Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

This is good work. I was thinking hypothetically earlier when i proposed the example, and didn't think anyone would work out the sums.


But in effect, you have proved your own point have you not? Even smaller 0.0133meters for a photon capture is actually all that is needed, and reasonably, you can go even smaller.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reiku: Yes it is clear that a much smaller mass can collapse and it will then have a much smaller photon capture radius. A strong argument can be made however that smaller photon capture radius values finally reach a limit so that a small size limit can be defined.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes... there must be an expectation limit to the capture radius of the photon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When we think in terms of limits we must think of a photon (upper) energy limit. This short wavelength photon limit would be expected to relate to the Planck length. A limit wavelength photon can be defined that has the special (critical) energy density so that its energy can be specified either by the Planck constant and light velocity or the gravitational constant and light velocity. Energy is hc/ wavelength and also energy is (c) exponent 4 times wavelength divided by (3 pi G). With these expressions equal, the wavelength is required to be (3 pi h G/c cubed) exponent 1/2. This wavelength is 2 pi (3/2) exponent 1/2, times Planck length. I have labeled this wavelength L1.

When we try to determine what is so unique and special about the photon wavelength with just enough energy to materialize one electron and one positron, we find that it has a specific relaionship to the limit wavelength noted above.

 

I am doing it as I relpy and see your point already to some extent:

My simple 3 (and also a 2) turn helix do relax into a "figure 8" moebius strip, which does resemble the simple moebius strip, if that is forced to be nearly plainer and self crossing. Alternatively those "figure 8s" can be opened up or forced into a more twisted "circular" loop. (The 2 twist one of course has two distinct sides - is not a moebius strip.) Thus my initially "knot" was not much different from your most simple knot.

Now it is your turn to experiment with paper strips:

Take a long very narrow paper strip and bring the two ends near each other (without any twist yet*) and make the first mutual "in and out" crossing as if you were beginning to tie your shoe.
Now pull the ends as far apart as you can (without tearing your strip) so there is a relatively small fixed (not possible to open or relax to any other form) "first shoe lace" knot about midway between the two ends.

You can now repeat this process again. (The k = 2 case where "k" is the index specifying the number of "first shoe-lace" knots made prior to rejoining the ends.) I.e. with k =2 you created by the above an as yet unjoined, zero net twisted* second and completely separated "first shoe-lace knot."

Now again pull the ends as far apart as you safely can to produce two well separated (can not become one or in any way "relax") "first shoe-lace" knots.

If you paper strip was longer than mine, you could make the k = 3 case etc.

Now you can twist one end 180n degrees wrt the other before rejoining the ends. If n is an odd integer than you have formed a moebius (one sided surface) k knots. Depending on the value of n and k you have a "doubably infinite" set of possible unique knots. Again I ask: why only one electron?

Thus, I continue to think your theory way over perdicts the number of real particles that actually exist. Very much like the man whose methodology correctly predicted all 13 recessions and 1,350 that did not happen.
------------------
*For example mark same side of both ends of your strip and always keep both those marks facing the same direction. For example initially towards the floor, then towards the opposite walls as the stip ends curel upward, without any twist, and then towards the ceiling as the mutual over/ under shoe-lace knot #1 is made.

PS my wife has been observing me play with my paper strip - her worst fears about my mental health are now confirmed. :bawl:

 

I'm having a problem keeping up here... forgive me.

Am i right in understanding, that the theory is that ''energy knots'' make up the differential particles known... i think something like 410 particles are known>? Or have i missed a point somewhere?

 

Noted and agreed Don. Loose terminology on my part.

 

Good stuff Billy. You really have to get hands-on with this stuff. Words are linear and pictures are two-dimensional, and it's only when you sit there doing some actual modelling that things start to click with this three-dimensional geometry. Yeh, I've sat there all afternoon with scissors and plasticine and other bits and pieces too. With the wife looking on. Ho hum.

