[suhail jalbout (OP)]

  WHAT IS THE AGE OF SUBATOMIC PARTICLES?
 BY SUHAIL JALBOUT

Our universe is made from matter; matter is made from molecules; and molecules are made from atoms. Atoms are made from subatomic particles which are the building blocks of physical matter.

The estimated mass of the ordinary matter in our universe is 1.5 x 10^53 Kg. This mass existed from the time when the Big Bang Black Hole (BBBH) evaporated around 13.8 billion year ago. But this mass was inside the BBBH which means that the age of the subatomic particles in the mass is much older than the age of our universe. The age of the BBBH can be calculated from Hawking’s equation:

T = 2.097 x 10^67 x (M/Mo) ^3
 
Where:

T = the evaporation time in years of a BH
M = mass of a BH (the estimated mass of the BBBH was approximately the same as the mass of the ordinary matter in our universe 1.5 x 10^53 Kg)
Mo = solar mass (1.898 x 10^30 Kg)

By substitution, the evaporation time for the BBBH = 9 x 10^135 years.

This means that the age of the subatomic particles is = 9 x 10^135 + 13.8 x 10^9 years.

The function of a BBBH is to swallow the existing matter and get larger and larger until nothing is left, digest its food  for a very long time (ours for 9 x 10^135 years) and then disappears after creating a new universe.
 
Let us assume that the ordinary mass in our universe is constant and that it has been   contained in our BBBH for 9 x 10^135 years. So, where did this matter come from? One possibility is that it came from another universe which was created by another BBBH that evaporated after 9 x 10^135 years and created that universe. This logic can easily lead us to infinity because the process constitutes a closed loop. This means, if this possibility is feasible, then the age of subatomic particles is infinity.

So, I wonder if there is a BBBH that exists from infinity with infinite mass and consequently infinite age that releases bursts of energy after very long irregular intervals to form universes each with a different mass and a different age.

[Origin]

But this mass was inside the BBBH which means that the age of the subatomic particles in the mass is much older than the age of our universe.

There was no mass in the first few moments after the big bang, so subatomic particles clearly cannot be older than the big bang.
There was no black hole, because a black hole is something that exists in the universe.  Hawking radiation occurs in the space near a black holes event horizon and there was no space around the early compact universe, so there was no Hawking radiation possible.

[jeffreyH]

As the radius of a black hole increases, the density of the interior decreases. This means that the observable universe is inside its own event horizon. This in itself indicates that we do not understand black holes.

With this in mind, the universe could not have started inside a black hole, since it is technically still inside one.

[CrazyScientist]

As the radius of a black hole increases, the density of the interior decreases. This means that the observable universe is inside its own event horizon. This in itself indicates that we do not understand black holes.

Woow, I never heard before about such process before. But I'm not sure what you mean here...
Are you talking about the increase if BH radius due to it's "consumption" of some other matter (like stars)? If yes then shouldn't it lead to the increasing self-gravity of that BH, leading to the increase of it's internal density and/or pressure?

Or do you mean the increase of BH radius without the addition of any other matter? If so, then sure - increased radius leads to smaller density. But then what kind of force would cause those BHs to "swell"? I mean even light can't escape it's gravity, so it would be EXTREMELY hard for anything with rest mass to move out from it's center of gravity  (singularity?)...

With this in mind, the universe could not have started inside a black hole, since it is technically still inside one.

Honestly I'm kinda afraid to go deeper into this part...

[jeffreyH]

As to the age of subatomic particles, it would be more pertinent to discuss the age of energy. Energy is still present without there being mass.

[jeffreyH]

Woow, I never heard before about such process before. But I'm not sure what you mean here...
Are you talking about the increase if BH radius due to it's "consumption" of some other matter (like stars)? If yes then shouldn't it lead to the increasing self-gravity of that BH, leading to the increase of it's internal density and/or pressure?

The event horizon is a mathematical concept. It is not a physical barrier. It is the surface that describes the point where nothing can escape the gravity of the gravitating mass. To escape would require a velocity with a magnitude greater than the speed of light. Every object that passes through the horizon adds to its mass and the mathematics tells us that this increase in mass will also increase the radius of the event horizon.

[CrazyScientist]

Woow, I never heard before about such process before. But I'm not sure what you mean here...
Are you talking about the increase if BH radius due to it's "consumption" of some other matter (like stars)? If yes then shouldn't it lead to the increasing self-gravity of that BH, leading to the increase of it's internal density and/or pressure?

The event horizon is a mathematical concept. It is not a physical barrier. It is the surface that describes the point where nothing can escape the gravity of the gravitating mass. To escape would require a velocity with a magnitude greater than the speed of light. Every object that passes through the horizon adds to its mass and the mathematics tells us that this increase in mass will also increase the radius of the event horizon.

