Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?
May 18, 2009 by Lisa Zyga
By investigating quantum gravity at the horizons of black holes, a new model suggests that black hole evaporation might appear identical to elementary particle decay. Image credit: Coyne and Cheng.
(PhysOrg.com) -- In trying to understand how gravity behaves on the quantum scale, physicists have developed a model that has an interesting implication: mini black holes could be everywhere, and all particles might be made of various forms of black holes.
The scientists, Donald Coyne from UC Santa Cruz (now deceased) and D. C. Cheng from the Almaden Research Center near San Jose, are cautious about the idea, but say that it's worth investigating with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and other high energy physics experiments. Cruz and Cheng have presented their idea in a study posted on arxiv.org, "A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics: An alternative mechanism for black holes to appear at accelerator experiments."
As the physicists explain, gravity is considered an astronomical-scale force; its effects on smaller scales seem to be virtually nonexistent. However, as the scientists write, "it has often been assumed that near the Planck scale, gravity would somehow assert itself and become comparable in strength to the other forces of nature, likely as a product of some grand unification picture." Coyne and Cheng approach the problem of small-scale gravity by presenting a new model of black hole evaporation. As black holes lose energy, they slowly evaporate, shrinking in size down to the quantum scale - where they may be identical to elementary particles.
The new model assumes "that gravity is truly strong and fully comparable with other forces, but that we have not experimentally looked in those places where it resides," the authors write. "But instead of invoking extra dimensions and branes, we look elsewhere. An obvious place where experimentalists have not tested gravity, in any way, is directly at the horizons of black holes of sufficient temperature such that quantum gravity could be operative. We speculate that at this level, the spacetime structures of the horizons could be far more complex than those predicted by general relativity. They might well require more degrees of freedom to stipulate a particular state, and they might leak information; i.e., not be true horizons in the usual sense of the word. Most important, if gravity on or within these horizons is truly strong, yet we see no evidence of that on larger scales, then the complex horizons must be shielding in nature." A shielding pseudo-horizon, they say, is an unconventional speculation, as it suggests that gravity is a very strong force but is substantially shielded.
Coyne and Cheng's "shielded strong gravity scenario" (SSGS), which is based on principles of thermodynamics and high-temperature physics, can describe black holes on all scales, but the differences in this approach manifest themselves only at Planckian and sub-Planckian black hole masses. At a critical point, the new model ceases to follow the unusual thermodynamics of the classical black hole, and instead produces a state that looks more and more like an object obeying traditional thermal physics. For instance, in the model, black hole evaporation is free of physical infinities, possesses traditional thermodynamic properties after an apparent phase change, and likely conserves information.
In other words, the model predicts that any states to be found at sub-Planckian masses will behave normally, and will be essentially identical to elementary particles. "Perhaps the most reassuring conclusion that we find is that the dynamical solution in either model forces the sub-Planckian states to obey the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and thus allows them to act as normal fundamental particles," the scientists write.
When the physicists investigated what these mini black holes would act like, they found that the quantization of space at this scale would mean that mini black holes could turn up at a wide variety of energy levels, and in large numbers. They predict that these black holes might be so common that all particles could essentially be various forms of black holes at different energy levels.
"At first glance the scenario derived in SSGS seems bizarre, but it is not: this is exactly what would be expected if an evaporating black hole leaves a remnant consistent with quantum mechanics," Coyne and Cheng write. "One might posit that the black hole smoothly turns into something approximating a large and unstable elementary particle, which then continues to evaporate (decay) into familiar stationary states. ... This would put a whole new light on the process of evaporation of large black holes, which might then appear no different in principle from the correlated decays of elementary particles."
One of the implications of this model could be that dark energy and dark matter - which seem to act as repulsive gravity - could instead be surrounded by local concentrations of gravity-shielding black holes at the elementary particle level. Such possibilities will be difficult to investigate, however. Although it's possible that future LHC experiments could sample regions where these black holes are produced, the scientists note that this is what high-energy physics has been doing all along at other energy scales. It may not be possible to disentangle black holes from elementary particles, if there truly is no fundamental difference.
More information: D. G. Coyne and D. C. Cheng. A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics: An alternative mechanism for black holes to appear at accelerator experiments." http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.1667.pdf
• Join PhysOrg.com on Facebook!
• Follow PhysOrg.com on Twitter!
via: MIT Technology Review
© 2009 PhysOrg.com
Feb 25, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
I suggest that Coyne and Cheng revisit Dirac's 1928 solution to the problem and look at all 4 roots not just the accepted 2 w/ positive (repulsive) energy. We may finally be seeing the beginnings of physics getting back on track after a wasted 77 yrs on ever more complicated epicyclical protection of the paradigm (which may be the reason we are seeing C&C's work being published in "arxiv" instead of a major physics journal)
There didn't seem to be any discussion of this, and as I was working in experimental physics, I didn't have time to pursue the thoughts.
My guess was that the discontinuity at the Planck dimension was a demonstration of the multiplicity of gravitational surfaces. Elsewhere, Elsewhen all from the twisting geometry of interconnected singular surfaces.
But as I say, I took the experimental route, not theoretical.
:D
This could explain those missing 5? 6 ? 9 ? 18 ?? dimensions beloved of some theorists-- Wrapped around those tiny singularities ! Literally, they are dangling down the rabbit-hole...
As for the rest, I'd need it explained in simpler English, as my head now hurts from thinking about it.
http://www.ptep-o...6-13.PDF
Therefore, the question isn't, whether particles are black holes or not - but what we can predict by using of such analogy. Personally I can see this model rather misleading, especially with respect to classical model of black holes. Black holes are stabilized by their surface tension by the same way, like quantized particles. But we cannot explain, why elementary particle can radiate photons, while black holes remains black, etc.
The gradient of gravity of every massive object exists at the surface. This curvature of space-time is equivalent to energy density of space-time, which is equivalent to mass density by E=mc^2 formula. This additional mass density balances the curvature of the space-time, which has caused gravity field originally.
Note that large space-time curvature at the surface of massive object will lead to violation of buoyancy condition, because mass/energy density may become higher here, then at the center of massive object - which would lead to undulations of space-time and indeterministic quantum mechanics behavior.
http://aetherwave...ter.html
The idea of the late Donald Coyne and D. C. Cheng that "mini black holes could be everywhere, and all particles might be made of various forms of black holes" is indeed a step in the right direction, away from obsolete models.
But it is NOT "worth investigating with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)".
The validity, or lack of the same, would be better tested by careful study of the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclear atoms that comprise the entire visible universe [See: "Nuclear Wallet Cards", Brookhaven National Lab].
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Alizee, I am glad that we finally agree on something.
Your comment confirms the need for careful study of the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclear atoms that comprise the entire visible universe [See: "Nuclear Wallet Cards" from Brookhaven National Laboratory].
The 3000 data points clearly show repulsive forces between neutrons [See: "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source," Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 20, Number 4 / December, 2001, pages 197-201 (Reprints available from Springer; Or pdf files are available on e-mail request to me)].
Neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers the Sun, causes it and all other stars to discharge Hydrogen as an exhaust gas (a neutron decay product) to interstellar space, drives gigantic cosmic explosions.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Was this idea borrowed from our 2006 paper, "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars," Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; http://arxiv.org/.../0511051
Very interesting,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
When I click on the link it does not go directly to the article but requires " &t=1590 " to be added in the address bar.
Quite an interesting article. Thanks for the post
Alizee,
Why do you repeat such false comments? See: "The Need to Measure Low Energy Anti-Neutrinos (E < 0.782MeV) from the Sun," Physics of Atomic Nuclei 67 (2004) 1959-1962; or Yad. Fiz. (Russian) 67 (2004) 1983-1986.
http://arxiv.org/.../0410168
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Its as valid a question as the original question about "mini black holes".
The Aether was not disproved...... Only the model that they used at the time.
I cannot agree with you more. I would have if I could make sense of what you just said.
"that which is above is as that which is below, and that which is below is as that which is above"
All mystics have been saying this for a long time!!
William Blake:-
"see the whol;e universe in a grain of sand"
Look at the Yin and Yan diagram.. in the centre is the centre of the solar system, galaxy, universe..etc and at that point the wavelength is at high frequency. the light wants to expand and it does in a taurus.. high frequency wants to EXPAND and thus goes into space.. the CONTACTION nature is the darknes with low frequency (space) which spirals inwardly. this is one proccess.. one being.. one fractal tapastry.. and has been known for long time!!
I will always be grateful for a life of continuous discovery since 1960, when I was a 27 year old graduate student and it was first discovered that the isotopes of element #54 were still unmixed when solids started to form in the early solar system and three short-lived isotopes [Pd-107, I-129, and Pu-244] from a supernova were still alive.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Sorry, I was a 23 (NOT 27) year old student when it was first discovered that meteorite grains formed in the early solar system before the nine stable isotopes of Xenon (Xe-124 . . . Xe-136) from fresh supernova debris completely mixed and before three short-lived radioactive isotopes [Pd-107, I-129, and Pu-244] had decayed away.
By 1976 we realized that the material orbiting the Sun was ejected from it in an explosion at the birth of the solar system, but a news story in Science (14 May 1976, as I recall) instead endorsed the idea that a nearby supernova explosion injected these supernova products into the early solar system.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
For example, wave character of light is a direct consequence of material nature of vacuum. We can develop various theories to explain it - but the concept of particle environment still remains the simplest explanation of experiment available.
