Between electron and black hole

[infamous]

A number of years ago I purchased a book titled "Gravitation Theory and Gravitational Collapse" written by Harrison, Thorne, Wakano, and Wheeler. This book deals primarily with what John Wheeler refers to as the ground state black hole. The notion that there exists a ground state for the formation of a black hole caused me to spend numerous hours investigating this possibility and the implications that it brings with it.

 

For one moment imagine a very large neutron star that has a source of neutrons streaming into it one at a time until it reaches the point where collapse to a black hole takes place. Now ask yourself the question, at what compaction state will this phenomenon commence? Wheeler gives an equation that determines this value to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.67*10^33 grams of mass with a radius of 5.4*10^5 centimeters. Understanding that this value must be as important a figure as the rest mass ot the electron (9.109 E-28 grams) and the classical radius of (2.818 *10^-13 centimeters), we can assume it to also be one of the constants of nature.

 

Now consider this; all definable mass in our physical universe is situated somewhere between the state of a single electron and this ground state black hole. Working upon this premise, one could theorize that there must be something of significance about the relationship between these two states. If anyone at this forum is interested in discussing this idea, please give me your thoughts on this topic. I have some calculations for those that find this topic interesting.

[Little Bang]

An interesting concept. I can see a relationship between the rest mass of an electron and the mass of the singularity since the singularity mass should be exactly equal to a specific number of electron masses. I can't see any relationship in the radius. As far as I know there is no way to know the radius of a singularity except in theory. I'm going to spend a little time thing about this. If you have more post it.

[infamous]

An interesting concept. I can see a relationship between the rest mass of an electron and the mass of the singularity since the singularity mass should be exactly equal to a specific number of electron masses. I can't see any relationship in the radius. As far as I know there is no way to know the radius of a singularity except in theory. I'm going to spend a little time thing about this. If you have more post it.

 

How about this: r=2GM/c^2

where r=the radius of the swartzchild event horizon, 5.46 E+5

and G=the gravitational constant, 6,67286 E-8

and M=the mass of the black hole 3.6767 E+33

and c=the speed of light in a vacuum 2.99792458 E+10

all figures in cgs units.

[Little Bang]

The radius of the event horizon is not the radius of the singularity or point that contains all the mass. The radius of the event horizon is the point at which nothing can escape the gravitational field of the singularity>

[Little Bang]

iNFAMOUS, WHAT IS A GROUND STATE BLACK HOLE ?

[infamous]

The radius of the event horizon is not the radius of the singularity or point that contains all the mass. The radius of the event horizon is the point at which nothing can escape the gravitational field of the singularity>

Very true Little Bang, if you will read my second post, I have corrected this gramatical mistake.

[infamous]

iNFAMOUS, WHAT IS A GROUND STATE BLACK HOLE ?

A ground state black hole is one which will form as I described in my first post. There is a natural point where if mass is steadily added to this neutron star, it will reach critical mass and spontaneously collapse into a black hole. This critical value should be by any definition a constant of nature. John Wheeler has calculated a value for this constant as approx. 3.67E+33 grams. Note; a neutron star is used in this example because there are no nuclear energies being produced to resist gravitational collapse.

 

My research into this phenomenon has lead me to believe that there is much to be learned about the relationship between the mass of an electron and the mass of this ground state black hole. You mentioned earlier that you didn't understand why the radius sould be important in this relationship. Just remember that the radius defines the state of compaction in both cases and is in my view an important issue to consider. The radius which I have listed for the electron is of course the classical measure, while it may not be exact because of the uncertainty principal, it is of value to compare this relationship.

 

Consider this point; everything we call mass falls in-between these to objects. I realize that there are other objects in nature which are much smaller than the electron. The photon for example, but remember the rest mass of a photon is zero. Any mass that a photon can exhibit will be in the form of energy. The electron however has a definite rest mass, and because it is the smallest known rest mass, I have used it to establish this lower limit and of course the ground state black hole as the upper limit for the propagation of mass in our universe. I do understand that black holes can reach much larger masses, however, all black holes exhibit only this evidence by the strength of their gravitational field. Any mass hidden within is not observable and therefore I believe the upper limit for a body of mass in our universe, without the support of energy to resist collapse, will be this ground state black hole.

[Little Bang]

I'm not saying that there is no relationship, I'm just wonder how we define one without knowing the radius of the singularity.

[infamous]

I'm not saying that there is no relationship, I'm just wonder how we define one without knowing the radius of the singularity.

 

Actually the singularity has no measurable radius, at least by our understanding of physical reality. The radius that I'm listing in my figures is the radius of the black holes event horizon at the moment of collapse.

[Little Bang]

Even so you may still be right. There may be some relationship to the event horizon that we just can't see right now.

[coldcreation]

A gifted physicist, mathematics scholar and avid black hole enthusiast by the name of John Taylor wrote about these captivating point-like or worm-like objects: “Black holes violate some of the most sacrosanct laws of the natural world, and represent the ultimate unknowable where time and space end. Black holes are so far beyond anything met in nature that they turn science into science fiction. Black holes are the ultimate doomsday weapon, capable of bringing death within twenty millionths of a second.” (1973, back cover).

 

I agree.

 

Einstein’s last words on the subject were …’One may…not assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and matter, and one may not conclude that the “beginning of expansion” must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense’ (Pais, A. 1982, ‘Subtle is the Lord…’ The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein).

 

I agree.

a.m.aka coldcreation

[Odin]

Theoretically a neutron did not have a mass but an electrical charge[eV] to which is a mere representation of energy from an electron to which a force can be created and causing subatomic particles to form. Neutrons are negative and outside formation of an atom create a proton with the emission of an antineutrino and electron.[beta minus decay].

This new theory is in all relavence a contradiction to where now a neutron has a mass but cannot possibly have an electrical charge in representation from an electron but a proton acting from a charge from the electron to which causes the discharge of neutron particle emissions in radioactive material to which the structure is not stable[like uranium and other lanthanides and actinides] to which would comprise beta plus decay.

In other words an electron cannot affect a neutron that is comprised or surrounded by protons to where the protons will compromise the electrons charge. Since this occurs in fusion energy the polarity of an electron must be reversed in the emission of a photon to where a photon can be absorbed by either a proton or electron and therewith an eV is not caused by the electrons electrical force upon another particle but by the photon emitted by the electron and when the photon is reabsorbed by a proton causes the emission of positrons to compensate the mass difference causing radioactive disturbances within the atom.

This would also mean that opposite charges attract in Particle Theory but charges of the same repel to which is also evident in magnatism when two poles of the same polarity are attempted to be bound only to be introduced to repelling [except by applied force] the emission of the positron is to restabilize the atom and the neutron emits a particle such as a neutrino to compensate the stability of the atom thereby causing the emission of beta energy [not gamma energy]

[Jay-qu]

Where is this 'theory' coming from? do you have any references that you can cite? or is this just something you have come up with..

[infamous]

Theoretically a neutron did not have a mass

Wrong!!!!!

The mass of a neutron= 1.6749286 E-24 grams

 

Before you start lecturing us Odin, check your figures with NIST................Infy

[Odin]

Wrong!!!!!

The mass of a neutron= 1.6749286 E-24 grams

 

Before you start lecturing us Odin, check your figures with NIST................Infy

 

I didnt say that a neutron didnt have a mass...I said that was a postulated theory for Atomic Theory when it first came out...I am not lecturing anyone.. Maybe you should read the post more carefully and interpret first before you make erronous accusations.

 

I was merely indicating that Particle theory and Atomic theory are two different theoroms. In all reality particle theory refers to ionized particles and not atoms. I was also indicating that a fusion reaction cannot be achieved on Earth as in Space and that it would aquire the assistance of electrical energy to which would be impossible as the cylinder containing compressed Hydrogen and Oxygen would have to be spun in an opposite direction of rotation in order to compromise the gravitational field of the Earth. The wires would get all tangled up

[jungjedi]

A ground state black hole is one which will form as I described in my first post. There is a natural point where if mass is steadily added to this neutron star, it will reach critical mass and spontaneously collapse into a black hole. This critical value should be by any definition a constant of nature. John Wheeler has calculated a value for this constant as approx. 3.67E+33 grams. Note; a neutron star is used in this example because there are no nuclear energies being produced to resist gravitational collapse.

 

My research into this phenomenon has lead me to believe that there is much to be learned about the relationship between the mass of an electron and the mass of this ground state black hole. You mentioned earlier that you didn't understand why the radius sould be important in this relationship. Just remember that the radius defines the state of compaction in both cases and is in my view an important issue to consider. The radius which I have listed for the electron is of course the classical measure, while it may not be exact because of the uncertainty principal, it is of value to compare this relationship.

 

Consider this point; everything we call mass falls in-between these to objects. I realize that there are other objects in nature which are much smaller than the electron. The photon for example, but remember the rest mass of a photon is zero. Any mass that a photon can exhibit will be in the form of energy. The electron however has a definite rest mass, and because it is the smallest known rest mass, I have used it to establish this lower limit and of course the ground state black hole as the upper limit for the propagation of mass in our universe. I do understand that black holes can reach much larger masses, however, all black holes exhibit only this evidence by the strength of their gravitational field. Any mass hidden within is not observable and therefore I believe the upper limit for a body of mass in our universe, without the support of energy to resist collapse, will be this ground state black hole.

 

when you say the radius defines the state of compatictification do you mean an event similiar to when a source file is converted to mp3 or an mp4 file?

[coldcreation]

How about this: r=2GM/c^2

where r=the radius of the swartzchild event horizon, 5.46 E+5

and G=the gravitational constant, 6,67286 E-8

and M=the mass of the black hole 3.6767 E+33

and c=the speed of light in a vacuum 2.99792458 E+10

all figures in cgs units.

 

Hello Infy,

It's been a while. A couple of quickies; I'll number my questions so the anwers to each will be easy to find afterwards:

 

1) What does the above equation have to do with electrons?

 

2) What to BHs have to do with electrons?

 

3) Where is mass (in the form of neutrons) coming from that is steadily added to this neutron star that allows to reach critical mass where it spontaneously collapse into a black hole?

 

4) What, if anything, is fundamental about the above equation? What does it tell us?

 

 

Thanks :doh:

 

CC

 

 

 

 

.