Particle Black Holes: Exploring a Potential Quantum Mechanics Theory

[michael879]

so I read about this "theory" a while back, and I've been doing some thinking about it. The "theory" is basically just that since a black hole with the same mass/spin/charge as a fundamental particle would appear to be identical to that particle, it is possible that all particles are just black holes.

Ive come up with a few interesting features of this theory but I don't even know where to start in either showing this theory is possible or completely implausible.

The "theory" is that GR and black hole thermodynamics can be used to explain quantum mechanics. Theres 4 features of this that I find interesting but like I said I don't see how to go any further with it (the math of naked singularities is slightly complicated).

1) Like I said above, a black hole with the right parameters would be identical to a classical particle. The only "problem" with this is that given the parameters of the known particles, the black hole would be a naked ring singularity.

2) The particles would be naked ring singularities. I found the expected radius of an electron and it comes suprisingly close to some estimates I found (I have no idea what these estimates are actually measures of though since the electron is supposed to be a point mass right?). This is probably just a coincidence but string theory also predicts that particles are ring singularities.

3) Using black hole thermodynamics this does a very good job of explaining annilihilation. For example, take a positronium "atom". According to quantum mechanics, the particles will only annilihilate in the ground state. In this state, the particles have opposite spin (singlet state).

If the particles were black holes, they would independently have no temperature because they would be naked. Therefore they would not radiate and would be stable. However, if an electron black hole joins with a positron black hole of opposite spin, the result would be a chargeless spinless black hole. This resulting black hole WOULD have a temperature and would have a very large temperature. It would quickly evaporate leading to the phenomenon of annilihation.

4) I read something about a backward causality interpretation of QM. I was unable to find any formal definition of it, but the example given was in the case of the EPR experiment. Measurement of the spin of one particle causes the spin of its past "self" to be the same. Since in the past, both particles were in contact, this also affects the past spin of the other particle and therefore the future. This leads to a local interpretation of QM that involves altering the past.

It is also true that closed time loops occur in naked singularities. While I have no idea if this phenomenon could cause the backward causality effects of QM, it seems plausible. For example a photon "absorbed" by one black hole during measurement could enter a closed time loop and emerge at some time in the past.


any thoughts on this? I realize this leaves a ton of unanswered questions, even if it were true (like why only certain naked singularities can exist, or an explanation of black hole thermodynamics without using QM). However, I found it at the very least an interesting theory.

P.S. please don't mention penrose's censorship hypothesis. The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence and therefore there is NO evidence for it. Plus, from what I've heard of string theory, strings ARE "singularities", at least in the sense of being 1 dimensional objects (which would be mathematically defined by a delta function).

 

[ZapperZ]

so I read about this "theory" a while back, and I've been doing some thinking about it. The "theory" is basically just that since a black hole with the same mass/spin/charge as a fundamental particle would appear to be identical to that particle, it is possible that all particles are just black holes.

You should know by now that you need to provide full citation of the source, especially when discussing something that isn't widely known or is new.

Zz.

 

[Savant13]

That is very interesting. What was that about spin influencing black hole decay?

 

[JustinLevy]

One immediate problem with this idea is that for all the fundamental particles we have observed so far, all have too large of spin or charge compared to their mass to be a black hole. So if you want to treat them as point sources, you can't treat them as black holes as they are beyond the extremal limit.

If we find the Higgs, it would be the first fundamental particle to be a black hole if you apply GR to it as a point mass. Quantum mechanics however shows us that to confine a particle in the region of its event horizon, the energy would have to be at least on the order of the Planck scale.

So for either of those reasons, this theory is very ill defined.

 

[michael879]

You should know by now that you need to provide full citation of the source, especially when discussing something that isn't widely known or is new.

Zz.

well my point was that its not even a real theory. Its just something I read somewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron). Its not commonly believed to be true, since the common belief is that a quantum theory of gravity is needed to talk about gravity on those scales. The only reason I mentioned it is because it is what started me thinking about this idea.

 

[michael879]

That is very interesting. What was that about spin influencing black hole decay?

Im not sure how to do the nice equation stuff on here, but its easy to find the equation of a black hole temperature. As the spin and charge of a black hole increase, its temperature decreases (if its mass stays the same). When the black hole becomes maximal (Q^2 + a^2 = M^2) it has 0 temperature and beyond that it is naked and has an "imaginary temperature" (which I'm interpreting to mean it doesn't radiate. This seems valid since if there is no event horizon information is not destroyed when objects approach the black hole.)

 

[michael879]

One immediate problem with this idea is that for all the fundamental particles we have observed so far, all have too large of spin or charge compared to their mass to be a black hole. So if you want to treat them as point sources, you can't treat them as black holes as they are beyond the extremal limit.

That is my point, particles treated as black holes would NOT be point sources. Because their spin and charge is so large they would be naked ring singularities.

 

[Vanadium 50]

well my point was that its not even a real theory

That's correct. It's not a real theory.

Its just something I read somewhere(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron).

And, as that article points out at the very top, electrons are not black holes because when you do the calculation in the appropriate metric, you don't get a black hole. Unfortunately, then the article goes on to do a calculation using the wrong metric, and then gets the wrong answer.

Its not commonly believed to be true, since the common belief is that a quantum theory of gravity is needed to talk about gravity on those scales. The only reason I mentioned it is because it is what started me thinking about this idea.

Starting out with something that makes a computational error is unlikely to lead to enlightenment.

 

[michael879]

And, as that article points out at the very top, electrons are not black holes because when you do the calculation in the appropriate metric, you don't get a black hole. Unfortunately, then the article goes on to do a calculation using the wrong metric, and then gets the wrong answer.
Starting out with something that makes a computational error is unlikely to lead to enlightenment.

what computational error? I was only referring to the qualititative idea put forth in that article, not any of the math they use (I didn't check but Ill take your word its wrong). Electrons ARE black holes using just GR, they are just naked singularities. While it is an understandable and common belief that naked singularities are not possible (penrose's censorship hypothesis), nothing in GR forbids them. I am not sure what makes you say "you don't get a black hole", unless you don't define a naked singularity as a black hole (which is just semantics).edit: just reread it and noticed what your referring to. Your referring to how they assume the electron has no spin/charge right? Forget that, its clearly wrong and its not what I am doing. The only thing important in that article is the first sentence,

In physics, there is a speculative notion that if there were a black hole with the same mass and charge as an electron, it would share many of the properties of the electron including the magnetic moment and Compton wavelength.

everything else in that article is either irrelevant or just wrong (Im seriously considering editing it after noticing a ton of other mistakes).

 

[Vanadium 50]

everything else in that article is either irrelevant or just wrong (Im seriously considering editing it after noticing a ton of other mistakes).

Exactly.

 

[michael879]

Exactly.

ok, so I shouldn't have posted the article. Zapper kind of told me to. Either way its irrelevant to this thread because I include all the relevant points of the article in my OP. This thread isn't about that article its about an idea I had after reading that article.

 

[michael879]

any other comments about the actual topic? (rather than the article I shouldn't have referenced)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Since you haven't posted a peer-reviewed or mainstream article on this, it sounds like this has moved into the realm of "Overly Speculative Posts", which is probably why this hasn't gotten more attention lately. I can tell you that your theory has other problems with it, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

 

[michael879]

Since you haven't posted a peer-reviewed or mainstream article on this, it sounds like this has moved into the realm of "Overly Speculative Posts", which is probably why this hasn't gotten more attention lately. I can tell you that your theory has other problems with it, but this isn't the place for that discussion.

I havnt posted a peer reviewed article because my question is about something I thought of. This IS the place for discusion of it because it is entirely about relativity. If there is a problem please just point it out instead of making me ask so many times.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The point I am trying to make is that the idea you are talking about is either:

1) Your own theory, in which case it belongs in Independent Research, or

2) Derived from the link you posted, which is, as we all agree, irrelevant and wrong, and therefore not in need of further discussion, or

3) Derived from some other peer-reviewed article, in which case you should post the reference.

I don't think I missed a possibility. Did I?

 

[atyy]

Black Holes as Elementary Particles
C.F.E. Holzhey, F. Wilczek
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9202014

EXTREMAL BLACK HOLES AND ELEMENTARY STRING STATES
Ashoke Sen
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9504147

 

[Crazy Tosser]

So, what is light and other fundamental particles in your "theory"? And what predictions does it make?

 

[George Jones]

The point I am trying to make is that the idea you are talking about is either:

1) Your own theory, in which case it belongs in Independent Research, or

In particular, the Physics Forums Rules.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374,

state

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, and, if appropriate, an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301". Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

I'm closing this thread.