[jeffreyH (OP)]

I have calculated this and the radius comes out as almost exactly twice the Planck length. Is this right? This seems to be very significant if my calculation is correct. It highlights a possible and fundamental error in the mathematics of physics.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Does the number 4 or multiples of 4 bear any relationship to light in any way?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I am not surprised no one has answered this as it seems an irrelevant question. However this is possibly the most important question ever asked in physics.

[Pmb]

I have calculated this and the radius comes out as almost exactly twice the Planck length. Is this right? This seems to be very significant if my calculation is correct. It highlights a possible and fundamental error in the mathematics of physics.

Look up the definition of the Planck mass here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

Significance:

The Planck mass is nature’s maximum allowed mass for point-masses (quanta). If two quanta of the Planck mass or greater met, they could spontaneously form a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius equals their de Broglie wavelength.

Does this seem so surprising now?

[yor_on]

I like your enthusiasm Jeffrey.
=

My spelling needs some correction.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I have calculated this and the radius comes out as almost exactly twice the Planck length. Is this right? This seems to be very significant if my calculation is correct. It highlights a possible and fundamental error in the mathematics of physics.

Look up the definition of the Planck mass here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass

Significance:

The Planck mass is nature’s maximum allowed mass for point-masses (quanta). If two quanta of the Planck mass or greater met, they could spontaneously form a black hole whose Schwarzschild radius equals their de Broglie wavelength.

Does this seem so surprising now?

I know all that but why is it twice the Planck length? This means the diameter of a black hole formed from the Planck mass is 4 times the minimum physical length. Why 4 times exactly? There has to be a reason. It can't be just "that's what the math says" because the math was derived at a time when people were still formulating relativity. They didn't a yet fully understand all the implications. The meaning of this magnitude is a very important relationship. Again why is it 4 times greater?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

I am having a look into matter waves for the answer. I want to see why the de Broglie relations end up with this magnitude.

[yor_on]

Why not check out how Planck reached his constants. Both links are interesting.

One of the nicest persons I've read about, scientists are no different from other people, you can find all sorts of ideas and personalities there, Planck seems very humane to me, and with a lot of personal integrity. And I also think he was a brilliant mathematician and theorist. His constants are more important to day, as I think, than what they were when he first presented them. He didn't develop them to prove 'photons' or 'quanta' of any sort, but to explain why black body radiation, in the infra red spectrum, started to differ from Wien's displacement law as I understand.

"At 1650 Celsius, Wien's displacement law tells us, a blackbody radiates most intensely at a wavelength of 1.486 microns. By making measurements at wavelengths longer than that, Lummer and Pringsheim had extended the realm of their measurements into that part of the infrared spectrum where blackbody radiation conforms less to the law that Wilhelm Wien had proposed in 1896 and more to the Rayleigh-Jeans law. But Lummer and Pringsheim did not obtain a discrepancy between their observations and Wien's law large enough to give them certainty. Later in the year, though, Heinrich Leopold Rubens (1865 Mar 30 - 1922 Jul 17) and Ferdinand Kurlbaum extended the range of measurable wavelengths to 50 microns and obtained results that removed all doubt. On October 07 Rubens revealed his results to Planck over afternoon tea and that evening Planck solved the problem of blackbody radiation." http://bado-shanai.net/map%20of%20physics/mopPlancksderivBRL.htm

"Interestingly he did not understand his work to imply that light was quantized; even years later he was a proponent of classical electrodynamics. Planck didn't even believe there was any physical significance to his assumption of discrete oscillators. He just thought of them as a convenient way make the math fit the data at all wavelengths. His constant h was just a fit (albeit a pretty accurate one) to the available data." http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2007-05/1179839356.Ph.r.html

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Are there any equations specifically using c^4?

[yor_on]

You can see his derivation at the first site, the second sites link to his paper seems to old to work though

Ok found it.

On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum.   

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Why not check out how Planck reached his constants. Both links are interesting.

