The Universe as a Hologram (my interpretation)

by Laurent R Duchesne

Gravity as a negentropic force? As an information gathering mechanism? That's what it looks like.

Let's look at a our galaxy, then apply this model to a subatomic particle.

At the center of our galaxy we have a black hole, or a singularity. This black hole is constantly pulling matter/information, but all that information stays on the surface (Event Horizon), the black hole's surface growing directly proportional to the volume of the bodies it swallows (Jacob D Bekenstein, Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Stephen Hawking, et al.). So, black holes inside galaxies, like the black holes inside subatomic particles, are basically nothing more than information gathering mechanisms.

All of these black holes acting as information nodes forming a quantum network or hologram (spacetime) where the holographic plate is the two dimensional surface of the event horizon and the non-dimensional object (singularity) in the center of each body acting as their energy source.

Right, all that missing mass (aka., Dark Matter) is now being considered by contemporary physics to be contained by empty space itself, probably in the form of infinitesimally small black holes in the center of neutrons, protons, electrons, and the rest of all subatomic particles. Which is how all matter is connected to the whole. Current physics' description of black holes, singularities and the gravitational aether being actually very similar.

Excerpt from: "Aether: The Physicalists' God"

It is a radically holistic view of reality where entanglement is seen as the glue that keeps the universe from atomizing. Entanglement made possible by the aether's oneness.

15 hours ago, cyberdyno said:

probably in the form of infinitesimally small black holes in the center of neutrons, protons, electrons, and the rest of all subatomic particles

The immediate problem I see with this idea is that black holes small enough to fit “into” (what does this actually mean?) a subatomic particle would evaporate almost instantaneously, and emit large amounts of radiation in the process. We don’t see this happening; many elementary particles are demonstrably stable.

20 hours ago, cyberdyno said:

Right, all that missing mass (aka., Dark Matter) is now being considered by contemporary physics to be contained by empty space itself, probably in the form of infinitesimally small black holes in the center of neutrons, protons, electrons, and the rest of all subatomic particles.

Citation needed. What contemporary physics “considers” this?

Dark matter is non-baryonic, so how can it be inside baryons?

MIT Technology Review

Could All Particles Be Mini Black Holes?

The idea that all particles are mini black holes has major implications for both particle physics and astrophysics, say scientists.

Some physicists, including Gerard 't Hooft, note that in string theory, black holes are simply highly-excited string states, which supports the idea that black holes and elementary particles are fundamentally related.

20 minutes ago, cyberdyno said:

MIT Technology Review

Could All Particles Be Mini Black Holes?

The idea that all particles are mini black holes has major implications for both particle physics and astrophysics, say scientists.

Some physicists, including Gerard 't Hooft, note that in string theory, black holes are simply highly-excited string states, which supports the idea that black holes and elementary particles are fundamentally related.

So it’s not contemporary physics that thinks this, it’s a few physicists speculating about something to investigate, in articles that might very well follow Betteridge’s law.

The MIT blurb is from 2009, based on something posted to ArXiv (so, not peer-reviewed) so one might expect a follow-up in the intervening 16 years, if there were anything to it. Speculation without evidence is not something that counts as “considered by physics”

Right, it's not contemporary, it's cutting edge physics. Like most physics being done around Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

I have wondered if fundamental subatomic particles are black holes. However, photons as black holes seems to be problematic.

1 hour ago, cyberdyno said:

Right, it's not contemporary, it's cutting edge physics. Like most physics being done around Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

2009 is not cutting-edge. What has happened since then? Did the LHC provide evidence to support the conjecture?

Here’s the blurb and the paper, which makes several predictions regarding LHC experiments. They discovered the Higgs after this was written, and the LHC has achieved 6.5 TeV per beam. Seems like we would have heard about the idea panning out.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/05/14/31114/could-all-particles-be-mini-black-holes/

https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1667

9 hours ago, cyberdyno said:

the idea that black holes and elementary particles are fundamentally related.

But that isn’t the same as saying that there are “infinitesimal black holes at the centre of elementary particles”, as you did above.

Also, my initial objection still stands - if elementary particles were black holes, none of them would be stable. For example, assuming an outgoing Vaidya black hole with mass equivalent to one electron, this would evaporate after something on the order of \(10^{-107}s\).

Of course, this assumes a classical spacetime, which isn’t that plausible on those scales. But still.

Also, as KJW has pointed out, some particles are massless, such as the photon and the gluon, which is not compatible with them being black holes at all.

