### Black Holes Lead To Storm

Important stuff first: At CERN this week, Lisa Randall gave a seminar on "Black Holes and Quantum Gravity at the LHC." Some have suggested that presence of extra dimensions might allow short-lived Black Holes to be produced in accelerators. Theoretically if an accelerator fired enough mass into a tiny space a singularity would be created. The Black Hole would almost instantly evaporate, but could be detected via Hawking radiation. Unfortunately quantum mechanics says that a particle's location can not be precisely measured. This quantum uncertainty would prevent us from putting enough mass into a singularity.

Speculations about extra dimensions suggest that they may allow Black Hole production at LHC. This would be a great boon to science, but Lisa's conclusion was that it is unlikely. The speculated energy threshold is far higher than LHC can produce. For all the attention given the subject, strings or branes have yet to produce a single falsifiable prediction. If BH's exist in our Solar System, better to go into Space and steal one!

In her book WARPED PASSAGES, Lisa is quite rational about the possiblities of strings. "Even if string theory is correct, we are unlikely to find the many additional particles it predicts. The energy of current experiments is sixteen orders of magnitude too low." In other words, we may never prove/disprove even the simplest predictions. This is very convenient for theorists, who can crank out endless papers and citations without being disproved.

On the other hand, a prediction like "GM=tc^3" makes one a lightning rod for criticism. It will put one outside the Harvard Club until extraordinary proof is demonstrated. These are the first stages of a real advance in science. That proof is coming very soon from multiple independent sources.

That said, a post on this talk at Quantum Diaries Survivor has created a blogstorm of criticism. The blogger noted that Lisa has an attractive appearance and works out, which are well-accepted theories. A tiny stream of angry electrons has since been circling the Earth. The source of criticism is centred on a certain blog and its veteran bloggers. Tommaso's compliments are honest and innocuous. Even if criticism is valid, it is unfair to gang up like this.

Last week Tommaso blogged about the predicament of Pegah Emambakhsh, a Persian woman trying to find asylum in London. The UK Home Office seems determined to send her back to Iran and an unspeakable death. Perhaps I've mentioned somewhere that the Home Office immigration policies are suicidally insane. They have let in countless potential terrorists while harassing scientists and other innocents. Bravo to Tommaso for informing us of this woman's plight. CV, where's your outrage now?

This week Out of the Cradle hosts the Carnival of Space!

Speculations about extra dimensions suggest that they may allow Black Hole production at LHC. This would be a great boon to science, but Lisa's conclusion was that it is unlikely. The speculated energy threshold is far higher than LHC can produce. For all the attention given the subject, strings or branes have yet to produce a single falsifiable prediction. If BH's exist in our Solar System, better to go into Space and steal one!

In her book WARPED PASSAGES, Lisa is quite rational about the possiblities of strings. "Even if string theory is correct, we are unlikely to find the many additional particles it predicts. The energy of current experiments is sixteen orders of magnitude too low." In other words, we may never prove/disprove even the simplest predictions. This is very convenient for theorists, who can crank out endless papers and citations without being disproved.

On the other hand, a prediction like "GM=tc^3" makes one a lightning rod for criticism. It will put one outside the Harvard Club until extraordinary proof is demonstrated. These are the first stages of a real advance in science. That proof is coming very soon from multiple independent sources.

That said, a post on this talk at Quantum Diaries Survivor has created a blogstorm of criticism. The blogger noted that Lisa has an attractive appearance and works out, which are well-accepted theories. A tiny stream of angry electrons has since been circling the Earth. The source of criticism is centred on a certain blog and its veteran bloggers. Tommaso's compliments are honest and innocuous. Even if criticism is valid, it is unfair to gang up like this.

Last week Tommaso blogged about the predicament of Pegah Emambakhsh, a Persian woman trying to find asylum in London. The UK Home Office seems determined to send her back to Iran and an unspeakable death. Perhaps I've mentioned somewhere that the Home Office immigration policies are suicidally insane. They have let in countless potential terrorists while harassing scientists and other innocents. Bravo to Tommaso for informing us of this woman's plight. CV, where's your outrage now?

This week Out of the Cradle hosts the Carnival of Space!

Labels: black holes

## 17 Comments:

Happy Blogday!

