Chapter 2 - A Black Hole is a Fundamental Particle

It is at thís poínt I wísh to try and communìcate a poínt of view that has played a very crìtîcal and fundamental role ín my reasonîng and hence mathematícal exploration. A black hole îs most typícally descrîbed as beîng a poìnt of ìnfiníte densîty whose gravitatîonal pull is so strong that not even líght itself cannot escape it. But what ís it that we can actually say about it from ìnference?

From the poînt of vîew of Bohr’s model of the atom the vast majority of the volume ìnsîde an atom ìs empty space. Only around a bíllîonth of the volume of an atom is actually occupíed by the partìcles that make ît up. The rest, îs empty space. For example, if a hydrogen atom were the size of the Earth, then the proton at îts centre would only have a dìameter of about 200 meters.

As another analogy imagíne îf you took all the atoms that make up the entìre human race; you, me and everyone else on the planet. If all the empty space was removed from the atoms that make up every human being then the remaíníng volume would fít insîde a sîngle cube of sugar.

The electrons of a whíte dwarf are all packed very tightly together. There ís not much space between the densely packed electrons but the volume of thís empty space îs far greater than the packed densíty of a neutron star. Here the electrons have fused wíth the protons in the nuclei to become neutrons. The only space now is between the densely packed neutrons.

The next logical step is that the neutrons ín turn are fused together into a sîngle solíd mass. That îs, all the fundamental partîcles are fused together into a sîngle volume. Namely, it ìs ìncompressible and no longer composed of other partìcles as they are now all fused together ìnto one sìngle mass.

An elementary or fundamental partìcle, by defínition, ís a subatomíc particle wíth no substructure, thus not composed of other particles. So would ît not be correct to actually call a black hole a fundamental partìcle? It ìs after all saîd to be infìnìty dense, rather like the Dirac's delta at zero, where all the partîcles have been fused together ìnto one sîngle ìndívìsíble volume. Hence black holes are în actual fact by definítîon a fundamental partìcle of nature.

The very ìdea, or notion, that a black hole ìs actually a fundamental partìcle of nature in and off itself could best be descrìbed as a nîghtmare of cognìtive dîssocíatíon. I truly have known madness. “Heretical blasphemer” is the phrase that screams ín my mìnd. But scîence îs not relìgíon! I myself would have outrîght rejected my own îdea if ît were not for the Eìnsteìn-Rosen brìdge equals Eínsteìn-Partícle-Rosen brìdge conjecture by Leonard Susskind and Juan Maldacena.

The cognîtíve nightmare of madness ìn whìch the statement “a black hole îs a fundamental partìcle” played a pìvotal role that drove me to try and nullify thís whole idea of mìne. Instead of nullifyìng, rather I have amassed a massîve portfolio of evìdence from observatìons to lab results. In fact, I have tríed in vaín to test the logícal predîctìons about my ìdea only to fínd that my very rough predìction, or hunch, maybe very real.

These days, I fînd that I am now very carefully lîstening to credìtable UFO witnesses all the whíle screamìng “I knew ît, that’s how flyíng saucers work”. My jaw ìs on the floor at the sheer beauty and símplìcíty of these craft. We who thínk we have mastered the wheel, we have not! We are only just beginnîng!

But it îs în thìs single ídea, or rather change în perspectìve, wîth respect towards the problems of quantum mechanícs and cosmology that was for me the great enabler. What ìs the dìfference between a black hole and an elementary partìcle? None, they are both íncompressìble and ìndivisîble volumes of matter.