromagnetic wave to move in a closed loop circular path.

The photon with just enough energy to materialize one electron and one positron must be gravitationally blue shifted to the wavelength 2pi times (Planck length) times (3/2) exponent 1/2 in order to have the energy density to materialize a pair of mass particles (electrons). I have labeled this photon wavelength L1 in some writings. The ratio (L1)/(electron Compton wavelength/2) is equal the required gravitational time dilation factor applicable at the radius 3Gm/c squared. The L1 wavelength is (3pi hG/c cubed) exponent 1/2. The time dilation factor is a fixed value that is determined by the gravitational potential at the 3Gm/c squared radius.

22. ### DonJStevensRegistered Member

Messages:
51
As a gravitational singularity is approached, the rules for gravitational acceleration are not well defined. It is expected that gravitational space curvature at the electron radius 3Gm/c squared is just enough so that the space curvature can cause an electromagnetic wave to move in a closed loop circular path.

The photon with just enough energy to materialize one electron and one positron must be gravitationally blue shifted to the wavelength 2pi times (Planck length) times (3/2) exponent 1/2 in order to have the energy density to materialize a pair of mass particles (electrons). I have labeled this photon wavelength L1 in some writings. The ratio (L1)/(electron Compton wavelength/2) is equal the required gravitational time dilation factor applicable at the radius 3Gm/c squared. The L1 wavelength is (3pi hG/c cubed) exponent 1/2. The time dilation factor is a fixed value that is determined by the gravitational potential at the 3Gm/c squared radius.

23. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I like all the ideas.

All i can assume for these particles is that they are on some preplanned course, guided by a quantum potential. I know it seems like a lot, but it answers why particles behave the way they do. It was originally and idea to solve why the electron didn't simply readiate away energy and accelerate into the nuclei of atoms. Of course, Heisenbergs Principle of Uncertainty also saves the little bugger from existinction.
I think particles are so unsure, that we will never develop a unified theory if everything. The only saving grace for a unified theory i think, is that if reality is determined, then it is determinable, but because reality is built up of uncertainty, how can it all ever be knowable for sure? The uncertainty principle destroys every attempt to be absolutely sure on details. This is why i think quantum theory is a statistical theory at best.
This would just mean that reality is pure uncertainty, just as the Copenhagen Interpretation predicts. God is very hard to apply to physics with great promise. It is a very hard notion to apply consistantly with the nature of matter and energy, but it certainly adds to the mystery.
We would need to ask why and how he/she can operate in a physical realm yet somehow escape the principles that work as invariants in the system. He/She is able to defy the uncertainty of matter, and even escape the boundary of time. He/She can also be seen as being omnipresent, and omniscient.
And if God is to have infinite knowledge, this gives reality a major paradox. Why would the wave function exist? If God existed, and knew everything, wouldn't the wave function be collapsed by Him/Her? Wouldn't the wave function be non-existant? Why should everything be so undefined if a God designed it?
Unless of course we see the wave function of parallel universe theory can we see that the wave function isn't a product of possibility, but probability. Everette described reality as a constant merging and splitting, and the wave function described this perfectly. If the wave are not possibilities, then we can say that God had them there for markers of actual realities an effect of superpositioning we have not yet explained.

Enough of God, i think of matter as being the creases of spacetime, like a fabric has creases. Big bang says that matter came out of the vacuum a a time of 5.3 x 10^-44 and a space of 1.616 x 10^-33, as quantum foam, bubbles of spacetime distortions. Nothing but curvature at extreem temperatures at tiny infinitesimal points. There is the question of how inflation didn't simly iron out these creases, but it did seem to have an affect on spacetime curvature.

Einstein hypothesized that spacetime was highly curved, and curvature was distortions which was gravity which was matter which was acceleration. It states that the universe is senselessly warped, curved to great distances. But recent results from the Wilkinson Telescope showed that the universe was actually very flat. Curvature still exists, but not as pervasive as some of Einsteins theories in General Relativity seem to suggest. It exists round large bodies, and perdicts frame-dragging among other phenomena.

Matter is just spacetime. Super focused momentary fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. And if consciousness is part of this process, matter as being momentary fluctuations, then consciousness is just a momentary flash of being and self. It is pretty extraordinary.

Reiku :m: