| Author |
Message |
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:28 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:36:10 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie wrote:
Hi. :-)
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?????
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.
Well, I guess that settles that. :-)
Thanks!
Rich
I don't agree. |
I think you had a very intuitive idea.
John
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Martin
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | I don't agree.
I think you had a very intuitive idea.
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff_Relf
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: A proton is more of a virtual field than a physical part |
|
|
Hi Kevin_Aylward, Ignoramus1487 and Rich_Gris
I wrote:
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.
__ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
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.
__ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant
Something is _Virtual_ if it exists only in essence, not in reality.
See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=virtual
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
http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Nostalgie_.MP3
P.S. Could someone translate this song for me ?
Nostalgie is a French word, so I assume the lyrics are French.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Hello.
I once had an idea about the contruct that an elementary particle is a
photon going in a circle by being trapped by its own gravitational field due
to its electric field stored energy.
A more abstract analysis makes it a photon that cannot propagate because its
stored energy creates a gravitational field that has an escape velocity as
the speed of light.
So really there is nothing there, we are nothing, just light.
If you look at my web pages on http://www.chrisscrazyideas.co.uk and go to
the bit on string theory (if no one has deleted it) there is some maths and
stuff.
Chris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
I don't agree.
I think you had a very intuitive idea.
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
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
| Quote: | Hippity Hoppity wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
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
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
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GALAXY+MODEL+For+The+ATOM%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
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.
Too bad you, John, think that there is similarity of pattern
between atoms and galaxies. Can you describe the pattern of
an atom?
Atoms come in many varieties. |
Here's how my model explains the pattern
of the Periodic Table.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
No... I mean did you, John, think that electrons when around an atomic
nucleus like stars in a spiral galaxy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Brown
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
| Quote: | Too bad you, John, think that there is similarity of pattern
between atoms and galaxies. Can you describe the pattern of
an atom?
|
Of course there is some similarity between atoms and galaxies - and also
solar systems in between. Any teenager with an imagination and some
interest in physics notices this. Of course, after thinking about it
for a short time, they note that the differences far outweigh the
similarities, and forget about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise, Plainclothes
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 19:38:40 -0800, Mark Martin wrote:
| Quote: |
Happy Hippy wrote:
I don't agree.
I think you had a very intuitive idea.
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.
|
I'd say, not to _transcend_, but to expand, or deepen, the mind/intuition
alignment.
;-)
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
I don't agree.
I think you had a very intuitive idea.
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
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
hey |
And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?
Only if we infer a
totally new class of matter.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich The Philosopher
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:41 am Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:07:04 -0600, Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Happy Hippy wrote:
Mark Martin wrote:
Happy Hippy wrote:
[I had written something, and somebody said it was stupid or
something...]
I don't agree.
I think you had a very intuitive idea.
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
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.
And the numbers support.............galaxy rotation profiles?
Only if we infer a
totally new class of matter.
|
Here's some possibly interesting reading about reality and stuff:
http://www.arthuryoung.com/ruexc.HTML
http://www.rightuseofwill.com/books.htm
http://www.godchannel.com
Oh, and it turns out that God loves us, but he doesn't like nukes. :-D
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Sefton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
David Brown wrote:
| Quote: | Sam Wormley wrote:
Too bad you, John, think that there is similarity of pattern
between atoms and galaxies. Can you describe the pattern of
an atom?
Of course there is some similarity between atoms and galaxies - and also
solar systems in between. Any teenager with an imagination and some
interest in physics notices this. Of course, after thinking about it
for a short time, they note that the differences far outweigh the
similarities, and forget about it.
|
OK David.
Name your 5 main differences that preclude the comparison.
Please.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
| Quote: | Hippity Hoppity wrote:
Atoms come in many varieties.
Here's how my model explains the pattern
of the Periodic Table.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF
John
No... I mean did you, John, think that electrons when around an atomic
nucleus like stars in a spiral galaxy?
Let's say they do. |
How do the stars in a spiral galaxy go around?
Do you think they go around in circles which
repeat in a sort of ecliptic plane?
Or might that ecliptic plane itself be rotating
around an axis within it? You do know that our
planets do this, do you not?
Are galaxies precessing?
Might this not lead to confusion about star
velocities (calculating pathways as 2D when they
are really 3D)?
What proof is there that they are?
What proof that they are not?
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Happy Hippy
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Happy Hippy wrote:
| Quote: | Sam Wormley wrote:
Hippity Hoppity wrote:
Atoms come in many varieties.
Here's how my model explains the pattern
of the Periodic Table.
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF
John
No... I mean did you, John, think that electrons when around an atomic
nucleus like stars in a spiral galaxy?
Let's say they do.
How do the stars in a spiral galaxy go around?
Do you think they go around in circles which
repeat in a sort of ecliptic plane?
Or might that ecliptic plane itself be rotating
around an axis within it? You do know that our
planets do this, do you not?
Are galaxies precessing?
Might this not lead to confusion about star
velocities (calculating pathways as 2D when they
are really 3D)?
What proof is there that they are?
What proof that they are not?
John
"Radio sources with jets can possess another peculiar shape due to a |
combination of kinetic and geometrical effects. This occurs if the jets
precess about a defined axis. The precession can result in the jet being
curved as observed in the plane of the sky, although any fluid particle
of the jet always follows a straight trajectory. This behaviour is
manifested in the plane of the sky as inversion (or 180$ ^\circ$
rotation) symmetry. For example, a bend to the right in one jet becomes
a bent to the left in the opposite jet. A typical example is the radio
galaxy NGC 326 which is shown in fig.(I.5). It is very likely that this
precession originates at the very base of the jet (see Begelman et al.,
1984, and references therein), close to the central engine.
Figure I.5: Inversion symmetry in the radio galaxies source associated
with NGC 326. The radio image of the galaxy shows a bend in the top left
jet implies a bend to the bottom right jet. This peculiar shape arise
because the jets precess about a certain axis, resulting in a cone-like
radio structure. The projection on the plane of the sky of this motion
produces inversion symmetry."
from Bending of jets in radio galaxies
"It is very likely that this precession originates at the very base of
the jet" means the disc itself is precessing.
The magnetic structure arising at right-angles to the Milky Way also
curves.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam Wormley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: Are protons really quantum black holes? |
|
|
Stars are in Keplerian orbits. Electrons are not and cannot
even be described as having discrete boundaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in