Can Elementary Particles Be Considered Small Black Holes?

[member 11137]

Is there any theory for which "elementary" particles are "small" black holes or/and for which the electron and the proton would be a pair of associated black holes?

Does such question even be meaningful ? Or is it just science-fiction, the fruit of any crazzy imagination?

 

[negru]

Any particle, given enough energy, will become a black hole

 

[Demystifier]

Any particle, given enough energy, will become a black hole

Are you saying that a particle can become a black hole by accelerating to a high velocity close to c? If that is what you are saying, then you are wrong.

 

[negru]

Really? I thought that energy curves space-time, and when it gets curved enough it becomes a black hole. I mean, possibly ignoring new Planck scale effects

 

[FroChro]

I'm quite confused here.. shouldn't a property of being a black hole be coordinate invariant?
There should be some singularity inside of horizon with some diverging scalar quantity.
Moving alongside the particle, no such singularity should be observed.?

 

[atyy]

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

 

[fzero]

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

That's addressing the converse of the question in the OP.

For an elementary particle to be a black hole, it must have a Compton wavelength smaller than its Schwarzschild radius, otherwise the horizon is not defined. The lower bound on the mass of a black hole is therefore the Planck mass. All known elementary particles are well below this bound, so they are not black holes.

 

[member 11137]

That's addressing the converse of the question in the OP.

For an elementary particle to be a black hole, it must have a Compton wavelength smaller than its Schwarzschild radius, otherwise the horizon is not defined. The lower bound on the mass of a black hole is therefore the Planck mass. All known elementary particles are well below this bound, so they are not black holes.

Despite the recommanded document is treating the converse of the question, I shall read it... and perhaps ask some more new questions.

For atyy and fzero: thank you.

 

[negru]

Yeah i was wrong, sorry.

 

[member 11137]

Yeah i was wrong, sorry.

What is true is this complicated interplay between the mass (the equivalent proper energy) and the dimensions (in fact the geometry, the form and the exterior surface) of a given black hole.

I am no specialist about this thematic but I guess it must be an excellent way to test some fascinating theories concerning topology, quantization ...a.s.a...

One could for example ask why the "smallest" black hole (of which the surface must be quantized, accordingly to different works: Hawking, Rovelli...) is not a pyramid (just a funny proposition) insteed to be a sphere?

As non specialist, I see another objection to the possibility: particle = blac hole. Since some particles are radiating, this hypothesis -if true- would impose a coincidence between the observed radiation and the Hawking radiation which seems to be the only one authorized by the theory...