Talk:Black hole electron

message: I'm reverting the most recent edit by User:Quasarq again:
# Micro black hole is already linked
# superfluid 3He stuff:
## It's not written well
## It's original research (reference to primary sources, I'm going to check out the SA article)
## It doesn't follow WP:MoS
# unification: M-Theory claims unification. M-Theory is unverified, but is definitely (not really arguable) adequate. Also, non-"M-theory" string theory also has a good explanation of unification (I'm not familiar with loop quantum gravity), so unless you're willing to list all the exceptions (which I can't say how many there are), it should remain closer to how it is.
It should be noted that I'm not opposed to this content in general, but it's going to have to be incorporated better. McKay 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluid 3He 

message: The electron mass energy is related to a specific photon wavelength so its mass energy is related to the Planck constant. In the book "The Enigmatic Electron", by Malcolm MacGregor (page 25) the electron is referred to as "the discrete quantum of matter-wave systems". Later (page 67) the author suggests that electron properties may be a guide to bridge the quantum and classical domains. From the electron mass and light velocity, a relationship between the (quantum) Planck constant and the (classical) gravitational constant is specified.
Le = 2(3Gm)exp 1/3, times (2pi)exp 5/3
h/2mc = (3Gm)exp 1/3, times (2pi)exp 5/3
h = 2mc(3Gm)exp 1/3, times (2pi)exp 5/3
This provides a partial bridge between the two domains.
DonJStevens 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matter-wave quantum 

message: When an electron is infinitely small, its electric field will be infinitely large. In his book "The Quantum World", author Kenneth Ford writes, "Physicists will be happy if the things we call particles and that seem to exist at points are eventually shown to occupy some region - albeit an incredibly small region - of space" (page 241). 
Theorists are not satisfied with words like infinitely small and infinitely large to describe electron properties. It is known that negative electric charge elements repel one another so that a significant force is required to hold the electron together. No combination of electric and magnetic forces has been proposed that can produce a stable state. Author, Malcolm MacGregor noted that gravitational forces could solve the stability problem if the electron is incredibly small. See book, "The Enigmatic Electron" page 72. The density required for stability is clearly achieved before the electron radius is reduced to zero meters (a point). The electron must occupy a small region of space so that its electric field and density are not required to be infinitely large. 
DonJStevens 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability / Infinite density 

message: In his book "The Road To Reality" page 832, Roger Penrose writes, regarding electrons and the K-N gyromagnetic ratio 2,"It could only apply if an electron could be regarded as being, in some sense a black hole". He then notes that the electron does not meet the requirement that (m)exp 2 must be equal to or greater than (a)exp 2 plus (e)exp 2 in order that the "--Kerr-Newman metric can represent a black hole".
Many theorists agree however, with the statement by Chris Isham; "One of the major predictions of Einstein's theory is the phenomenon of gravitational collapse in which ---, matter that is compressed to more than a critical density will inevitably collapse under its self-gravitational attraction until it becomes a --- gravitational singularity".
The critical density is clearly reached before the electron radius is reduced to a point.  DonJStevens 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source; m squared requirement

message: When lengths labeled (L1) and (L4) are compared to lengths previously labeled (L2) and (L3) an interesting ratio pattern appears.
L1 = 2pi (Planck length)(3/2) exp 1/2
L2 = 1/2 (Le)
L3 = (2pi)squared times (one light second)
L4 = 2pi (3Gm/c squared)
A balanced ratio pattern follows.
L1/L2 = L2/L3 = L4/L1 = 2(L1)/Le = Le/2(L3) = (L4/L2) exp 1/2 = (L4/L3) exp 1/3
When the implied G value is used, these dimensionless ratios are all equal. In the following equation, the G value will cancel so that the equation is correct without regard to a true G value.
L4/L2 = (L1/L2) squared
The above equation can be solved for (L1) to show that (L1) squared is (3pi hG/c cubed). This (L1) value is 2pi (Planck length) times (3/2) exponent 1/2. The gravitational time dilation ratio at the (L4) circumference is required to be equal to (L1/L2) and also equal to (L2/L3). This restricts the electron mass so that all electrons are identical. The equations below are derived from the balanced ratio pattern.
2(L4)/Le = [Le/2(L3)] squared
L4/L3 = (L2/L3) exp 3
(2pi) exp 5,(3Gm) = (L2) exp 3
The above equation defines the wavelength (L2) as a direct function of the gravitational constant and the electron mass.
(2pi) exp 5,(3G)(h/2c) = (L2) exp 4
2pi (3pi hG/c) exp 1/4 = L2
4pi (3pi hG/c) exp 1/4 = Le
There is no known reason why these equations should apply to the electron if the electron is not incredibly small and stabilized by its self-gravitational attraction. The balanced pattern results from relationships that are readily verifiable.---DonJStevens 19:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balanced pattern 

