One of the alleged difficulties of producing a so-called quantum gravity theory is due to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
To probe ever tinier distances, we need ever greater energies. The problem is that if you concentrate too much mass/energy in a tiny space, the gravity of such a space becomes so huge that tiny black holes form, making the measurement impossible. Even though that assumes GR holds in the microscopic realm.
This is my question. How do we know that a high energy allocated to a tiny subatomic region of space would create a tiny black hole, since we don't have any proven UV-complete theory of quantum gravity to begin with?
How do scientists know that a high energy concentration in a tiny space would lead to a tiny black hole?
Here's a precise description of this issue (it starts at the very right time where professor Matt O'dowd explains the issue):
https://youtu.be/YNEBhwimJWs?t=307
actually, it's an interesting question. I can't find anything that proves this alleged theory. Therefore, this question remains unanswered.
Thank you, academic Preston Guynn for your peculiar insight into the question.
Black holes are not important, as they can be avoided by using distrbutions theory.
Please, I would very much like to know who has shown that
"A large subatomic concentration of energy would lead to a microscopic black hole"
...Unless this statement is simply pure and simple hear saying contributing to the mystification of quantum theories, and the question posed has no answer since it is not well founded.
Very interesting question, it is a pity that I do not specialize in these issues and problems.
So my answer will be very evasive. Nothing is certain until it is experimentally / theoretically verified or otherwise supported by convincing evidence, but scientific speculation is the first step to finding an answer ...
Jose Risomar Sousa, my demonstration about avoiding singularities like black holes is published here on RG too.
“If Einstein's GR only works in the macro world, how do we know microscopic black holes exist?.... One of the alleged difficulties of producing a so-called quantum gravity theory is due to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle….”
- though the GR indeed is a macro theory, however in it there is no any prohibition of existence of some “know microscopic black holes”; and difficulties of “producing a so-called quantum gravity theory isn’t due to the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle”; including that is not because of
“….To probe ever tinier distances, we need ever greater energies. The problem is that if you concentrate too much mass/energy in a tiny space, the gravity of such a space becomes so huge that black holes form, making the measurement impossible. Even though that assumes GR holds in the microscopic realm….”
- the “gravity”, i.e. the “curvature of the spacetime” in the GR is infinite on the infinitely thin/ “microscopic” surface of a “black hole event horizon”.
That the quantum gravity theory doesn’t exist is because of the GR is fundamentally incompatible with QM, because of the GR is based on the fundamentally wrong postulate that some really mystic interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass” are real, however that is impossible in more adequate to the reality QM; nonetheless in this case the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has really no relation to the “black hole problem”.
Really “Gravity” is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which is in a few traits similar to the fundamental Nature “Electric” force; and, as that happened in the case with the Electric Force, where both – macro and QM theories were developed, after development of the really scientific macro Gravity theory there will not be some principal problems at development of the quantum gravity theory.
This theory practically for sure will be based on the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, see 2007 initial models of Gravity and Electric Forces in section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems”,
- where [in the models] there is no problems with quantum nature of the Forces, including quantum effects in Gravity can be observed in the 2007 proposed experiments, more see - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”.
At that there is no problem in “Black holes” at all, what are “black holes” see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358801098_Title_page_Article_type_Review_Title_The_informational_physical_model_some_selected_fundamental_problems_in_physics , section “Cosmology”, including no problem in “micro black holes”, the “utmost micro” black holes are Planck mass particles, see the first link above.
Cheers
Academic Dimitris Apostolos Sardelis , I am posting here just one of the various videos on Youtube where experts state that a high concentration of energy in a tiny subatomic space leads to the creation of microscopic black hopes, which prevent things to be measured.
This is actually one of the reasons why theoretically there is a limit to how small a thing can be measured without falling into this trap of forming a black hole (Planck length, etc.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9ftIJvOJj4
There are various other videos where this same point is brought up, though.
(A)" If Einstein's GR only works in the macro world...."
(B)"To probe ever tinier distances, we need ever greater energies. The problem is that if you concentrate too much mass/energy in a tiny space, the gravity of such a space becomes so huge that black holes form, making the measurement impossible. Even though that assumes GR holds in the microscopic realm."
There are a few apparent misconceptions discernible in the above assumption (A) and statement (B):
(i) Large energy required to probe a tiny space-time domain is the requirement on the probe- this need not actually correspond to huge concentration of energy in the probed region,
(ii) As asked elsewhere in this thread by D A Sardelis:
"Please, I would very much like to know who has shown that
"A large subatomic concentration of energy would lead to a microscopic black hole" "- need to be answered first.
(iii) Also it may be emphasized that the statement that "If Einstein's GR only works in the macro world"- may be an invalid assumption.- our present inability to formulate a workable and consistent microscopic/ quantum theory of Gravity need not be construed as a law of Nature!
Academic Bimal Mahapatra , you have to read the whole thread and understand what's being asked. Please watch the video I posted above and let me know if you can help me understanding what's going on. Below some more background:
Planck scale
In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale is an energy scale around 1.22×1019 GeV (the Planck energy, corresponding to the energy equivalent of the Planck mass, 2.17645×10−8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, present descriptions and theories of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory break down and become inadequate, due to the impact of the apparent non-renormalizability of gravity within current theories.
Relationship to gravity
At the Planck length scale, the strength of gravity is expected to become comparable with the other forces, and it is theorized that all the fundamental forces are unified at that scale, but the exact mechanism of this unification remains unknown. The Planck scale is therefore the point where the effects of quantum gravity can no longer be ignored in other fundamental interactions, where current calculations and approaches begin to break down, and a means to take account of its impact is necessary. On these grounds, it has been speculated that it may be an approximate lower limit at which a black hole could be formed by collapse.
While physicists have a fairly good understanding of the other fundamental interactions of forces on the quantum level, gravity is problematic, and cannot be integrated with quantum mechanics at very high energies using the usual framework of quantum field theory. At lesser energy levels it is usually ignored, while for energies approaching or exceeding the Planck scale, a new theory of quantum gravity is necessary. Approaches to this problem include string theory and M-theory, loop quantum gravity, noncommutative geometry, and causal set theory.
Academics Dimitris Apostolos Sardelis and Bimal Mahapatra .
Now you no longer have an excuse to pretend you don't know who said the things that are being claimed in my post. Here's a right to the point video from Dr. Matt O'dowd that talks exactly about the issue I brought up.
https://youtu.be/YNEBhwimJWs?t=307
So, please no more excuses about not understanding what this question is about. If you don't know the answer, leave it to the people who do.
