Jako Epke aka "Old Man" wrote in message
...
"Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" wrote in message
news
I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
of the numbers about protons and black holes.
I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????

[Jako]
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.

[hanson]
But Jako, Grise is not asking about that. He, AFAICS does want
to know whether nucleons could be (described as) black holes.
However, despite the nebulous answers from the other posters,
speculations in these realms and domains can be done in so
very many ways & fashions, that one can conjecture & look at all
these processes and events with equal validity, as long as the dims
and the digits do fit. i.e. ..... I can produce a picture/conjecture that
delivers an estimate to the OP's question that Protons can be described
as quantum black holes in a fashion that's based on two self-evident
principles:

a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
combinations of other ones.

With that in mind, the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
in terms of being a black hole:
m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct that is a blackhole
of one (1) Plancklength radius across to its Schwarzschild event
horizon which is shrouded within an outer Coulomb type accretion
zone of EM charge energy (F, Faraday, not Farad) that interacts with
other charges which produce the measurable effects of the 13.5 eV
H-ionization potential and its associated Lyman series limit frequency.
Here is the QUANTITATIVE equation:

m_p = Schw.radius * Plank length * Coulomb/radiation parameters.

m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)

m_p = 1.67E-24 gr (so, argue with the numbers not with me...ahaha)

In other words still, it says:
The Hydrogen nucleus (m_p) is a black hole with [***]
--- the classical Schwartzschild limit or event horizon of (c^2/2G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3) and is shrouded in
--- a substance-characteristic Coulomb mantle, being the product of,
--- the H-Ionisation potential multiplier of 13.5
..... [I_H=4pi^4*sqrt(a)/sqrt(6)],
--- the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler),
..... and is further governed by
--- toroidal geometry demands of (3*pi^2) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by [sqrt(2*a)].

[***] Consider the distance between this event horizon and the larger,
classically measured H-radius as the "nuclear accretion zone" analog.

In case of leptons, here the electron m_e, the e-shell Ionization-potential
considerations do fall away and the situation changes to:

m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3

m_e = 9.09E-28 gr

It says essentially the same as above, except that as already noted ,
there are no ionization considerations and that the electron's geometry
is spherical (instead of toroidal as in the composite H-atom)
Also, it indicates that the electron may be a rotating Kerr black hole
type character with the Kerr- [c^2/G] (instead of the Schwartzschild
[c^2/2G]) event horizon.

Now figure out and post the equations for m_n, the neutron and
other particles and cough up a numerical table for mass spectrum
(with having set the electron mass m_e as "One", 1, for comparison)

[Jako to Rich Grise]
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
The N-N force has repulsive, as well as attractive,
components. The size of the repulsive core is many
orders of magnitude larger than the Schwarzschild
radius for a black hole of the same mass. At typical
N-N distances in nuclei, the attractive component is
much stronger than that of gravitation.
The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
Hawking hypothesizes that a black hole with mass
less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl) would decay
very rapidly (Planck time, T_pl). Nucleon mass is many
orders of magnitude less than this.

[hanson]
In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held
glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass M_pl is
a black hole then is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all
other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible
universe by definition and I would change your statement from
"decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say:
".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass,
M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very
rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl.

.... to which I might add now that, based on my above quantitative
conjecture, a process (unknown?) is working here that grabs and
enshrines these emergent Planck masses with EM-quanta, which
gives them long, very long life times and makes them interactive
with and visible to other like siblings.... and now go forth and invent
a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA.... I love these mind games!.....
ahahaha... hanson

"hanson" wrote in message
news:%cTgf.1120$R42.608@trnddc01...
Jako Epke aka "Old Man" wrote in message
...
"Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" wrote in message
news

I'm about to embark on a websearch that could ultimately tell me some
of the numbers about protons and black holes.
I wonder if anybody's done comparative numbers on the effective mass
vs. dimensions of the two. Like, are they conceptually equivalent,
or could, maybe, protons (and their sisters, neutrons) actually _BE_
teeny, tiny, infinitesimallyy smalll BLACK HOLES?????

[Jako]
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.

[hanson]
But Jako, Grise is not asking about that. He, AFAICS does want
to know whether nucleons could be (described as) black holes.