message: At the extreme high energy photon wavelength (L1), a critical energy density is reached. This wavelength photon has energy equal to the mass energy of two black holes. Each of these black holes has a photon capture circumference [2pi (3Gm/c squared)] equal to the photon wavelength.
E = hc/L1 = 2E black hole = L1 (c exp 4)(1/3pi G)
hc/L1 = L1 (c exp 4)(1/3pi G)
L1 = (3pi hG/c cubed) exp 1/2
The (L1) wavelength photon is an effective model for all photons because photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength. The (L1) wavelength provides a useful conversion factor to relate the Planck constant to the gravitational constant.
(L1) squared, (c cubed/3pi) = hG
(L1) squared, (c cubed/3pi h) = G
(L1) squared, (c cubed/3pi G) = h
When (L1) and G are known, h can be derived. The Planck length to electron Compton wavelength relationship (shown earlier) is known to be either precisely correct, as implied or extremely close to correct, as is clearly demonstrated.
(L2) squared = (L3)(L1)
Full confirmation of this relationship would allow the electron to be correctly defined as a "quantum - gravitational" mass particle as shown below. This is significant because it would raise our understanding of particles to a new level.
m = (h/4pi c)(c/3pi hG) exp 1/4
The derived electron mass formula, like the black hole entropy formula, contains the Planck constant as well as the gravitational constant, indicating that the electron mass value is the result of a quantum - gravitational effect. See page 715,in "The Road To Reality" by Penrose. 
DonJStevens 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum - gravitational effect 

message: In 1963, P.A.M. Dirac wrote an article titled "The Evolution Of The Physicist's Picture Of Nature". He predicted, the physics of the future, "--- cannot have the three quantities h bar, e and c all as fundamental quantities". Dirac wrote, "I think one is on safe ground if one makes the guess that --- e and c will be fundamental and h bar will be derived".
As noted under Matter-wave quantum, the Planck constant can be derived from the electron mass, light velocity and the gravitational constant.
h = 2mc(3Gm)exp 1/3, times(2pi)exp 5/3
h/2pi = 2mc[12(pi squared)Gm]exp 1/3   DonJStevens 15:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constants; one too many 

message: Stephen Hawking recently conceded that the laws of nature do permit a naked singularity to be formed during a gravitational implosion (collapse). This was the subject of a wager between Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne. Hawking conceded when a naked singularity was produced in an implosion simulated on a computer.--DonJStevens 11:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naked singularity 

message: Forgive the "undergraduate question", but the argument that an electron black hole should immediately decay into a shower of photons ignores the question of conservation of charge.  Could it be that the electron charge somehow "stabilizes" the particle?
So when a positron and an electron collide, the charge is neutralized.  Now the resulting "larger mass black hole" CAN decay.
Into two photons instead of a shower of them?  That bit about the mass equation?  I'm willing to chalk these minor issues up to some future fusion of relativity and quantum theory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.119.172 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decay and conservation of charge 

message: Thinking about mass and particles it occurred to me that mass could be completely eliminated from physics if particles could be treated as electromagnetic waves gravitationally confined in spacetime wrapped by the presence of EM energy. 
Now after reading this article and discussion page it looks like model of electron discussed here is a realization of a similar (if not the same) idea but I am still not 100% sure.
Can you please tell me if this is the case? Are the results presented here compatible with a model in which electron is a photon propagating along a toroidal singularity?
It seems like a really nice idea, tying many loose ends. I certainly hope it will be researched more.Enemyunknown (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass as an energy of gravitationally confined photons 

message: === Standard classical "black hole approach" ===   
Let us consider classical cilcular rotation. The centrifugal and gravitation force relationship is:   
:F_{cen} = \frac{mv_c^2}{r} = F_N = G\frac{mM}{r^2}, \    
where F_N \  is the gravitational force. From this condition the cilcular velocity can be derived as:   
:v_c = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}.    
Note that parabolic velocity is:   
:v_p = \sqrt{2} v_c = \sqrt{2\frac{GM}{r}}.   
When the parabolic velocity takes the value of light velocity:   
:v_p = c , \     
then the s.c. Schwarzschild radius can be derived:   
:r_S = \frac{2GM}{c^2}. \    
Note that, only the probe mass m \  is rotating, but object mass M \  could be steel.   
Furthermore, we controlled the cilcular and parabolic velocities, but the interaction force could be any (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.).   
So, when we say that quantum resonator forces restrict electron size about r_e \  radius, with above relationships between circular and parabolic velocities, then this electron is like black hole.   
    
