Talk:Black hole electron/Archive 1

Elementary particle collisions

 * This first is that black holes tend to merge when they meet. So a collection of black-hole electrons would be expected to become one big black hole. Also, an electron-positron collision would be expected to produce a larger neutral black hole instead of two photons as is observed.

How would electrons collide, causing problems for this theory? Wouldn't they repel when they were close enough so that they never 'actually' collided, just got close enough for the force to be overwhelming and drive them apart? No ideas on electron--positron collision just yet, but I think electron--electron never happens... right?

Excuse any ignorance in this question; I'm just in introductory electricity and magnetism, with no quantum or black hole physics background besides popsci books. Thanks!

My earlier comment is now being replaced because it did not include enough information. You are correct with your conclusion that same charge electron collisions do not happen. When the electron is analysed as a K-N black hole we find that black hole inertial frame dragging is so extreme that frame dragging reaches light velocity (in the ergosphere region). With this condition an electromagnetic standing wave (moving in a direction opposite to the black hole's rotation) will be stationary when it is observed from a fixed distance. It is confined due to the inertial frame spin. It will appear to rotate only when a time desynchronization effect is caused by a distance change between an observer and the black hole. This rotation can explain the electron matter wavelength (deBroglie wavelength) effect.

When an electron-positron collision event happens, the (opposite) inertial frame dragging effects from the two particles are added (canceled) so that the standing electromagnetic waves are no longer confined. Two packets of electromagnetic wave energy (photons) are then released with opposite linear momentum.

It is my opinion that this hypothetical electron annihilation sequence is closer to being correct than any other that does not include the electron analyzed as a K-N black hole.DonJStevens 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Credits
This article is a wikified and cleaned up version based on an original writeup by User:DonJStevens in Talk:Electron/Archive1. linas 04:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name
This article could stand to have a better name. Surely physicists have given a name to this question, if it is a feasible one? Mr. Billion 03:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but I don't know what that name is. I heard of this in school way back when, but it was never given a name. Maybe I should move this to Black hole electron. linas 04:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

speculative physics
I am concerned about the Pair Creation part of this article. It seems to be based on the speculations of Don Stevens, which is original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia.

There is a legitimate speculation that the electron is a black hole, and which can and should be presented here. For the moment I will just add in ASAP the counter-arguments to the argument that electrons are minature black holes, so as to get some NPOV into it. However, I am both sincere and concerned that this article is not appropriate in its current form. (Maybe all that is needed is to remove Don's research from this.) --EMS | Talk 19:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that the contents of this article reflect the thinking of Brian Greene, a pre-eminant physicist, and not the original research of Don Stevens. But I don't know, I have not verified this or actually read chapter 13 or whatever of Brian Greene's book. If this stuff is Don Stevens original research, I'll VfD it in a heartbeat.


 * I also removed the comments about Hawking radiation etc. These objections are presumably covered in the micro-black-hole article. Again, the logic here is to report on an interesting speculation of Brian Greene, rather than critique Greene's ability to do rational physics. linas 00:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The logic presented is something that Don tried to present to me privately earlier, and has been hyping in the Talk:time_dilation page and a few others. My reading of his writings is that Brian Greene is his inspiration for this stuff, not it's source.  My advice is to do your homework and check out the reference(s).


 * I also have run across this speculation many times before. It is not unique to Brian Greene at all, and my suspiscion is that he is just reporting the work of others in his book.  It is actually something on which a good Wikipedia article could be written, but this is not it.  In the meantime, the objections that I listed are not covered in the micro black holes article.  In fact Hawking radiation is only alluded to, and I also suspect that their idea of a "micro" back holes is something that can be as massive as a mountain if not an asteroid.  So I will restore the objections section.  (Brian Greene or not, I honestly feel that the objections should be listed.  This should be balanced coverage of the topic, not the Brian Greene fan page.  I also do not see reporting the problems with a view like this as being demeaning to the proponents.)