So you were talking about the radius of the event horizon and not the radius of black hole in the sense of it's solid surface? Because if I understand it correctly they are not one and the same (?) As you said, event horizon is a mathematical concept - point of no return in the gravitational field of BHs. But there's also the BH as a solid and VERY dense (probably?) spherical object with a defined surface where all the "consumed" matter falls onto and stop moving further towards the center of gravity, since matter reaches there it's limit of compression. Since you talked about "radius of a black hole", I had in mind the radius of it's solid surface...

[Origin]

But there's also the BH as a solid and VERY dense (probably?) spherical object

No there is no evidence that there is a solid surface in a black hole. 

since matter reaches there it's limit of compression.

This is not correct.  There is no known force that can prevent the mass in a black hole from collapsing into a singularity.  Do singularities actually exist?  That is disputable, but like I said there is no known force that would prevent that from happening.

Since you talked about "radius of a black hole", I had in mind the radius of it's solid surface

When a physicist refers to the radius or diameter of a black hole they are always talking about the event horizon.

[jeffreyH]

So you were talking about the radius of the event horizon and not the radius of black hole in the sense of it's solid surface?

It is easy to waffle incoherently about areas of physics where science has no answers. This is the tactic of every attention seeking wannabe. Since any fairytale will do. You lack the integrity of an honest actor.

[CrazyScientist]

But there's also the BH as a solid and VERY dense (probably?) spherical object

No there is no evidence that there is a solid surface in a black hole. 

since matter reaches there it's limit of compression.

This is not correct.  There is no known force that can prevent the mass in a black hole from collapsing into a singularity.  Do singularities actually exist?  That is disputable, but like I said there is no known force that would prevent that from happening.

Since you talked about "radius of a black hole", I had in mind the radius of it's solid surface

When a physicist refers to the radius or diameter of a black hole they are always talking about the event horizon.

Ok, thanks for clarification

[CrazyScientist]

So you were talking about the radius of the event horizon and not the radius of black hole in the sense of it's solid surface?

It is easy to waffle incoherently about areas of physics where science has no answers. This is the tactic of every attention seeking wannabe. Since any fairytale will do. You lack the integrity of an honest actor.

It's not that I ever claimed to be an all-knowing mastermind of physics or to posses a comprehensive knowledge regarding black holes. Honestly up until now I didn't make any kind of a deep research of this subject. One can't gather all the existing knowledge at once, so for now I'm concentrating mostly on some others fields of physics. This is exactly why I put so many question marks in my post. All I know are the basic terms mixed with my own bold imagination regarding the internal structure of a BH - so I was honestly interested in the information you presented here.

I don't understand however all this negativity from you towards my person - did I hurt your feelings in some way?  Or maybe you had some bad experiences with me in your previous incarnation?

[puppypower]

If you look at the subatomic particles produced in the world's particle accelerators, these have a very short life expectancy outside their original confinement within atomic matter. They do not last very long on their own. If they did last, we would have a museum of subatomic particles that are saved in jars with dates. All we have is photographic evidence, of sorts, of a very brief life outside the atom.  The exception is the electron.

The question I used to pose was why do subatomic particles last billions of years when integrated into atomic matter, but last nanoseconds if we try to isolate them into separate particles? It is sort of backwards in terms of the rest of nature. A tree is made up of atoms. If we smashed the tree with a catapult off the side of a mountain, the tree will become pulverized, but the atoms live on. In the case of subatomic particles, if you mess with the atomic containment vessels, the sub particles cannot sustain by themselves. They both die at about the same time in the accelerator. The tree analogy would not only pulverize tree, but its atoms would flash as energy and disappear. This is not observed except in particle accelerators.

My theory was connected to time dilation. Sub atomic particles within atoms are time dilated within the containment. They last the same amount of time in their own reference, in or out of the atom.  Within the atom, they are under time dilation and appear to last longer in our reference. If you disrupt the atomic containment, you lose that extra time potential, and the sub particles will disappear almost immediately.

The creation of hydrogen locked the sub-particles into a state of perpetual time dilation, so they could last for billions of years relative to the expanding space-time reference. A particle accelerator adds special relativity to atomic matter. In essence we are adding relativistic potential energy to climb the activation energy hill, of the internal time potential. The result of the sudden stop; collider, is the disruption of the internal time dilation, allowing the true life expectancy of sub particles to appear in our reference.

The time dilation of the sub particles within atomic confinement would have originally been connected to pressure and GR. The difference between SR which is velocity and GR which is an acceleration is the extra time unit within acceleration; d/t/t*, relative to velocity; d/t. The collider creates an impulse pressure so velocity becomes a deceleration to counter the original t*. 

[jeffreyH]

You do have a certain level of knowledge. You have learnt some science. This makes you worse than the general wannabe. When you try to promote a pet theory you tend to sound authoritative. So any nonsense you spout will appear to be trustworthy. You could be a valued member if you wanted to be.

[CrazyScientist]

You do have a certain level of knowledge. You have learnt some science. This makes you worse than the general wannabe. When you try to promote a pet theory you tend to sound authoritative. So any nonsense you spout will appear to be trustworthy. You could be a valued member if you wanted to be.