No matter what it has been said or remarked (by me or anybody else), the abrupt and angry style in answers merely shows lack of confidence...
I repeat: Where is it shown that
"a large subatomic concentration of energy would lead to a microscopic black hole"?
Can anybody please provide a reference/a written documentation?
Given the lack of ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (theoretical or experimental), one must therefore conclude that the answer to the question:
"If Einstein's GR only works in the macro world, how do we know microscopic black holes exist?" is very simply: WE DO NOT KNOW.
This of course does not mean that one should refrain from making intuitive speculations on the subject as long as any hocus- pocus arguments do not pass for science proper.
Don't believe Paul Pistea that black holes don't exist. This is cheating in science. Paul "abolished" black holes purely mathematically, because mathematics can justify anything if its user tries.
Jose Risomar Sousa.
Black holes exist in nature independently of general relativity. This theory gave only one of the options for describing it. But they also obey the laws of quantum mechanics and Newton's law of universal gravitation.
1. Nastasenko V.(2022) Schwarzschild Sphere and Nastasenko spinneret / IV International scientific discussion: problems, tasks and prospects – Brighton, Great Britain. 19-20 February 2022. №99. – S. 729-740. DOI 10.51582/interconf.19-20.02.2022.083 https://www.interconf.top/archive.html https://ojs.ukrlogos.in.ua/index.php/interconf/article/view/18608
2. Nastasenko V. (2022) Schwarzschild Sphere and Nastasenko Hole, Justification of Their Structure and Basic Parameters /Journal Physics & Optics Sciences Volume 4(2): P. 1-4 ISSN: 2754-4753 https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/articles/schwarzschild-sphere-and-nastasenko-hole-justification-of-their-structure-and-basic-parameters.pdf
Academic Dimitris Apostolos Sardelis We are here on a dialogue of the deaf.
I will no longer reply to you, and at this point it's become clear that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion but non-sense. I already provided what you asked for, but clearly we're not speaking the same language. Please refrain from adding more non-sense/gibberish to this topic.
Hopefully someone smart will read the question, understand it (or make an effort to understand it), and come up with an explanation.
Academic Preston Guynn , your response was science fiction. Not sure if you notice how unimpressed I was by your answer.
And that's why more and more people keep leaving RG, lack of useful answers.
Nastasenko, are you out of your mind? I did not say, black holes do not exist. I merely can AVOID THEM! Ergo: they exist.
Why avoid something that exists? Or is it the style of stubborn idiots?
Withdrawing my recommendation for the ill defined question posed and unfollowing any psycho controversies on "microscopic black holes" , it looks the most appropriate way out of all this...
Academic Dimitri Sardelis, please go kill your time elsewhere. We can clearly see you have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion.
It's hard to find a bigger idiot than you. And a science sharpie who juggles with empty numbers.
Academics Paul Pistea and Valentyn Nastasenko, please stop the animosity on this thread.
It's serious thread and am waiting for productive answers.
IMO it should be possible to produce a mini black hole in a very high energy density environment but, such a mini BH can't survive for a long time it will more or less explode immediately.
JES
Thank you, academic Stellan Gustafsson.
And that comes back to my point.
If no theory of quantum gravity exists (one that applies for sizes less than a grain of sand, which is the limit that GR was shown to apply), how can you, or anybody else for that matter, say that microscopic black holes are a fact?
Please let me know what theory you used to affirm that subatomic black holes exist!
Jose Risomar Sousa ,
I use the Daon Theory (which is so far the only real ToE, i.e. it calculates and explains all fundamental constants and phenomena).
Everything must have a radial equilibrium to be stable, therefore, a small BH has too much internal energy and can't obtain a radial equilibrium since the gravitational force is insufficient. The mass of a BH must be above some limiting value to be stable.
The Schwarzschild paper on BH has been translated (German to English) 2012, so you can now obtain the correct equations for BH and not the wrong ones produced by Penrose (he probably didn't understand german).
JES
ToE cannot operate wile using binary logic: case a law/ formula includes a variable, the law is depending on it. If a law does not include a variable, that law is invariant to the variable. E.g.: e = mc^2 is depending (varying) on mass, but (for instance) planck' law is invariant according to mass. One cannot bring all physical laws together when using binary logic.
Paul Pistea
E=mc^2
E=hc/lambda=m v lambda c/lambda = mvc
What is the problem?
JES
Academics Paul Pistea and Stellan Gustafsson , interesting discussion. I will try and follow it when I get a chance.
Stellan Gustafsson, a law which do mot include mass would be invariant to mass and e=mc^2 is not mass invariant.
Gravitation law (for instance) is time invariant- it does not include time as a variable in its describing formula-, it is valid for ALL times, but physical laws which include time as a variable are depending on time. One cannot unify all laws.
Paul Pistea
The source of Gravitation is the mass, it's due to a potential existing around all masses, i.e. there is no interacting particle (object like graviton...). So in this situation, there is no need for a time parameter. But, if you consider the interaction between masses having a relative motion then you have to include the relative variation of speed, leading to a deformation of the potential and therefore to a time variable.
I think that your approach is too much mathematics, the understanding of physics is more important.
JES
Stellan Gustafsson: that is exactly what I claim. Gravitation law is valid every()time., while other laws are depending on time.
As Jose Risomar Sousa a number of times quite reasonably pointed, most of the posts in the thread are strange; and, though there is nothing surprising in strange posts in RG threads, when
corresponding posters are too vivid, that impedes to readers to read rational scientific posts.
Really gravitational “potential” is the parameter of the fundamental Nature Gravity force’s field, which [the Force] is in a few traits is similar to the fundamental Nature Electric force,
- and the Forces’ fields aren’t some mystic things that for a mystic reason exist, the fields are created just by the Forces’ mediators – “photons” and “gravitons” [not the photons and gravitons in mainstream physics], which are radiated by the Forces’ charges – electric charge and gravitational charge “gravitational mass”.
More see 2007 initial models of Gravity and Electric Forces in section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics,”,
- including in the models there is no problems with quantum nature of the Forces, including quantum effects in Gravity can be observed in the 2007 proposed experiments, more see - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests ; http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”.
At that there is no problem in “black holes” at all, what “black holes” are see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358801098_Title_page_Article_type_Review_Title_The_informational_physical_model_some_selected_fundamental_problems_in_physics , section “Cosmology”.
Returning more concretely to the thread question about “microscopic black holes”, again: some microscopic black holes can exist – and practically for sure exist, see the links above – but only as the “Planck mass particles” – which were created as the primary Matter’s particles at Matter’s Beginning [see the last link],
- however only in the GR sense – these particles have masses and “radiuses” such that they are in accordance with Schwarzschild radius definition; however that aren’t “Newton’s” black holes, since in this case corresponding radius of the surface were the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light is two times lesser than Schwarzschild one.
All other particles, and macro compositions of the particles, have “radiuses” that extremely larger than the Schwarzschild radius, and so cannot compose some “micro” and even “macro” black holes; the real black holes are created at gravitational collapses of cosmological scale objects – first of all large stars, when the Gravity Force field is extremely large.
Besides there exist supermassive black holes – in centers of galaxies and quasars, which were rather probably composed just by Planck mass particles yet at Matter’s Beginning, that happened only in the “galaxies seeds” – local clusters with extremely dense Planck mass particles content. Outside these clusters Planck mass particles didn’t compose black holes – though we cannot completely exclude cases when some small – “macro” clusters at Beginning composed some macro holes,
- and mostly are diffusely distributed in the Matter’s 3D space as, including, galaxies/ haloes.
Cheers
Sergey Shvechenko said:
"were the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light is two times lesser than Schwarzschild one."
This is because Schwarzschild determined only half of the energy and mass of a black hole.
Nastasenko Valentin Alekseevich,
Doctor of Technical Sciences, professor of the Department of Transport Technologies and mechanical engineering. Kherson State Maritime Academy (Ukraine)
SCHWARZSCHILD SPHERE AND NASTASENKO HOLE,
JUSTIFICATION OF THEIR STRUCTURE AND BASIC PARAMETERS
Abstract. At the present time, black holes are reduced to the parameters of the Schwarzschild sphere. It is shown that Schwarzschild determined only half of the mass and energy of a black hole, and its spherical shape makes it difficult to interact with the external environment. The elimination of this drawback is the main goal of this work, and the substantiation of the shape, structure and parameters of black holes on the basis of the strict laws of the material world is its scientific novelty.
Work results. It is proposed to replace the Schwarzschild sphere at the quantum level of the material world with a hole-die, which consists of 2 layers of hexagonal prisms of circular space quanta, formed from 6 regular trihedral prisms of elementary space quanta. Length of all their faces is λG = 4.05125∙10-35m and is equal to the wavelength of the gravitational field forming this hole. Its energy and mass are added to the energy E = mc2 due to the rotation of the gravitational field in it. The connection disk form of the black holes and his units between the black and white holes, which change radially to the quantum λGin concentric columns, are justified. Conclusions.Strict calculated dependences are found and numerical values are obtained on their basis, which confirm the new parameters of black holes.
1. Nastasenko V. (2022) Schwarzschild Sphere and Nastasenko Hole, Justification of Their Structure and Basic Parameters /Journal Physics & Optics Sciences Volume 4(2): P. 1-4 ISSN: 2754-4753 https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/articles/schwarzschild-sphere-and-nastasenko-hole-justification-of-their-structure-and-basic-parameters.pdf
Thank you, academic Sergey Shevchenko , I really appreciate your sympathy.
Still puzzled why Dr. Matt and others claim that the Planck length is the limit on the smallest things that can be measured, because measuring things smaller than that limit would require higher energies that would lead to the formation of tiny black holes.
However, since no theory of quantum gravity exists, how do they know these tiny black holes exist? That's the conundrum.
Some of the first responses, especially from academic Dimitri Sardelis, were absolutely bonkers and annoying.
So your sympathy is much appreciated.
Sergei Shevchenko.
It's time for you to read my article: Journal Physics & Optics Sciences Volume 4(2): P. 1-4 ISSN: 2754-4753 https://www.onlinescientificresearch .com/articles/schwarzschild-sphere-and-nastasenko-hole-justification-of-their-structure-and-basic-parameters.pdf
Then your guesses "maybe" and "most likely" will sink into oblivion.
SG: The source of Gravitation is the mass ...
That is incorrect, the source is the stress-energy tensor. The 00 component of that is energy and mass contributes as a form of energy but it is not the whole story.
JRS: Still puzzled why Dr. Matt and others claim that the Planck length is the limit on the smallest things that can be measured ...
It is a widely repeated argument but it is not correct. The Integral satellite for example has shown that there is no dispersion of gamma burst to 13 orders of magnitude below the Planck scale:
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Integral_challenges_physics_beyond_Einstein
Dear George Dishman ,
the source is the stress-energy tensor.
? I didn't know that a tensor could be a source of anything!
JES
Dear Stellan Gustafsson,
The tensor includes mass and kinetic energy (in combination described as the 'relativistic mass') plus other pressure and momentum terms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor#The_components_of_the_stress-energy_tensor
It appears on the right hand side of the field equations as being the cause of gravity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations#Mathematical_form
Dear George Dishman
So, what you really mean is that mass and kinetic energy, as described in the tensor, are the source of gravity.
JES
Jose Risomar Sousa
“…Still puzzled why Dr. Matt and others claim that the Planck length is the limit on the smallest things that can be measured, because measuring things smaller than that limit would require higher energies that would lead to the formation of tiny black holes.….”
- that it is impossible to measure space intervals that are lesser than Planck length is true, since Planck length is the “size” of Matter’s ultimately fundamental and universal base - the binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose Matte’s ether - the [5]4D dense FLE-lattice
- and, since everything in Matter, including humans’ instruments, are only some disturbances in the lattice, no space intervals lesser than the Planck length fundamentally can be observed/measured; and all that is so independently on what Dr. Matt and others claim that that is so, and what some other others claim, as, say, see below, that that isn’t so.
** **
“…The source of Gravitation is the mass ...
That is incorrect, the source is the stress-energy tensor. The 00 component of that is energy and mass contributes as a form of energy but it is not the whole story. …..”
- that “mass is the source of Gravitation” is postulated in the GR, where just the really fundamentally impossible interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass” are postulated as real ones. As that is postulated in Newton’s Gravity law as well, the difference in this case is only in that Newton established the law as that follows from experimental observations and measurements, at that the Newton’s law quantitatively describes how material bodies attract each other, and, at that, he didn’t attempt to explain why/how do they attract?,
- whereas in the GR gravitational objects/events/processes are “explained”, by, again, postulating really illusory interactions above, which are described by the stress-energy tensor, whereas in Newton theory that is described by Newton’s formula.
“…[https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Integral_challenges_physics_beyond_Einstein] ESA’s Integral gamma-ray observatory has provided results that will dramatically affect the search for physics beyond Einstein. It has shown that any underlying quantum ‘graininess’ of space must be at much smaller scales than previously predicted. ….”
- that is ESA notification about some 2011 result of the ESA’s INTEGRAL/IBIS collaboration observation of gamma-Ray Burst GRB 041219A photons’ polarization data processing,
- and, whereas
“…Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the ‘Planck scale’: the minuscule 10-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10-3 m….”
- however
“…According to [the authors’ ] calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays travel through space. The grains should ‘twist’ the light rays, changing the direction in which they oscillate, a property called polarisation. High-energy gamma rays should be twisted more than the lower energy ones, and the difference in the polarisation can be used to estimate the size of the grains.… , Integral’s observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller..”
Since in this case authors of the mentioned above papers/theories, including the author of the GR, had/have only some fundamentally transcendent imagination about what the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” are, these papers and theories logically inevitably are really nothing else than some transcendent – and, at that fundamentally incorrect/senseless – mental constructions.
Again, all fundamental physical phenomena/notions can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model; where, including, the unique in physics now scientifically rational initial Gravity Force model is developed – from which follows the Newton’s Gravity law again, however at that it is rationally scientifically explained – why Gravity Force is as it is, at least in statics,
- and which with a very non-zero probability must be base of development of the both – the scientific “classical” theory of the fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, which will describe dynamical gravitationally coupled systems of bodies, and the QM Gravity theory.
Cheers
Academics Sergey Shevchenko , Paul Pistea , Stellan Gustafsson , George Dishman , Valentyn Nastasenko
Thank you for participating in this discussion, but I am still unanswered, still puzzled.
Dear friend,
A particle's identity is limit to its compton wavelength. Beyond that length scale one is supposed tl observe swarn of particle antiparticles. So when schwarzchild radius is equal to compton wavelength, the mass is called planck mass approx 10E-8. So if swarzchild radius is greater than compton wavength, you are supposed to observe micro black holes.
Jose Risomar Sousa, again: using distributions theory on set functions the problem with black holes can be avoided, ergo: RT and QT can be unified, what I already have done. I have the results of the unification: 1st. Universe is open, 2nd. natural constants are variable, 3rd. time is 2-dimensional, ...
Jose Risomar Sousa
According to the Daon Theory; at such very high energy densities the proton could not exist (the mass of the central electron becomes too low). It follows that mini BH can't exist.
Also, since the proton always exists, you can't reach such enormous energy densities!
JES
The microcosm is part of the macrocosm. General Relativity is applicable to both worlds, as it describes the fundamental concepts --- Time and Space. GR describes Time, Space, gravitational action (attraction or repulsion) and rotation. Therefore, both any macro-object and a micro-object have a black hole and rotation inside. Taking into account not only the gravitational attraction, but also the gravitational repulsion, we conclude that black holes are spheres, the gravitational radius of which is 2GM/c^2. Any material particle, both macro- and micro-, has such a black hole. White holes are surrounded by large objects - the Universe, pulsars. White holes are objects in a state of collapse, but unlike black holes, they are built on the gravitational force of repulsion. The white hole collapse condition is expressed in the de Sitter metric: a^2 = 3/\lambda, where a is the radius of this object, and \lambda is the cosmological constant. So, GR is applicable for solving many problems, including the nature of Time.
Dear Stellan Gustafsson,
SG: So, what you really mean is that mass and kinetic energy, as described in the tensor, are the source of gravity.
No, as I said, that is only the 00 component of the source of gravity, it is one of sixteen terms.
Perhaps the most obvious example is cosmological "dark energy" which as far as we can tell so far is the same as Einstein's "Cosmological Constant". That is a form of energy so skipping some density value, the 00 term would be +1. Like any other positive source of gravity such as mass, that should pull things together hence slow down the expansion of the universe.
However, it is considered to be a part of the natural vacuum and we should not be able to detect a velocity relative to the vacuum so it must have the same coefficients as the Minkowski Metric. Those are all zero off-diagonal but the 11, 22 and 33 terms must all be -1. Those terms are not mass or kinetic energy, they are pressure in three dimensional space.
Gravity comes from the sum of all of them, so one term of +1 together with three terms of -1 gives a total of -2. That means that the total gravity is negative even though the energy part is positive. Negative gravity means that it appears "repulsive" in Newtonian terms so is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate instead of slowing down.
Note that the observational confirmation of this using supernovae is what earned the Nobel Prize for Perlmutter and others around the millennium.
Dear Jose Risomar Sousa,
JRS: This is my question. How do we know that a huge energy allocated to a tiny subatomic region of space would create a micro black hole, since there is no quantum gravity theory to go by?
JRS: I am still unanswered, still puzzled.
I think you have to be careful how you read it. What is being argued is that we cannot probe below such scales because if we could squeeze that much energy into such a small space then according to GR it would create a mini-BH hence we could not get any information out.
Without a quantum gravity theory, we don't know whether that feat could be done. It may be that that amount of energy could not be localised into such a small volume due to some extension of the Uncertainty Principle, but then that same limitation would also mean you still couldn't make measurements on a smaller scale.
However, I have a concern over the argument as stated. A BH has a rest frame but I don't see how the argument could prevent us using light to make the measurements since it has no rest frame. As proof of that I cited a measurement by Integral which has already confirmed the absence of dispersion due to quantised space many orders of magnitude below the Planck limit, but perhaps I should have been clearer about its significance.
You can make a BH from only light as a "Kugelblitz" but only if the energy in the zero-momentum frame meets the criteria for a BH meaning the radiation has to be close to isotropic in the resulting BH rest frame, so for a set of photons on parallel paths (from a distant supernova to us as measured by Integral) that is not possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)
George Dishman and others,
I'm surprised to see how you can believe in GR or what that matters in any of the mainstream physics theories. They are all theories fitted to experimental results, there is absolutely zero understanding of the underlaying physics.
Real physics starts by explaining why the values of the "constants" used in a specific theory have the value it has.
