# 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. ### shalaykaCows are special too.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
201
Hi Don, I try to check arXiv every day. I started looking at computer science papers, but have found myself more and more interested in physics as time goes by.

There was also an article recently on the modeling of protoplanetary disks using smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Now that's my style.

3. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Hawking radiation is predicted by some very complex math that few (probably less than 100) in the world can follow. Thus two erroneous but simple "explainations" for it have evolved:

One is, as you suggest, based on the idea that black holes have a temperature (which is in turn based on the enrtopy surface area relations) and the smaler they are the hotter they are. With this more understandable model, they radiate like a black body and loss mass equivalent to the energy radiated away.

The second alternative model, equally erroneous as it too is too simplified, does not radiate any black body readiation. Instead the fact that the gradient of the black hole's gravity falls off as the inverse cube, but gravity itself only as the inverse square, combined with the radial dependance or the location of the event horizon as a function of the black hole mass means that he gradient of a small black hole (at the event horizon) is greater than that of a large black hole (At its event horizon).
Pair production occures everywhere in the vaccuum of space (and briefly violates energy conservation as permited by the delta T x delta E product of the uncertainity principle.) If one of the pairs produced happens to be close to the event horizon, EH, the strong gravitational gradient can pull it (only) inside the EH. Then the other, still outside the EH, will not have any to annhilate with and becomes a stable particle with MC^2 energy added to the world. This energy is balanced to zero net change by a decrease in the net mass of the black hole by exactly M also.

These are two, both erroneous as too smplified, ways to think with little advanced math skills about "Hawking Radiation" Note they contradict each other as to what is added to the observable universe. First states it is EM radiation and the second a new fundamental particle, but both dop offer an easilly understood, if wrong, POV as to why the mass, especially of very small black holes, is decreasing at an ever accelerating rate.

Note also only the first provides any support for the idea that Hawking Radiaon would not extremely rapidly eliminate all electrons if they were black holes and even then, some very add hoc additional areguments to reverse the fact true of all normal back holes that the smaller a black jhole is the hotter it is.

SUMMARY: AGAIN, THERE IS NOTHING NOT ONE THING ABOUT ELECTRONS THAT IS A PROPERTY SHARED WITH ALL OTHER BLACK HOLES. Why postulate that they are black holes? Can I not EQUALLY WELL postulate they are "tiny ducks"?

5. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Hawking radiation is predicted by some very complex math that few (probably less than 100) in the world can follow. Thus two erroneous but simple "explainations" for it have evolved:

One is, as you suggest, based on the idea that black holes have a temperature (which is in turn based on the entropy & surface area relations) and the smaller they are the hotter they are. With this more understandable model, they radiate like a black body and lose mass equivalent to the energy radiated away.

The second alternative model, equally erroneous as it too is too simplified, does not radiate any black body radiation. Instead the fact that the gradient of the black hole's gravity falls off as the inverse cube, but gravity itself only as the inverse square, combined with the radial dependance or the location of the event horizon as a function of the black hole mass means that the gradient of a small black hole (at the event horizon) is greater (stronger absolutely) than that of a large black hole (At its event horizon).
Pair production occures everywhere in the vaccuum of space (and briefly violates energy conservation as permited by the delta T x delta E product of the uncertainity principle.) If one of the pairs produced happens to be/get close to the event horizon, EH, the strong gravitational gradient can pull it (only) inside the EH. Then the other, still outside the EH, will not have any to annhilate with and becomes a stable particle with MC^2 energy added to the world. This energy is balanced to zero net change in the universe by a decrease in the net mass of the black hole by exactly M also.

These are two, both erroneous as too smplified, ways to think with little advanced math skills about "Hawking Radiation." Note they contradict each other as to what is added to the observable universe. The first states it is EM radiation and the second that a new fundamental particle now exists, but both dop offer an easilly understood, if wrong, POV as to why the mass, especially of very small black holes, is decreasing at an ever accelerating rate.

Note also only the first provides ANY support for the idea that Hawking Radiaon would not extremely rapidly eliminate all electrons if they were black holes but even then, ONLT after some very add hoc additional arguments to reverse the fact, true of all normal back holes, that the smaller a black hole is the hotter it is.

SUMMARY: AGAIN, THERE IS NOTHING, NOT ONE THING, ABOUT ELECTRONS THAT IS A PROPERTY SHARED WITH ALL OTHER BLACK HOLES. Why then postulate that they are tiny black holes? Can I not EQUALLY WELL* postulate they are "tiny ducks"?
-------------------
*Which is a kind way to say "also with zero validity"

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2007

7. ### shalaykaCows are special too.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
201
Billy T, you should take up your case with those professional physicists who think otherwise. You might get more value out of that than stating your case here. (I'm not picking sides)

8. ### zephirBannedBanned

Messages:
390
If so, which properties of electron are relevant for black holes as well?