"Theoretically if an accelerator fired enough mass into a tiny space a singularity would be created. The Black Hole would almost instantly evaporate, but could be detected via Hawking radiation. Unfortunately quantum mechanics says that a particle's location can not be precisely measured. This quantum uncertainty would prevent us from putting enough mass into a singularity."

I disagree with Lisa Randall here. It depends on whether the black hole is charged or not, which changes the mechanism for the emission of Hawking radiation.

The basic idea is that in a strong electric field, pairs of virtual positive fermions and virtual negative fermions appear spontaneously. If this occurs at the event horizon of a black hole, one of the pair can at random fall into the black hole, while the other one escapes.

However, there is a factor Hawking and Lisa Randall ignore: the requirement of the black hole having electric charge in the first place, because pair production has only been demonstrated to occur in strong fields, the standard model fields of the strong and electromagnetic force fields (nobody has ever seen pair production occur in the extremely weak gravitational fields).

Hawking ignores the fact that pair production in quantum field theory (according to Schwinger's calculations, which very accurately predict other things like the magnetic moments of leptons and the Lamb shift in the hydrogen spectra) requires a net electric field to exist at the event horizon at the black hole.

This in turn means that the black hole must carry a net electric charge and cannot be neutral if there is to be any Hawking radiation.

In turn, this implies that Hawking radiation in general is not gamma rays as Hawking claims it is.

Gamma rays in Hawking's theory are produced just beyond the event horizon of the black hole by as many virtual positive fermions as virtual negative fermions escaping and then annihilating into gamma rays.

This mechanism can't occur if the black hole is charged, because the net electric charge [which is required to give the electric field which is required for pair-production in the vacuum in the first place] of the black hole interferes with the selection of which virtual fermions escape from the event horizon!

If the black hole has a net positive charge, it will skew the distribution of escaping radiation so that more virtual positive charges escape than virtual negative charges.

This, in turn, means that the escaped charges beyond the event horizon won't be equally positive and negative; so they won't be able to annihilate into gamma rays.

It's strange that Hawking has never investigated this.

You only get Hawking radiation if the black hole has an electric charge of Q > 16*Pi*Permittivity*[(mMG)^2]/(c*e*h-bar).

(This condition is derived below.)

The type of Hawking radiation you get emitted is generally going to be charged, not neutral.

My understanding is that the fermion and boson are both results of fundamental prions. As Carl Brannen and Tony Smith have suggested, fermions may be a triplet of prions to explain the three generations of the standard model, and the colour charge in SU(3) QCD.

Bosons of the classical photon variety would generally have two prions: because their electric field oscillates from positive to negative (the positive electric field half cycle constitutes an effective source of positive electric charge and can be considered to be one preon, while the negative electric field half cycle in a photon can be considered another preon).

Hence, there are definite reasons to suspect that all fermions are composed of three preons, while bosons consist of pairs of preons.

Considering this, Hawking radiation is more likely to be charged gauge boson radiation. This does explain electromagnetism if you replace the U(1)xSU(2) electroweak unification with an SU(2) electroweak unification, where you have 3 gauge bosons which exist in both massive forms (at high energy, mediating weak interactions) and also massless forms (at all energies), due to the handedness of the way these three gauge bosons acquire mass from a mass-providing field. Since the standard model's electroweak symmetry breaking (Higgs) field fails to make really convincing falsifiable predictions (there are lots of versions of Higgs field ideas making different "predictions", so you can't falsify the idea easily), it is very poor physics.

Sheldon Glashow and Julian Schwinger investigated the use of SU(2) to unify electromagnetism and weak interactions in 1956, as Glashow explains in his Nobel lecture of 1979:

‘Schwinger, as early as 1956, believed that the weak and electromagnetic interactions should be combined into a gauge theory. The charged massive vector intermediary and the massless photon were to be the gauge mesons. As his student, I accepted his faith. ... We used the original SU(2) gauge interaction of Yang and Mills. Things had to be arranged so that the charged current, but not the neutral (electromagnetic) current, would violate parity and strangeness. Such a theory is technically possible to construct, but it is both ugly and experimentally false [H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Physical Review Letters, 28, 1494 (1972)]. We know now that neutral currents do exist and that the electroweak gauge group must be larger than SU(2).’