As far as you can't give a detailed logical explanation of these values and the associated phenomena, you are just speculating!
JES
Dear Stellan Gustafsson,
The constants in SR and GR are just c and G and the explanation for those is well known, they are simply unit conversion factors. Nobody would be surprised if I said 25.4 millimetres equals 1 inch. The same is the reason that we say 299792458 metres equals 1 second, they are historical units.
The way to understand this is by looking at the formula for the invariant interval in SR:
s2 = t2 - x2 - y2 - z2
The similarity to Pythagoras is obvious and the geometrical cause is the same but with non-Euclidean geometry where time is involved. That equation is perfect if you measure distances in light-seconds and time in seconds, and then we can say that for reasons involving monarch's arms, politics and the Babylonian liking for the number 60 in relation to mental arithmetic, we have the historical relationship:
299792458 metres equals 1 light second
At the end of the day though, Jose Risomar Sousa asked a simple question about an often seen argument about the Planck scale, he didn't want answers based on some new personal theory you might be working on that nobody else has heard of.
I think you have to be careful how you read it. What is being argued is that we cannot probe below such scales because if we could squeeze that much energy into such a small space then according to GR it would create a mini-BH hence we could not get any information out.
George Dishman I think I'm starting to see the point.
However, this assumes that GR continues valid at the scales of electrons and protons, which may not be true at all, and that's what puzzles me to begin with.
George Dishman
I thought c vas the speed of light and G a constant associating gravitational force with mass and distance. if you then chose to change their value to fit some other unit doesn't really matter, you still have to explain their values.
I don't see what this has to do with another theory, it's just simple logic.
JES
Jose Risomar Sousa
“…Thank you for participating in this discussion, but I am still unanswered, still puzzled.….”
-? - in the SS posts above the thread question “If Einstein's GR only works in the macro world, how do we know microscopic black holes exist?” is rather clearly answered:
- the GR is really a mainstream physical theory, which is based on the really non-adequate to the reality postulates, which, though looks as adequately describes some gravitational objects/events/processes in weak Gravity fields, fundamentally isn’t applicable in strong Gravity fields cases,
- including, though in Matter indeed there exist some material objects that are compact and have so large masses that have extreme density, and so there exist some surfaces on some radiuses [which are “Schwarzschild/Newton radiuses”], on which the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light;
- and, though such objects are indeed “black” because of that radiated by them light is heavily gravitationally red-shifted, and, moreover, if some photons are radiated non-orthogonally to the surface, they indeed can rotate around the objects through some closed orbits, etc., but in that there is nothing unusual,
- however the “black holes” in the GR have some “weird” unusual properties only because of the solutions of the GR equations in this case result in infinite “spacetime curvature”, and so black holes in the GR are some “holes in the spacetime”.
But really in Matter fundamentally cannot be any “holes in the spacetime”, and other singularities at all; again, BHs are, though have extreme gravity fields, nonetheless are composed by some matter, which is placed in the space. More about what “black holes” are see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358801098_Title_page_Article_type_Review_Title_The_informational_physical_model_some_selected_fundamental_problems_in_physics, section “Cosmology”.
Including, again, there can, and practically for sure exist, only one type of “micro black holes” – that are the smallest possible in Matter Planck mass particles, which have sizes be equal to the Schwarzschild radius. All other particles have extremely larger sizes, and so ordinary matter cannot compose some “micro black holes” up to the cases when some material object has some very large mass. Say, that are some large stars, which in the end of their lives collapse into well non-microscopic “black holes”.
So only some microscopic BH can be as some dense compositions of the Planck mass particles, however that looks as is possible only with very low probability; and, besides, if such micro-BH really exist, in that there is no more interesting problems than in the more general problem “what is BH matter” at all; and that, again, has no any relation to the GR.
** **
“…I thought c vas the speed of light and G a constant associating gravitational force with mass and distance. if you then chose to change their value to fit some other unit doesn't really matter, you still have to explain their values.…..”
- that is so, whereas that
“…The constants in SR and GR are just c and G and the explanation for those is well known, they are simply unit conversion factors. Nobody would be surprised if I said 25.4 millimetres equals 1 inch. The same is the reason that we say 299792458 metres equals 1 second, they are historical units.
The way to understand this is by looking at the formula for the invariant interval in SR:
s2 = t2 - x2 - y2 - z2… 299792458 metres equals 1 light second….”
- isn’t correct. The formula s2 = t2 - x2 - y2 - z2 contains purely “kinematical” variables that relate to the dimensions of the Matter’s corresponding fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),
- which [the spacetime] fundamentally is nothing else than some “empty container”; whereas emptiness - and so the dimensions, fundamentally have no some “intrinsic” measure(s). So distances between material objects in (3+1)D space, and intervals between events in time, can be, and so are, measured only relatively, comparing with some etalons of distances and intervals.
Including in this case it is possible to measure space distances by the same measures/units – as that see in the spacetime metrics above,
However the gravitational constant G relates to fundamental dynamical traits in Matter, so the claim that “c and G and the explanation for those is well known, they are simply unit conversion factors” is fundamentally incorrect.
Cheers
Dear Jose Risomar Sousa ,
JRS: I think I'm starting to see the point.
Glad I could help.
JRS: However, this assumes that GR continues valid at the scales of electrons and protons, which may not be true at all, and that's what puzzles me to begin with.
The distance between the hydrogen nucleus and its electron (the Bohr Radius) is about 5.3x10-11m.
The distance between quarks in a proton is about its size so of the order of 8.4x10-16m.
The scale at which GR comes into question without a quantum version is the Planck length which is about 1.62x10-35m.
That's over 19 orders of magnitude smaller than the average distance between the quark inside a single proton, and 24 orders of magnitude below the separation of the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom.
Dear Stellan Gustafsson ,
SG: I thought c was the speed of light and G a constant associating gravitational force with mass and distance. if you then chose to change their value to fit some other unit doesn't really matter, you still have to explain their values.
If you use consistent units in the first place, their value is exactly 1 and you can omit them from the equations.
If we were in the habit of measuring distances east-west in metres but distances north-south in miles, at school you would have learnt Pythagoras as:
c2 = (k a)2 + b2
where k is the number of metres per mile. The geometric proofs of the theorem found over two millennia ago however would not contain k. The constants c and G play the same role, just correcting disparate units. In the geometrical understanding of GR, they don't even exist.
