wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Parenthetically, the revised Schwarschild radius for the proton is
about 0.8 x 10^-13 cm, which is about equal to the charge radius of the
proton and the revised Planck length.

In that case, the model is pretty much dead. High energy experiments
probe the substructure of the proton down to about three orders of
magnitude smaller than that, and there is absolutely no indication of
anything remotely resembling a horizon.

(The 1990 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the first experiments
in this area. For more recent results, look up, for example, experiments
at HERA, which has a resolution on the order of 10^{-16} cm.)

A Schwarzschild black hole is a very crude approximation to the
fundamental particles that dominate each cosmological scale.
Kerr-Newman black holes are a much better approximation,

Nope. The ratio of angular momentum to mass of a proton is not
compatible with a Kerr-Newman solution.

but I would
not be surprised if major refinements to the K-N models are also
required. People like Paul Wesson have spent decades advocating even
more exotic candidates, such as 5-dimensional soliton-like ultracompact
objects that lack a conventional horizon.

Candidates for *protons*? I doubt it very much -- Wesson knows that
protons are made of quarks.

The Discrete Fractal paradigm ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) predicts
the approximate size, charge, angular momentum and radii of these
objects. It predicts their mass spectrum quantitatively and uniquely.

OK. What is your prediction for the mass of the Higgs? How about the
lowest mass neutrino? Both of these are not yet known experimentally,
but should be in the next few years.

I leave it to you astrophysicists to figure out the subtle physics of
these objects,

The internal structure of the proton is quite thoroughly observed. In
particular, we know that it is mostly empty, with much smaller constituents,
and that the interactions among these constituents become weak at high
energies and short distances. If your model cannot reproduce this behavior,
with at least as much quantitative agreement with observation as QCD, then
it's dead.

Steve Carlip