 * Also be advised that I have been giving serious consideration to VfD-ing this article myself on the basis on its being primarlly Don Steven's original research. If nothing else Brian Greene knows better than to use the second as a value for balancing the units in an equation, as is also done in the article.  That may look scientific, but it is nothing more than a giant fudge factor, and therefore quite unscientific.  In any case, since you are on the same page as me regarding whether this should be VfD-ed I will leave the research and the decision up to you for now.  --EMS | Talk 02:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Give Don a week or two to provide a reply and if something accurate is not forthcoming, then VfD it. I am very disappointed.   I got suckered because of the combo of a famous name and an interesting idea. linas 04:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. You did get suckered.  Be aware that there is nothing wrong with Don's underlying thesis, which is that the electron is a gravitationally self-contained particle.  For him, the electron as possibly being a black hole in confirmation of this view.  So far, so good, but better people than him have tried to solve this riddle and have come up empty.  Certainly if anything as simple as what Don is proposing was correct, then it would have been found and analyzed a long time ago.
 * I am willing to be patient as long as you are with me in not tolerating the b.s. I know where Don is coming from and even have some sympathy for him, but this really is the kind of thing that is behind the Wikipedia policy against original research. --EMS | Talk 15:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

units are wrong
From the article:


 * $$\frac{\lambda_e}{2} =

2\pi \left(\frac {3\pi hG}{c} \right)^{1/4}$$

This is not right. On the left side, you have units of length. On the right side, G is in units of $$l^3 \, m^{-1} \, t^{-2}$$ (where l is length, m is mass, and t is time), h is in units of $$m \,l^2  \, t^{-1}$$, and c is in units of $$l \, t^{-1}$$. So hG/c is in units of $$l^4 \, t^{-2}$$, and it 4th root is $$l\,t^{-1/2}$$ or length times the inverse square root of time. Since the units do not match, this equation is not valid. --EMS | Talk 22:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Right. I had not bothered to verify any of this stuff. Don Stevens, can you please supply the corrected formulas? linas 00:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm checking formulas now; I may have made an error of transcription, I will double check not just units but also actual values, and attempt corrections late tonight or tommorrow. linas 00:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't knock yourself out too much with this, and see what I wrote above about 1 second or 2&pi; seconds being in these formulas.


 * Be advised that this may be my fault. I asked Don to wikify his math so that I could evaluate it better.  I did not expect him to post the stuff (which he never sent me btw), or for you to be conned by it.  In fact, I don't think he intended to con you either.  This math just is inspired by Greene, not created by him. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought the one second thing looked mighty weird. But worse is that gamma is taken as the square root of the time dilation, that's bad. When I work through the broken compton wavelength formula, I get something that is off by about a factor of ten.  I'm going to skim the Sidharth papers now. linas 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Go for it. I did earlier.  I assure you will find that the syntax used there is very different from what you are seeing here.  This article's constents is not QM.  Nor is it string theory.  This article is numerology, or a kind of metaphysical alchemy.  It is Don Steven's work, not Greene's. --EMS | Talk 03:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

correction attempt
Let's see: The units are now $$l = (l^7 \, t^{-4})^{1/4}$$. That does not look right to me. You also to keep it from being $$t^{-5}$$ placed a second in there arbitrarily. Scientific equations don't work like that!

You should not be trying to derive the correct equations yourself. Instead you should be getting them from a reference. Otherwise you are doing original research of your own. All that this correction attempt is doing is to convince me that I perhaps should initiate the VfD. --EMS | Talk 03:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How embarassing. Sorry, I was drinking beer and scribbling. Let me try again. And give Don a week to reply. Meanwhile put a 'factual accuraccy in dispute' notice on there.  I'd do it except I can't remember how. linas 04:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I put it back. Its that damned 'seconds' thing. I was doing the math in my head. linas 04:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Linas and Ems : I Apologise for causing misunderstandings. My desire was to stimulate the thinking of other persons with some of my speculations. I believe the math can be defended but I am no match for Ems. If he says this is not right, I will accept this judgement until I can evaluate it further. Delete the article, accept my apology, but don't stop thinking of the electron as a black hole. DonJStevens


 * Don, even if you could defend your math, it would be original research and inappropriate for WP. If you truly have interest in this topic,then come up with the precise JA Wheeler reference, and a reference for Eddingon as well, if possible. These ref's may be in Greene's book. Personally, I think the idea is fascinating, but one needs both historical and intellectual accuracy to make it on WP. Based on your comment, I deleted the entire pair-creation section. The section labelled "speculation" contains a list of (mostly?) traditional speculative questions that can be found in traditional books on gravitation.  If these could be wikilinked to appropriate WP articles, that would be great. linas 16:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Don - There was no misunderstanding on my part. This was obviously your original research as soon as I saw it.  Then again I came here suspecting that I would find just that after you hyped it on the Talk:time_dilation page. After I saw it, I just needed to convince Linas of the true nature of the pair creation and speculation sections.