I'm at work at the moment, so forgive me if I print this out, take it home, and get back to you. But if there is only one 180 degree twist the charge is the same charge as the electron. I think maybe you're describing a muon. And muons aren't stable.

It's only a model, Billy. It doesn't qualify as a theory. Let's just put neutrinos to one side, along with antiparticles. OK, the only stable fermions we actually see are electrons and protons, corresponding to the two simplest knots that you can get. That's all I'm saying. All the other prediction is yours. Yes you can tie more complicated knots, like on page 31 of my paper. But it gets harder and harder to do. Instead of tying knots in strips of paper, think in terms of tying knots in a steel bar. This steel bar:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, since no one answered my question, i assume i am right.

Then, there is aomething else which ties along with this theory: These knots cannot be random, unless they are part of some ''limit'' to how photons or any type of energy in space reacts with itself manifesting a matter particle.

In other words, these knots might be told by spacetime distortions how to manifest it's ''knot''. Or, if it is in fact not this, then there is a whole new field responsible for these quantum knots. In other words, the theory might have extra baggage.

 

Then again, you might say there is an ''upper limit of knots.'' But if this is true, then even 500 knots are quite a low number on the standard of the cosmos. In the case of 1000, it would be a miracle due to the amount of particles we already know, which is a little over 400. This knot has to then be specific, and might indicate values of the Zero-Point Energy Field that are non-zero.

 

There might be, if you like, some vacuum resistence on energy performance. This might evaluate some type of mechanism for these knot-systems. I might have been mistaken, but i am sure even Billy T mentioned something about the extent at which your model predicts particle production of types.
There NEEDS to be a limit, since there is a limit in the nature of every quantity of type. The limit, as i have suggested, could be provided by a knot potenetial.. or it could be some local innert property of the distortion frequency.

But then we wouldneed to resort to the Anthropic Principle to answer these concepts, which i like.

 

Sorry Reiku, I've been busy and missed this. Remember it's just a model. Yes, the model says that "energy knots" make up the various known particles. But most of the known particles are unstable. Which means they're knots that come undone. Which means they aren't knots. There's actually very few stable particles. Forget photons and neutrinos for a minute, they're special because they travel. OK, you've got electrons and positrons. They're the simplest knot, the trivial knot. Muons decay, as does the next lepton up, the Tau. Then you've got protons and antiprotons. They're the next simplest knot, the trefoil knot. Neutrons decay, so you can't include them. And oh, that's it. So what's that? Forget about the mirror images. I make it two different knots.

There's no new field Reiku. It's just geometry. The energy is the space, it changes distances in space and moves, and you can tie space in knots. Look at the picture of the steel bar above. It's very short. A more complicated knot means you've got to stretch the bar longer to have enough bar to tie the knot. You need more energy. Think of bending and twisting the bar in terms of the electromagnetic force, whilst stretching it is the strong force. Sure, you could make a more complicated knot, but it will take some doing.

I don't like the Anthropic Principle.

 

Yes... not a lot of people do like thge Anthropic Principle...

It's just that in all my studies os physics, i've never really heard of such a theory as this. It is quite good: I would just have uestions like, how are the knots predicted, and if they aren't predicted, what places limits on them?

Reiku

 

Reply to "--think in terms of tying knots in a steel bar".

The steel bar photo would be more instructive if the bar is cylindrical with length equal to two diameters. You could use a wood dowel 3/4 inch diameter, cut to 1.5 inch length (may paint to resemble steel).

Note that observations from a distance, of the photon with toroidal topology will show no difference if the photon is gravitationally collapsed or if it is not gravitationally collapsed. This is the result of the gravitational lens effect. With gravitational collapse there is a gravitational waveguide present to confine the photon.