The sharing of thinking w'out sharing of arguments is called the BELIEF. It can increase fitness sometimes, sometimes not - but it's not generally accepted as a relevant part of scientific method.

9. ### DonJStevensRegistered Member

Messages:
51
Hi Shalayka; This is a realm where many professional physicists disagree so I respect the Billy T opinion. I caution the persons that I talk with to keep an open mind on this because the electron gravitational confinement concept is being investigated by (in my opinion) some gifted professionals.

If you have acces to the book "Hidden Unity In Natures Laws" by John C. Taylor, you may find some interesting words about Hawking radiation. He writes (page 171) "Rotating black holes emit Hawking radiation too. For a given mass, the temperature is less, and it is zero when the spin is maximal." He later writes "So black holes are like hot bodies in having a temperature". He provides more information if you are interested.

10. ### shalaykaCows are special too.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
201
I kind of meant that the case should be given to someone with a great deal of training, to measure its merit. If a reply is given by a professional, then it would be awesome if it were pasted here too.

I'm just not convinced at this point in time whether or not an electron is a black hole.

11. ### DonJStevensRegistered Member

Messages:
51
Hi Shalayka; You are not convinced because there is not enough evidence available to us today to make a decision and defend it. Even now I expect the debate is underway and ongoing. I am sure we will hear more from Burinskii and those professionals who disagree. Your judgement is correct.

12. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
There is no need to, but thanks for the indication that it is possibly persuasive. "No need" because it is the "orthodox" POV, already accepted by most professional physicist. (Actually I am just repeating what I have read in journal and other physics publications written by much better qualified physicists than me.)

As always, the burden of proof is on those who want to get an new/ different POV to become orthodox. The "electron is a black hole" people must contend not only with the widely accepted ortodox POV, but with other non-orthodox POVs. Even with in the "electron is a black hole" camp, there are two main divisions that mirror the divisons in the black hole theory groups. I.e. some, perhaps still sufficiently dominate to be considered "orthodox", think black holes are "point singularites" but there is growing support even amoung the well qualified for the POV that "there is no such thing as a singularity" in the universe.

In view of the more than 42 orders of magnitude!!! discrepency between the electon radius Re, and the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole with an electrons mass, Rs which you pointed out in post 239, I think the "electron is a black hole" people would be wise to support this growing minority in their claim that the actual black hole is not a singularity. DonJ seemed not to take this position however.

As I understand him, he pointed to the fact that outside the event horizon there is a gravity field which bends light precisely correctly for a photon to oribit the black hole at constant radius, which I will call Rp. (The "p" is for "photosphere" as this is what this surface is usually called.)

Like the black hole itself, the photosphere has never been directly observed. In fact, unlike the black hole the math shows it does not really even have a chance to exist as an observable even though it is part of our "observable universe" (but not by much). - This is because a photon launched on and tangent to the photosphere surface is in a highly unstable orbit. The slightest irregularity "inward" and it quickly disapears inside the event horizon. The slightest irregularity "outward" and it quickly escapes the grasp of the black hole. I.e. the "photosphere" is dark, without photons in orbit! Not only that, but the photosphere is quite close to the event horizon. I forget how close but Rp/Rs < 2 (later by edit: DonJ said 1.5, so my menory was not too bad) and that is not even a "drop in the ocean" towards over coming the Re/Rs > E42 you pointed out and what I think DonJ was suggesting in his post 240 reply to you, reproduced in part below:

but that may not have been his full argument. See post 240 for it.

---------------------------
Also note that DonJ tends to site books supporting his POV, not journal articles. Anyone can write a book (I have - see site under my name wher you can learn how to read it for free. My motive, as retired physics professor for small part of my carrier, was to recurit science students, not make money or gain fame - It is also by "Billy T," who claims to be a history Ph.D. just helping his astronomer friend "Jack" tell the general public of a impending cosmic disaster, which could be both true and unknown to most astronomers. Jack is too busy refinining his observation to do this and fearful the CIA may kill him to avoid panic. (Everyone north of the equator will soon die and the leaders / CIA do not want this known.) I wanted to scar some of those bright young people now planning carriers in business or law etc. to check out the science in the book. (It does check out.) The book is actually a well disguised science text. They will painlessly learn quite a lot of science and not even realize this as they do it! My target reader is a smart non-science student, who would not normally even consider opening a "science book." (His/her plan, if ever in need of some expertize in science, is just to hire a few Ph.D.s who can give advise. I wanted to change that to: "I need to check this now, as if true, I am soon dead.")