This is plain wrong: Glashow and Schwinger believed that electromagnetism would have to be explained by a massless

unchargedphoton acting as the vector boson which communicates the force field.If they had considered the mechanism for how electromagnetic interactions can occur, they would have seen that it's entirely possible to have massless

chargedvector bosons as well as massive ones for short range weak force interactions. Then SU(2) gives you six vector bosons:Massless W_+ = +ve electric fields

Massless W_- = -ve electric fields

Massless Z_o = graviton (neutral)

Massive W_+ = mediates weak force

Massive W_- = mediates weak force

Massive Z_o = neutral currents

Going back to the charged radiation from black holes, massless charged radiation mediates electromagnetic interactions.

This idea that black holes must evaporate if they are real simply because they are radiating, is flawed: air molecules in my room are all radiating energy, but they aren’t getting cooler: they are merely exchanging energy. There’s an equilibrium.

Equations

To derive the condition for Hawking’s heuristic mechanism of radiation emission, he writes that pair production near the event horizon sometimes leads to one particle of the pair falling into the black hole, while the other one escapes and becomes a real particle. If on average as many fermions as antifermions escape in this manner, they annihilate into gamma rays outside the black hole.

Schwinger’s threshold electric field for pair production is: E_c = (m^2)*(c^3)/(e*h-bar) = 1.3*10^18 volts/metre. Source: equation 359 in http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608140 or equation 8.20 in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510040

So at least that electric field strength must exist at the event horizon, before black holes emit any Hawking radiation! (This is the electric field strength at 33 fm from an electron.) Hence, in order to radiate by Hawking’s suggested mechanism, black holes must carry enough electric charge so make the eelectric field at the event horizon radius, R = 2GM/c^2, exceed 1.3*10^18 v/m.

Now the electric field strength from an electron is given by Coulomb’s law with F = E*q = qQ/(4*Pi*Permittivity*R^2), so

E = Q/(4*Pi*Permittivity*R^2) v/m.

Setting this equal to Schwinger’s threshold for pair-production, (m^2)*(c^3)/(e*h-bar) = Q/(4*Pi*Permittivity*R^2). Hence, the maximum radius out to which fermion-antifermion pair production and annihilation can occur is

R = [(Qe*h-bar)/{4*Pi*Permittivity*(m^2)*(c^3)}]^{1/2}.

Where Q is black hole’s electric charge, and e is electronic charge, and m is electron’s mass. Set this R equal to the event horizon radius 2GM/c^2, and you find the condition that must be satisfied for Hawking radiation to be emitted from any black hole:

Q > 16*Pi*Permittivity*[(mMG)^2]/(c*e*h-bar)

where M is black hole mass.

So the amount of electric charge a black hole must possess before it can radiate (according to Hawking’s mechanism) is proportional to the square of the mass of the black hole.

On the other hand, it’s interesting to look at fundamental particles in terms of black holes (Yang-Mills force-mediating exchange radiation may be Hawking radiation in an equilibrium).

When you calculate the force of gauge bosons emerging from an electron as a black hole (the radiating power is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, dependent on the black hole radiating temperature which is given by Hawking’s formula), you find it correlates to the electromagnetic force, allowing quantitative predictions to be made. See http://nige.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/quantum-gravity-mechanism-and-predictions/#comment-1997 for example.

To summarize: Hawking, considering uncharged black holes, says that either of the fermion-antifermion pair is equally likey to fall into the black hole. However, if the black hole is charged (as it must be in the case of an electron), the black hole charge influences which particular charge in the pair of virtual particles is likely to fall into the black hole, and which is likely to escape. Consequently, you find that virtual positrons fall into the electron black hole, so an electron (as a black hole) behaves as a source of negatively charged exchange radiation. Any positive charged black hole similarly behaves as a source of positive charged exchange radiation.

These charged gauge boson radiations of electromagnetism are predicted by an SU(2) electromagnetic mechanism, see Figures 2, 3 and 4 of http://nige.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/the-mathematical-errors-in-the-standard-model-of-particle-physics/

It's amazing how ignorant mainstream people are about this. They don't understand that charged massless radiation can only propagate if there is an exchange (vector boson radiation going in both directions between charges) so that the magnetic field vectors cancel, preventing infinite self inductance.

Hence the whole reason why we can only send out uncharged photons from a light source is that we are only sending them one way. Feynman points out clearly that there are additional polarizations but observable long-range photons only have two polarizations.

It's fairly obvious that between two positive charges you have a positive electric field because the exchanged vector bosons which create that field are positive in nature. They can propagate despite being massless because there is a high flux of charged radiation being exchanged in both directions (from charge 1 to charge 2, and from charge 2 to charge 1) simultaneously, which

cancels outthe magnetic fields due to moving charged radiation and prevents infinite self-inductance from stopping the radiation. The magnetic field created by any moving charge has a directional curl, so radiation of similar charge going in opposite directions will cancel out the magnetic fields (since they oppose) for the duration of the overlap.All this is well known experimentally from sending logic signals along transmission lines, which behave as photons. E.g. you need two parallel conductors at different potential to cause a logic signal to propagate, each conductor containing a field waveform which is an exact inverted image of that in the other (the magnetic fields around each of the conductors cancels the magnetic field of the other conductor, preventing infinite self-inductance).

Moreover, the full mechanism for this version of SU(2) makes lots of predictions. So fermions are blach holes and the charged Hawking radiation they emit is the gauge bosons of electromagnetism and weak interactions.

Presumably the neutral radiation is emitted by electrically neutral field quanta which give rise to the mass (gravitational charge). The reason why gravity is so weak is because it is mediated by electrically neutral vector bosons.

nige's post is interesting.

nige says that fermions are black holes

and that Hawking radiation is mostly bosons.

The picture of fermions such as electrons being Kerrr-Newman black holes is described not only in my model but also

by Ranganathan in gr-qc 0306090

by Lynden-Bell in astro-ph 0207064

by Arcos and Pereira in hep-th 0210103

etc

If black hole Hawking radiation is mostly bosons,

then it seems to me that if you want to build a machine to produce black holes, you would want to do the inverse process,

that is, have the machine beam a lot of bosons into a small volume.

Lisa Randall may be correct that the LHC (a fermion collider) is not likely to produce black holes,

but

maybe black holes could be produced by a pion laser.

Since pions are bosons (as well as being massive), you should be able to concentrate them into a small volume by laser action, and if you concentrate enough (around at least a Planck mass of about 2 x 10tothe(-5) gram) of them, you might make a black hole.

Tony Smith

Thanks, Alex. I don't agree with everything Lisa studies either, but nige and Tony give hope that we will have a Black Hole in the lab within our lifetimes.

Tony,

You wrote here (that is a U.S. Amazon book discussion comment, where I can't contribute as participants need to have bought books from the U.S. Amazon site, and being in England I've only bought books from Amazon.co.uk):

... shortly after Baez described his Six Mysteries in Ontario, I sent an e-mail message to Smolin saying:

'... I would like to present, at Perimenter, answers to those questions, as follows: Mysteries 2 and 3: The Higgs probably does exist, and is related to a Tquark-Tantiquark condensate, and mass comes from the Standard Model Higgs mechanism, producing force strengths and particle masses consistent with experiment, as described in http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/YamawakiNJL.pdf and http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/TQ3mHFII1vNFadd97.pdf

'Mystery 4: Neutrino masses and mixing angles consistent with experiment are described in the first part of this pdf file http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/NeutrinosEVOs.pdf Mystery 5: A partial answer: If quarks are regarded as Kerr-Newman black holes, merger of a quark-antiquark pair to form a charged pion produce a toroidal event horizon carrying sine-Gordon structure, so that, given up and down quark constituent masses of about 312 MeV,the charged pion gets a mass of about 139 MeV, as described in http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/sGmTqqbarPion.pdf Mysteries 6 and 1:The Dark Energy : Dark Matter : Ordinary Matter ratio of about 73 : 23 : 4 is described in http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/WMAPpaper.pdf

I'm extremely interested in this, particularly the idea that the mass-providing boson is a condensate particle formed of a Top quark and an anti-Top quark, like a meson. I'm also extremely interested in quarks modelled as Kerr-Newman black holes in the pion, to predict the mass. Your mathematical technical approach is not easy going for me, however.

Maybe I can outline some independent information I've acquired regarding three basic scientific confirmations that fermions are indeed black holes, emitting gauge bosons at a tremendous rate as a form of Hawking radiation:

(1) The "contrapuntal model for the charged capacitor", which I'll explain in detailed numbered steps below:

(1.a) All electric energy carried by conductors travels at light velocity for the insulator around the conductors.

(1.b) A small section of a (two-conductor) transmission line can be charged by like a capacitor, and behaves like a simple capacitor, storing electric energy.

(1.c) Charge up that piece of transmission line using of sampling oscilloscopes to record what happens, and you learn that energy flows into it at light velocity for the insulator.

(1.d) There is no mechanism for that electricity to suddenly slow down when it enters a capacitor. It can't physically slow down. It reflects off the open circuit at the far end and is trapped in a loop, going up and down the transmission line endlessly. This produces the apparently "static" electric field in all charges. The magnetic fields from each component of the trapped energy (going in opposite directions) curl in different directions around the propagation direction, so the magnetic field cancels out.

(1.e) The "field" (electromagnetic vector boson exchange radiation) that causes electromagnetic forces controls the speed of the logic signal, and the electron drift speed (1 millimetre/second for 1 Amp in typical domestic electric cables) has nothing to do with it.

(1.f) Electricity in paired conductors is primarily driven by vector boson radiation (comprising the electromagnetic "field"). The electron drift current, although vital for supplying electrons to chemical reactions and to cathode emitters in vacuum tubes, is pretty much irrelevant as far as the delivery of electric energy is concerned. (It's easy to calculate what the kinetic energy of all the electron drift in a cable amounts to, and it is insignificant compared to the amount of energy being delivered by electricity. This is because of the low speed of the electron drift in typical situations, combined with the fact that the conduction electrons have little mass so their total mass is typically just ~0.1% of the mass of the conductors. Kinetic energy E = (1/2)mv^2 tells you that for small m and tiny drift velocity v, electron drift is not the main source of energy delivery in ordinary electricity. Instead, gauge/vector bosons in the EM field are responsible for delivering the energy. Hence, by a close study of the details of how logic pulses interact and charge up capacitors - which is not modelled accurately by Maxwell's classical model - something new about the EM vector bosons of QFT may be deduced from solid, repeatable experimental data!)

(1.g) The trapped light velocity energy in a capacitor is unable to slow down, and the effect of it being trapped leads to the apparently "static" electric field and nil magnetic field (as explained in 1.d above). Another effect of the trapping of energy is that there is no net electric field along the charged up capacitor plate: the potential is the same number of volts everywhere, so there is no gradient (i.e., there is no volts/metre) and thus no electron drift current. Without electron drift current, we have no resistance because resistance is due to moving conduction band electrons colliding with the conductor's metal lattice and releasing heat as a result of the deceleration. There is merely a energy bounding at light speed in all directions in any charged object.

There is also the effect of electric charge in the form of electrons that drifts into one capacitor plate (the negative one),

and out of the other plate (the positive one),while the capacitor is charging up.(1.h) Now for electrons. The capacitor model (1.g above) explains how gauge boson radiation (the field) gets trapped in a capacitor. Experiments by I.C., who pioneered research on logic signal crosstalk in the 60s, confirmed this: a capacitor receives energy at light speed for the insulator in the feel transmission line, the energy that gets trapped in a transmission line can't slow down, and it exits at light speed when discharged. He, together with two other engineers, also showed how to get Maxwell's exponential charging law (1 - e^x) out of this model although it contains various errors and omissions in the physics. However, the main results are correct. When you discharge the a capacitor charged at v volts, (such as a charged length of cable), instead of getting a pulse at v volts coming out with a length of x metres (i.e., taking a time of t = x/c seconds), you instead get a pulse of v/2 volts taking 2x/c seconds to exit. In other words, the half of the energy already moving towards the exit end, exits first. That gives a pulse of v/2 volts lasting x/c seconds. Then the half of the energy going initially the wrong way has had time to go to the far end, reflect back, and follow the first half of the energy. This gives the second half of the output, another pulse of v/2 volts lasting for another x/c seconds and following straight on from the first pulse. Hence, the observer measures an output of v/2 volts lasting for a total duration of 2x/c seconds. This is experimental fact. It was Oliver Heaviside - who translated Maxwell’s 20 long-hand differential equations into the four vector equations (two divs, two curls) - who experimentally discovered the first evidence for this when solving problems with the Newcastle-Denmark undersea telegraph cable in 1875, using ‘Morse Code’ (logic signals). (Heaviside’s theory is flawed physically because he treated rise times as instantaneous, a "step", an unphysical discontinuity which would imply infinite rate of change of the field at the instant of the step, causing infinite "displacement current", and this error is inherited by Catt, Davidson, and Walton, which blocks a complete understanding of the mechanisms at work.)

