Quantization of mass for black holes?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the quantization of black hole masses as proposed by Gia Dvali, Cesar Gomez, and Slava Mukhanov in their paper "Black Hole Masses are Quantized." They assert that black hole masses cannot take continuous values and must be quantized, relying on Poincare-invariance of the asymptotic background. The derived universal quantization rule is expressed as m = √N m_P, where m_P is the Planck mass, estimated at 10^19 GeV in 3+1 dimensions. The implications suggest that black holes will be produced as quantum resonances with discrete masses at the LHC, challenging previous assumptions about their emission and absorption of quanta.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum field theory principles
  • Familiarity with Poincare-invariance concepts
  • Knowledge of Planck mass and its significance in physics
  • Awareness of large extra dimensions and their implications in particle physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the quantization rule m = √N m_P in various dimensions
  • Explore the relationship between black holes and classicalons in quantum field theory
  • Investigate recent LHC results related to large extra dimensions
  • Study the safety analyses conducted by Giddings and Mangano regarding black holes at the LHC
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in quantum field theory, and particle physicists interested in the implications of black hole mass quantization and its relevance to experimental results at the LHC.

bcrowell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
6,723
Reaction score
431
"Black Hole Masses are Quantized," Gia Dvali, Cesar Gomez, Slava Mukhanov, http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.5894
We give a simple argument showing that in any sensible quantum field theory the masses of black holes cannot assume continuous values and must be quantized. Our proof solely relies on Poincare-invariance of the asymptotic background, and is insensitive to geometric characteristics of black holes or other peculiarities of the short distance physics. Therefore, our results are equally-applicable to any other localized objects on asymptotically Poincare-invariant space, such as classicalons. By adding a requirement that in large mass limit the quantization must approximately account for classical results, we derive an universal quantization rule applicable to all classicalons (including black holes) in arbitrary number of dimensions. In particular, this implies, that black holes cannot emit/absorb arbitrarily soft quanta. The effect has phenomenological model-independent implications for black holes and other classicalons that may be created at LHC. We predict, that contrary to naive intuition, the black holes and/or classicalons, will be produced in form of fully-fledged quantum resonances of discrete masses, with the level-spacing controlled by the inverse square-root of cross-section.

There is a nontechnical summary on the arxiv blog: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/ , along with some inflammatory and uninformed speculation about safety at the LHC, including "This is a debate that particle physicists are strangely reluctant to engage in, having ignored most of the questions marks over safety." In fact, particle physicists have analyzed the issue in great detail: Giddings and Mangano, "Comments on claimed risk from metastable black holes," http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4087

Anyway, getting back to the actual physics of the paper, the quantization rule they propose is m=\sqrt{N}m_P, where mP is the Planck mass. The Planck mass is 10^19 GeV in 3+1 dimensions, but it is much lower if you assume large extra dimensions. IIRC recent LHC results are putting some tough constraints on large extra dimensions, so it is probably not likely that that the ideas in this paper can be confirmed. The area would be quantized in integer multiples of the Planck area, which I guess sounds nice in relation to LQG...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I have already seen such theory long time ago (two years back), I try to dig it up if you are really interested. The way I remember it, the math was very simple.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K