But to return to my point here: - I could never get a referred journal to publish this "cosmic threat" inspite of th fact that all the physics in book is entirely orthodox; but, even if the physic in book were totally wrong, for less than $400 you can get your book published! There is not much of a market for a book that is only "all orthodox" about black holes*, but if it claims "the universe," or "electrons" or "moon pits" were caused by tiny black holes etc you can probably get your$400 back several times over and another impressive item to add to your CV. (I am not asserting that is the case with references DonJ has given as I do not know them, but it could be the case for all I do know.) I.e Only referred journal articles impress me.
----------------------
*Hawking and a few other excepted. Hawking could probably write one about the "significance" of black-hole physics to the stresses in toilet paper and sell > 100,000 copies!

:shrug:

PS that misuse of "black hole" is not nearly as bad as the notice I once put on some university bullentin boards (I knew how it would be taken). It said:
"A black hole is coming for you." as the big headline, then notice "innocently" went on in the fine print to tell that a small black hole could miss Earth by 12 AU as the one in the book is projected to do, and that the gravitational impulse duroing it passing would change Earth's orbit (only slightly as Earth is "just on the edge" of a permanent ice age) to make life imposible. It took a little adjustment of the parameter in a finite-time-step 3-body prograqm to get this to be true only of the Northern hemisphere, but "Jack" and "Billly T" live in Brazil and I did not want them to die also. That difference form all prior ice ages gave a great vehicle for discusion of the physics of climate - using my teaching skills to explain why the wind comes from the west, to give a "gut feeling" for the origins of "Corillois force" instead of just a formulae for calculating it and making it clear why it is not really a force, etc.

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2007
13. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
What a load of shit. All of a sudden you're better than Prof. Brian Greene?

Get of the high-ego horse Billy You're putting youself to shame, accademically-wise. Just remember, physicists all over the world sneek-peak into these discussions, so try annd help not make yourself look so daft.

14. ### zephirBannedBanned

Messages:
390
If you adore Prof. Brian Greene so much, why didn't you try to reproduce at least single argument of His? This is not respectful very much by my opinion.

15. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Because he ignores the mathematical evidence that cannot be refuted. If he does, then i find his comments nothing but pure rubbish... much like how he disrespected me, and never apologized. Eye for an eye. Tooth for a tooth.

16. ### shalaykaCows are special too.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
201
This sounds familiar. I've seen people around here refute the simplicity of Pythagora's theorem as the basis for Einstein's light clock thought experiment. It's elementary school mathematics for crying out loud. Relativity is not magic.

17. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Quite right. Nothing is black and white.

18. ### zephirBannedBanned

Messages:
390
In general, the black hole is general relativity concept. The quantum mechanics doesn't recognize the singularity or event horizon concept, being based on wave solution. Therefore the comparison of electron and black hole is not realm of general relativity, but quantum gravity. Such theory isn't working yet, unfortunatelly.

More advanced theories, like the string theory or AWT can see the common points between electron and black hole behavior, the AWT can demonstrate them even without math. The only problem is, the AWT model of black holes isn't accepted yet and the string theory description is complex and completelly formal. So that the only accepted common property of electron and black hole is the assumption, both they're pin-point objects. Which cannot be true in both cases.

19. ### DonJStevensRegistered Member

Messages:
51
Reply to Zephir; I don't know anyone who has said they adore Brian Greene but I will say he commands respect and anyone who does not know about his work is not prepared to discuss it, so I must ask : Have you read either of his recent books? I hope you will consider this is to be a fair question, no offence is intended.

20. ### shalaykaCows are special too.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
201
That's a very wise attitude!

21. ### zephirBannedBanned

Messages:
390
Of course, but concerning the string theory, Brian Greene is just trying to explain unexplainable. I'm pretty sure, he even doesn't know, what he's talking about at the moment, he's trying to support explanation by some illustrations. Because naive pictures like this one are having nothing to do with physical reality, they just scrambling the subject. Recently the LQG becomed apparently more predicative theory, then the string theory. The true is, the overall level of understanding is not much better at the case of LQG theory, both pictures bellow can serve as demos of high degree of physical naivety. While both string, both LQG theory has their weak and strong concepts, their understanding is still quite formal (although their nonformal concepts can be understood quite easily on the backgrounf of AWT). The strong point of AWT is, it's basically a dual theory, it considers both inner, both outer perspective from it's very beginning.