Well... thanks...?

However when it comes to black holes, it wasn't my intention to promote any kind of theory - did it really sound like I would promote here anything? If I would try to sound authoritive, I wouldn't express myself in form of questions with a lot of question marks in between...

 When it comes to promoting my own theories, I do it mostly in my own threads, where I actually do some pretty extensive research of subjects which I discuss there

[Kryptid]

The Big Bang was not the evaporation of a black hole, so Hawking's equation doesn't apply here.

[suhail jalbout (OP)]

Thank Kyptid you for taking the time to read the OP. I used the abbreviation (BBBH) to refer to any BH that produces a universe. Your comment suggests that there are 4 types of black holes:

1.   A BH that produces a universe by explosion
2.   A BH that produces a universe by evaporation
3.   A BH that produces a universe by evaporation and then explosion
4.   A BH that remains as is for ever

Can you please elaborate? Thanks

[evan_au]

As the radius of a black hole increases, the density of the interior decreases.

The reason for this is that the radius of a black hole event horizon is proportional to the mass inside it.
- The radius of the event horizon (as seen from a distant observer) is called the Schwarzschild radius, r_s
- If the Sun could be turned into a black hole, the Schwarzschild radius would be about 3km
- If you collided two black holes with the mass of the Sun, the Schwarzschild radius would double to 6km, and the volume would increase by a factor of 8
- So if you double the mass of the black hole, the density drops by a factor of 4

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Physical_properties

particles produced in the world's particle accelerators, these have a very short life expectancy outside their original confinement within atomic matter.  The exception is the electron.

Some other particles which are stable, if left to themselves are: the proton, the photon, and graviton (if it exists).
- The neutrino (sort of) continues unchanged, as a superposition of 3 different kinds of neutrino.

But if you collide these long-lived particles with enough energy, you can destroy them, and produce other particles.
- The LHC is well known for smashing protons together, producing a shower of other particles
- The prior occupant of the LHC tunnel was LEP, which smashed electrons and positrons together, producing a shower of other particles
- The Ice Cube detector at the South Pole looks for the rare neutrino that happen to hit an atomic nucleus. This produces a shower of photons, and sometimes transmutes an atomic nucleus.
- The retina in your eye is regularly hit by photons, which get turned into molecular vibrations (phonons)

My theory was connected to time dilation

How about you look at the energy of the particles?
- Each kind of particle has a certain mass/energy
- If there is another particle of the same kind, but a lower mass/energy, entropy says that the higher-energy particle will decay into the lower-energy particle (providing certain quantum conservation rules are followed).
- So Electrons, Muons and Tau are the same "kind" of particle, with electrons being the lowest-mass member. Tau and Muons decay, but electrons can't, because there is no lower-energy member of the family to decay into.
-  The Up and Down quarks have the lowest mass, so particles containing more massive quarks quickly decay into less massive quarks, forming other particles.

Time dilation does occur with rapidly-moving particles, and in strong gravitational fields.
- But there is no strong gravitational field in the nucleus of an atom isolated in space
- And decays of muons and tau, and heavy quarks still occurs if the particle is "stationary".

So I suggest that mass/energy and entropy are better indicators of particle stability than time dilation.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Your comment suggests that there are 4 types of black holes: A BH that produces a universe by...

There is no proof of the existence of other universes. At present, all such multiverse theories are pure speculation.

One such speculation relates to the fact that if you have a black hole in our universe, the space inside the event horizon is rather twisted compared to the space outside the event horizon. The event horizon forms a barrier that prevents the inside from communicating with the outside, so it might be another universe inside (in its own twisted spacetime), and we outside would never know.

This leads to the speculative "black hole cosmology", which suggests that maybe:
- Each black hole in our universe forms its own isolated island universe
- By analogy, our own universe may be hidden within a black hole of a "larger" universe.

But it is all speculation at this time.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_cosmology

[evan_au]

WHAT IS THE AGE OF SUBATOMIC PARTICLES?

The visible mass in the universe is mostly hydrogen. Most of these protons and electrons are as old as the Big Bang.

Most of the photons in the universe are in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. This is about 400,000 years younger than the protons and electrons.

There are probably relic neutrinos zipping around the universe from an era when about 25% of the universe's mass of hydrogen was fused into helium. These are a couple of seconds younger than the protons (Hydrogen nuclei).

[Origin]

1.   A BH that produces a universe by explosion
2.   A BH that produces a universe by evaporation
3.   A BH that produces a universe by evaporation and then explosion
4.   A BH that remains as is for ever

Can you please elaborate?

1.  Black holes do not explode
2.  A black hole that 'evaporates', due to Hawking radiation would not produce anything other than the particles that represent its evaporation.
3.  Black holes don't explode.
4.  Based on the theory of Hawking radiation a black hole will never last forever, a large black hole will however last for a very, very, very long time.

[Kryptid]

Your comment suggests that there are 4 types of black holes:

My comment doesn't suggest any of those things.