Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Reiku, Sep 18, 2007.
Cool cool. Thanks for the info.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Unfortunately there are a few problems with this.
1) Black holes do not expand, the universe does.
2) We see matter extending to the hubble horizon of our universe (presumably the analog of our "event horizon") while black holes are theorized to have a singularity who's clutches from which no matter can escape.
3) All matter and energy entering a BH is moving at nearly light speed, i.e. very energetically (probably interacting and emitting way up in the gamma ray portion of the spectrum), while we see a very long wavelength (cold) cosmic microwave background.
So, if we're going to stick with what theory tells us black holes are like (unless you've been in one lately?) then no, our universe is nothing like a black hole.
You should write to the author of the Motion Mountain textbook to inform them of their error.
Like you said, I've never been in a black hole. What would I know about General Relativity.
Never read it. What is it? Are they peer recognized physicists? Or crackpots?
If they're for real, than I'd say someone here is misinterpreting their statements or taking liberties with them.
If we take what a highschool student can know about the current understanding of what a BH is and how we see our universe, then there really are no significant similarities. Right? Certainly not enough to claim that our universe "is a black hole".
How does this textbook relate to black hole universes and the article describing the possibility of a 'Nariai universe' existing in a black hole? And just to point out, this 'Nariai universe' would look nothing like ours...
The topic name is scrambling the concepts. If the electron is so tiny black hole, why it doesn't evaporate by mechanism of Hawking radiation imediatelly?
If spacetime is expanding in a mostly isotropic manner, ex: raisin in rising bread analogy, does this not affect mass like it does the "vacuum" of space?
Wouldn't I and every black hole be expanding just like the rest of the universe?
I'm going to start another thread in this interesting trend: "Is the city of New York a Black Hole?" or "Is the Human Anus a Black Hole" or...
Please don't ignore me again: ASK THE AUTHOR. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. (SERIOUSLY)
Theoretically yes! Currently though, gravitational self-attraction on the scale of even galaxy clusters is more than enough to overcome the accelerating expansion. However, in the verrryyy distant future, it is theorized that the expansion could even end up ripping atoms and fundamental particles apart.
Ignore you? Huh? I'm not contacting any authors. YOU said that it went against something in this book, to which I asked "what exactly?"
I'm not ignoring you.
Come on. I'm not from New York.
I realize your point. Thanks for paying attention.
Is The Universe / Electron a Black Hole?
These are two popular topics on the forums right now.
So... Is an electron a universe? Hehe.
Is a universe an electron? Strange.
I'm kidding, but it is pretty fun to think of.
Moderator note: The two separate threads "Is the electron a black hole" and "Is the universe a black hole" have been merged, due to their similar and related content.
Reply to Zephir, (Post #247)
The electron does not lose mass by Hawking radiation because it does not have elevated temperature. See Post #12, page 1. Also, see Post #211, page 11.
The common black hole isn't required to have "elevated temperature" to lose its mass by Hawking radiation mechanism at all. This is completelly steady state process, driven by ZPE energy of vacuum. By another words, here's no possibility (...by current BH theories, which I've nothing to say against...) to cool the black hole to the state, in which it will not radiate furthemore - it seems, the Hawking radiation is undeniable process.
On the other hand, the electron can become pretty hot, when it'll move by high speed - neverthelles, it won't loss its mass under these circumstances anyway. But here are another conceptuall differences: for example, the electron isn't able/willing to swallow matter, whenever possible with compare to common black hole.
Well well, talk about coincidence.
New on arXiv today:
Alexander Burinskii, Kerr Geometry as Space-Time Structure of the Dirac Electron
Reply to Zephir; I respect your opinion that Hawking radiation is continuous without regard to temperature, but I will disagree. The electron is expected to be a minimum mass black hole with unit charge and 1/2 unit angular momentum. With this angular momentum, it has zero temperature and does not radiate its mass energy away. A number of theorists share this view (Brian Greene, B. G. Sidharth, and Alexander Burinskii share this view along with others who may not be as well known). The gravitational time dilation factor at the radius 3Gm/c squared is not zero seconds per second. The applicable factor for the black hole electron can be determined. This factor plays a role in quantizing the electron mass value.
Shalayka; How interesting it is that you noticed the Burinskii paper in such a timely manner. He has written a number of other papers relating to the quantum black hole electron that may be helpful.
Separate names with a comma.