It's apparently BS, even in the light of your own publications.
The stability and emissive leftovers and interactives..create THIS dimensional frame of reference, which is like foam or similar where these two dimensions meet. On their OTHER axis of meeting we find..other dimensions. Mirrors with their own determination, directions and interactives. Ie thought energy is very limited and non-influential in this universe where as the mechanics are dominant. This also explains the molecular aspect of time as a foam interactive and how time can be 'separated' from matter via acceleration and separation. Magnetism, etc, all laws can be easily explained and fit into place readily with this model.
It also explains all psychic phenomena and alternate universe theories that comes from ancient texts.Psychics report that in the OTHER dimensions THOUGHT is dominant, visible light is absent..and mechanics of existence are highly manipulable by the MIND... ie the exact opposing polarity to THIS frame of reference.
It explains couette flow and the recently found solid structures within. Every single aspect of time, energy, particle science, mass, gravitation, molecular aspects like resonance, string theory, black holes, every single aspect with NO exceptions..fits!! Entirely HUMAN aspects like dimensional travel,action at a distance, psychic phenomenon..ALL fit this model without one..single..misstep.
All of William Reich's work, Viktor Schauberger's work, Keeley's work, Searl's work, etc, etc....ALL of it becomes very correct and viable with this model. Acceleration of vortexes in the energy and frequency level causes them to open and close for energy exchange and modification. Remember, they are vortexes of multiple two dimensional sheets creating a vector, the resultant cummulative vector or vantage point..is THIS universe or frame of reference. Entropy, chaos, thermodynamics unipolar issues are explained, electricity, electron flow, all of it, every single bit of it graphene, for example is fully explained and supported by this model. Nothing escapes, no phenomena, no matter how bizarre seeming fails to fit this model..PERFECTLY.
All aspects of MHD and fractals are fully explained. All fringe phenomena are fully explained. As stated, NOTHING in observed phenomena...either fringe or mainstream fails to fit the model. Nothing escapes.
Which tells you a considerable amount about the validity of such a model.
Alexa,
If there was a Big Bang, it produced mini-black holes, i.e. neutrons.
Our Sun and the universe itself are energy sources kinetically powered and sustained by continuous competition between forces of gravitational attraction and neutron repulsion.
Measurements of isotopes in various parts of the solar system and rest masses of the 3,000 types of atoms that comprise all matter in the solar system and in the visible universe show that:
a. ) Iron is the most abundant element in the interior Sun,
b.) Repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core trigger these nuclear reactions that produce solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar wind Hydrogen in exactly the amounts OBSERVED:
b-1) Neutron emission releases ~12 MeV/nucleon, 60% of solar energy
b-2) Neutron decay releases ~1 MeV/nucleon, 5% of solar energy (SE).
b-3) Fusion of H, the n-decay product releases ~7 MeV/nucleon, 35% of SE
b-4) A tiny fraction of the "smoke" escapes, 3 x 10^43 SW H-atoms per year
You can see the data and/or references to the experimental data in "Earth's heat source - The Sun," Energy & Environment 20 (2009) pages 131-144.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0704
Remember, build a theory, test the theory, refine the theory. And if that doesn't work, try a new theory. We need to try to not be emotionally invested in our theories, and not have favorites. We should ascribe to those that experiments most agree with, and constantly challenge them and seek better understanding.
A well-known mode of decay for neutron-rich nuclei.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
The Psychology of Black-holes and Singularity lead scientific community to DEAD END. One sees the mislead in LHC Experiments as well.http://www.newciv...hp/_v162
I also see considerable curiosity at Multi-Universe
feasibility and Mirror Universe Concepts. Cosmology Vedas Interlinks question some of these concepts with a pupose to interlink
1. The Science of Philosophy: Divinity, Vedas, Upanishads, Temples & Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony
These BOOKS BY me may be helpful
PLASMA VISION OF THE UNIVERSE-1993 (Reg No: TXu 729718 ) (No# Pages-95, Figures 58)
THE VISION OF COSMIC TO *PREM UNIVERSE-1995 (Reg No: TXu 893693 ) *PREM: Plasma Regulated Electro-Magnetic Universe (No# Pages 148, Figures 56)
The Heart of Universe at 10^5 LY may provide more Cosmological Index that leads to Cosmology definition
Search:Cosmology Vedas Interlink Books or contact me
Vidyardhi Nanduri
I do not understand all of your writings, but I agree that science would benefit if scientists spent more time meditating on the spiritual foundations of science:
"Truth is victorious, never untruth."
Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Alexa,
Thanks for your comment.
Density is addressed in a recent paper, "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun," Energy & Environment, vol. 20 (2009) 131-144; http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0704
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
One could formulate some brilliant experiments and experimental physics using wild, living mattresses, but they don't exist either.
