[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 12 KB, 365x241, Black hole particles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7623618 No.7623618 [Reply] [Original]

Is it proven / provable that elementary particles are not singularities in space-time?
I really want to believe in black hole electrons.

>> No.7623622

> electron black holes
> black holes with no mass
plz end urself c:

>> No.7623647

>>7623622
Are you implying that electrons have no mass? If so, then there is not a derp big enough for this hurp.

>> No.7623658

>>7623618
what leads you to believe that they might be?

>> No.7623668

Pretty sure it's theoretically possible to have a black hole with Planck mass

>> No.7623675

>>7623668
Yes, a Planck Mass / Planck Volume is the smallest possible black hole, which will last the Planck Time.

and >>7623618 yes it's proven, by the simplest means. Can you get information out of particles by bouncing photons off of them? Yes. Not black holes.

>> No.7623689
File: 53 KB, 485x313, main-qimg-8aa9e92988bfb1aa6caaeb40e03773af.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7623689

>>7623675
>Can you get information out of particles by bouncing photons off of them?
What if the photon doesn't actually touch the singularity but gets flinged around it and back?

>> No.7623704

>>7623689

Every time?

>> No.7623707

>>7623704
Yeah, why not? Why would it hit the singularity?

>> No.7623720

PARTICLES ARE PARTICLES YOU FUCK

BLACK HOLES DON'T EXIST

HOLY SHIT GO LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF SINGULARITY

FUCKING 10/10 got me to type omfg.. AWSRFHDETGJadgjzdgjazdtjgzdgj

>> No.7623735

>>7623720
You don't know exactly what particles are.

>> No.7623886

>>7623707

Well, looking at your pic, it seems like light being bent or warped by something looks very different than light reflecting off of something. If it doesn't behave like a miniature black hole, why continue to suspect it is one?

>> No.7623899

>>7623886
Why would a miniature black hole behave like an ordinary black hole? Can you tell me how a miniature black hole behaves?

>> No.7623921

>>7623899

It would seem to behave indistinguishably from a particle. Is this what you are suggesting?

"Suppose that ducks are not really duck, but are in fact elephants that look and behave exactly like ducks."

If the premise depends on there being zero difference between the behavior of a particle and the behavior of a miniature black hole, what significance can there be for them being miniature black holes?

Also, the very definition of a black hole is a region of spacetime where the gravity is so great that even light cannot escape. If this is so, then some of the time when light falls upon a miniature black hole, the light should be absorbed entirely.

>maybe that's true for regular black holes, but not miniature black holes.

Oh, I see. And regular elephants don't lay eggs, but elephants industinguishable from ducks, do. In what sense are they elephants, then? In what sense is a miniature black hole that behaves nothing like a black hole still a black hole? This is becoming a pointless converstaion. Did you intend it to be profound?

>> No.7623940

>>7623899

If it doesn't behave like a black hole then it's not a black hole.
If particles were mini black holes then sometimes light would pass beyond the event horizon and never return.
One would have seen this happen if it were the case.
It has never been observed. Thus we can conclude that electrons are not black holes.

>> No.7623967

>>7623921
Alright, let's not call them miniature black holes but singularities or singularity-like objects.
>>7623940
If these singularities did have event horizons, they would surely be so small that we wouldn't be able to observe the light getting absorbed. If they are naked singularities then even less so.
Also, since gravity is so weak, surely other forces would take effect on the photons before the singularity has any effect? No?

>> No.7623970

How could a point-like particle have mass if it wasn't a singularity-like object?

>> No.7623975

yes, just look into the work of nassim haramein

they're tiny little black holes, spinning in space and linked to all other particles (also other tiny black holes)

>> No.7623979

>>7623618
Quite honestly I'm waiting for the a speck of data of sub photonic particles to be discovered.... I mean if there were different kinds of light?! That would be such a boon for FTL

The Weyl fermion gave me the idea of this actually, massless particle it is

>> No.7623981

>>7623967

>No?

No. Can I "no" your entire premise?

>Listen, I know I don't know anything about what I'm talking about, but maybe it doesn't matter because I'm really pretty excited about my idea?

It matters.

>Okay but maybe it doesn't? Because I hear you when you say that my idea flies in the face of all recorded observation, but hey who knows, right? Am I right?

This is you, OP. This is you being dumb and obnoxious, like you're being with this entire thread. Knock it off.

>> No.7624179

>>7623981
You're not explaining what's wrong with the questions. Please tell me how physics doesn't work like that.

>> No.7624242

>>7623981
>in the face of all recorded observation
Can you tell me about this recorded observation that clearly shows that elementary particles can't be singularities in spacetime?

>> No.7624348

First year who doesn't know any better here, as I haven't done any Quantum in university yet.

I was under the impression that electrons were supposed to be point like particles. So if they have mass and infinitesimal volume, then why aren't they singularities?

I mean, as people have said, we can get information out of them, all the dang time, so that suggests they don't have event horizons at the very least. But couldn't that just make them a naked singularity, which obeys the Reissner–Nordström equations (whatever the hell they are).

Really, I just want to know why it's wrong. Okay, you've convinced me that point particles aren't black holes, but why aren't they naked singularities? Or a better question is, why don't they have infinite density if they are point-like? I have a faint suspicion this is going to involve either something to do with waves or Germans.

>> No.7624438

>>7623735
their subatomic physical manifestations of autism

>> No.7624450

>>7623647
>If so, then there is not a derp big enough for this hurp.
Oh the heady days of 2010
We were young then
And in love ~

>> No.7624478

>>7624242

They have measurable radii.

>> No.7624487

>>7623720
>BLACK HOLES DON'T EXIST

But they do anon

>> No.7624493

>>7623675
We get information from black holes with how they lenses light.

It could be the same with particle black holes.

>> No.7624522

>>7624478
>

>> No.7624530

>>7623899

>i believe electrons are black holes because i just do, and i reject all of the contrary evidence because i really really want this to work

high school education at work there

>> No.7624537

>>7624493
How do black holes act as lenses when they don't exist?

>> No.7624544

Black holes ONLY EXIST IN A MASSLESS UNIVERSE.

Considering there's multiple fatfucks reading this, it's safe to say large quantities of mass exist. Therefore black holes do not. Therefore singularities do not exist.
.Black holers BTFO

>> No.7624554

>>7624544
>Black holes ONLY EXIST IN A MASSLESS UNIVERSE.
>never once opened a general relativity textbook
>>>/timecube/

>> No.7624575

>>7624544
>>7624537
>>7623720

Is "black holes don't exist" a meme?

Can someone simply explain the reasoning behind this if it is your actual opinion?

>> No.7624792

>>7624530
>"i believe electrons are black holes because i just do"
Are you actually this idiotic? How about you answer some of my questions with actual physics and post some of that contrary evidence you're referring to?

>> No.7624794

>>7624554
>/sci/ actually reading a general relativity book

>> No.7624800

>>7624575
It's not their actual opinion, they're just parroting something the now senile Hawking has said.

>> No.7624803
File: 16 KB, 200x300, 1427021963308.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7624803

>>7624794
this world is so fucking disappointing

>> No.7624809

>/sci/ vehemently disagrees about a proposed physical phenomenon but no actual physics gets posted to counter it

>> No.7624812

>>7624803
I'd wager that most stupid questions people have wouldn't even be asked if they read a textbook on the subject

>> No.7624847

>>7624809
And what leads you to believe that this proposed physical phenomenon is valid? What would lead you to believe that particles are singularities?

>> No.7624853
File: 69 KB, 920x380, e36524.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7624853

>>7624800
>mfw everyone took the "black holes don't exist" clickbait headline literally

>> No.7624872

>>7624812
Yeah, but on the other hand most people don't have access to the right communities and learning environments to make real progress in studying science.

I mean, we could be all American and say "all the info is out there, go take personal responsibility and learn yourself, lol", but that doesn't exactly lead to increasing scientific knowledge among the general population over time.

Most people don't even know how to begin learning or what learning is, despite the so-called education given to them by a society that sees them as expendable worker drones. It isn't proper, in my opinion, for people who do know to behave like a scientific priestly caste supported by the ruling class.

>> No.7624941

>>7624847
It's a very fundamental question about particles. If you think it's a stupid question because there's "no reason to believe" that it's valid, you're just being ignorant. I don't need to "believe" anything about the phenomenon to be able to ask a rational question about it. A simple question like this needs to be answerable with physics whether the phenomenon is valid or not.

Electrons are described as massive point-like particles so it's a very straightforward thought process that leads to the question of whether or not they resemble a type of singularity.

>> No.7625029

>>7624941
Excuse me then, it's not a question I hear posed much, so pardon me if I came off as hostile. I feel like representing point particles like electrons as singularities might be excessive in definition. Singularity would imply an infinitely small size that should, technically, become smaller than it's Scharwzschild radius, given a mass (which things like electrons have) of course. But I would be hard pressed to call an electron a black hole, which we do have a singularity for, since it does not display common features for a black hole, namely general relativistic effects.

I personally think electrons are just extremely small to the point that we just approximate it as a point particle. We also once thought neutrinos were massless but that has changed in recent times.