 * Please realize that Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of stuff. It is meant as a respository of human knowledge, not as a news site or a research site.  As for you ideas: Once again I must tell you that you have a long ways to go and a lot to learn.  As I have said to you privately: Get to work learning about the relevant issues and theories.  Beyond that, I will give you one piece of friendly advice:  Stick to your original line of the electron being gravitationally self-contained.  This electron black-hole business is only one possibility in that regard, and not one that I personally credit.  (However, as long as I am here, I will do what I can to make this a good article.) --EMS | Talk 03:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ems - Three factors must be applied to the Planck mass to obtain the electron mass value. The first factor is (1/2). The second factor is the square root of (2/3). The third factor is a dimensionless ratio based on a proposed "time dilation limit". The time dilation limit is defined as the square root of (3/2), times (1/ 2 pi) times Planck time (expressed in some time unit) divided by the same time unit. If Planck time is expressed in time units of .0001 Martian days then we must divide by .0001 Martian days in order to obtain a dimensionless ratio. The square root of the "time dilation limit" is the required "third factor". This square root of the limit, is close to 1.025x10 exponent-22. This is usually thought of as seconds per second but could equally be hours per hour or Martian days per Martian day. It is required to be a dimensionless ratio. DonJStevens


 * The Plank time as expressed in seconds is a different number than the Plank time as expressed in hours or picoseconds. Dividing by the time unit used then leaves you with a completely arbitrary value, and therefore an automatic internal inconsistency.  Suffice it to say that the construction of my watch should not determine your proposed maximal time dilation factor.


 * This is all that I have to say on this matter. I for one would appreciate it if you ceased to treat Wikipedia as a forum for you original research.  I kindly advise taking future thoughts on this matter to the newsgroup alt.sci.physics.new-theories.  (This can be accessed through http://groups.google.com if your ISP does not give you direct access.)  --EMS | Talk 15:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Message received : DonJStevens 22 Jun 2005

Impolite query

 * (Note: This query was originally placed at the top of this page and included a discreetely remove curse word.) --EMS | Talk 14:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

how can you have a electron sized particle with gravity not even photon could escape? u guys are on crack or sumthin? i know mr.million is, but thats a different story lolol -pedro


 * I don't disagree with your concerns. This has been speculated about from time to time none-the-less.  I think that the overall idea is that QM is supposed to both keep additional stuff from going in.  However, this idea seems to have bitten the dust after the discovery of Hawking radiation, which indicates that any such black hole would immediately self-distruct.


 * Since this is part of the history of physics (albeit a minor part), it is deserving of a Wikipedia article. --EMS | Talk 14:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Length
I intended to show that the square root of the product of two segments of length is equal to the electron Compton wavelength times (1/2). The first length is (2 pi) seconds times (2 pi) times light velocity. The other length is (2 pi) times Planck length times the square root of (3/2). Linas, If you would express the square root of the product of the two lengths, using constants, I believe the question regarding units will be resolved. DonJStevens 19 July 2005


 * WP is not the place for original research. linas 01:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Last sentence should be earlier
I think this article is possibly legit, since it does describe the speculation of real theoretical physicists. However, the last section--and in particular the last sentence--sum up what most physicists would think about this idea: it's cute, but there are more or less insurmountable problems with it. Without solutions to those problems, the whole thing is pretty silly. So I think the last sentence should be much earlier. I don't think speculative is strong enough to convey the actual situation. -- SCZenz 23:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I just did an edit to tighten this article up and remove the last of the disputed material. (Sometimes some time is needed to see what to do.  In this case less is better.)  I did not try to address your concern however.  If you want to change it, then go for it.  This is Wikipedia after all:  "Be bold". --EMS | Talk 04:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph of intro
I can't even begin to figure out what this is supposed to mean. It's made clear why the electron being a black hole is appealing from the reasons given. The electron being a black hole would require a unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but doesn't help unify the two. It also doesn't seem to reduce the parameters in the standard model--why would mini black holes have a particular mass? (Another parameter?) What are the mu and the tau--black holes also? (FYI, the muon and tauon have finite lifetimes, but do not decay in the manner a black hole would.) Finally, the last sentence--"a speculative, principles-based approach" doesn't seem to mean anything, and implies things that aren't true. So can someone explain to me what's going on? Otherwise I will do my best to rewrite the paragraph that justifies the idea is well as possible without being unclear or inaccurate. -- SCZenz 08:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What is going on is that this page was started by someone who mistook a piece of original research on the part of a contributor here for a model approved of by the string theorist Brian Greene. (This was due to his seeing justification for his model in Dr. Greene's statements.)  You should review the rest of this talk page and this article's revision history to get the details.