One of the nicest persons I've read about, scientists are no different from other people, you can find all sorts of ideas and personalities there, Planck seems very humane to me, and with a lot of personal integrity. And I also think he was a brilliant mathematician and theorist. His constants are more important to day, as I think, than what they were when he first presented them. He didn't develop them to prove 'photons' or 'quanta' of any sort, but to explain why black body radiation, in the infra red spectrum, started to differ from Wien's displacement law as I understand.

"At 1650 Celsius, Wien's displacement law tells us, a blackbody radiates most intensely at a wavelength of 1.486 microns. By making measurements at wavelengths longer than that, Lummer and Pringsheim had extended the realm of their measurements into that part of the infrared spectrum where blackbody radiation conforms less to the law that Wilhelm Wien had proposed in 1896 and more to the Rayleigh-Jeans law. But Lummer and Pringsheim did not obtain a discrepancy between their observations and Wien's law large enough to give them certainty. Later in the year, though, Heinrich Leopold Rubens (1865 Mar 30 - 1922 Jul 17) and Ferdinand Kurlbaum extended the range of measurable wavelengths to 50 microns and obtained results that removed all doubt. On October 07 Rubens revealed his results to Planck over afternoon tea and that evening Planck solved the problem of blackbody radiation." http://bado-shanai.net/map%20of%20physics/mopPlancksderivBRL.htm

"Interestingly he did not understand his work to imply that light was quantized; even years later he was a proponent of classical electrodynamics. Planck didn't even believe there was any physical significance to his assumption of discrete oscillators. He just thought of them as a convenient way make the math fit the data at all wavelengths. His constant h was just a fit (albeit a pretty accurate one) to the available data." http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2007-05/1179839356.Ph.r.html

Planck's values suffer from the inexact value of the gravitational constant. I don't think the Schwarzschild radius I found would vary much even if this were exactly known. However, I still need to work back to find out why this value comes out as 2 Planck lengths. Interestingly I can now find the mass-energy density found within a compressed mass at the event horizon. So I can now answer my question as to what is the maximum mass-energy that can be contained within a Planck volume. This is a significant value. it relates directly to the Planck mass. A mass above this value is critical as it would theoretically automatically produce a runaway black hole.

On a related subject, I can also now begin to show how light would behave beyond the event horizon. This does not involve Schwarzschild's singularity.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

You can see his derivation at the first site, the second sites link to his paper seems to old to work though

e=hv is so elegant as is e=mc^2. Why is it now that complexities are everywhere when it seems that things should be so elegantly simple.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Does anyone know of any papers on a critical mass density for stellar masses such that the difference between neutron and black hole collapse has been investigated?

[alysdexia]

Why not check out how Planck reached his constants. Both links are interesting.

One of the nicest persons I've read about, scientists are no different from other people, you can find all sorts of ideas and personalities there, Planck seems very humane to me, and with a lot of personal integrity.

So which is it, was Planck a scientist or a nescientist?: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nice.  That is, did he heed skill or notskill?

It does not matter what the Schwarzschild radius of anything is as this object is classical, forbidden by special relativity, and as such black holes are fantastic blunders: http://www.quora.com/Physics/Have-the-known-true-laws-of-physics-ever-been-broken-ever/answer/Autymn-Castleton.

The Planck mass and [proper] metrics are the threshold at which heavier a body's gravity is stronger than its elèctrism; but there is no singularity under the conservation laws.  At this size I predict another nucleus that is the grounds for dark matter: http://google.com/groups?q=%22main-ingrediend%22.  Galactic collisions forge new dark matter by this mekanism.

[alysdexia]

Your half-factor proportion may come in dependent on whether the interaction is of one body or between two bodies, where two times the mass yields half the radius, by the inverse force law.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Your half-factor proportion may come in dependent on whether the interaction is of one body or between two bodies, where two times the mass yields half the radius, by the inverse force law.

I think it is more likely the zero point energy.

[yor_on]

What is a nescientist?

As for him being a good man as well as a very good physicist there is no doubt
And linking to a another physics site may be ok, but linking to one that demands you to create a membership before you can read the discussion sux. Not everyone follows facebook, and a physics site using it is not a recommendation for me.