Answers to these questions are recorded in a.) The rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclear atoms that comprise the entire visible universe [See: "Nuclear Wallet Cards" from Brookhaven National Laboratory], and b.) Charge asymmetry and mass symmetry of matter and anti-matter.
See: "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source," Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 20, Number 4 / December, 2001, pages 197-201; http://tinyurl.com/38un57
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Drs. D. C. Cheng and the late Donald Coyne are on the right track. The scientific community is severely handicapped by failure to pay attention to precise, space-age measurements of:
a.) Variations in abundances of isotopes and elements in various layers of the Sun and in different parts of the solar system, and
b.) Variations in rest masses of the 3,000 different types of atoms that comprise all visible matter in the solar system and in the entire universe.
Please contact me, Dr. Cheng, if you read this message. One of my former students is also at the Almaden Research Center.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Brian Greene proposed a similar model ...particularly in regards to electrons. He's been properly lambasted for it.
Here's a reference about Brian Greene:
http://en.wikiped...n_Greene
Here's a simple article which effectively demonstrates a number of weaknesses in his hypothesis.
http://en.wikiped...electron
As for this latest incarnation of the concept (besides the problems listed in the Wikipedia article), here's some food for thought:
By what mechanism might the, so-called, Hawking radiation stop at a specific size? Why are the sizes (energy/mass) of the particles different? Or more specifically, why would some dissolve to a greater extent than others? Why aren't the larger ones still dissolving (morphing into the smaller types) all the while radiating Hawking radiation?
What is the stuff/distance that lies BETWEEN particles? Could it be ...spacetime? How is it affected by this, so-called, quantum gravity?
And obviously, what could possibly be "shielding" gravity? Nothing known can do this!
YES
http://www.onesim...e.com/l2
http://www.onesim....com/296
Energy exploding in space who dont.
All nucleus of atoms exploding and emit/radiate exploding waves of energy who have nature of exploding electrons and exploding particle. Electrons just moving to the next nuclei of atom and giving some change of pressure for energywaves who pushing themselfs out from exploding nuclei of atom and then born new exploding electrons etc...
For those who already know all there is to know, that is a good ending to this discussion.
Personally, I am still trying to learn.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Possible? So it is that energy can power their ideas split evenly mode, when the energy change of less high-density energy, power, thoughts? Man is composed of only the energy which has a force of its ideas on their own energy? Can any other supporter of the theory to describe their own theory of load-bearing pillars are equally authentic in some visible and verifiable through things? For example, how space is expanding? Using only things holding describe the expansion, which we can see the Universe? If the theories of other supporters are not able to describe even the basic theories of ideas, so what the posts in these theories is the case when we talk about physics all the theory?
The stars are just energy. The stars will radiate energy. Stars, the energy spread throughout the state of the time. Perhaps the cores of atoms of energy spread throughout the state? Perhaps the particles will radiate energy all the time?
Perhaps the nuclei of atoms explode all the time in space is not expanding? Perhaps the whole period of explosive atomic nuclei radiate energy waves, with electrons and particles of nature? Depending on the type of atomic energy per core, comes and what kind of pressure fluctuations, it gives off a protruding from the energy wave? Does the second kernel atom protruding electron birth of new electron outwardly projecting energy etc?
http://www.onesim...e.com/l2
http://www.onesim....com/296
This may be the headlines for announcing success of the CERN's LHC if the theoretical paper by the late G. G. Coyne and D. D. Cheng [1] is correct.
That seems more likely from an empirical point of view than the idea that a Big Bang created and filled the universe with Hydrogen.
Precise, space-age measurements [2] on material in the solar system suggest that compact nuclear matter in the core of the Sun emits neutrons, releases energy, and discharges the exhaust gas (Hydrogen) into interstellar space.
Popular Big Bang cosmology and those planning the LHC test of its validity assumed an opposite direction for the evolution of nuclear matter:
A Big Bang made and filled the universe with Hydrogen; H-fusion powers the Sun and other stars.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
REFERENCES:
[1] G. G. Coyne and D. D. Cheng, " A scenario for strong gravity in particle physics: An alternative mechanism for black holes to appear at accelerator experiments," http://arxiv.org/...1667.pdf
[2] O. Manuel, S. A. Kamat and Michael Mozina, "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass," http://arxiv.org/...609509v3
for example
http://arxiv.org/...21v1.pdf
See the "Dialogue with a Geologist" on the Naked Science Forum:
Page 7: http://tinyurl.com/mrpgbg
Page 8: http://tinyurl.com/mlqhuy
Page 9: http://tinyurl.com/lkj7zw
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf
In 1984 Mark Hucko proposed an alternate cosmological theory, so-called Multi-Level Universe theory, which was elaborated recently by Wiltshire, Leith and others.
http://www.slovio...universe