The OP wants to know if the nucleon-nucleon potential
can exhibit a repulsive core of size ~ 10^(-13) cm while
nucleon mass / energy is localized within a Schwarzschild
radius of 10^(-52) cm. Go figure.

However, despite the nebulous answers from the other posters,
speculations in these realms and domains can be done in so
very many ways & fashions, that one can conjecture & look at all
these processes and events with equal validity, as long as the dims
and the digits do fit. i.e. ..... I can produce a picture/conjecture that
delivers an estimate to the OP's question that Protons can be described
as quantum black holes in a fashion that's based on two self-evident
principles:

a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
combinations of other ones.

With that in mind, the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
in terms of being a black hole:
m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct

A "toroidal" mass distribution (mass quadrupole
moment) is what GTR predicts for a rotating black
hole. The black hole's angular momentum is
limited by J M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).

The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore,

sqrt( hbar / 2 ) m_proton

If the electron is a black hole, then

sqrt( hbar / 2 ) m_electron

Go figure.

that is a blackhole
of one (1) Plancklength radius across to its Schwarzschild event
horizon which is shrouded within an outer Coulomb type accretion
zone of EM charge energy

Shrouded ? e^2 G (m_p)^2. hanson needs to
calculate the quantity of charge that can be bound
within radius, r_proton (known charge radius ~ 1 fm),
by a black hole of mass, m_proton.

What hanson is doing here is futile. The proton is
known to be a composite particle. The forces
between the constituents are much greater than those
of gravitation. The question of whether or not the
constituents (quarks) are black holes is irrelevant.

(F, Faraday, not Farad) that interacts with
other charges which produce the measurable effects of the 13.5 eV
H-ionization potential and its associated Lyman series limit frequency.
Here is the QUANTITATIVE equation:

m_p = Schw.radius * Plank length * Coulomb/radiation parameters.

m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)

m_p = 1.67E-24 gr (so, argue with the numbers not with me...ahaha)

In other words still, it says:
The Hydrogen nucleus (m_p) is a black hole with [***]
--- the classical Schwartzschild limit or event horizon of (c^2/2G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3) and is shrouded in
--- a substance-characteristic Coulomb mantle, being the product of,
--- the H-Ionisation potential multiplier of 13.5
.... [I_H=4pi^4*sqrt(a)/sqrt(6)],
--- the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler),
.... and is further governed by
--- toroidal geometry demands of (3*pi^2) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by [sqrt(2*a)].

[***] Consider the distance between this event horizon and the larger,
classically measured H-radius as the "nuclear accretion zone" analog.

In case of leptons, here the electron m_e, the e-shell
Ionization-potential
considerations do fall away and the situation changes to:

m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3

m_e = 9.09E-28 gr

It says essentially the same as above, except that as already noted ,
there are no ionization considerations and that the electron's geometry
is spherical (instead of toroidal as in the composite H-atom)
Also, it indicates that the electron may be a rotating Kerr black hole
type character with the Kerr- [c^2/G] (instead of the Schwartzschild
[c^2/2G]) event horizon.

Now figure out and post the equations for m_n, the neutron and
other particles and cough up a numerical table for mass spectrum
(with having set the electron mass m_e as "One", 1, for comparison)

[Jako to Rich Grise]
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
The N-N force has repulsive, as well as attractive,
components. The size of the repulsive core is many
orders of magnitude larger than the Schwarzschild
radius for a black hole of the same mass. At typical
N-N distances in nuclei, the attractive component is
much stronger than that of gravitation.
The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
Hawking hypothesizes that a black hole with mass
less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl) would decay
very rapidly (Planck time, T_pl). Nucleon mass is many
orders of magnitude less than this.

[hanson]
In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held
glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass M_pl is
a black hole then is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all
other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible
universe by definition and I would change your statement from
"decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say:
".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass,
M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very
rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl.

... to which I might add now that, based on my above quantitative
conjecture, a process (unknown?) is working here that grabs and
enshrines these emergent Planck masses with EM-quanta, which
gives them long, very long life times and makes them interactive
with and visible to other like siblings.... and now go forth and invent
a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA.... I love these mind games!.....

ahahaha... hanson

[Old Man]

[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why did argue you with me, Jako? Equn.
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3.
.... are creatures of Lyman, Faraday, Newton, Planck and Arnie, etc....
They rule!.. They rock, dude! See below, but DON'T let'em crank you!!

