Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

Try this one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The question is, whether inside of 1000 kg black hole can exist matter of 5000 kg mass, for example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I looked at wiki for the Zitterbewegung effects, but they too have not heard of it. I was hoping that it might give some clue as to why all electrons have the same mass.

If they were anything like a black hole, then their mass would need to rapidly augment or they would evaporate away. Can you be a little bit more specific as to in what aspect electrons resemble black holes?

Calling an electron "a special black hole" does not make it one any more than calling it "a special type of duck" would make it a duck.

I do not think there is any black hole of constant mass. There are zillions of electrons with not only constant mass, but all have exactly the same mass. How do they resemble black holes? (or ducks, if that is easier for you to defend.)

PS your link appears to be brief "word soup" claiming to explain about everything. I did not register to read more as the web site does not look like the one I have visited many times before. - One for un refereed papers, but one where good papers do sometimes appear (especially if they are reprints of talks which were accepted at an APS meeting.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why is this a question? How does this even remotely make any sense? The mass of a black hole (or anything for that matter) is the amount of mass in it! Why would anyone wonder if 2kg of mass exists in a 1kg box?

What sort of insane babbling is this? Isn't there a better place to dribble out your leaking gray matter? Pseudoscience maybe? Or the local pub?

Cripes.

 

This is all complete nonsense and without a shred of science behind it. Why would anyone with even a passing knowledge of what a black hole is, ever think that normal matter could "wander around" inside the event horizon (i.e. not merge with the singularity)?

Maybe it's because you all decided that textbooks were for losers and never read one. Good for you. I'm sure all of your speculations without reference to what anyone else has already shown to be wrong will get you lots of babes. Go for it.

 

The fact, you don't understand the problem doesn't mean, it's BS. We are discussing the article here:

Black holes may harbour their own universes

Now the immediate question can sound: if the mass of BH is 10 E+30 kg, can it harbour the matter of daughter Universe of the total mass in range 10 E+90 kg?

 

Billy:If you looked for zitterbewegung in Wikipedia and didn't find it, you have a problem with your search. I suggest that you try again. Zitterbewegung is the theoretical helical or circular motion of elementary particles, in particular electrons.

 

Fine. The answer is no. It absolutely cannot.

 

Then the article Black holes may harbour their own universes is not quite correct, because inside of black hole, which is sitting inside of our Universe generation some other Universe of the same size cannot exist. Simply because it wouldn't fit into this BH.

It means, if our Universe is formed by interior of some black hole, such hole should be a much larger and massive, then the whole matter inside of our Universe generation.

I've no problem with such stance, but my personall feeling is, the Nature has some simple tricks prepared for us in this point. By universality principle, no part of Universe differs very much from the other parts, simply because the mankind, solar system, our gallaxy or the whole observable Universe generation isn't exceptional by any way. So, if we accept the possibility, the Universe is formed by black hole interior and here are many black holes in it, most of these black holes would contain quite similar generations of Universe, like this one of our own.

Furthemore, here's a recursivity problem. If we consider, most of these daugther Universes will contain another black holes, then the number of matter contained in them will increase by exponential way. Without such trick, the daughter Universes disputed in the article could never contain any other black holes: simply because the very small black holes aren't very stable. Are we living in very special Universe generation, I mean the very last one, which still allows the formation of black holes, but no daugther Universe inside them? I don't think so.

The last argument is quite simple: the observable matter is forming just a quite subtle portion of the total black hole matter - most of its interior is simply void and transparent, being formed by vacuum. Therefore the total mass of black hole forming our Universe should be at least 10 E +50 times higher, then the total mass of the observable matter inside it. It's evident, the simple mass/energy conservation laws will not work very well, here.

As you can see, it's quite easy to say, "..well, the LQG predicts the daughter Universe formation inside of black holes, blah, blah.." - but the consequences of such claim are rather strange.

 

Thanks. My first search included "effects" but just "zitterbewegung" does work and yields an interesting mathematical explanation for the nature of the electron spin, which I had not seen before.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in that math to indicate why the mass of the electon is a constant in contrast to all black holes which either are gaining mass or in the process of rapidly evaporating, if their mass were as small as the electron's mass (or even a million times larger). Likewise there is nothing to indicate why all electrons (if they were some sort of black hole as you are suggesting) have the same constant mass.

Thus, I still see no rational reason to consider the electron a black hole. Electrons share no property in common with black holes. Thus, one could with equal validity (which is zero) claim electrons are really tiny ducks.

If you can offer some reason why the black hole electron has (unlike all other black holes) constant mass OR why this constant mass is the same for all electron black holes, I would like to read your reasons. These properties (constant and all the same mass) the electron does shair with all other fundamental particles, - that is why I think the electron is a fundamental particle and not a black hole.

I do agee that any mass, reguardless of how tiny, could briefly exist as a black hole. I.e. only the critical density is required, but a black hole of the electron's mass would evaporate (Hawkins radiation) extremely rapidly - I will not calcuate how long it could live, but am sure it is a nanosecond or less. Electrons do not disappear in nanoseconds - that is part of the reason why I say it is nonsense to claim that an electron is a black hole.

 

Hawking radiation results from elevated temperature. A unit charge K-N black hole with upper limit angular momentum does not have elevated temperature and so will not radiate. Roger Penrose writes about this in his book "The Road To Reality". He notes that for the Reissner-Nordstrom metric (solution of Einstein-Maxwell equations) the condition for the black hole to be extremal with zero temperature is m = e rather than m squared = a squared plus e squared. I don't have the page number in my notes but this is not hard to find if you want to look at his book. It is correct to say that the electron cannot be seriously considered to be a gravitationally confined entity unless the Hawking radiation question is resolved. You will want to resolve this in your own mind before going further.

 

Quite right.

 

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

 

I will try to look at that. It may explain why "black hole electrons" are stable (do not very quickly evaporate) but there still seem no explaination as to why they then can not grow more massive, as all black holes which do not evaporate do.

Also why should all have the same mass? - That is sort of the same question as normally the rate at which a black hole increases its mass is related to the density of matter near it. Surely some electrons, for example, inside a piece of lead, are surrounded by much more matter than for example the elctrons in a beam passing thru a good vaccuum. Why are not the "black hole electrons" in lead growing more massive more rapidly than those passing thru a vaccuum?

 

If black holes of that magnitude do not expand, (as normally), is most probably because the rules of subatomic behaviour cannot be seen in the same light as a cosmological black hole.

 

That is an "after the fact" or "ad hock" rationalization. Same sort of thing that can support the electron being a very tiny duck! If you want to be taken seriously, as a student of physics or science, then you need to present logical arguments based on known facts, not just wishfull speculation with ad hoc rationalizations.

 

Fine.

On subatomic scales, they act not according alone to cause and effect alone.

On macroscopic scales, cause and effect must be preserved.

For a so-called physicist, i thought you would have known this.

 

blank

 

Hum,
i suspect an electron can interchange between being a electron, black hole or empty space.
Although such a blackhole that is 10^-80 cm big sounds a bit nonsensical...

 

It's not non-sensical, if the least amount of compactification is within the order of the Planck scale of ''1.616 x 10^-33'' - which is allowed in physics as being the smallest black hole possible.