Is the Universe / an electron a Black Hole?

The gravitational naked ring singularity has been referred as a gravitational waveguide by Burinskii. I used his words because they effectively describe a limit space curvature region.

In his Quantum Gravity book Lee Smolin writes, page 70; "In a sense, black holes are microscopes of infinite power which make it possible for us to see the physics that operates on the Planck scale". On page 75 he writes; "It (a black hole) is not an ordinary microscope, as it does not act by enlarging images of objects. Rather, it acts by stretching wavelengths of light." When the electron is analyzed as a gravitationally collapsed photon, the effective microscope power is found to be very large but not infinite. The wavelength stretch factor (time dilation effect) is equal to the ratio L2/L1 while space is also stretched by the same factor L2/L1. The L2 value is, electron Compton wavelength times 1/2, while the L1 value is (3pi hG/c cubed) exponent 1/2.

Electron Compton wavelength = L4 (2) (L2/L1) squared

The L4 value is 2pi (3Gm/c squared). You will find that the Compton wavelength equation above is precisely correct if you analyse it. Note that the value L2/L1 is a dimensionless ratio. The m value is the electron mass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I must dash, so in brief: Don, I like the cylinder too, and the refraction model. The Smolin stuff looks interesting, can you give a link? Reiku: you have to take mass out of the equation and start simple with photons where momentum p = hf/c. And just to be clear, there are no point particles in this model, all the particles are just variations in distance in different configurations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Farsight, The title of the book that I quoted from is "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin , ISBN-13: 9780465078363, Pub. Aug. 2002, pages 70 and 75.

Another quote from the same book is interesting (page 95) "With matter there is a limit to how small we can divide something---. Is the same true of space?---There are good reasons to believe that the continuous appearance of space is as much an illusion as the smooth appearance of matter. When we look on a small enough scale (Planck scale) we see that space is made of things (units) that we can count."

Knowing the limits is an important part of understanding nature and how things are quantized.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks Don.

I'm not sure if Lee Smolin's thinking is still the same now after five years. I'm not saying I think it is different, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

 

Tell me if i am being ridiculous.

What do you feel about ALL fundamental matter being made of point-like singularities?

 

Reiku, All fundamental particles can be made from electromagnetic waves. If it turns out that self-gravitational attraction is the cause of confinement, allowing wave energy to move in a closed loop path, then the equations that define a ring singularity appear to apply. The ring singularity is very small, but larger than a point.

Farsight, I am reading Lee Smolin's book, The Trouble With Physics, Copyright 2006. A quote from page 139 is interesting; "There is a maximal amount of electric or magnetic charge that a black hole can have and still be stable. These are called extremal black holes, and they had been studied for many years by specialists in general relativity." And from the same page: "The new idea from string theory is that -- at least, in the case of extremal black holes -- you can make progress by studying the analogous system of extremal branes wrapped around the extra dimensions. In fact, many properties of the two systems match exactly."

I don't think Lee Smolin's ideas have changed very much though they seem to have made progress.

 

That hit and missed mate. Would you please refer to my hypothesis/theory?

 

Reiku, You are not being rediculous. All fundamental matter could possibly be made of very small (point-like) singularities. Many theorists are now working to determine if this is correct.

 

Is this NOT AN originality? Have I postulated something that has already been speculated?

 

If it isn;t, then my theory furthers... would you like to hear it?

 

Reiku; If you can provide an overview or outline of your theory, I will let you know if I think it is useful to me; I can't speak for other readers.

 

Well, it was only a passing thought that day. Until i can sit down and postulate on this more, i'll be able to give a better model... but in short, i am speculating that all fundamental matter are made up of obsolete point like regions, that is non-dimensional lawless singularities.

 

You're not being ridiculous Reiku. Plenty of people have thought this for a long long time. But you get nowhere with it, and it's wrong. There's a golden rule in physics. Learn it well: There are no infinities in nature. When you think about it, you realise what it means. It means there are no actual singularities, and you just can't have "point" particles.


Don: noted re Lee Smolin. Look out for the "seer".

 

Farsight, I really like the quote from Andrea Ghez (UCLA) "Anytime things go to infinity in physics, we know we haven't gotten it right."

Reiku; Do a Google search for the title "Leading role of gravity in the structure of spinning particle". Then click on, [PDF] arXiv:hep-th/0512095v1 8 Dec 2005. You (and all readers who are interested) can then see an eleven page paper that relates directly to our discussions. You may not agree with the author (Burinskii) but I expect you will find his words are interesting.

 

What i find interesting is that we are creatures of infinity, in a void of infinity, in a void of nothing but infinity, yet we find the concept so infinitely wrong...

 

Reiku, When theorists leading our effort to understand particles cannot agree, it is all too easy to conclude that we don't understand anything and we are infinitely wrong each time we try.

Presently we are at "The Blind Men And The Elephant" stage. This poem could be modified to become "The Blind Men And The Electron" with the following (replacement) verse.

And so these men of Scienceland
Disputed loud and long,
Each with his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

The important point is, "each was partly in the right". As observations continue, we will develop an electron description that explains all of those observations that can be verified.

We may not have to wait very much longer. Burinskii recently said "It was shown -- that the ringlike Kerr singularity is indeed a string resembling the heterotic string of superstring theory."

 

Now that's a good quote.

I've printed that Burinski paper to read offline and will maybe look at some of his other stuff:

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au: burinskii/0/1/0/all/0/1

But if he's talking about singularities and superstrings, it'll go to the bottom of the pile and I'll never get round to it. The thing is, I've seen the elephant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry Reiku. We're not. The universe is not infinite. Or should I say it's not thought to be infinite. Instead it's thought to be something less than 188 billion light years across. There really are no infinities in nature.

 

Correction. The universe is finite in respect to it's mass, however is infinite in respect to it's boundless expansion.

 

Oh dear... all these comments I have missed; I shall return soon enough.

 

Don: I read the paper. I didn't like it one bit. Every time I thought I was getting somewhere he chucked in a whole pile of buzzwords, and ended up making no sense to me. Maybe it was just me, but I don't think so. Note who he cites repeatedly. Himself. I don't buy it, particularly because I've got a different concept, and I cannot find fault with it. Yes, gravity does figure in a particle like the electron. In a way the electron's gravity is part of what the electron. But it isn't "in there" in some kind of central singularity. IMHO. Here's an excerpt from page 27 that I hope illustrates my concept:

Q: No, the universe is not infinite in respect of its boundless expansion. There are no bounds, but it is finite. And it is flat to boot. It's to do with the "dark energy" relationship between energy and pressure and distance. Take away all the energy and you take away all the pressure and all the distance.