 * Once the creator got oriented as to the reality of his creation, the blantly inappropriate stuff was dropped. What remained has been a wounded article on a legitimate topic which noone cared to VfD, but where the resources needed to fully fix it up was missing.  If you can provide the needed expertise, it would be most appreciated.  After all, this speculation has a legitimate history and is therefore an appropriate subject for Wikipedia.  Because of that, the article has been retained so that someone like yourself can finish repairing it. --EMS | Talk 15:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough--that's more or less the impression I got from reading. What I've been trying to determine, before I muck with anything major, was whether there are still people paying attention to the article who would object to me changing the tone somewhat (a necessary step to make it more accurate).  Since there may not be, I will go ahead and muck when I get the chance.  -- SCZenz 17:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm paying attention. I have no particular desire to look up the geon papers or do any of the other bits of historical research to get this cleaned up. If you can add historical background and references, e.g. the actual Eddington quote or paper where this is discussed, tht would be great. If you can add hand-waving as to why Brian Greene thinks this is an interesting idea, that would be great too. I'd like to point out that for highly speculative gee-whiz topics such as this, its easy to poke holes in the tissue, and explain why its wrong.  Its much harder to explain why various thinkers were lead to consider the idea anyway, and why its appealing despite its blatent and obvious shortcomings. linas 22:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, which is why I am getting at least Greene's book before I do any rewriting, and probably looking up geons as well. I'm really dubious that Greene really had a good reason for including the idea, but I will see.  -- SCZenz 22:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

SCZenz: You will also want to see Brian Greene's book "The Fabric Of The Cosmos", 2004. On page 358 he said one goal of string theory is to explain why the electron "weighs in at --(about 10 exp-23) times the Planck mass". On page 351; if spacetime has a grid structure, " there would be no such thing as a distance shorter than the Planck length or a duration shorter than the Planck time". It appears that Greene expected to define a relationship between the Planck mass and the electron mass. This relationship is defined by three factors. The first factor is (1/2) because a maximum energy photon will produce two particles. The second factor is the square root of (2/3) due to the photon energy limit. The remaining factor is a time dilation ratio, equal to 2 pi times Planck length times the square root of (3/2), divided by (0.5) times electron Compton wavelength. This factor is approximately 1.025x10 exp -22 to one.

DonJStevens 23 July 2005


 * Don - I wish to suggest, as politely as possible, that you stop trying to salvage your original research.  SCZenz impresses as someone who is at least semi-knowledgable in this area and willing to do a good job with it.  I kindly advise leaving him (and this article) alone.  At the least, let's see what he comes up with before commenting further.  --EMS | Talk 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My research thus far
I have read Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, and I have a few comments regarding this issue:


 * Greene associates elementary particles with black holes that have collapsed to nothingness, thereby changing the shape of the Calabi-Yau space and thus the physics of the real world.
 * He does not discuss electrons specifically--in fact, his black holes become massless particles.
 * Although he states that this research provides a "a direct, concrete, and quantitatively unassailable connections between black holes and elementary particles," the connection is in a rather limited case (maximally charged black holes). Greene does not define what the overall nature of this "connection" might be, probably because nobody knows yet.  (String theory research into such questions is, no doubt, ongoing.)

I will try to read his other book, and continue looking for Wheeler's work, as I have time. -- SCZenz 15:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I presume The Elegant Universe is a lay book, so it would not have those sorts of details. But perhaps he references some of his technical papers? Calabi-Yau manifolds and compactification (physics) are among the hot topics in theoretical physics ... like a bolt of lightning, it strikes me ... is Greene just using the term "black hole" as a synonym for "compactification"?  Cause that's what happens for compactification; the extra dimensions just collapse and curl up; and maybe Greene is just saying that the "compactified dimensions are just like a black hole", just to put things in layman's terms?  If so, then most string theorists will probably agree, as that's basic Kaluza-Klein orthodoxy.  Its also a bit of an injustice, since the words "black hole" really does make most people to think of something other than compactification. linas 01:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And, yes, they would be maximally charged and massless, that would make sense. The mass problem is harder than that. linas 01:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No he does not mean compactification. That stuff is covered much earlier.  He literally claims that a black hole that shrinks to nothingness becomes a massless particle.  I don't understand either, believe me, but it's very recent (i.e. mid-90's) research whatever it is.  -- SCZenz 04:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Any hint that it refers to a soliton solution of 5D Kaluza-Klein theory, in the style of "space-time-matter" theory promogulated by Paul Wesson? (Here, Ricci-flat 5D space is examined; geometry of the space as a whole induces terms that look like stress-energy tensors in 4D. Thus geometry in higher dimensions appears to induce ordinary classical mass and gravity in lower dimensions. This is also a mid-90's type result.). linas 13:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know. I returned the book to the library some time ago.  But I don't think he mentioned Kaluza-Klein in that chapter, and he had earlier. -- SCZenz 20:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Planck mass
I'm rather surprised, that there's no mentioning of the Planck mass limit in the article. While GR in itself has no lower limits on time intervals, lengths and masses, it is widely assumed that it won't describe that region. And that black holes do have a minimum mass which may be the standard Planck mass, or lower (low enough for production at the LHC) due to large extra dimensions. Pjacobi 12:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw117.html

