Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Particle black holes

  1. Dec 1, 2008 #1
    so I read about this "theory" a while back, and Ive 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 isnt the evidence of absence and therefore there is NO evidence for it. Plus, from what Ive 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).
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 1, 2008 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  4. Dec 1, 2008 #3
    That is very interesting. What was that about spin influencing black hole decay?
     
  5. Dec 2, 2008 #4
    One immediate problem with this idea is that for all the fundemental particles we have observed so far, all have too large of spin or charge compared to their mass to be a blackhole. So if you want to treat them as point sources, you can't treat them as blackholes as they are beyond the extremal limit.

    If we find the Higgs, it would be the first fundemental particle to be a blackhole 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.
     
  6. Dec 4, 2008 #5
    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.
     
  7. Dec 4, 2008 #6
    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.)
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2008
  8. Dec 4, 2008 #7
    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.
     
  9. Dec 4, 2008 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

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

    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.
     
  10. Dec 4, 2008 #9
    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. Im 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 Im doing. The only thing important in that article is the first sentence,
    everything else in that article is either irrelevant or just wrong (Im seriously considering editing it after noticing a ton of other mistakes).
     
  11. Dec 4, 2008 #10

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    Exactly.
     
  12. Dec 4, 2008 #11
    ok, so I shouldnt 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.
     
  13. Dec 13, 2008 #12
    any other comments about the actual topic? (rather than the article I shouldn't have referenced)
     
  14. Dec 13, 2008 #13

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    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.
     
  15. Dec 19, 2008 #14
    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.
     
  16. Dec 19, 2008 #15

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    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?
     
  17. Dec 20, 2008 #16

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  18. Dec 20, 2008 #17
    So, what is light and other fundamental particles in your "theory"? And what predictions does it make?
     
  19. Dec 20, 2008 #18

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In particular, the Physics Forums Rules.

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

    state
    I'm closing this thread.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?