Jako Epke aka "Old Man" wrote in message
news:xv2dnXnVLNsOcRnenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
...
"hanson" wrote in message news:%cTgf.1120$R42.608@trnddc01...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...371ffd43fe32b9

[hanson]
a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
combinations of other ones.
With that in mind, the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
in terms of being a black hole:
m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct
===== [Jako comm.1 see below]
the proton(mass), m_p, can easily be expressed
in terms of being a black hole:
m_p, the proton mass, is a torus type construct
that is a blackhole
of one (1) Plancklength radius across to its Schwarzschild event
horizon which is shrouded within an outer Coulomb type accretion
zone of EM charge energy (F, Faraday, not Farad) that interacts with
===== [Jako comm.2 see below]
other charges which produce the measurable effects of the 13.5 eV
H-ionization potential and its associated Lyman series limit frequency.
Here is the QUANTITATIVE equation:

m_p = Schw.radius * Plank length * Coulomb/radiation parameters.

m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)

m_p = 1.67E-24 gr (so, argue with the numbers not with me...ahaha)

In other words still, it says:
The Hydrogen nucleus (m_p) is a black hole with [***]
--- the classical Schwartzschild limit or event horizon of (c^2/2G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3) and is shrouded in
--- a substance-characteristic Coulomb mantle, being the product of,
--- the H-Ionisation potential multiplier of 13.5
.... [I_H=4pi^4*sqrt(a)/sqrt(6)],
--- the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler),
.... and is further governed by
--- toroidal geometry demands of (3*pi^2) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by [sqrt(2*a)].

[***] Consider the distance between this event horizon and the larger,
classically measured H-radius as the "nuclear accretion zone" analog.

In case of leptons, here the electron m_e, the e-shell Ionization-potential
considerations do fall away and the situation changes to:

m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3

m_e = 9.09E-28 gr

It says essentially the same as above, except that as already noted ,
there are no ionization considerations and that the electron's geometry
is spherical (instead of toroidal as in the composite H-atom)
Also, it indicates that the electron may be a rotating Kerr black hole
type character with the Kerr- [c^2/G] (instead of the Schwartzschild
[c^2/2G]) event horizon.

Now figure out and post the equations for m_n, the neutron and
other particles and cough up a numerical table for mass spectrum
(with having set the electron mass m_e as "One", 1, for comparison)

===== [Jako comm.1 ]
A "toroidal" mass distribution (mass quadrupole
moment) is what GTR predicts for a rotating black
hole. The black hole's angular momentum is limited
by J M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).
The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore,
sqrt( hbar / 2 ) m_proton
If the electron is a black hole, then
sqrt( hbar / 2 ) m_electron
Go figure.

===== [Jako comm.2]
Shrouded ? e^2 G (m_p)^2. hanson needs to
calculate the quantity of charge that can be bound
within radius, r_proton (known charge radius ~ 1 fm),
by a black hole of mass, m_proton.
What hanson is doing here is futile. The proton is
known to be a composite particle. The forces
between the constituents are much greater than those
of gravitation. The question of whether or not the
constituents (quarks) are black holes is irrelevant.

[hanson]
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why are you getting so defensive,
Jako, to the point of sounding jealous? You tell me that you
need 2 theories, QM and GTR, (being not compatible, to boot)
to give you a side-step-argument to come up with "if/thens" and
"" guesses... which then require the need for you to calculate
with "(in stupid units of c = G = 1)"...while you are forced to invoke
quarks that nobody has ever seen... only to finally declare the issue
as irrelevant. ... ahAHAHA... Why all that palaver, Jako, when I gave
you ONE equation that brings out distinct black hole characteristics
AND a quite accurate mass amount... based on 2 principles which
are much more fundamental then your 2 incompatible theories:
::: a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
::: b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
::: fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
::: combinations of other ones.

::P:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
These eqautions, ::P:: & ::E::, they rock, when compared to yours, dude!