George Dishman
I'm sure you are an excellent mathematician but, I prefer not to discuss physics with you. It would just end up bad. So, I'll not answer any more comments from you, sorry.
JES
No problem JES but for the record I'm not much of a mathematician, my degree was in physics. My career has been in electronic design but always maintained physics as a hobby. For the last 25 years or so I've been concentrating on cosmology and I'm starting to learn astrophysics.
What I've told you is what you'll find in every decent textbook on relativity.
George Dishman
The scale at which GR comes into question without a quantum version is the Planck length which is about 1.62x10-35m.
Not true at all per my readings. GR's validity has been tested and it's been confirmed up to the size of a grain of sand (smallest scale for which GR works). Smaller than that GR's validity is questionable.
Actually, if GR was valid for the scales you referred to, we'd have a theory of quantum gravity already. Btw, classical physics (Newton/Einstein) doesn't apply to electrons orbiting a nucleus, so that contradicts your points.
I already realized I am not going to get any satisfactory answers from this topic, I give up.
It's ok, eventually I will bump into the answer I'm looking for in Youtube, either from Matt O'dowd, Alex McColgan or Sabine Hossenfelder, the great teachers.
Thanks anyway.
Dear Jose Risomar Sousa,
GD: The scale at which GR comes into question without a quantum version is the Planck length which is about 1.62x10-35m.
JRS: Not true at all per my readings. GR's validity has been tested and it's been confirmed up to the size of a grain of sand (smallest scale for which GR works). Smaller than that GR's validity is questionable.
That is true, at smaller scales gravity is so small that we can't test it and for example the EM forces related to the charges in an atom are many orders of magnitude larger than gravitational, but that isn't where people see a direct problem, only a limit on testability.
GR says gravity is produced by energy, usually in the form of mass but in reality in all forms. One form is what we conventionally think of as gravitational potential energy which is an aspect of the curvature that GR uses to describe gravitational effects. The Planck scale is where the energy in the curvature becomes comparable to the energy creating the curvature and you a get a runaway recursive effect. That is why the mini-BH argument comes about.
JRS: Actually, if GR was valid for the scales you referenced, we'd have a theory of quantum gravity already. Btw, classical physics (Newton/Einstein) doesn't apply to electrons orbiting a nucleus, so that contradicts your points.
Above the Planck scale, where masses are large enough to create dominant gravity, quantum effects can be analysed within curved spacetime like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory_in_curved_spacetime
Where gravity is weak we can use the normal approximation of flat spacetime using the Minkowski Metric as the geometry.
It is only at the Planck scale that we are sure neither works. That's why people use this as a rule-of-thumb for where we have to draw our present boundary of trust, but it is only approximate.
Again (for ignorants): distributions theory was developed on a pure physical problem.
Paul Pistea
On what real physical problem?
I have already managed to calm down many "informed" people.
You are based on abstract mathematical, not physical theories.
(Not for nastasenko)- well it is written in my profile..., but what kind of mathematics do you control/ master?
“…Academic Paul Pistea , is your area of formation even Physics?…..”
- yeah, in the thread a couple of posters with rather strange physical theories appeared, and which at that are very vivid posters – ignorance makes the posting quite easy; and the thread becomes to be flooding by a trash.
“…I thought c was the speed of light and G a constant associating gravitational force with mass and distance. if you then chose to change their value to fit some other unit doesn't really matter, you still have to explain their values.
If you use consistent units in the first place, their value is exactly 1 and you can omit them from the equations.……”
- yeah, that is quite so in this case, really, aimed at to simplify for reading formulae in some cases, it has a sense to assign to some fundamental constants dimensionless values “1”; as that firstly did, seems Poincaré in 1905, when he had showed that the Lorentz transformations can be derived by condition of that the quadratic form s2= t2 - x2 - y2 - z2 is invariant in the 4D space, where the time axis is [mathematically] imaginary.
However, again – see the SS post above - that has a sense only if the variables in formulae are in certain sense similar – as that in this case that are 3D space variables/dimensions and the time variable/dimension. Assignation “=1” in one formula to a few constants, say, simultaneously c=1 and G=1 has no real sense, though a formula becomes to be more simply written, however its understanding becomes to be too essentially more difficult.
So in normal physical papers every fundamental constant is pointed as it really is, i.e. as the real value and dimensions [say, m, s, kg, etc.]. Really formulae are as a rule so “simplified” only in papers that address to some fundamental problems, which [the papers] correspondingly are nothing else/more than some transcendent fantastic mental constructions, where the senseless “unification” of the constants doesn’t make the fantasies essentially more senseless.
Correspondingly, though such papers with “fundamental breakthroughs” are numerous in the mainstream physics, really physics-2022 is the same as physics-1980, and on 90% the same as physics-1930.
Though, say, that
“…The geometric proofs of the [Pythagoras] theorem found over two millennia ago however would not contain k. The constants c and G play the same role, just correcting disparate units. In the geometrical understanding of GR, they don't even exist.…”
- simply has rather strange relation to the “c….=1” problem.
“…GD: The scale at which GR comes into question without a quantum version is the Planck length which is about 1.62x10-35m.…”
- that is also rather vague claim, the GR fundamentally is “classical” theory, which is defined on continuous space and time dimensions of the 4D pseudo Riemannian spacetime, including so it is defined on space intervals lesser than Planck length, lP. Say, that is the GR event horizon surface of the GR black holes, which is infinitely thin, i.e. infinitely lesser than lP, etc.
So that,
“…Actually, if GR was valid for the scales you referenced, we'd have a theory of quantum gravity already.. …..”
- again - see above – isn’t, correct, The GR is fundamentally incompatible with QM for the other fundamental reasons. Again, the GR really looks as adequate to the reality only in weak gravity fields case, and is quite non-adequate if the fields are strong – the example that real “black holes” fundamentally and drastically differ from the transcendent “GR black holes” see the section “Cosmology” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358801098_Title_page_Article_type_Review_Title_The_informational_physical_model_some_selected_fundamental_problems_in_physics,
- and besides the BH in the GR there exist “white”, “worm”, “holes in the spacetime”, “channels to multiverses”, “warped spaces”, etc. – all that are really only some fantasies of the rather numerous authors, which are published in very respectable mainstream physical journals,
- and which, of course, have no relation to the quantum gravity, since have no relation to QM at all.
Cheers
The most important (main) thing is: the logic(s) one uses! If one uses binary logic, be sure that it is a "poor" one.
I am using fuzzy associated to the theory, and binary logic for the epi-theory (theory about the theory), and I am sure most of the "academics" don't think like me.
Knowledge is in vain (or at least not sufficent) when using too weak logic.
Valentyn Nastasenko : " Black holes exist in nature independently of general relativity. This theory gave only one of the options for describing it. But they also obey the laws of quantum mechanics and Newton's law of universal gravitation. "
It depends on how we define what a "black hole" is supposed to be.
Technically, a "Wheeler" black hole -- as predicted by Einstein's 1916 general theory, which borrows its gravitational equations from flat-spacetime special relativity -- is bounded by a totally one-way surface (an absolute event horizon) and emits zero radiation. It's that total absence of outward radiation that makes it "black", and that total absence of outward radiation pressure that is its defining feature as a "hole".
If we didn't use special relativity in our gravitational theory, and used updated Newtonian equations instead, we'd still get a horizon at r=2M, but it would be a leaky horizon (see John Michell and C18th "dark stars").
Quantum mechanics agrees with the Newtonian equations that horizons ought to leak massenergy and information -- under QM, horizons are obliged to behave more as if they are relative horizons, in other words, QM's description of horizon-bounded bodies contradicts the GR1916 description.
So the counterpart of "black holes" that occur under QM and Newtonian theory, are not actually black, or holes, or "black holes" in the "Wheeler" sense. The problem is that the QM folks simply ignored that fact that "black hole" was supposed to be a phenomenological definition, and they changed the phenomenology, but kept the name. So instead of Hawking originally announcing "Hey, Wheeler's black holes can't exist, because the horizon can't be absolute!", he announced, "Hey, I've discovered that black holes do radiate after all!"
So the technical language is now all screwed up. (thanks for that, QM guys).
It's a little bit like someone saying, "Hey, we've designed an aeroplane that goes under water!" and you ask them, "Does it really travel under water?" and they reply "Yes!", and you ask "... and does it fly in the air?", and they say, "No, it's a new type of aeroplane that only travels under water"", and then you reply "Actually, what you have invented is not technically an aeroplane, but a submarine. Your technical literature should all be using the word submarine (or some other word that you make up) but you should not really be calling it an aeroplane. It is certainly cylindrical and metal, but it fails to meet the basic definition of what an aeroplane really is".
Jose Risomar Sousa : " This is my question. How do we know that a high energy allocated to a tiny subatomic region of space would create a tiny black hole, since we don't have any proven quantum gravity theory to begin with? "
What the guy in the video is saying, is that according to our current understanding, we expect the default gravitational behaviour to be that any time we compact massenergy into a sufficiently small space that the expected gravitational field causes there to be a surface outside the massenergy distribution for which the escape velocity is reckoned to be above the speed of light, then we expect there to be a censoring horizon. That's the standard default behaviour, and has been since the late Eighteenth Century.
He's also saying that this behaviour is a pain in the backside, and a problem for physics.
When something is a problem for physics, we often change it by changing the physics. So the guy seems to be laying out a case for the possible modification or extension of current physics (or a revised explanation or understanding of it), rather than arguing that we already "know" everything.
His video is called "Quantum Gravity and the Hardest Problem in Physics", which suggests that his position is that perhaps there's something here that we know that we don't quite understand.
Jose Risomar Sousa : " If Einstein's GR only works in the macro world, how do we know microscopic black holes exist? "
Actually, Einstein's GR doesn't work properly, even in the macro world.
The exterior physics of a moving Wheeler black hole (including the exterior physics many lightyears away!) is incompatible with the SR shift equations. If you work out what the proper relativistic equations need to be for a moving black hole in order to agree with the emergent phenomenology, and feed those revised equations back into the model, the resulting horizon-bounded mass ends up with a leaky relative horizon, and is therefore no longer a Wheeler black hole! Wheeler black holes are geometrically self-invalidating.
Preprint Gravitomagnetic horizons and the comprehensive failure of Ei...
Special relativity's equations don't work as the basis of gravitational theory.
However, this doesn't necessarily affect the issue that the guy in the video is talking about.
Academic Paul Pistea : recreational mathematics is what I master. And you?
I just think that you're too hung up on anticonventional physics, aka, eccentric.
“…Actually, if GR was valid for the scales you referenced, we'd have a theory of quantum gravity already.. …..”
- again - see above – isn’t, correct, The GR is fundamentally incompatible with QM for the other fundamental reasons.
Academic Sergey Shevchenko , you take things too literally. The rationale of my post was to argue that if any theory of gravity was valid at such tiny scales that the illustrious colleague mentioned, then we already found the quantum gravity theory (the sordid details aside). That was meant as a witty remark, not to be taken literally .
Anyway, let me go back to my amazing learning with Dr. Matt o'dowd. Bye
Jose Risomar Sousa, think what you want to- distributions theory is an established one, based on physics. Heard about Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac? Heavyside?
Well I am a mathematician. I still wonder how one operates physics whithout mastering maths., AND LOGICS!?
Mathematical logic is based on abstract principles. The internal essence of the processes is not important to her, as long as the principles are observed.
Physical logic is based on real physical laws, energies and forces that form fields and other objects of the material world.
Eric Baird.
The relationship between the radius and mass of black holes is p = M (without a deuce, see https://www.onlinescientificresearch.com/articles/schwarzschild-sphere-and-nastasenko-hole-justification-of-their- структура-и-основные-параметры.pdf).
According to both Newton and Einstein, light and other waves (that is, "information") cannot escape from a black hole. Therefore, the reasoning you cited is scholasticism.
A black hole is noticeable only in a gravitational field. This is now being used in methods for their detection.
Jose Risomar Sousa, my theory is totally different: it is about to re-write entire physics in the language of distributions (terms must be expressed as functionals; mass, or time divided/ multiplied by square-root(1-v^2/c^2) are nothing but functionals). Did you hear about functionals (on test/ set functions)?
Physics is a science of observation and verification by strictly using logics and mathematics. I'd wonder how you could handle it without using maths., how you'd construct laws without using proportionality (for instance).
If I may intervene, to answer the original question, we already know of microscopic black holes, in a way; namely, the elementary particles, like the electron or the neutrino. They have to be point-like, which means that they actually are gravitational singularities.
In regard to the electron, its gravitational field is negligible in comparison with its electromagnetic field (this is a classroom exercise). Therefore, its gravitational field is not detectable. It may be different for the neutrino, but it is hard to get hold of one!