=== Electrical radius ===   
Let us consider rotation of the charged probe mass m_0 \  in the electric field:   
:F_{cen} = \frac{m_0v_{cE}^2}{r} = F_C = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_E}\frac{e^2}{r^2}, \    
where F_C \  is the Coulomb force, and \epsilon_E \  is the dielectric constant.   
From this condition the cilcular velocity can be derived as:   
:v_{cE} = c\sqrt{\frac{r_0}{r}},    
where r_0 = \frac{\alpha \lambda_0}{2\pi} \  is the classical electron radius.   
When the parabolic velocity takes the velocity of light value   
:v_{pE} = \sqrt{2}v_{cE} = c\sqrt{2\frac{r_0}{r}} = c, \    
then the s.c. Schwarzschild radius could be derived:   
:r_{SE} = 2r_0. \    
    
=== Gravitational radius ===   
By analogically to electric force, the gravitational classical radius of electron could be derived from relationship:   
:m_0c^2 = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_G}\frac{m_0^2}{r^2}, \    
where \epsilon_G \  is the gravitational electric-like dielectric constant.   
So, the gravitational classical electron radius is:   
:r_{0G} = \frac{\alpha_G\lambda_0}{2\pi}\cdot (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^2 = r_{0E}\cdot (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^2 \    
where \alpha_E \  is electrical fine structure constant, and \alpha_G \  is the gravitational fine structure constant. Furthermore, this constants are equal to each other:   
:\alpha_E = \alpha_G. \    
Note that, the Schwarzschild radius is two-times greater then the classical gravitational radius:   
:r_{Se} = \frac{2Gm_0}{c^2} = 2r_{0E}\cdot (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^2 = 2r_{0G}. \    
    
=== Energy requirements ===   
==== Transition to the classical electric radius ====   
The work needed to transite electron from r_e \  radius to r_{0E} \  radius is:   
:A_E = \int_{r_{0E}}^{r_e} F_C(r)\, dr = \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_E}\cdot \frac{r_{0E} - r_e}{r_{0E}r_e} = -m_0c^2(\frac{1}{\alpha \sqrt{2}} - 1). \    
Therefore, to make lesser radius of electron by the Coulomb force require about 137-times more energy then the rest energy of electron.   
It is evidently, that such process couldn't happen spontaneously, like some collaps for example.   
    
==== Transition to the classical gravitational radius ====   
The work needed to transite electron from r_e \  radius to r_{0E} \  radius is:   
:A_G = \int_{r_{0G}}^{r_e} F_N(r)\, dr = \frac{m_0^2}{4\pi \epsilon_G}\cdot \frac{r_{0G} - r_e}{r_{0G}r_e} = -m_0c^2. \    
So, we need only the rest enegy of electron additionally to transite mass m_0 \  to the classical gravitational radius. This is a small energy and could be easily realized by experimentally, but...    
There are no particles without electric charge (compencated or not). So, we need to transport elementary electric charge with elementary mass. Transport electric work will be in that case:   
:A_{EG} = \int_{r_{0G}}^{r_e} F_C(r)\, dr = \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_E}\cdot \frac{r_{0G} - r_e}{r_{0G}r_e} = -m_0c^2(\frac{m_{\alpha}}{m_0})^2 . \    
Therefore, we have the great problem with electric charge transport, but not with inertial mass.   
Yes, the gravitation radius of electron could be achived experimentally by applying the great amount of external energy, but there are no any spontaneous process, like collapse which shortened electron radius without external energy.   
    
==== Special relativity ====   
It is known, that acselerated electron has the mass dependence on velocity:   
:m(v) = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}. \    
So, we could use the following energy relationship:   
:-A_{EG} = m_0c^2(\frac{m_{\alpha}}{m_0})^2 = m(v)c^2, \    
from which the maximal electron velocity can be derived:   
:v_{max} = c \sqrt{1 - (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^4} \approx c[1 - \frac{1}{2}(\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^4]. \    
Probably, that this velocity is maximal to any inertial mass in the our Universe.
195.47.212.108 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical radius of electron approach 

message: ==== Transition to the classical electric radius ====   
The work needed to transite electron from r_e \  radius to r_{0E} \  radius is:   
:A_E = \int_{r_{0E}}^{r_e} F_C(r)\, dr = \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_E}\cdot \frac{r_{0E} - r_e}{r_{0E}r_e} = -m_0c^2(\frac{1}{\alpha \sqrt{2}} - 1). \    
Therefore, to make lesser radius of electron by the Coulomb force require about 137-times more energy then the rest energy of electron.   
It is evidently, that such process couldn't happen spontaneously, like some collaps for example.   
    