As Markus has pointed out, a Black Hole's temperature is inversely proportional to its size.

A small sized Black Hole the size ( mass ) of the Earth would have a temperature of 0.02 degrees K.
An extremely tiny BH with the mass of a person would have a temperature of 10²¹ degrees K.

The upper bound for the size of an electron is 10^-18 m so its temperature, if it was a BH, would be in the order of 10³⁰ degrees K.

And the relationship for luminosity due to emitted radiation is given by
L = AoT⁴

Where A=4*Pi*r² and o is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

I'm sure we would have noticed such extreme effects by now ....

Edited November 23Nov 23 by MigL

17 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

if elementary particles were black holes, none of them would be stable. For example, assuming an outgoing Vaidya black hole with mass equivalent to one electron, this would evaporate after something on the order of 10^–107s.

It's worth noting that it is not known if Hawking radiation or Unruh radiation actually exist. Saying that fundamental particles can't be black holes because of Hawking radiation is reminiscent of the claim that electrons can't orbit the nucleus because it would radiate and fall into the nucleus.

At this scale I tend to trust Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics more than I'd trust GR.
A Black Hole is a perfect black body, and must have a characteristic temperature.

In your analogy, the problem is not that an electron cannot orbit the nucleus ( it certainly may ); the problem is that it cannot be a classical particle.
Similarly in the problem being discussed, it is not that Black Holes do not have a temperature ( and may radiate depending on that temperature ), but rather that they cannot be Black Holes.
( what would you get when you scatter a BH electron off another ?? )

5 hours ago, KJW said:

It's worth noting that it is not known if Hawking radiation or Unruh radiation actually exist.

Yes, I concede that. The argument I gave implicitly relies on Hawking’s assumptions in deriving his results, and also on those assumptions still holding on small/quantum scales. So there is indeed a question mark here.

BTW, how would one reconcile quantum mechanical spin (along with their respective spin statistics) with black holes?

Another problem that occurred to me: as far as we can tell, all electrons are exactly alike; specifically their masses are the same, and those masses remain constant. Black holes don’t tend to behave that way, even if one completely discounts any thermodynamics.

I feel I need to point out that I don't necessarily think that fundamental particles are black holes, but rather that I disagree with the use of Hawking radiation to argue against the idea that fundamental particles are black holes.

15 hours ago, MigL said:

At this scale I tend to trust Quantum Mechanics and Thermodynamics more than I'd trust GR.

Or maybe it's neither. Perhaps we are dealing with "Quantum Gravity".

15 hours ago, MigL said:

A Black Hole is a perfect black body, and must have a characteristic temperature.

Maybe the operative word in "black hole" is "hole" rather than "black".

15 hours ago, MigL said:

In your analogy, the problem is not that an electron cannot orbit the nucleus ( it certainly may ); the problem is that it cannot be a classical particle.
Similarly in the problem being discussed, it is not that Black Holes do not have a temperature ( and may radiate depending on that temperature ), but rather that they cannot be Black Holes.

The point I was making is that just as quantum mechanics prevents an electron in an atomic orbital from radiating even though classical electrodynamics predicts that such an electron would radiate, a general relativistic quantum theory may prevent a subatomic black hole from radiating even though current quantum theory predicts such radiation.

15 hours ago, MigL said:

( what would you get when you scatter a BH electron off another ?? )

The same as what you get when you scatter a regular electron off another (???). Bear in mind that if an electron was a classical black hole, it would be a Kerr–Newman black hole, and according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr%E2%80%93Newman_metric#Dirac%E2%80%93Kerr%E2%80%93Newman_electron_model, an extremal solution with a naked singularity.

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

BTW, how would one reconcile quantum mechanical spin (along with their respective spin statistics) with black holes?

Given that general relativity can be formulated in terms of spinors, half-integer spin particles would not be a problem.

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Another problem that occurred to me: as far as we can tell, all electrons are exactly alike; specifically their masses are the same, and those masses remain constant. Black holes don’t tend to behave that way, even if one completely discounts any thermodynamics.

There is no suggestion that a subatomic particle would be a classical black hole. If a subatomic particle is a black hole, it would be a black hole from some form of general relativistic quantum theory and presumably would possess the same constraints as subatomic particles.

But I need to reiterate that I am not making the claim that subatomic particle are black holes, and that the above is only to provide some plausibility to the idea.