Neverthelles, Greene substantially liberalized his view concerning the string theory in his recent book dedicated to "fabric of cosmos", as the string theory plays a minor role in it. Both groups of theorists have started to cooperate (with exception of few fundamentalists). By AWT, the string theory is dual to LQG theory, so all discussions about string theory can be related to the quantum gravity as well. But we shouldn't forget, the theory, which appears a much more competent from formal point of view was developed already. It's a Heim's theory.

Last edited: Dec 6, 2007
22. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
AWT is overthrown. From about 10^-5th of the radii of a proton, which i calculate nearly the size of an electron, ''bubbles'' appear in the vacuum. These bubbles come from nowhere, but they are so entangled at that level, they cannot be waves. Instead, we would need to say that they decohered, through wave interference.

This all happened, about 32 years after spacetime appeared in a smallest time of (10^-44)(10) and a space of (10^-33)(10), which is the smallest box known to standard knowledge. There has been solurions talking about sub0subatoms, but it;s not takes highly serious.

This is the Quantum Aether, and somehow it is related to dark energy, which is strange, because dark energy is closely related to the Cosmological Constant, as it hardly changes throughout space - very homogenous and isotropic.

I'm going to make a really wild speculation here. Somehow, it almost seems as though the Aether is the Dirac Sea, is the CC and even the backgroung temperatures? .... Me and my wild thoughts...

23. ### zephirBannedBanned

Messages:
390
A sublte problem of huge theories.

The LQG is dual to string theory by the same way, like the relativity is dual to quantum mechanics, just in more advanced level. I'll try explain you, why both these theories are supersymmetric by the most easy and transparent way possible.

The main problem of quantum mechanics (which was surprisingly ignored by most of theorists) is, the fundamental Schrodinger equation of quantum mechanics is physically non-realistic. It predicts, the quantum wave of completelly free particle will dissolve in vacuum gradually. Which doesn't occcurs at the common distance scale (at the cosmological scales we can observe radiative dissolving of matter, though). This apparent paradox can be solved by introducing of potential box of gravitational field, the problem is, here's no way, how to derive the gravity just by using of quantum mechanics without using of infinite recursion. Briefly speaking, the gravity is relativity concept, not this one of quantum mechanics.

Wjhile the (general) relativity is facing exactly the opposite problem. It can consider the particles as a gravitational wave packets (the geometrodynamic theory of J.A.Wheeler takes account into it and it calls them geons). But the geon model has no mechanism, how to prohibit the gravitational collapse into singularity. By such way, nether relativity theory, nor quantum mechanics theory in their current state of development can be considered as an exact models of reality. The AWT explains, every particular theory can serve as a TOE theory at the moment, it will be made implicit by infinitely nested recursion. Unfortunatelly, the formalism of these theories is quite complex with compare to Newtonian mechanics, so that only the first hesitant attemps, how to make these theories implicit has appeared (the double relativity as an example).

The AWT solves the problem of both theories by elegant and simple way. It considers the universe as a dense collapsing blob of Aether nested foam, which is expanding from internal observer perspective. By AWT way, the Universe expands by the (nearly) the same speed, as the particle wave packets inside it, and it collapses by the (nearly) same speed, like the particle geons inside it. By such way, the particles of matter inside of particular Universe generation remains (approximatelly) of the same relative size during whole Universe life-time. Note that by such model, both the gravitational field of particles, both the surface energy of gravity field (which follows from mass-energy equivalence) is the direct consequence of the Universe collapse/expansion.

The AWT explains furthermore, the Universe expansion/collapse cannot be ethernal and it's alternated by phase transforms, which effectivelly switch their signs in the process of mutual exchange of space and time dimensions. This metarotation is aupposed to be the source of of the last missing point, the source of Universe inertia. Such insight makes the (nearly) whole the Universe existence virtual, but the complete understanding of Universe inertia appears as a quite deep problem.

We are facing the semantical causality problems here: if we'll insist on strictly logical explanation of the Universe nature, we should consider, only inertial, i.e. nonpenetrating fermion particles can fulfill the Boolean logic operators. Therefore the requirement of logic introduces an inertial bias into our thinking, the Universe can never be understood in terms of causual predicate logic completelly, the formal math the less. Because the Universe has no rules, in fact - if we can see some rules in it, we are just sampling the causual gradients from quantum chaos.

Last edited: Dec 7, 2007