Naked Singularities: Questions on Fund. Particles as Black Holes

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael879
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Singularities
michael879
Messages
696
Reaction score
7
I have a few questions about these. My main question concerns the "theory" that all fundamental particles are actually black holes. If this were the case, at least for an electron, they would be naked singularities because q+a > m.

1) What are the effects of a naked singularity that make people assume its physically impossible? i.e. I know about closed time loops, but at what range do they occur? Is it only inside of a ring singularity?

2) I understand qualitatively why a charged black hole can not be naked, because when q>m the repulsion due to the charges is stronger than the attraction of gravity. However for a rotating black hole, is there anything qualitatively that stops it a from exceeding m? From what I understand the centrifugal force due to the rotating ring singularity decreases as a increases so this does not explain it.

3) Is there any serious research going into viewing fundamental particles as micro (sub-planck really) black holes? Its a really interesting theory and I am wondering if anyone actually views it as a possibility.

4) On the wikipedia page for micro black hole electrons, they mention that rotating black holes with certain angular momentum will not have hawking radiation. Is this true? Does anyone know the temperature equation for a rotating, charged black hole?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
so as far as 2) is concerned I think I found an answer. One way to explain charged or spinning black holes having a limit in charge or angular momentum is to find when the gravitational force is exceeded by some repulsive force. This explanation is obvious for the charged black hole, and less so for the rotating one. I think I did find the answer though.

dF_g = G * dM * M / (2*a^2) (force of gravity)
dF_c = dM * c^2 / a (centrifugal force)

I found that the ring singularity will become unstable if a > 1/2 * GM/c^2. The factor of 1/2 conflicts with GR, so either this classical approach simply doesn't work or I screwed up somewhere in my calculations.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top