44 minutes ago, KJW said:

it would be a Kerr–Newman black hole, and according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr%E2%80%93Newman_metric#Dirac%E2%80%93Kerr%E2%80%93Newman_electron_model, an extremal solution with a naked singularity.

I don't believe in singularities; much, much less so the idea of naked singularities.

57 minutes ago, KJW said:

The same as what you get when you scatter a regular electron off another (???).

Are you sure ?
The Coulomb interaction would provide a large potential barrier, but at high enough energies/small separations gravitational potential would be strong enough to mitigate, or possibly cancel, the Coulomb interaction.

But we seem to be in the area of opinions, not verifiable facts.
The only description we have of Black Holes is classical; even Hawking's ( and Bekenstein ) radiating model only incorporates a few aspects of a quantum model, so when you say "not a classical Black Hole' how are we to interpret that ?
I agree, maybe Quantum Gravity may eventually provide answers/clarifications, but all we have now are currently accepted models, and they seem clear ( to me 😀 ) that elementary particles cannot be modelled by our current understanding of Black Holes

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

The Coulomb interaction would provide a large potential barrier, but at high enough energies/small separations gravitational potential would be strong enough to mitigate, or possibly cancel, the Coulomb interaction.

The Newtonian solution has them both obeying the same 1/r^2 trend, so the repulsion is always bigger than the attraction by the same factor. How do you get enough of an attraction? You would need to propose some new physics.

51 minutes ago, swansont said:

You would need to propose some new physics.

Exactly ... Quantum Gravity.
The exact same new Physics KJW proposes that might allow for electrons to be quantum ( not classical ) Black Holes.
It's expected ) though not certain ) that as Planck scale is approached, gravity becomes comparable in strength to the other forces and can no longer be ignored.
There is a further expectation that all the fundamental forces are unified at that scale.
Most theories, including Sting Theory and LQG, favor the unification of all fundamental interactions.

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Exactly ... Quantum Gravity.
The exact same new Physics KJW proposes that might allow for electrons to be quantum ( not classical ) Black Holes.
It's expected ) though not certain ) that as Planck scale is approached, gravity becomes comparable in strength to the other forces and can no longer be ignored.
There is a further expectation that all the fundamental forces are unified at that scale.
Most theories, including Sting Theory and LQG, favor the unification of all fundamental interactions.

You don’t need them to be mini-BHs, and the obvious next questions are what do you get when two electrons fuse in this way and where are these particles?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

  1 hour ago, MigL said:

The Coulomb interaction would provide a large potential barrier, but at high enough energies/small separations gravitational potential would be strong enough to mitigate, or possibly cancel, the Coulomb interaction.

The Newtonian solution has them both obeying the same 1/r^2 trend, so the repulsion is always bigger than the attraction by the same factor. How do you get enough of an attraction? You would need to propose some new physics.

Also, charged black holes are gravitationally repulsive at sufficiently small distance.

Note that the Reissner–Nordström metric (which describes a non-spinning charged black hole) has [math]g_{tt}[/math] of the form:

[math]g_{tt} = c^2\left(1 - \dfrac{k_1 M}{r} + \dfrac{k_2 Q^2}{r^2}\right)[/math]

Note that the [math]Q^2[/math] term is positive in contrast to the [math]M[/math] term. Also, at sufficiently small distance, the gravitationally repulsive [math]Q^2[/math] term will dominate, whereas at sufficiently large distance, the gravitationally attractive [math]M[/math] term will dominate.

Edited November 24Nov 24 by KJW

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

You don’t need them to be mini-BHs, and the obvious next questions are what do you get when two electrons fuse in this way and where are these particles?

I am arguing that the levelling and unification of interactions make it unlikely that an electron can be modelled as a BH.
Not that it makes it possible.

19 minutes ago, KJW said:

Note that the Reissner–Nordström metric

Which is still a classical solution.
You are the one who brought up the observation that the classical picture is insufficient, and Quantum gravity may modify the situation.
Why can't I do the same ?

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

  29 minutes ago, KJW said:

Note that the Reissner–Nordström metric

Which is still a classical solution.
You are the one who brought up the observation that the classical picture is insufficient, and Quantum gravity may modify the situation.
Why can't I do the same ?

Fair enough. However, I mentioned the Reissner–Nordström metric to point out that a classical charged black hole is gravitationally repulsive at small distance, something that may be considered counter-intuitive.

This is where I get the idea of empty space (a black hole) as an energy supply:

"Well, perhaps we should finish with this business about empty space.