Semiseriously, Jako, can't you see or don't want to admit that I simply
used a DIFFERENT TOOL, a different instrument, then you did, to tell a
story about a the same event? There are always very many different
ways to skin the cat!... Only religious folks believe differently... ahaha...
So, let me reiterate for your benefit what I had said at the end of the
post below: ........"I love these mind games!"... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Remember, Jako, the great Max Planck had a view akin, him saying:
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest
is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck..... (Thanks Greg Hansen,)

[Jako to Rich Grise]
The nucleon-nucleon force isn't that of gravitation.
The N-N force has repulsive, as well as attractive,
components. The size of the repulsive core is many
orders of magnitude larger than the Schwarzschild
radius for a black hole of the same mass. At typical
N-N distances in nuclei, the attractive component is
much stronger than that of gravitation.
The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
Hawking hypothesizes that a black hole with mass
less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl) would decay
very rapidly (Planck time, T_pl). Nucleon mass is many
orders of magnitude less than this.

[hanson]
===== [hanson comm.1 see below]
In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held
glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass M_pl is
a black hole then is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all
other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible
universe by definition and I would change your statement from
"decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say:
".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass,
M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very
rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl.
... to which I might add now that, based on my above quantitative
conjecture, a process (unknown?) is working here that grabs and
enshrines these emergent Planck masses with EM-quanta, which
gives them long, very long life times and makes them interactive
with and visible to other like siblings
===== [hanson comm.1 see below]
..... and now go forth and invent a new cosmology! ... AHAHAHAHA....
ahahahaha.... I love these mind games!..... ahahaha... hanson

[hanson]
===== [hanson comm.1}
Pick on this paragraph above Jako!!
You believe that a M_pl BH disappears in T_pl. So, why does it
disappear and where will your M_pl BH go to?... ahaha...
Jako, I, just see things differently then you do... and I ENJOY it, Jako.
.... And one of these days I will, (fancy depending) even produce the
quantitative value for the half-life of a free neutron from the principles
::: a) Nature is self-similar over all observable domains.
::: b) The unit systems (cgs etc) is internally self-consistent and all
::: fundamental physical constants must be expressible by/thru/with
::: combinations of other ones.
Maybe I'll throw in the scaling laws to make my instrument pointier.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA.....Take care and have fun, Jako!
ahahaha... ahahanson

"hanson" wrote in message
news:sFbhf.718$mJ2.186@trnddc02...

[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why did argue you with me, Jako? Equn.
m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3.
... are creatures of Lyman, Faraday, Newton, Planck and Arnie, etc....
They rule!.. They rock, dude! See below, but DON'T let'em crank you!!

Is the proton a black hole ?

A (internal) "toroidal" mass distribution (an external mass
quadrupole moment) is what GTR predicts for a rotating
black hole. The black hole's angular momentum is limited
by J M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).

The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore,

sqrt( hbar / 2 ) m_proton

If the electron is a black hole, then

sqrt( hbar / 2 ) m_electron

Go figure, but not in stupid units of c = G = 1. Put the
c's and G's back in, and then tell Old Man if the given
inequalities are true.

[Old Man]

Jako Epke aka "Old Man" wrote in message
...
"hanson" wrote in message
news:sFbhf.718$mJ2.186@trnddc02...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...371ffd43fe32b9
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...95f8884ae0c140
[hanson]
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... why did argue you with me, Jako?
::P:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
These equations, ::P:: & ::E::, they rock, when compared to yours, dude!
Particles CAN be described by assigning BH characteristics to them.
The classically observed emanations from the electrons' or protons'
characteristics do arise from the properties of the product of the EM
charge transfer handler, the Faraday unit/constant F, and the Lyman
frequency limit f_L, BUT ONLY if these particles are seen as/described
as black holes of Planck length size dimensions.... ahahaha....
They are creatures of Lyman, Faraday, Newton, Planck and Arnie, etc....
They rule!.. They rock, dude! See below, but DON'T let'em crank you!!

[Jako]
Is the proton a black hole ?
A (internal) "toroidal" mass distribution (an external mass
quadrupole moment) is what GTR predicts [1] for a rotating
black hole. [2] The black hole's angular momentum is limited
by (spin) J M^2 (in stupid units of c = G = 1).
[3] The proton has J = hbar / 2. Therefore, sqrt( hbar / 2 ) m_proton
If the electron is a black hole, then sqrt( hbar / 2 ) m_electron
Go figure, but not in stupid units of c = G = 1. Put the
c's and G's back in, and then tell Old Man if the given
inequalities are true.

[hanson]
From the more lucid remarks in your earlier posts it was clear that
you believe from your pov and in your mind that along the standard
line of inquiry via GTR/QM/Std particle model it says that particles are
NOT black holes. But apparently, all that this traditional wisdom has
done for you, Jako, is for you to ask me whether a predict from GTR
[1] is true when compared with an edict of QM [3], ... from 2 theories
about which all you traditionalists have moaned for generations now
that the 2 are incompatible... AHAHAHA... Jako, if you wanna be cool
then at least be funnier then to compare oranges with apples in [3] with
== sqrt( hbar / 2 ) [sqrt M*L^2/T] m_proton [M], == where you have
obviously inequalities already at dimensional level, ... So, never mind the
numerical size of the issue.... ahahaha.... Jako, you decide yourself what
to do with your physico-political potatoe that you have tossed here up
into air .....ahahaha... AHAHAHA...

BTW, GTR as a predictor of toroidial mass distribution is to denigrate
that theory. ... Applied Euclidian geometry predicts that too... ahaha...

Now, it can be forgiven and be chuckled at and chortled over when
posters try to weasel out of arguments with rop-a-dope foot work...
But when a researcher of note like you, Jako Epke, does like what
you did after he sees 2 quantitative equations, P & E:
::P:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
which arose from very different bases then GTR & QM does and yield
results that call for different INTERPRETATIONS, namely that particles
can be DESCRIBED by assigning BH characteristics to them, (BTW
something that is hinted at with "point-like" in the traditional lingo)
.... then Jako, could one not expect that a persona like you, raises an
eyebrow and begins to wonder.... instead of seeing him reacting with
pedestrian weaseling like you did?... and even worse that he does gloss
over the following, .... or was this your way of acquiescing acceptance?
Here it is repeated for your benefit...

[Jako]
The deuteron couldn't be held together by gravitation.
... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass, M_pl)
would decay very rapidly (Planck time, T_pl). Nucleon mass is many
orders of magnitude less than this.

[hanson]
In a way, right, deuterons and other combo particle are not held
glued together by gravitation alone, but if the Planck mass, M_pl, is
a black hole then it is not ordinary matter any longer and it, like all
other black hole matter, large or small, is shut off from the visible
universe by definition and I would change your statement, Jako, from
"decaying rapidly" into a corollary to the "virtual QM game" & say:
".... a black hole with mass less than ~ 10^(-8) kg (Planck mass,
M_pl) may pop in and out of a (Dirac's) virtual particle sea in very
rapid intervals with flash durations lasting only 1 Planck time, T_pl....
......
[added now] .... a possiliblity which you can conjecture from....
::P:: m_p = [c^2/2G]*[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)]*[I_H/(f_L*F)]*(3*pi^2)*sqrt(2a)
::E:: m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
and can be gleaned specifically from the term:
[sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] = L_pl = T_pl/c, T_pl b eing the Planck time as the
flash intervals that occur on the measurably level, signaling their presence
with/by the Lyman series limits photons f_L, and the EM charge handling
constant F, the Faraday. --- The experiment descriptions/evaluatiuons
that measure f_L & F do require the presence of another constant which
we have discussed in and on other occasions, conjuring up N_A and its
mole:
::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
= 1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius

::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
= 1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...77421f6490052e
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...bc6e550452f7fa
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...71769b268b35b2

[hanson]
.... to which I might add now that based on my above quantitative
conjecture, processes (not yet observed or overlooked unknown)
are working here that grab and enshrine these emergent Planck
masses with EM-quanta, which gives them the observed stability
for their very long life times and makes them interactive with and
visible to other like siblings....
Indications for that conjecture abound, like in 0u*0e=1/c^2, (which
was buried in cgs but manifests in MKS & SI, or as in the parable
analogue that GTR is having Newton as a crude default). Then there's
Dirac's ocean & his LNH, vacuum charges & hordes of other theories.

Jako, as I've said, "I love these mind games!" ... AHAHAHAHA....
So, go and have a look too, dude... There might be a Xmas present
in there for you. But YOU'll have to open it... It will be ALL YOURS!
Merry X-mas, Jako
ahahaha... ahahahanson

__________________________________________
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our
disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck