User talk:DonJStevens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi,

I see the usual wiki welcome wagon hasn't arrived here, so let me be the first to say hello. You may be tickled to find out I've wikified black hole electron for you. I was very intrigued. Its some interesting back-of-the-envelope scratching; although I admit I have not yet checked the math. Please review for errors, etc. linas 05:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Review for errors completed. One correction made. DonJStevens

Don, Please respond to the conversation on the Talk:black hole electron. Upon closer review, there appear to be multiple errors and problems with the formulas. I am rather upset about this, I was under the impression that these formulas were due to Brian Greene but that seems not to be the case. Right now, the article is at risk of being entirely deleted, a vote which I will support if a correct set of equations aren't provided immediately. linas 04:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, please provide a reference for the 1955 JA Wheeler geon article, including journal name, volume number, issue number, page numbers and date. Ditto for other references. linas 05:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks, why don't you edit electron black hole directly, and add the JA Wheeler book reference there? linas 01:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don, the problem with your formulas is that "one second" is accidental. If huamn beings had several thousand years ago decided to measure time so that there were 26 hours in a day, and 1000 seconds in an hour, then seconds would be different from what they are today. However, both planck mass, electron mass and speed of light would be the same. As you did your formulas, you'd find that your E3 was equivalent to to some other value, say "1/3 seconds". I don't see that this means anything.
Also, please learn how to typeset your formulas. They are almost unreadable as you've written them. linas 14:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Linas, We only need seconds if we are using our Planck constant value to determine energy in joules. Frequency must be cycles per second. Clarification has been added but I know you are getting weary of this so I won't trouble you further. DonJStevens

Some questions have been asked that require an explanation for the "gravitational time dilation limit" concept that I have used. One second repeatedly divided in half finally approaches the Planck time. At this limit, subsequent divisions have no meaning. A second could be subjected to a time dilation factor no more than the ratio Planck time divided by one second. It follows that any segment of time, an hour or a day could only be shortened by the limit factor; Planck time divided by one second. Further shortening would have no meaning.

The electron evaluation indicates that the actual gravitational time dilation limit is equal to the square root of (3/2) times Planck time divided by two pi seconds. The two pi factor is required due to inertial frame dragging by the black hole spin. This dimensionless ratio is 1.0506832x10 exponent -44 to one. The square root of this limit, 1.0250284x10 exponent -22 to one, applies at the outer edge of the electron photon capture circumference.

The Planck mass times the square root of (2/3) times (1/2) times the ratio (1.0250284x10 exponent -22 to one) is equal to the electron mass. This is a pure dimensionless number as described on page 1215 in the book, Gravitation ;"Relative to the Planck units, every constant in every other part of physics is a pure number".

The dimensionless ratio that relates Planck mass to electron mass must have the same value when calculated using different methods. The minimum error method is to divide the electron Compton wavelength by light velocity, multiply this value by (1/2) and then multiply by the constant (1/2 pi) exponent 2. The value obtained is the ratio 1.0250284x10 exponent -22 to one.

The value found by dividing the limit photon wavelength [(3pi hG/c cubed) exponent 1/2] by one half of the electron Compton wavelength will also be equal to 1.0250284x10 exponent -22 to one, when the gravitational constant has the specific value 6.6717456x10 exponent -11. There is no error in this math.

The electron and positron black holes cannot combine to make a larger black hole because their inertial frame dragging spins will be in opposite directions as they come together. When the spins are canceled, gravitational confinement is no longer effective to achieve a stable state. DonJStevens

Contents

[edit] Math, wiki markup, signage

Don, three things you have to learn:

  1. How to do wiki markup. For example, please sign and date your comments by using four tildes is such ~~~~. You should also take a moment to learn how to link to articles and talk pages. You've been here long enough to have no excuse for not knowing this stuff.
  2. Learn how to typeset your math. What you write, using the flat prose style, is almost unreadable, and people will not want to try to figure it out. If you learn how to write with actual equations, with are nicely typeset, then you might be able to attract more interested readers.
  3. You need to take the time to study a broader range of subject areas in mathematics and physics. I suggest a journey through group theory, which is important for both general relativity and quantum mechanics.