The followiig reply is my opinion. I respect other writers who have a different opinion.-- Mention of the Planck mass or Planck energy is appropriate. When a photon has the large energy value, equivalent to (2/3) exponent 1/2, times the Planck mass energy, a limit (maximum) energy density condition is reached. At this level, photon energy can be clearly specified by either the Planck constant and light velocity or the gravitational constant and light velocity. This indicates that no photon can have energy as large as the Planck energy. A fundamental mass particle is expected to have mass energy that relates to 1/2 of the upper limit photon energy. The Planck mass then has only an indirect relationship to a realistic particle mass (or electron mass) value.DonJStevens 18:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Interaction
Well I dont see how a black hole electron can interact with other things as we know real electrons do. For instance how do BHEs emit photons if they're black holes. Don has a lot to explain!--Light current 22:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What's your problem? Black holes emit fotons all the time. :D  However, if they can emit them from the inside, then they can be seen as white holes.  (Dammit, I've never seen this article before but I came up with the whim (idea) myself a few years ago and put it in a subversive essay on the internet. lysdexia 16:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Lysdexia: Would you look at my user page and let me know if you want to add to or disagree with relationships described there. -- DonJStevens 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see either, myself. -- SCZenz 20:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

One type of black hole electron interaction can be explained in a direct manner. This is the momentum exchange between an electron and a photon. When a photon passes close to an electron gravitational field, its path is deflected. The electron has a velocity change (kinetic energy change) while the photon has a compensating red shift (or blue shift) change.

When the extremal K-N black hole concept is incorporated, then the only stable state is the minimum mass that is consistant with a unit charge. The black hole electron can absorb a photon temporarily but when it picks up mass, it is unstable and will decay to the stable (extremal) state by radiating excess energy away. In a specific special case it may radiate energy in an electron-positron pair. -- DonJStevens 13:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Dirac-Kerr electron paper by A. Burinskii (referenced in the article) is directed at the possibility that the electron is a black hole. A quote from page 1 follows:"On the other hand, the treatment of the Kerr-Newman solution as a model of electron have been considered many times -- after the well known Carter remark -- that the Kerr-Newman solution has gyromagnetic ratio g = 2 as that of the Dirac electron". And later: "The Kerr solution gives us a natural description of spinning particle with gravity, and moreover, it hints us at the relation to electron by the double gyromagnetic ratio --". Any reader who has an interest in the electron article will want to read this paper.--- DonJStevens 15:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I was disappointed to learn that SCZenz will not be able to continue his research in the near future. His work could establish more facts to explain why some respected theorists believe electron properties match those of a black hole. Added information would improve the quality of the article and could (possibly) resolve the misunderstanding regarding units. ---DonJStevens 14:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit needed
The Gravitational radius of an electron shown (10 exp -15 m) is misleading because the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole is defined as its "gravitational radius".(See page 820 of book Gravitation by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler.) The gravitational photon capture radius of a black hole is 3Gm/c squared. (See page 677 of book Gravitation ; The orbit of a photon in the equatorial plane of a black hole.) This radius is useful when the electron critical energy density required for collapse is analyzed.

We need to clarify or rename the "re" value. We should then add the black hole electron Schwarzschild radius and the gravitational photon capture radius values. ---DonJStevens 15:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The gravitational radius definition has been corrected: good work. The Bh electron article quality would be improved if an example is provided where the electron, defined as a K-N black hole, would explain an electron property that is not explained in any other way. The de Broglie electron wavelength property is a good choice. This wavelength property is only observable when the distance is changing between an observer and the electron. The K-N black hole can exhibit a stationary standing em wave that will not appear stationary when distance is changing; when the electron has relative velocity. This is a time desynchronization effect that is not easy to describe. I will offer assistance in writing about this but the article will be better served if additional writers participate. ---DonJStevens 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Another electron property that can be explained only with the black hole model is the charge acceleration associated with angular momentum and magnetic moment. When the electron is analyzed as a thin superconducting ring the charge acceleration is (4 pi mc cubed) divided by (h). With gravitational collapse; with conserved angular momentum, the required acceleration can be sustained and can be stable. This may be more appropriate to include in the article.---DonJStevens 17:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)