qm « General Relativity

Take this size of an electron as the ‘black hole’ size. That is about 10-55 m I think. Then for a solid, we have about 3.35*10²⁸ molecules water per m cubed, h2O, so 7e**29 electrons / m**3 – say 1e30 electrons per cubic metre. With a 1.48494276 × 10-27 m / kg conversion constant for the Schwarchild radius of an object measured in kg, and an electron mass of 9.10938291(40)×10−31, we get diameter of 2.6 10-58m, so cross section is 7e-116 and then the total area of a cubic metre of water is about 1e-85 m**2/m

So what is the neutrino cross section.

Say neutrinos only interact with electrons when they hit the actual black hole part. Also assume that neutrinos are much smaller than electrons.

How many meters of water would a ray penetrate before hitting an electron within its -black hole radius?

1e-85 m**2, which works out to a coverage of one part in 1e85, so 1e85 meters would ensure a hit. This is vastly larger than the real distance, which is only a few light years, 1e17 m or so.

So I guess that this idea is very wrong on some counts.

If you use the radius of the electron as a kerr naked ring singularity, you get 1e-37 metres, or 1.616199 × 10^-35 meters, ie te planck length.

Then with these planck length sized electrons, you get about 1e-70 – which is about 1e-40 m**2/metre of water, still not enough, but closer.

Funny how the kerr radius of an electron mass naked singularity is the planck mass.

Trying a compton size of 2e-12m instead of 2e-56, makes the

History has showed us that all physical theories eventually fail. The failure is always a complete failure in terms of some abstract perfectionist viewpoint, but in reality, the failure only amounts to small corrections. Take for instance gravity. Newton’s theory is absurd – gravity travels instantly, etc. But it is also simple and powerful, it predictions working well enough to put people on the Moon.

Quantum Mechanics, it would seem, has a lot of physicists claiming that ‘this time is different’ – that QM is ‘right’. Nature does play dice. There are certain details of it yet to be worked out, like how to apply it to fully generalized curvy spacetimes, etc.

Lets look at what would happen if it were wrong. Or rather, lets look at one way that it could be wrong.

QM predicts that there are chances for every event happening. I mean in the following way – there is a certain probability for an electron (say) to penetrate some sort of barrier (quantum tunneling). As the barrier is made higher and or wider, the probability of tunneling goes down according to a well defined formula: (see for example this wikipedia article). Now, the formulas for the tunneling probability do not ‘top out’ – there is a really, really tiny chance that even a slowly moving electron could make it through a concrete wall. What if this is wrong? What if there is a limit as to the size of the barrier? Or put another way – what if there is a limit to probability? Another way to look at this is to say that there is a upper limit on the half life of a compound. Of course, just as Newton’s theory holds extremely well for most physics, it may be hard to notice that there is not an unlimited amount of ‘quantum wiggle’ to ‘push’ particles through extremely high barriers.

Steven Weinberg has posted a paper about a class of theories that try to solve the measurement problem in QM by having QM fail. (It fails a little at a time, so we need big messy physics to have the wave collapse). I agree fully with his idea – that we have to modify QM to solve the measurement problem.