>> No.7625079

>>7625029
>namely general relativistic effects.
Isn't general relativity much too general and macroscopic for describing elementary particles?
Quantum gravity is what's necessary here and it's really in the works.

>> No.7625100

>>7623689
What if singularity is like a form of very very very rare storage which occur in only specific very hard to reproduce conditions. Like things move so fast in that small space that they appear to occupy no space at all also we know that the more mass the black hole eats the larger the event horizon gets.

>> No.7625103

>>7625079
Too general (heh)? No. Gravitation as is seen in larger bodies pales in magnitude to the nuclear and EM forces to really matter at the atomic level. As far as quantum gravity goes, that's beyond my scope for discussion.

>> No.7625123

So much derp in this thread . . .
Particles are zero-dimensional entities. They don't have volume, despite having mass. You're either "on" them or "off," but they don't have spatial geometry.
Mathematical constructs for the hurrdurr.

>> No.7625245

>>7625123
>they don't have spatial geometry.
How can you be so sure?

>> No.7625758

Bump

>> No.7625785

>>7623979
>The Weyl fermion gave me the idea of this actually, massless particle it is
That's not a fundamental particle, though.
>>7623618
A black hole electron would be supercritical. That is, it would have too little mass for the charge it holds.

>> No.7625821

>>7625785
>that is, it would have too little mass for the charge it holds
Is this according to general relativity?

>> No.7625934

>>7625821
Yes. Specifically Einstein-Maxwell equations.

>> No.7625957
File: 30 KB, 400x345, 1441967687190.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7625957

>>7623618

Elementary particules do not exist. It's not a point.

Singularities do not exist. It's not a point.

>> No.7625999

>>7623899
why would u call something miniature black hole if it doesnt behave like black hole just smaller

>> No.7626000

>>7625957

What's your point?

ayyyyy

>> No.7626081
File: 1.58 MB, 2200x2000, Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7626081

>>7626000

You little ayyy think the electron or the singularity as a point in a space.

The electron is just a probability density function.

The singularity is just a mathematical object that does not exist.

>> No.7626107

>>7625934
Is general relativity really accurate at all at that scale?

>> No.7626110

>>7626081
>The electron is just a probability density function.
You mean that's a model for the electron? I'm sure it's not limited to that.

>> No.7626134

>>7623689
wouldn't it mean that every particle/electron would have rising ammount of photons on its orbit?

>> No.7626749

>>7626134
How rising is that of a normal black hole's? How rare is a stable orbit in the photon sphere?

>> No.7627382

>>7626749
Is there clear consensus on whether there are ANY stable orbits in the photon sphere? Can light come to the sphere in such an optimal angle that it stays orbiting "forever"? Assuming that the black hole has absorbed all the surrounding matter and thus the photon sphere isn't disturbed by infalling matter?

>> No.7627402

>>7627382
theres no such thing as an inherently stable orbit

>> No.7627497

>>7625245

Because it's literally defined that way. A mathematical particle is a placeholder the same way a mathematical singularity is. It simplifies calculations to assume something is infinitely dense and only exists at a single point in space (as far as I understand anyways, it's not my field).

As far as assuming something is a particle, again for simplicity sake sometimes it is favorable to assume an object is a particle. For example, if you remember high school physics or basic mechanics if you took some undergrad dynamics, often you would assume an object had mass but no geometry even if it seemed as it should. You would assume a ball was a particle as it was thrown through the air and for simplicity the only forces acting on it were gravity or maybe air resistance, but if it had geometry then it would have angular acceleration (from air resistance) created by the moment created about it's center of gravity or angular velocity by the initial throwing of the ball. This would make the calculations needlessly consuming considering the negligible effect on the overall path of the ball.

It's an elementary example but you can extend this concept to many areas in physics where it's much easier to do so and models reality within an acceptable amount of error.

>> No.7627573

>>7627497
Sure, that's all clear, but physics doesn't stop at what's conventional to assume.

>> No.7627575

>>7627402
But a very stable one? How stable can it be?
How simple a system is a lone black hole that has consumed the surrounding matter? Does its turbulence get lesser and lesser? Less dynamics to consider?

>> No.7627927

>>7626107
No.

>> No.7627975

>>7627402
>no such thing as an inherently stable orbit
Electron orbit?

>> No.7628227

>>7627402
>>7627975
Why can electrons orbit stably but photons can't?
What's the difference between photons moving linearly in space-time according to curvature vs electrons moving linearly according to electric and magnetic fields?

>> No.7628777

bunpe

>> No.7628791

>>7628227
Well an electron in a bound state exists in a stationary state, so it remains in that state. There are no stationary states in the orbit of a black hole.