Dear Jose,
if the elementary particles, which in some cases are considered of 0 volume (pointlike), were BH, then no radiation should escape from them...
but as it is well known, the radiation is mostly mediated by electrons.
That means that particles with 0 volume does not make sense at all....
“…Technically, a "Wheeler" black hole -- as predicted by Einstein's 1916 general theory, which borrows its gravitational equations from flat-spacetime special relativity -- is bounded by a totally one-way surface (an absolute event horizon) and emits zero radiation. It's that total absence of outward radiation that makes it "black", and that total absence of outward radiation pressure that is its defining feature as a "hole". …..”,
- yeah, that is completely so, however that
“…If we didn't use special relativity in our gravitational theory, and used updated Newtonian equations instead, we'd still get a horizon at r=2M, but it would be a leaky horizon (see John Michell and C18th "dark stars"). ….”
- is too specific, and we cannot exclude that “updated Newtonian equations” approach can be questionable at all, claim. Again in this thread – that “black holes” radiate particles, including light, follows from the “black hole horizon surface/radius” definition – that is the surface where the escaping velocity of some [small] body is equal to the speed of light [and so below the surface the velocity exceeds the speed of light],
- whereas the escaping velocity on given surface is defined by that is the velocity [and kinetic energy] of a small body when it can move from the surface around big body on infinite distance from the surface, but on the infinity its speed – and kinetic energy – are zero.
In this case both “Newtonian” and the GR black holes differ in that Newtonian radius of the surface is two times lesser than the GR – Schwarzschild radius, what is inessential,
- however Newtonian black hole has so infinite long “hair”, but because of the singularity of the GR equation solution for this radius, the GR black hole has no “hair”.
Again, since the GR isn’t valid in strong Gravity fields – and since in Matter there cannot be singularities at all – real black holes are “Newtonian” ones [relating “hair”], though indeed are drastically black; but not because of that
“…So instead of Hawking originally announcing "Hey, Wheeler's black holes can't exist, because the horizon can't be absolute!", he announced, "Hey, I've discovered that black holes do radiate after all!" ….”
- since the “Hawking radiation” on the “event horizon” follows from the singularity of the GR “spacetime curvature” above, which doesn’t really exist, this radiation practically for sure doesn’t exist as well, and so, say, whereas this radiation causes effective “evaporation of micro black holes”, really utmost microscopic black holes “Planck mass particles”, which with well non-zero probability were the primary particles at Matter’s creation, with also well non-zero probability exist till now composing dark matter and again with well non-zero probability most of at least galaxies’ SMBHs central objects matter;
- more see the SS posts above and links in the posts, since because of a vivid series of full stop posts the links are shifted from the visible page, for convenience repeat the main link in this case - the section “Cosmology” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358801098_Title_page_Article_type_Review_Title_The_informational_physical_model_some_selected_fundamental_problems_in_physics,
“…If I may intervene, to answer the original question, we already know of microscopic black holes, in a way; namely, the elementary particles, like the electron or the neutrino. They have to be point-like, which means that they actually are gravitational singularities….”
- what are really particles at all, including why particles indeed are, and interact, as something “pointlike”, and, however at that, move in Matter’s 4D sub-spacetime being observed as quite non-pointlike waves,
- and what with well non-zero probability are Gravity [which isn’t fundamentally some “spacetime curvature”] and Electric fundamental Nature forces, including why Gravity in a few dozen of order by magnitude is weaker than other Forces, and so, though every time moment a particle has size ~ Planck length – as that, say, Planck mass particles also have, however any other particle isn’t a “black hole”, see the 2007 SS&VT initial model of the Forces in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 , section 2.9 “Mediation of the forces in complex systems”.
SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_Black_holes_darkare relevant to this thread question, the thread isn’t spammed, and this notification isn’t an invitation of some vivid posters to post in the thread
Cheers
Dear friends of physics, relativity, cosmology and elementary particles,
In fact, there is a more direct, more clarifying and more general path to quantum gravity:
The postulates of quantum physics have been derived from gravity and relativity (or from GR, if you like). LINK:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358581911_Quantum_Physics_Explained_by_Gravity_and_Relativity
The other path to quantum gravity is the mere combination of gravity, relativity and quantum physics. For an elaboration of that path see e. g.:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334508319_Die_Grundschwingungen_des_Universums_-_The_Cosmic_Unification
In that path, the existence of microscopically small black holes has been derived by an analysis of dynamical stability of such black holes. LINK: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344284570_The_Universe_Developing_from_Zero-Point_Energy_Discovered_by_Making_Photos_Experiments_and_Calculations
Thank you for your interest.
I am interested in your comments, thank you in advance for these.
Kind regards,
Hans-Otto Carmesin
1st axiom of RT is false: c is an upper limit for all velocities; for light speed too.
Dear Stefano Quattrini,
Certainly, an isolated electron does not radiate. However, electrons can have electromagnetic interactions and then radiate. Macroscopic black holes can also have, if they are charged, electromagnetic interactions and then radiate.
Jose Gaite I never thought about it that way, quite interesting way to look at electrons and particles.
However, these particles don't evaporate to death, so they can't be BHs.
Academic Stefano Quattrini , that's not true.
Tiny black holes would emit radiation as well, the so called Hawking radiation.
For tiny black holes, they would evaporate quite fast since they are tiny.
Dear Jose Risomar Sousa,
Tiny black holes would evaporate quite fast, provided they were able to do it. An electron cannot "evaporate", because it is the lightest charged lepton.
Dear Jose Risomar Sousa, dear Jose Gaite, dear friends of physics, relativity, cosmology and elementary particles,
In the early universe, the density was so high that tiny black holes form faster than they decay by Hawking radiation. Thus, they are dynamically stable. LINK: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344284570_The_Universe_Developing_from_Zero-Point_Energy_Discovered_by_Making_Photos_Experiments_and_Calculations
Thank you for your interest.
I am interested in your comments, thank you in advance for these.
Kind regards,
Hans-Otto Carmesin
Thank you, academic Hans-Otto Carmesin , for your peculiar insights into this matter, aka, energy.
Academic Paul Pistea , you are not taking this thread seriously. Please feel free to contribute, but contribute concrete things, not things from the imagination.
Thank you for making this thread as useful and on point as possible.
It is not imagination, but published work. See zentralblatt fuer mathematik.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics