Electron as black hole (split from New class of black hole)

[Star Walls]

On 11/3/2019 at 12:57 PM, MigL said:

There is no lower limit on the size of Black Holes, just on available mechanisms for their formation;  gravitational collapse of stellar sized objects that lose antagonistic radiation and degenerate pressure, or additional mass acquired by a neutron star from a companion or interstellar gas/dust.
Both methods result in sizeable Black Holes.

However primordial Black Holes, formed in the hot, dense soup shortly after the Big Bang, could form in any size, and could have evolved in two ways.
They could have 'evaporated', due to their high temperature and resulting Hawking Radiation. These small BHs could have or be currently reaching the end of their 'evaporation', where they discard their event horizon and explode in a large gamma ray burst; we don't see any observational evidence of this happening anywhere.
Or they could have become the 'active' seeds of the supermassive BHs ( and their surrounding gas/stars ) we see in most all galaxies. These active BHs are numerous in the distant past ( great distances ) in newly forming galaxies, and are usually termed Quasars.

And/or could they perhaps be all around us? I've heard it proposed that the electron itself may be a black hole; and vice versa. Now, I've also heard neutron stars described as "atomic nuclei". If so, an event such as a black hole orbiting a neutron star might be interpreted as some kind of macro atom, which, like all atoms, might even emit radiation. Is it not true though that Einstein, himself, went to his grave convinced that black holes did not exist? He believed that something would always happen to prevent, or limit, one from forming.

[MigL]

They don't behave that way at all.
If an electron and positron were both Planck scale BHs, upon collision, they would form a slightly larger BH.
Instead they annihilate and radiate.
And the release of EM radiation is something which a resultant BH could never do.

[Star Walls]

Did John Wheeler not propose that there may only be one electron in the whole universe and that the positron is an electron moving back through time? If so, there might be no larger mass black hole, as the electron would in a sense be annihilating itself.

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Star Walls

[MigL]

Then, since each electron and each positron we observe is the time slice of space-time at that particular moment, of the ONE electron whose world lines are looping through all space-time, we should observe roughly equal amounts of electrons and the time reversed positrons.
BUT, we don't !
( J A Wheeler is one of my 'heroes" so I'm familiar with his proposal; to R Feynman IIRC )

[Eise]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

And the release of EM radiation is something which a resultant BH could never do.

What about Hawking radiation? Such a small black hole would 'evaporate' immediately. But of course I doubt that one can describe electrons as 'nano black holes'. There seems to be no need for it in QED. And AFAIK at low energies an electron and a positron always annihilate as 2 photons. If that is true, I think it is not compatible with the idea of Hawking radiation. 

[mathematic]

General relativity can't be used for something as small as an electron - quantum theory conflict.

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, mathematic said:

General relativity can't be used for something as small as an electron - quantum theory conflict.

Isn't a photon 'smaller' than an electron (depending upon what you mean by size) and yet Eddington gave the first experimental verification of GR using the effect  on photons.

But I do think that far to many theories are (mis)used outside their domain of applicability.
And this would be the case of the title of this thread.

Edited November 5, 2019 by studiot

[mathematic]

Eddington experiment had nothing to do with the "size" of the photon.