Talk:Black hole electron/Archive 1

message: : 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)
thread_title:  Elementary particle collisions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Credits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Length 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Last sentence should be earlier 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  My research thus far 

message: 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. 
*http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw117.html
Pjacobi 12:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planck mass 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit needed 

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