 

Mmmm. i am a bit lost... arrrrgggggeee

 

Reiku: It is fairly new. I've been doing this for about a year now, and originally wrote it as a series of essays, doing roughly one a month. I converted it into a "scientific paper" just over a month ago. I wouldn't call it a theory though, it's just a conceptual model, and it lacks rigor and doesn't predict much. Most of what it "predicts" is a whole bunch of mundane negatives like "no time travel" and "no higgs bosons" and "no parallel universes" and "no dark matter". It doesn't predict knots as such, that's a proposal I guess. But it's the strength of space that poses limits on the knots. It's hard to get a handle on this, so think in terms of the strength of steel. Think about a long thin steel bar. You can bend it fairly easily. That's like feeling the electromagnetic force. Now try stretching the steel bar. Not so easy. That's like feeling the strong force. But it's all the same thing really, especially when you think that bending the steel bar involves stretching some portion of it. See the picture below of the very short steel bar? Imagine trying to tie that in a fancy-dan knot. The more complicated the knot, the more you've got to stretch the bar, and the more you're face-to-face against the strong force.

How about this then Don?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Noted re the gravitational lens effect. But I'm not clear what you mean about the gravitational waveguide confining the photon. Probably because I'm thinking along totally different lines, wherein gravity is like an extended non-local compression that balances the local stretch of matter/energy.

 

''Reiku: It is fairly new. I've been doing this for about a year now, and originally wrote it as a series of essays, doing roughly one a month. I converted it into a "scientific paper" just over a month ago. I wouldn't call it a theory though, it's just a conceptual model, and it lacks rigor and doesn't predict much.''

Well, only the public and scientists alike can be jusge of that. Anything else, and it would be biast...

''Most of what it "predicts" is a whole bunch of mundane negatives like "no time travel" and "no higgs bosons" and "no parallel universes" and "no dark matter.''

You are talking my language.

Dark Matter is a sloppy diagram of gravitational geometry. There is more to the universe at large, especially with forces, that we do not know. Also, the Higgs is insignificant next to the energy-giving constant of E=Mc2... Or the converse M=E/c^2. The electrostatic repulsive forces will also have an effect on our interpretation of the matter side of things.

The electrostatic repulsion is what pushes whole masses away from each other. You have about 0.002% against an electromagnetic puch of 1/359 against your body per sec.

I don't like parallel universes. Anyone here should know i don't by now. They make as many problems as they solve.

 

Hi Farsight. I like the cylinder shape because light with circular polarization can best be represented by a cylinder. We must deform a cylinder into a toroidal shape to obtain the required (electron) toroidal topology.

One way of defining the gravitational field effect is to define it as an index of refraction gradient. The bending of light is due to this gradient. With this interpretation, the gravitation field has the properties of a lens.

A glass fiber can be produced that is doped (has other material added) so that its central region is more dense (higher index of refraction) than its outer region. Light passing through the fiber is concentrated near the central region because it travels faster when it strays from center so it is constantly being "bent" toward center. The fiber acts as if time runs slower near its center.

The electron (photon chasing itself in a circular path) is "bent" so that its path moves closer with each revolution to the slower time rate region. Here, the slower time rate region is the region with reduced elevation from earth. The time rate gradient explains light bending as well as gravitational attraction. This is an over simplification but the principle is valid.

 

Can i ask a question:

I'm assuming that the momentum follows the normal relativistic rules, E= m^2p^2 + p^2c^4, and thus it all compilates to inertial systems. This is a restriction as any pointlike configuration moved through spacetime... It didn't even need to be dimensional.

If this is true, this innate quality of energy ''knotting'' into its configuration would be directly affected by the inertial resistence as it intwined throughout spacetime in a knot.

In other words, and in conclusion, the ''type'' of knot is predicted through the ''inertial limit'' predicted by (what you predicted as) spacetime geometry, but i am guessing that you mean't distortions and warps.

Thus there is a frequency wave determining a designated knot, and is analogous to a quantum field that determines such.

Reiku

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How much freedom in other words are these knots allowed Ω< -1, before this mathematical point?