5 ms·
I've been keeping my brain occupied on long drives by trying to come up with a theory of everything, because... why not? My current pet hypothesis is that all
by jiggawatts 3y ago
I've been keeping my brain occupied on long drives by trying to come up with a theory of everything, because... why not?
My current pet hypothesis is that all fundamental particles are sort-of like tiny black holes, and that the space-time distortion caused by black holes is precisely the same thing that ordinary matter causes. All matter and energy are space-time distortions, which is why mass-energy bends space time. It's not a secondary effect, the bending is what everything is, not a property that things have. (This is essentially just a variant of Kaluza Klein theory, or others like it.)
Particles are kept apart by their spin, same as in well-established physics. Matter is still mostly empty space, same as normal.
In this toy model, neutron stars are like a boba tea, with the black holes of particles close-packed but still not touching.
When forced into forming a black hole, the event horizons of individual particles begins to merge, forming a "super-particle" that expands out. When fully-formed, the black hole is hairy, with a very dense packed crust of still-separate particles layered over a very lumpy surface, inside which there is... nothing. Not even space-time. The surface is where space-time ends.
It's like... imagine if we lived on a knitted jumper or a space-time like woven cloth and could only follow threads. If someone were to poke a hole in the weave with a finger, pushing aside the threads, then it would be meaningless to ask what threads are inside that hole. There aren't any. The "weave space" doesn't extend into the hole.
This simultaneously satisfies a long list of requirements gathered from modern physics:
1. Black hole formation is a gradual, continuous process at both microscopic and macroscopic scales. This model can start all the way down with the first pair of particles that got squished together and then can be extended all the way up to something the size of a star.
2. Black holes are hairy instead of smooth, satisfying thermodynamics and quantum information theory.
3. There's no paradox of what happens when you go past the event horizon. There's no singularity. The event horizon is a surface, essentially just a highly red-shifted neutron star. Hitting it is the same as hitting a neutron star. You do not go through. You get squished.
4. There's no need for complex maths to explain black hole evaporation. In a sense, black holes don't exist, they're just a very time-dilated neutron star, and their evaporation is just an ultra-slow-motion explosion of a neutron star.
5. A well-established theorem is that many properties of a black hole grow in proportion to their surface area (2D), not their volume (3D). This theory matches that. There is no volume, there's only the surface. The inside doesn't exist. When approaching from normal flat 3D space, space gradually becomes fractal (2.x dimensional), smoothly transitioning to a 2D space, which is the event horizon.
6. It is time-reversible. Seen backwards in time, "fingers" of 3D space invade into the event horizon, splitting it up into smaller and smaller chunks that bud off to form small, stable spheres that evaporate away. These are the particles that made up the black hole.
- pantulis 3y agoYour first point sounds a lot like the Schwarzschild Proton conjecture by Nassim Haramein, don't know if you were aware of it. Alas, I need to point out that it is basically considered pseudoscience!
- jiggawatts 3y agoI got the original concept from the quite famous "black hole electron" theory, but I'm not saying that particles are exactly like tiny black holes. PS: My toy theories are not to be taken seriously, they're a product of idle musing only. My method however, I think is sound: try and come up with something that simultaneously satisfies as many known experimental and theoretical constraints as possible, poke holes in it (hah!), fix, rinse, and repeat. Or discard as necessary. Whatever. A motivation that has been bugging me is: What sets the scale of particles? How does the universe know that a proton here should be the same size as a proton there? Why can't we have giant protons? A simple geometric argument could be something like assuming that particles are black-hole-like things as described previously, and that they are solitons. They're the smallest units of spin, where their rotation and size is balanced such that some aspect moves at the speed of light. They can't get smaller because then their rotation would have to increase past the speed of light. Hence, all particles have their sizes fixed by the constancy of the speed of light. That's why I pasted my rambling thoughts in response to this article, my original idea started off thinking of particles as solitons that are also somewhat like black holes, which is the topic of the article.
- duncan-donuts 3y agoI don’t have anything to add other than I enjoy reading your idle musings. I’m not a physicist and don’t really know any real physics passed 101 college courses. I have similar idle musing with the speed of light so it’s nice to read another layman’s thoughts.
- simiones 3y agoSome other notes from what I understand of current mainstream physics: - elementary particles have no defined size in QM (electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons etc); there is no known lower-bound on how small they could be, and there are serious mathematical issues both with assuming a non-0 radius, but other problems with assuming a radius of 0 - composite particles like a proton or a hydrogen atom have a size because of the relative strengths of the forces holding together their components; for example, the three quarks making up a proton must exist at a certain distance from one another because of the properties of the strong force; the electron of a hydrogen atom must "orbit" the proton at a certain distance because of the properties of the electrical force - QM spin is not a rotation speed of any kind; QM particles are not little balls rotating around their center; quantum spin has no known relation to the speed of light - replacing one constant of nature (the size of a proton, or at least of an elementary particle) by another constant of nature (the speed of light) is not really simplifying the theory; one could just as easily go the other way, and say that the speed of light is derived from the size of elementary particles in some other way