If you follow through the mathematics of the present Quantum Theory, it treats the particle as what is called the quantized state of the field, that is, as a field spread over space but in some mysterious way with a quantum of energy. Now each wave in the field has a certain quantum of energy proportional to its frequency. And if you take the electromagnetic field, for example, in empty space, every wave has what is called a zero point energy below which it cannot go, even when there is no energy available. If you were to add up all the waves in any region of empty space you would find that they have an infinite amount of energy because an infinite number of waves are possible. Now, however, you may have reason to suppose that the energy may not be infinite, that maybe you cannot keep on adding waves that are shorter and shorter, each contributing to the energy. There may be some shortest possible wave, and then the total number of waves would be finite and the energy would also be finite. Now, you have to ask what would be the shortest length and there seems to be reason to suspect that the gravitational theory may provide us with some shortest length, for according to general relativity, the gravitational field also determines what is meant by "length" and metric. If you said the gravitational field was made up of waves which were quantized in this way, you would find that there was a certain length below which the gravitational field would become undefinable because of this zero point movement and you wouldn't be able to define length. Therefore, you could say the property of measurement, length, fades out at very short distance and you'd find the place at which it fades out would be about 10^-33 cm. That is a very short distance because the shortest distances that physicists have ever probed so far might be 10^-16 cm. or so, and that's a long way to go. If you then compute the amount of energy that would be in space, with that shortest possible wave length, then it turns out that the energy in one cubic centimeter would be immensely beyond the total energy of all the known matter in the universe.

Present theory says that the vacuum contains all this energy which is then ignored because it cannot be measured by an instrument. The philosophy being that only what could be measured by an instrument could be considered to be real, because the only point about the reality of physics is the result of instruments, except that it is also said that there are particles there that cannot be seen in instruments at all. What you can say is that the present state of theoretical physics implies that empty space has all this energy, and matter is a slight increase of the energy, and therefore matter is like a small ripple on this tremendous ocean of energy, having some relative stability, and being manifest. Now, therefore, my suggestion is that this implicate order implies a reality immensely beyond what we call matter. Matter itself is merely a ripple in this background.

If you take a crystal which is at absolute zero it does not scatter electrons. They go through it as if it were empty. And as soon as you raise the temperature and (produce) inhomogeneities, they scatter. Now, if you used those electrons to observe the crystal (e.g., by focusing them with an electron lens to make an image), all you would see would be these little inhomogeneities and you would say they are what exists and the crystal is what does not exist. Right? I think this is a familiar idea, namely to say that what we see immediately is really a very superficial affair. However, the positivist used to say that what we see immediately is all there is or all that counts, and that our ideas must simply correlate what we see immediately.

So now, with this vast reserve of energy and empty space, saying that matter itself is that small wave on empty space, then we could better say that the space as a whole (and we start from the general space) is the ground of existence, and we are in it. So the space doesn't separate us, it unites us. Therefore it's like saying that there are two separate points and a certain dotted line connects them, which shows how we think they are related, or to say there is a real line and that the points are abstractions from that.

The line is the reality and the points are abstractions. In that sense we say that there are no separate people, you see, but that 'that' is an abstraction which comes by taking certain features as abstracted and self-existent." --- David Bohm (Wholeness and the Implicate Order)

9 hours ago, cyberdyno said:

This is where I get the idea of empty space (a black hole) as an energy supply:

The upshot of this is that you can’t tap into zero-point energy, so it can’t be an energy supply.

This also points out the shortcoming of looking at descriptions of physics rather than doing actual physics.

10 hours ago, cyberdyno said:

This is where I get the idea of empty space (a black hole) as an energy supply:

The energy of empty space is actually very small; there just happens to be a HUGE amount of empty space.
Unfortunately, that energy is unavailable, either for use, or in calculations ( 120 orders of magnitude discrepancy ).

The 'empty' space of a Black Hole, however, is not the same 'empty' space.
That space is defined by its Schwarzschild radius, and the resultant Event Horizon.
Classically, the Event horizon conserves mass/energy, charge and angular momentum; there are various ways to extract energy from a massive, charged, spinning system.
Semi-classically ( with some Thermodynamics and QM ) that space has a temperature, and depending on size, can radiate considerable amounts of radiative energy ( Romulan ships in the Star Trek universe employ a miniature BH as a power source as opposed to the matter/anti-matter process used by the Federation )