Using the model of trapped gauge boson radiation to represent static charge, the electron is understood to be a trapped charged gauge boson. The only way to trap a light velocity gauge boson like this is for spacetime curvature (gravitation) to trap it in a loop, hence it's a black hole.

In the August 2002 issue of British journal

Electronics Worldthere is an illustration demonstrating that for such a looped gauge boson, the electric field lines - at long distances compared to the black hole radius - diverge as given by Gauss's/Coulomb's law, while the magnetic field lines circling around the looped propagation direction form a toroidal shape near the electron black hole radius but at large distances the results of cancellations is that you just see magnetic dipole, which is a feature of leptons.(2) The second piece of empirical evidence that fermions can be modelled by black holes that I've come across is in connection with gravity calculations. If the outward acceleration of the mass of the universe creates a force like

F = ma(which is a force on the order of 7*10^43 Newtons, although there are obvious various corrections you can think of such as the effect of the higher density of the universe at earlier times and greater distances - I've undertaken some such calculations on my newer blog - or questions over how much "dark matter" there is which is behaving like mass and accelerating away from us) wheremis mass of universe andais acceleration, then Newton's 3rd law suggests an equal inward force, which according to the possibilities available would seem to be carried by vector bosons that cause forces.To test this, we work out what cross-sectional shielding area an electron would need to have in order that the shielding of the inward-directed force would give rise to gravity as an asymmetry effect (this asymmetry idea as the cause of gravity is an idea sneered at and ignorantly dismissed for false reasons, and variously credited to Newton's friend Fatio or to Fatio's Swiss plagiarist, Georges LeSage).

It turns out that the cross-sectional area of the electron would be Pi*(2GM/c^2)^2 square metres where M is the electron's rest mass, which implies an effective electron radius of 2GM/c^2, which is the event horizon radius for a black hole.

This is the second piece of evidence that an electron is related to black hole, although it is not a strong piece of evidence in my view because the result could be just a coincidence.

(3) The third piece of evidence is a different calculation for the gravity mechanism discussed in (2) above. A simple physical argument allows the derivation of the the actual cross-sectional shielding area for gravitation, and this calculation can be found as "Approach 2" on my blog page here.

When combined with the now-verified earlier calculation, this new approach allows gravity strength to be predicted accurately as well as giving evidence that fermions have a cross-sectional area for gravitational interactions equal to the cross-sectional area of the black hole event horizon for the particle mass.

One more piece of quantitative evidence that fermions are black holes:

Using Hawking's formula to calculate the effective black body radiating temperature of a black hole yields the figure of 1.35*10^53 Kelvin.

Any black-body at that temperature radiates 1.3*10^205 watts/m^2 (via the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law). We calculate the spherical radiating surface area 4*Pi*r^2 for the black hole event horizon radius r = 2Gm/c^2 where m is electron mass, hence an electron has a total Hawking radiation power of

3*10^92 watts

But that’s Yang-Mills electromagnetic force exchange (vector boson) radiation. Electron’s don’t evaporate, they are in equilibrium with the reception of radiation from other radiating charges.

So the electron core both receives and emits 3*10^92 watts of electromagnetic gauge bosons, simultaneously.

The momentum of absorbed radiation is p = E/c, but in this case the exchange means that we are dealing with reflected radiation (the equilibrium of emission and reception of gauge bosons is best modelled as a reflection), where p = 2E/c.

The force of this radiation is the rate of change of the momentum, F = dp/dt ~ (2E/c)/t = 2P/c, where P is power.

Using P = 3*10^92 watts as just calculated,

F = 2P/c = 2(3*10^92 watts)/c = 2*10^84 N.

For gravity, the model in this blog post gives an inward and an outward gauge boson calculation F = 7*10^43 N.

So the force of Hawking radiation for the black hole is higher than my estimate of gravity by a factor of [2*10^84] / [7*10^43] = 3*10^40.

This figure of approximately 10^40 is indeed the ratio between the force coupling constant for electromagnetism and the force coupling constant for gravity.

So the Hawking radiation force seems to indeed be the electromagnetic force!

Electromagnetism between fundamental particles is about 10^40 times stronger than gravity.