==== Transition to the classical gravitational radius ====   
The work needed to transite electron from r_e \  radius to r_{0E} \  radius is:   
:A_G = \int_{r_{0G}}^{r_e} F_N(r)\, dr = \frac{m_0^2}{4\pi \epsilon_G}\cdot \frac{r_{0G} - r_e}{r_{0G}r_e} = -m_0c^2. \    
So, we need only the rest enegy of electron additionally to transite mass m_0 \  to the classical gravitational radius. This is a small energy and could be easily realized by experimentally, but...    
There are no particles without electric charge (compencated or not). So, we need to transport elementary electric charge with elementary mass. Transport electric work will be in that case:   
:A_{EG} = \int_{r_{0G}}^{r_e} F_C(r)\, dr = \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_E}\cdot \frac{r_{0G} - r_e}{r_{0G}r_e} = -m_0c^2(\frac{m_{\alpha}}{m_0})^2 . \    
Therefore, we have the great problem with electric charge transport, but not with inertial mass.   
Yes, the gravitation radius of electron could be achived experimentally by applying the great amount of external energy, but there are no any spontaneous process, like collapse which shortened electron radius without external energy.   
    
==== Special relativity ====   
It is known, that acselerated electron has the mass dependence on velocity:   
:m(v) = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}. \    
So, we could use the following energy relationship:   
:-A_{EG} = m_0c^2(\frac{m_{\alpha}}{m_0})^2 = m(v)c^2, \    
from which the maximal electron velocity can be derived:   
:v_{max} = c \sqrt{1 - (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^4} \approx c[1 - \frac{1}{2}(\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^4]. \    
Probably, that this velocity is maximal to any inertial mass in the our Universe.
195.47.212.108 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy requirements 

message: It is known, that acselerated electron has the mass dependence on velocity:   
:m(v) = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}. \    
So, we could use the following energy relationship:   
:-A_{EG} = m_0c^2(\frac{m_{\alpha}}{m_0})^2 = m(v)c^2, \    
from which the maximal electron velocity can be derived:   
:v_{max} = c \sqrt{1 - (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^4} \approx c[1 - \frac{1}{2}(\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^4]. \    
Probably, that this velocity is maximal to any inertial mass in the our Universe.
195.47.212.108 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special relativity 

message: As I think, the text was deletet for the following reason: because there are no any gravitational black holes.
Actually, to collapse electron to the gravitational radius need great energy:
:\Delta W = W_0 (\frac{m_{\alpha}}{m_0})^2 \approx 2\cdot 10^{42} MeV \ 
This value is equivalent to the following mass:
:M_x = \frac{e\Delta W }{c^2} \approx 4\cdot 10^{12} kg. \ 
Furthermore, if we transvers the whole Moon mass to collapse electrons, its number will be about 10^{10}. This is the tupical concentradion of electrons in the dielectric materials per cm^{-3}.
195.47.212.108 (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted because it's original research. Please read WP:OR. -- BenRG (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not oririnal investigation. Actually, in the Ross paper (Ross McPherson. Stoney Scale and Large Number Coincidences. Apeiron, Vol. 14, No. 3, July 2007) we could see the TWO different orbital velocities, due to gravity (gravitational speed), and due to elecricity (electromagnetic speed). Equating these velocities to the maximal parabolic velocity yields the s.c. Schwarzschild radius.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text 

message: In the section "Problems": "Quantum mechanics permits superluminal speeds for an object with as small a mass as the electron over distance scales larger than the Schwarzschild radius of the electron".
I don't believe quantum mechanics allows superluminal speeds, unless by that is meant some wave notion such as wave velocity or group velocity (signal velocity is always lower than that of light). Who wrote that sentence should explain it better, say why it should consitute a problem, and provide references. Otherwise the section should be removed --131.130.45.41 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superluminal velocity? 

message: I'm trying to fix up this article a bit, to make it better express standard views on physics, and to provide references for all the claims made.   I'm a mathematical physicist and an expert on general relativity and quantum field theory, so I think I can do this.  John Baez (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New changes

message: The text says:
...In the Reissner–Nordström metric, which describes electrically charged but non-rotating black holes, there is a quantity r_q, defined by ... Since this (vastly) exceeds the Schwarzschild radius, the Reissner–Nordström metric has a naked singularity.
It would be great if r_q could be motivated a bit, what is it?--Haraldkir (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  better explanation possible? 

message: Im curious if these calculations generalize to the other charged leptons such as the muon? 87.63.114.242 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black hole muon?