I think this is a pretty good question.

  • Thread starter Orion1
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Science
In summary: It appears that if a black hole of the same mass and charge as an electron had the same magnetic moment, it would exist without an event horizon. This is because the gravitational force and electromagnetic force would be balanced and the particle would have a toroidal topology.
  • #1
Orion1
973
3

Wikipedia said:
In physics, there is a speculative notion that if there were a black hole with the same mass and charge as an electron, it would share many of the properties of the electron including the magnetic moment and Compton wavelength.

These equations define the electron as a single photon microgeon and also as a gravitationally confined particle with its gravitational force and electromagnetic force precisely balanced. It therefore has the properties of an extremal black hole without an event horizon.

The extremal black hole electron is clearly quantized, with only one mass value allowed, because gravitational force and electromagnetic force are required to be balanced.

A photon, confined by its self-gravitational attraction would have toroidal topology, as described in the paper, Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? by J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark. A gravitationally confined wave particle will have geon-like properties because its angular_momentum accounts for its total mass energy.

Wikipedia said:
A dimensionless ratio that is equal to, 4 pi times 3Gm/c squared, divided by the electron Compton wavelength is (3/2) exponent 1/2, times Planck time, divided by 2 pi seconds.

Journal of Theoretics said:
Normally, the mass that we will able to measure in our frame of reference is the result of the gravitational force taking place in the black hole within time t0 and the rotational factor, which must be the same as the one used to get the electron charge. If we apply these conditions to Planck's mass m0, we have the electron mass me. This equation gives us the answer on the link between the very heavy particle m0 and the light electron mass. There is a time factor that we are unable to measure directly but it is an integral part of the electron mass.

If the gravitational force of mass m0 would exist only for the duration of time t0, we would have a gravitational force...

Again, we would not be able to measure time t0 and the ratio would look dimensionless.

Vanadium_50 said:
I am having trouble getting dimensions to work out right. [tex]\hbar / c[/tex] has units of (Js)/(m/s) or Js2/m. Since a Joule is a kgm2/s2, then [tex]\hbar / c[/tex] has units of kg-m. G has units of m3/kgs2, so [tex](\hbar / c)^3 / G[/tex] must have units (kgm)3 / (m3/kgs2), or kg4s2. So the mass of the electron you give doesn't have units of kg, but rather kg s1/2. Is there something missing somewhere?

According to the Journal of Theoretics, the black hole electron mass:
[tex]m_e = m_0 \sqrt{\frac{t_0 \alpha}{2}} = \text{kg} \cdot \text{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}[/tex]
[tex]m_0[/tex] - Planck mass

According to Wikipedia, the black hole electron mass:
[tex]m_e = \left( \frac{h}{c} \right) \left( \frac{1}{4 \pi} \right) \left( \frac{c}{3 \pi h G} \left)^{\frac{1}{4}} = \text{kg} \cdot \text{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}[/tex]

The issue that has been raised on Physics Forums is in regard to the Systeme International units of [tex]\text{kg} \cdot \text{s}^{\frac{1}{2}}[/tex], specifically the [tex]\text{s}^{\frac{1}{2}[/tex] with respect to particle mass.

The Wikipedia article in ref. 2, simply states that the 'directly unmeasurable' time dimension is actually Planck time and is divided by the dimension [tex]\boxed{dt = 1 \; \text{s}}[/tex], which results in a 'dimensionless ratio', which also raises an issue as to substantiation.

Unfortunately the scientific paper cited by Wikipedia and listed in ref. 3 for a black hole electron, is not legible in my Adobe Reader version. Is the black hole electron mass equation listed in this paper and is this paper pseudo-scientific?

Are these equations scientific or pseudo-scientific?

Reference:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/2-5/bh-dimario/dimario.htm#MASS"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron#Discrete_Mass.2C_Spin_and_Stability"
http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The Journal of Theoretics is a crackpot journal.
 
  • #3
Sounds pretty crackpotty.

In physics, there is a speculative notion that if there were a black hole with the same mass and charge as an electron, it would share many of the properties of the electron including the magnetic moment and Compton wavelength.

Well obviously something defined so that it shares some properties of the electron will share other properties of the electron.

But the magnetic moment? I've never derived it, but I always assumed it was a property of the electron's spin. (Reasoning along that if it has 'intrinsic' angular momentum and a charge then it should have an 'intrinsic' magnetic moment) How could something with the same charge and different spin (are black holes bosons or fermions? ;) ) possibly give rise to the same magnetic moment? Is this even theoretically possible?
 

FAQ: I think this is a pretty good question.

What is the difference between science and pseudo-science?

Science is a systematic and evidence-based approach to understanding the natural world. It follows the scientific method and relies on empirical evidence to support theories and explanations. Pseudo-science, on the other hand, is a collection of beliefs or practices that are presented as scientific but do not adhere to the principles of science. Pseudo-science often lacks evidence and can be based on personal beliefs or anecdotes.

How can I tell if something is science or pseudo-science?

One way to determine if something is science or pseudo-science is to look at the evidence and methods used to support it. Science relies on peer-reviewed studies, rigorous experiments, and reproducibility. Pseudo-science, on the other hand, may use anecdotes, testimonials, or unverified claims to support its claims. Additionally, science is constantly evolving and open to change based on new evidence, while pseudo-science tends to cling to its claims regardless of new evidence.

Why do some people believe in pseudo-science?

There are several reasons why people may believe in pseudo-science. It could be due to a lack of scientific literacy or critical thinking skills, a desire for simple explanations or quick fixes, or personal biases and beliefs. Additionally, some pseudo-science may be marketed or presented in a way that makes it seem scientific, leading people to believe that it is legitimate.

Can pseudo-science be harmful?

Yes, pseudo-science can be harmful in several ways. It can lead to false or misleading information being spread, which can affect public health and safety. Pseudo-science can also prey on vulnerable individuals, offering false hope or promising cures for serious illnesses. Additionally, it can waste resources and divert attention from real scientific advancements and solutions.

How can we combat the spread of pseudo-science?

One way to combat the spread of pseudo-science is through education and promoting scientific literacy. By teaching critical thinking skills and promoting the use of evidence-based reasoning, individuals are better equipped to identify and reject pseudo-science. It is also important for scientists and experts to communicate their findings and debunk false claims in a clear and accessible manner. Additionally, promoting regulations and standards for claims made about science can help prevent false information from being spread.

Back
Top