0

I recently read somewhere that black holes with their radius (Event horizon's of course) being equal to the Planck length and their mass equalling Plank's mass, the black holes can be treated as elementary particles.

I mean, the only way we can differentiate between black holes is their spin, charge and mass, which is also how we work with elements.

PS: I am working on a research paper on black holes, if you are interested and experienced in the field, please DM me on Linkedin at: www.linkedin.com/in/kushagra-maheshwari-studentforever . I am only 15, so please do not expect me to be very knowledgable, but I basically used mathematical equations to derive Schwarzschild's radius and kind of what happens inside a black hole. I am very much confused about the subject of black holes; please clarify.

Cosmas Zachos
  • 62,595
Kush
  • 159
  • 1
    Planks constant isn't a length as it has dimensions of action. – Triatticus Aug 19 '23 at 13:56
  • 1
    Related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/75911/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Aug 19 '23 at 14:05
  • Indeed, in Planck units, the Planck length is essentially the Compton wavelength of the Planck mass, as one informally thinks of subatomic particles. But these are precisely defined as the limiting case of the Compton wavelength of a super-heavy particle equalling the Schwarzschild radius of it, i.e. just as the former retreats behind the latter! So, particles and BHs "meet" at these scales, veeeery uncomfortably. – Cosmas Zachos Aug 20 '23 at 21:25
  • 1
    What is known as the “Schwarzschild radius” is not the radius, but the reduced circumference of a black hole. The actual radius of any black hole defined properly as the radial spatial distance from the horizon to the origin is zero in the external static coordinates that we use for observations (e.g. the Schwarzschild coordinates). And since any black hole has a zero radius, it can (and should) be viewed as an inherently quantum object, although not specifically “elementary particle”. Semiclassical gravity confirms quantum effects at the horizon: Hawking radiation, information paradox, etc. – safesphere Aug 20 '23 at 23:51
  • @safesphere: "Semiclassical gravity confirms quantum effects ..." The term "confirm" is perhaps not appropriate here. Physics is a science, which means it follows the scientific method. Predictions are supported by physical observations. In contrast, Hawking radiation, the information paradox, etc. are not supported by physical observations. Personally I am not convinced that Hawking radiation exists. – flippiefanus Aug 21 '23 at 04:48
  • @flippiefanus Agreed. I meant that semiclassical gravity theoretically supports the idea of critical quantum processes happening at the horizon. Of course the existence of the Hawking radiation is not experimentally confirmed. – safesphere Aug 21 '23 at 14:46

0 Answers0