Can String Theory Explain Quantum Gravity and Fundamental Constants?

In summary: In standard star formation, there is not a continuous influx of new material being added "from the outside" of the system. In the virialized dust scenario, this is explicitly the case. That is a HUGE difference, and it is the whole point of my question that started this entire thread.In summary, the conversation discusses two different scenarios: one involving a hypothetical region of space filled with electrons, and the other involving a dense dust cloud. The first scenario proposes that the strong electromagnetic potential of the electrons would make it impossible for them to self-collapse into a black hole, regardless of their density. The second scenario considers a region filled with dust that collapses due to gravity, but then virializes due
  • #36
Hi Haelfix,
Haelfix said:
So actually what you normally have is a thin outer strip around the White dwarf of mostly nondegenerate matter (read much of the nuclei), and the bulk is degenerate matter where the density of electrons is much, much higher than protons and neutrons and so forth.

If you look at the system from the interior, as I said, you have very much the same sort of thing. The more mass you put it, creates more electrons in the bulk and contrary to what you would think, actually *shrinks* the star.

Yes I'm aware that it is believed that a certain amount of degenerate electron gas migrates to the core of a white dwarf. Then the collapse scenario becomes essentially what I have repeatedly described here as the "external force" scenario. An outer dense shell of (nearly) electrically neutral matter supplies the gravitational bulk which crushes an inner ball of electron gas. The electron gas is not crushed by its own gravity, it is crushed by the outer shell of nearly neutral plasma.

If there was a mechanism to remove the entire outer shell of nearly neutral plasma, the remaining negatively charged core of the star would not collapse, regardless of its mass. Instead it would fly apart at high acceleration.

Jon
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #37
jonmtkisco said:
Hi hellfire,

Fair enough, I have not found any rigorous treatment of this specific subject. If you find one please let me know; of course it would supersede our non-rigorous discussion here. I am eager to learn if there are subtle effects we haven't accounted for.

At the non-rigorous level of our discussion, the logic in favor of the behavior I've advocated is far stronger than the logic against it. It is common knowledge that the electromagnetic potential of electrons and protons far exceeds their gravitational potential.

Jon
Ok, so far at our level of discussion I agree with you that if the relation between electrostatic repulsion and gravity remains unchanged at small scales then gravity will never become strong enough to make electrons collapse into a black hole.
 
  • #38
I can give you a very basic view of it, but I don't understand the maths behind it. In string theory it is believed that all particles are made up of very small strings (Sub Planck?) which vibrate in different ways to produce different effects/particles. If we can understand what vibrations make what particles it is thought that we would understand all of physics including quantum gravity. It could also explain why constants (like e and Pi) appear through out physics. In not an expert on this, but I'm sure some one will correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top