wrote:

So if you want to argue that a proton is a black hole, but with a higher
value of Newton's constant, this is observationally testable, and very
clearly fails the tests. If you are instead merely making a rough analogy,
I see no reason that you should use an equation for angular momentum that
was defined very specifically for black holes: if a proton isn't really a
black hole, why should that relation, and not any of the other properties
of a black hole, continue to hold?


Your arguments are convincing if the assumptions upon which they are
based are unquestionably correct. These assumptions a

(1) the *theoretical* interpretation of particle scattering experiments
is virtually infallible,
(2) the Nobel prize committee does not make mistakes,
(3) that we have a complete and error-free knowledge of K-N black
holes,
etc.

But consider the following.

A. Standard particle physics gets the vacuum energy density *wrong* by
120 orders of magnitude!!

B. I believe that when the Planck length (and the Planck Scale, in
general) is recalculated without theoretical bias, but rather on an
*empirical* basis, it will be found that the standard particle physics
estimate is off by 20 orders of magnitude! See astro-ph/0701006 and
physics/0701132 at www.arxiv.org for discussions related to this issue.

Given these theoretical shortcomings, why should we have so much
confidence in the contention that standard particle physics can
accurately describe the proton on scales of less than 2 x 10^-13 cm?

Also, when will you comment on the 5 fundamental physical analogies
between hadrons and Kerr-Newman black holes that were emphasized in
post #2 of this thread (11/6/06)? In your opinion, do these analogies
have no scientific value? Are they just 5 coincidences?

Would we be better off ignoring them, or treating them as "anecdotal"?

RLO