I think that you have to start erase comments of nige.They took too much virtual memory :)

nige, thanks very much for putting on this blog for the record my Amazon comment about my e-mail to Lee Smolin about solutions to John Baez's Six Mysteries. As you might expect, I have yet to be invited to Perimeter to discuss them.

Sorry about using a lot of math, but that is done to present the ideas in the language used by most establishment physicists. I even use their terms, like Dark Energy, although when you run the math in my model it seems to be equivalent to Louise's No-Dark-Energy terminology.

Sometimes I wonder why I try to phrase unconventional things in establishment language while the establishment blacklists me,

but

I think the main reason is that students (a few of whom might turn out to be open-minded, and who are the primary targets of my writings) are taught by the establishment, so I should try to phrase my stuff in a way that is consistent with the way they have been taught.

Actually, the way I visualize stuff inmy mind is more like the way you describe things. For example:

fundamental fermions look like Kerr-Newman black holes;

massless gauge bosons look like massless charge-anticharge pairs (positive-negative for ElectroWeak and color-anticolor for gluons);

the Higgs field (which gives mass to fermions) looks like a condensate of massive fermions-antifermions, with the most massive (i.e. T-quark) being dominant;

pions look like sine-Gordon soliton quark-antiquark pairs of massive quarks; etc

The fermion-antifermion condensate picture does look like the capacitor picture.

You can also see spacetime itself as a condensate.

Tony Smith

My father pronounced the amazing theory of dunkle Materie, Dark Matter, over 80 years ago. His genius and stunning theories still benumb the senses of the scientific community, and continue to challenge their professional expertise. The scientific community hindered important advancements in astronomical discovery for decades, by rejecting the very concepts of years past, they now so readily embrace. I encounter many self-appointed experts on Dark Matter, and Supernovae, among my father's body of work, which emcompasses some of the most important concepts in astronomy today. They all orginated with my father.

Dr. Vera Rubin, Dr. Lisa Randall, Dr. Robert Kirshner, and Dr. Michael Turner are among many, who in my opinion, have not only failed to match my father's genius, but have also distorted his orginal theoretical intent. The credit belongs to my father, who coined the terms, Supernova, and Dark Matter, and not to the many who follow, still seeking answers to his theories. My father would be just as offended by this effort of self-aggrandizement and confusion regarding his work, were he alive today. He would certainly safeguard the ownership of his intellectual property, that will always belong to him alone, and will be documented in history.

Dr.h.c. Barbarina Zwicky

This is really sweet! Just wonderful post written by you. Thank you for your kind post...Impressive work…Bangalore Escorts

qzz0725

coach outlet onlinepandora charmscoach outletmoncler outletlongchamp handbagsbalenciaga sneakerscanada goose jacketsair huarachetory burch outletlongchamp handbagszzzzz2018.8.8

air jordan 8ugg boots on sale 70% offoff white shoescheap nba jerseyspandoracanada goose jacketssalomom shoesugg bootskate spade outletchristian louboutin shoes0810jejeFabriqué avec une adidas zx flux adv verve femme crosse plus épaisse, une garde croisée plus complète et droite et un cortez nike bordeau pommeau martelé; il y avait aussi les fameuses asics gel lyte homme soldes rondelles de cuir compressées à la poignée. Maintenant, plus que asics femme bleu marine jamais, les filles aimeraient apercevoir le sommet qu'elles peuvent nike jordan 6 femme pas cher apercevoir à tout âge. Vous avez maintenant des Asics France boucles à la poitrine qui vous permettent de décrocher les bretelles, chaussures nike femme soldes et des boucles de jambe facilement accessibles qui dépassent des Air Jordan Reveal France jambes.

adidas superstarcoach outlet onlinecanada goose outletmichael kors outlet onlineuggs outletmoncler onlinemanolo blahnikcoach outletcanada goose jacketscheap jordansqq0822jj

www0908

ralph lauren ukcanada goose jacketsmichael kors outletcanada goose outletmoncler outletnike blazersgolden gooseprada handbagskate spade handbagslouboutin shoesmichael kors outletnike flyknittimberland outletyeezy boost 350 v2longchampnike flyknit racerkobe basketball shoeslongchamp bagsair yeezynfl storeair jordanmlb jerseysmichael kors handbagsnike vapormaxcoach outletyeezysnike air max 2018nike reactyeezy boost 350supreme clothingPost a Comment

<< Home