OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?

[Happy Hippy]

Hi.

I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
of the numbers about protons and black holes.

Everybody's heard of a proton, right?

And practically everybody (at least english-speaking internet geeks)
has heard of a black hole, right?

I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????

Thanks,
Rich

Yes.

That's exactly what the Galaxy Model says:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

Galaxies are the same thing as atoms.
The nuclei of galaxies (the so-called
'Black Hole') are the same thing as the protons
at the center of atoms.
The electrons of atoms are the same thing as
the arms of stars around galaxies, and they, too,
are made of still smaller atoms with...........
wait for it........still smaller 'Black Holes'/protons
at *their* centers.

Proceed upward or downward as far as you want with
this- the ultimate fractals.

John

 

[Dr Photon]

I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective >mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????

Even Einstein had a go at stuff like this

http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge Theory/Einstein Rosen Bridge.htm
"The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote
faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain
fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by
electric lines of force."

but it had too many objections and not enough solutions to catch on.

br

 

[[email protected]]

I didn't know they named a bridge after the two. What city is it
in????? Is the traffic on it usually pretty fast?

 

[Sam Wormley]

Galaxies are the same thing as atoms.

They have no relationship, whatsoever.

If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.

If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter).

 

[Ignoramus22022]

They have no relationship, whatsoever.

If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.

If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter).

I think that generalizations such as "galaxies are just like atoms"
are misleading and confusing. They are mostly not like atoms.

i

 

[Happy Hippy]

I think that generalizations such as "galaxies are just like atoms"
are misleading and confusing. They are mostly not like atoms.

i

OK.
Galaxies are *exactly* like atoms.
(Except for scale.)
How's that?
John
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/

 

[Sam Wormley]

OK.
Galaxies are *exactly* like atoms.
(Except for scale.)

They have no relationship, whatsoever.

If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.

If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter).

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Hi Ignoramus1487 and Rich_Grise, Ignoramus wrote:

Since the mass and "size" of protons is about the same as neutrons,
and we know that densely packed "neutron matter" does not collapse,
we can conclude that protons are not miniature black holes.

No one knows the density of a proton, even its location is not well
known, it's more of a virtual field than a physical particle.

This makes little sense to me.

"virtual" is associated with something that does not *physically* exist.
If it doesn't physically exist, it doesn't exist. End of story.

"Proton" is a name used for the set of measurements of an entity that
exits. Whether or not a proton is actually what we think of as a
particle is irrelevant. The entity that "proton" refers to exists, by
definition. That is, we can make physical measurements of it. The entity
has physical characteristics. We call that set of real, physical
measurements a "proton". A "proton" therefore physically exits. That's
what we mean by existence. It has measurable properties.


Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

Although a proton has no well defined radius, it is true that the
quarks occupy a region with a radius of at least 1.2 x 10^-15 m. A
proton has a mass of 1.675 x 10^-27 kg, for which the Swarzschild
radius is 39 orders of magnitude smaller than the proton radius I've
given. So no, a proton isn't a micro-black hole.

Well, I guess that settles that.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Happy Hippy]

Galaxies and atoms have no relationship, whatsoever.

If you want to make progress understanding atoms and the particles
involved, including interaction with light, you can only make progress
with quantum mechanics.

If you want to make progress understanding galactic structure and
behavior, the tool to use is general relativity (including Newtonian
mechanics and the assumption of dark matter).

Thanks, John, for registering at crank dot net

http://www.google.com/search?q="GALAXY+MODEL+For+The+ATOM"+site:www.crank.net

 

[Sam Wormley]

Too bad you, John, think that there is similarity of pattern
between atoms and galaxies. Can you describe the pattern of
an atom?

 

[Happy Hippy]

Well, I guess that settles that.

Thanks!
Rich

I don't agree.
I think you had a very intuitive idea.

John

 

[Mark Martin]

I don't agree.
I think you had a very intuitive idea.

Hey Sefton, do you know what the purpose of a falsifiable theory is?
It's purpose is to transcend intuition. The guy had an idea. The
numbers don't support it. Case closed.

-Mark Martin

 

[Jeff_Relf]

Hi Kevin_Aylward, Ignoramus1487 and Rich_Gris

I wrote:

No one knows the density of a proton, even its location is not well
known, it's more of a virtual field than a physical particle.

Kevin_Aylward replied:

This makes little sense to me.

"virtual" is associated with something that does not *physically* exist.
If it doesn't physically exist, it doesn't exist. End of story.

"Proton" is a name used for the set of measurements of an entity that
exits. Whether or not a proton is actually what we think of as a
particle is irrelevant. The entity that "proton" refers to exists, by
definition. That is, we can make physical measurements of it. The entity
has physical characteristics. We call that set of real, physical
measurements a "proton". A "proton" therefore physically exits. That's
what we mean by existence. It has measurable properties.

As Einstein once said,
I'd like to think the moon was still there even when I couldn't see it.

Einstein was good at precisely describing things
that couldn't be measured for decades yet to come.

For example, recent supernovae data has made
Einstein's so_called Greatest_Blunder, lambda, a.k.a. the Cosmological_Constant,
the leading theory of the cosmos... but much more data is still needed.
WikiPedia.ORG has this to say:

Adding a cosmological constant to the standard theory of cosmology
...has led to a model for cosmology known as the Lambda-CDM model.

This model is in very good agreement with
established cosmological observations.
__ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

and:

In spite of its problems, the cosmological constant is in many respects
the most economical solution to the problem of cosmic acceleration.

One number successfully explains a multitude of observations.
Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model,
includes the cosmological constant as an essential feature.
__ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant

Something is _Virtual_ if it exists only in essence, not in reality.
See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virtual

For example, a map is a _Virtual_ territory,
it merely represents something that physically exists,
it's not the thing itself.

To put it mildly, protons are imprefectly understood,
that makes them _Very_ virtual, far from real.

What they might really be, e.g. how dense they might be,
is not known to anyone... except maybe the next Einstein.

Now playing: Cirque_Du_Soleil's _Nostalgie_.MP3

http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Nostalgie_.MP3

P.S. Could someone translate this song for me ?
Nostalgie is a French word, so I assume the lyrics are French.

 

[Chris]

Hello.

I once had an idea about the contruct that an elementary particle is a
photon going in a circle by being trapped by its own gravitational field due
to its electric field stored energy.

A more abstract analysis makes it a photon that cannot propagate because its
stored energy creates a gravitational field that has an escape velocity as
the speed of light.

So really there is nothing there, we are nothing, just light.

If you look at my web pages on http://www.chrisscrazyideas.co.uk and go to
the bit on string theory (if no one has deleted it) there is some maths and
stuff.

Chris.

 

[Happy Hippy]

Happy Hippy wrote:




Hey Sefton, do you know what the purpose of a falsifiable theory is?
It's purpose is to transcend intuition. The guy had an idea. The
numbers don't support it. Case closed.

-Mark Martin

And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?

At different size scale other factors come into play,
obviously.

You can't say the numbers are always right.

John

 

[Happy Hippy]

Too bad you, John, think that there is similarity of pattern
between atoms and galaxies. Can you describe the pattern of
an atom?

Atoms come in many varieties.

Here's how my model explains the pattern
of the Periodic Table.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF

John

 

[Sam Wormley]

Atoms come in many varieties.

Here's how my model explains the pattern
of the Periodic Table.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF

John

No... I mean did you, John, think that electrons when around an atomic
nucleus like stars in a spiral galaxy?

 

[David Brown]

Too bad you, John, think that there is similarity of pattern
between atoms and galaxies. Can you describe the pattern of
an atom?

Of course there is some similarity between atoms and galaxies - and also
solar systems in between. Any teenager with an imagination and some
interest in physics notices this. Of course, after thinking about it
for a short time, they note that the differences far outweigh the
similarities, and forget about it.

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

Hey Sefton, do you know what the purpose of a falsifiable theory is?
It's purpose is to transcend intuition. The guy had an idea. The
numbers don't support it. Case closed.

I'd say, not to _transcend_, but to expand, or deepen, the mind/intuition
alignment.

;-)

Cheers!
Rich