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?????
Do you mean are quarks black holes because a proton consists of 3 quarks.
Yes I suppose it is possible to construct a Theory of Everything through black holes and the spin of multidimensional black holes but I have never seen it done.
Rich, try doing it as a homework exercise, it is very easy.
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.
In addition to what has been said, there is a probability of tiny black holes of whatever size. The smaller they are the faster evaporate into normal matter though. Hawkins didn't yet foretell how such evaporation is to be thought to happen. The loss of binding energy can be huge.
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.
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation. The N-N force has repulsive, as well as attractive, components. The size of the repulsive core is many orders of magnitude larger than the Schwarzschild radius for a black hole of the same mass. At typical N-N distances in nuclei, the attractive component is much stronger than that of gravitation.
The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
Hawking hypothesizes that a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass) would decay very rapidly (Planck time). Nucleon mass is many orders of magnitude less than this.
A charged black hole has a maximum charge-to-mass ratio, and a spinning black hole has a maximum angular momentum-to-mass ratio. If these are exceeded, you don't have an event horizon, but instead have a "naked singularity."
The charges and spins of all known elementary particles far exceed this maximum value.
Oh, you want to know how many angels dance on the head of a pin!
3.1419265, of course. In agreement with experience we further assume a round pin is taller than an angle or angel, whatever.
Yeah, sure. Whatever floats your boat. Protons are holes in the fabric of the spacetime continuum, a vacuum in a vacuum, swallowing everything near them until somone empties out the paper bag. You must be right, I've agreed with you. Would you like some more candy, little one? (???????????????????????????)... mustn't forget the extra question marks. Androcles.
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.
All the same, I think its density, whatever it might be, is a remnant of earlier, much greater densities.
[Jako]
[hanson] But Jako, Grise is not asking about that. He, AFAICS does want to know whether nucleons could be (described as) black holes. However, despite the nebulous answers from the other posters, speculations in these realms and domains can be done in so very many ways & fashions, that one can conjecture & look at all these processes and events with equal validity, as long as the dims and the digits do fit. i.e. ..... I can produce a picture/conjecture that delivers an estimate to the OP's question that Protons can be described as quantum black holes in a fashion that's based on two self-evident principles:
a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains. b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with combinations of other ones.
With that in mind, the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed in terms of being a black hole: m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct that is a blackhole of one (1) Plancklength radius across to its Schwarzschild event horizon which is shrouded within an outer Coulomb type accretion zone of EM charge energy (F, Faraday, not Farad) that interacts with other charges which produce the measurable effects of the 13.5 eV H-ionization potential and its associated Lyman series limit frequency. Here is the QUANTITATIVE equation:
It says essentially the same as above, except that as already noted , there are no ionization considerations and that the electron's geometry is spherical (instead of toroidal as in the composite H-atom) Also, it indicates that the electron may be a rotating Kerr black hole type character with the Kerr- [c^2/G] (instead of the Schwartzschild [c^2/2G]) event horizon.
Now figure out and post the equations for m_n, the neutron and other particles and cough up a numerical table for mass spectrum (with having set the electron mass m_e as "One", 1, for comparison)
[Jako to Rich Grise]
[hanson] In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass M_pl is a black hole then is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible universe by definition and I would change your statement from "decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say: ".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl.
... to which I might add now that, based on my above quantitative conjecture, a process (unknown?) is working here that grabs and enshrines these emergent Planck masses with EM-quanta, which gives them long, very long life times and makes them interactive with and visible to other like siblings.... and now go forth and invent a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA.... I love these mind games!..... ahahaha... hanson
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.
"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.
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).
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.