linas 1 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

My user page explains an energy equation that cannot cause confusion regarding units because it is too simplistic to misunderstand. E1/E2=E2/E3 The E2 energy is clearly defined as 1.6374209x10 exp -13 joule, while the energy E1 is 1.5974395x10 exp 9 joule. The E3 value is then required to be 1.6784029x10 exp -35 joule. The E3 value is smaller than the E2 value by the factor E3/E2 or 1.0250284x10 exp -22. Since energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, the E3 energy is the energy of a photon that has a wavelength longer than the 0.5 times the electron Compton wavelength by the factor 1/1.0250284x10 exp -22 or 9.7558274x10 exp 21. This gives a wavelength 1,1835332x10 exp 10 meters. This wavelength is equal to (2 pi) squared times c, which is 1.835332x10 exp 10 meters and its energy is h/(2 pi)squared. Substituting h/(2 pi) squared for E3 shows E2 to be equal to the square root of [E1 times h/(2 pi) squared]. The electron mass is therefore required to be (h/4 pi c)times(c/3 pi hG) exp 1/4.

If you do this math, you will find that it is correct. Only you can convince yourself, I can't do this. When the mass equation is verified, the associated equations I have described are also verified because they are determined precisely by known algebraic relationships.

Walter Bagehot said "One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea". Also we know ; There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

Regarding black hole electron evaporation or explosion, Brian Greene has said "It turns out that because the black holes involved in space-tearing conifold transitions are extremal, they do not Hawking radiate, regardless of how light they become"; from note 4, page 408, "The Elegant Universe". The hypothesized black hole electron is a quantized "extremal black hole" that does not "Hawking radiate".

DonJStevens

[edit] Black hole electron

Hi Don. I'm afraid I won't have enough time to do a proper job researching this in the near future. -- SCZenz 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units question

The method shown on my User Page to define electron mass from the energy equation, E1/E2=E2/E3, has been rewritten so that relationships are more clearly described. The intent of the change is to resolve (answer) questions relating to units used. I am sure that I will be advised if questions remain. DonJStevens 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derivation of relation between gravitational constant and electron wavelength

Hi Don, on my talk page you wrote:

"As noted under Matter-wave quantum, the Planck constant can be derived from the electron mass, light velocity and the gravitational constant. h = 2mc(3Gm)exp 1/3, times(2pi)exp 5/3"

Could you show me shortly how it can be derived so I could save time otherwise wasted on looking for the derivation. Of course I understand that \lambda=\frac{h}{mc} but I miss relation between G and λ. Jim 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim; Derivation sequence is now on your Talk page--DonJStevens 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Don; Now I see how it was done. I still don't know what those relations could be used for except subsituting some constants for others. It doesn't look like making a life much easier.
Personally, I'd rahter use h than 4πmc(12π2Gm)1 / 3 even if it's exactly the same thing.
Jim 12:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. You may use regular expressions like e.g. h=2mc(3Gm)^{1/3}\times(2\pi)^{5/3}=4\pi mc(12\pi^2Gm)^{1/3} which are easier to read.

[edit] Black hole electron

Dear Don, yes, I see a problem with your formula, for example it is even dimensionally incorrect. ;-) It is very clear that no sensible combination of the speed of light, Newton's constant, and Planck's constant (and numbers of order one) can give you the Compton wavelength. Instead, the only quantity that has the dimension of length that you get in this way is the Planck length, about 20 orders of magnitude shorter than the electron Compton wavelength. Sorry to say but most of the section of the black hole electron article is nonsensical. All the best, Lubos --Lumidek (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lubos: Explanation of units is now shown on your Talk page.--DonJStevens (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Don. Thank you for your note on my talk page. It is fun to play with the natural constants. Consider an oscilator with a frequency (ν rotations per second) so big, that the quantum energy (h·ν joule) is so big, that the relativistic mass (h·ν·c−2 kilogram) is so big that half the Schwarzschild radius (h·ν·G·c−4 meter) is so big that a photon need one second to travel it. Then h·ν·G·c−5=1 second and ν=h−1·G−1·c5=5.47574·1085 rotations per second. You find that one square second equals 5.47574·1085 rotations. This is strange. Bo Jacoby (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Hi again. You wrote that "The values length and time then become either quantized or uncertain so that the (E=hv) expression, at some high energy level does not apply". Well, the equation E=hv represents a fusion of two concepts, that of energy and that of frequency, and it seems unlikely that once fused they would ever separate again. Whether time and space is discrete or continuous is an ancient question, and no answer is final. The socalled atoms are not really atoms as they can be divided. An elementary particle does not define a point in space. An so on. Bo Jacoby (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC).

See my talk page. Bo Jacoby (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC).