OT: Are protons really quantum black holes?

OK. Galaxies are *exactly* like atoms. (Except for scale.) How's that? John

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).

No relationship?

Galaxies are made from atoms. Galaxies and atoms both have nuclei which are thousands as times as dense as their surrounding structures. Galaxies and atoms both inhabit a spherical volume of space. Galaxies and atoms both undergo reactions with others of their kind in which parts are exchanged and energy is released. etc, etc, etc.

No seeum a same-um thing-um? C'mon Sam, here,Sam, c'mere Sam, nice little Sam-um. There you go, you can think-um a little-um. (-:

John Galaxy Model for the atom

The OP wants to know if the nucleon-nucleon potential can exhibit a repulsive core of size ~ 10^(-13) cm while nucleon mass / energy is localized within a Schwarzschild radius of 10^(-52) cm. Go figure.

A "toroidal" mass distribution (mass quadrupole moment) is what GTR predicts for a rotating black hole. The black hole's angular momentum is limited by J < M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).

The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore,

sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_proton

If the electron is a black hole, then

sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_electron

Go figure.

Shrouded ? e^2 >> G (m_p)^2. hanson needs to calculate the quantity of charge that can be bound within radius, r_proton (known charge radius ~ 1 fm), by a black hole of mass, m_proton.

What hanson is doing here is futile. The proton is known to be a composite particle. The forces between the constituents are much greater than those of gravitation. The question of whether or not the constituents (quarks) are black holes is irrelevant.

[Old Man]

Your logic is...... impeccably like:

A dog is a mammal A cat is a mammal Therefore a dog is a cat.

Or

A dime is round and flat A quarter is round and flat Therefore a dime is a quarter.

Hmmm. This reminds me of those racial stereotype injuns I used to see in old, cheap westerns. (And cartoons. Don't forget the cartoons!)

-Mark Martin

[hanson] ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why did argue you with me, Jako? Equn. m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a) m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3. ... are creatures of Lyman, Faraday, Newton, Planck and Arnie, etc.... They rule!.. They rock, dude! See below, but DON'T let'em crank you!!

===== [Jako comm.1 see below]

===== [Jako comm.2 see below]

===== [Jako comm.1 ]

===== [Jako comm.2]

[hanson] ... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why are you getting so defensive, Jako, to the point of sounding jealous? You tell me that you need 2 theories, QM and GTR, (being not compatible, to boot) to give you a side-step-argument to come up with "if/thens" and ">>" guesses... which then require the need for you to calculate with "(in stupid units of c = G = 1)"...while you are forced to invoke quarks that nobody has ever seen... only to finally declare the issue as irrelevant. ... ahAHAHA... Why all that palaver, Jako, when I gave you ONE equation that brings out distinct black hole characteristics AND a quite accurate mass amount... based on 2 principles which are much more fundamental then your 2 incompatible theories: ::: 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.

::P:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a) ::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3 These eqautions, ::P:: & ::E::, they rock, when compared to yours, dude!

Semiseriously, Jako, can't you see or don't want to admit that I simply used a DIFFERENT TOOL, a different instrument, then you did, to tell a story about a the same event? There are always very many different ways to skin the cat!... Only religious folks believe differently... ahaha... So, let me reiterate for your benefit what I had said at the end of the post below: ........"I love these mind games!"... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... Remember, Jako, the great Max Planck had a view akin, him saying: "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck..... (Thanks Greg Hansen,)

===== [hanson comm.1 see below]

===== [hanson comm.1 see below] .... and now go forth and invent a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA....

[hanson] ===== [hanson comm.1} Pick on this paragraph above Jako!! You believe that a M_pl BH disappears in T_pl. So, why does it disappear and where will your M_pl BH go to?... ahaha... Jako, I, just see things differently then you do... and I ENJOY it, Jako. ... And one of these days I will, (fancy depending) even produce the quantitative value for the half-life of a free neutron from the 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. Maybe I'll throw in the scaling laws to make my instrument pointier. ahahaha... AHAHAHA.....Take care and have fun, Jako! ahahaha... ahahanson

Sam: "Dogs and cats have absolutely no relationship." John: "But.but.......but, Sam.........they are both mammals, they are both pets, they both have four legs, they are similar morphologically in most ways (except a cat's clavicle is unarticulated to the rest of its skeleton), etc, etc." Sam: "Dimes and quarters have no relationship- whatsoever." John: "Flat. Round. Money. Metal. etc, etc."

You guys need some help in pattern-recognition. This is crucial, because Science is mostly about pattern-recognition. You are pattern-recognition challenged. This may be because you learned by rote. Not a good idea.

John

Is the proton a black hole ?

A (internal) "toroidal" mass distribution (an external mass quadrupole moment) is what GTR predicts for a rotating black hole. The black hole's angular momentum is limited by J < M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).

The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore,

sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_proton

If the electron is a black hole, then

sqrt( hbar / 2 ) < m_electron

Go figure, but not in stupid units of c = G = 1. Put the c's and G's back in, and then tell Old Man if the given inequalities are true.

[Old Man]

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

A theory is an abstract, incomplete view of things. The more incomplete it is, the more things it applies to. Feynman pointed out that the process of science is NOT to make our view of things simpler, but to make them more precise, and thus more complicated. The art of science is making things "as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Einstein).

--
Regards,
  Bob Monsen

Mathematics takes us still further from what is human, into the region of
absolute necessity, to which not only the actual world, but every possible
world, must conform.
- Bertrand Russell

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 snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Well, I guess that settles that. :-)

Thanks! Rich

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

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

John

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

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. __

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. __

Something is _Virtual_ if it exists only in essence, not in reality. See:

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

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

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