A discussion I was just having with a friend introduced the question of whether a baryon creates spherical rather than simply curved space. A sub-atomic particle I would assume to have a degree of 2 dimensional qualities but I am uncertain of whether any particle has a definable 3rd dimension or how to quantify that concisely?

Postpocelipse said:

A discussion I was just having with a friend introduced the question of whether a baryon creates spherical rather than simply curved space. A sub-atomic particle I would assume to have a degree of 2 dimensional qualities but I am uncertain of whether any particle has a definable 3rd dimension or how to quantify that concisely?

Length, langht, and longth?

bob(from black rock) said:

Postpocelipse said:

A discussion I was just having with a friend introduced the question of whether a baryon creates spherical rather than simply curved space. A sub-atomic particle I would assume to have a degree of 2 dimensional qualities but I am uncertain of whether any particle has a definable 3rd dimension or how to quantify that concisely?

Length, langht, and longth?

Sorry for the spelling mistake, that should have been “langth” not “langht”

Postpocelipse said:

A discussion I was just having with a friend introduced the question of whether a baryon creates spherical rather than simply curved space. A sub-atomic particle I would assume to have a degree of 2 dimensional qualities but I am uncertain of whether any particle has a definable 3rd dimension or how to quantify that concisely?

Weird friend of yours. A baryon does not create spherical space. Definitely not.

More precisely, a baryon does not create space at all. It bends space through its gravitational attraction. That bending is identical to the bending created by a planet. Remember that every planet is made of baryons.

In addition to 3-D space and 1-D time, a baryon possesses quantum numbers defining such properties as spin angular momentum, isospin, flavour, excitement. It could conceivably said that these quantum numbers define extra dimensions above the normal four, but such dimensions can only take values such as 0, 1, 2, … and sometimes -1, -2, …

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

A discussion I was just having with a friend introduced the question of whether a baryon creates spherical rather than simply curved space. A sub-atomic particle I would assume to have a degree of 2 dimensional qualities but I am uncertain of whether any particle has a definable 3rd dimension or how to quantify that concisely?

Weird friend of yours. A baryon does not create spherical space. Definitely not.

meh …. picking on my word choice……

More precisely, a baryon does not create space at all. It bends space through its gravitational attraction. That bending is identical to the bending created by a planet. Remember that every planet is made of baryons.

Not sure I would define composite space curvature as the same as that for a singular baryon.

In addition to 3-D space and 1-D time, a baryon possesses quantum numbers defining such properties as spin angular momentum, isospin, flavour, excitement. It could conceivably said that these quantum numbers define extra dimensions above the normal four, but such dimensions can only take values such as 0, 1, 2, … and sometimes -1, -2, …

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

A discussion I was just having with a friend introduced the question of whether a baryon creates spherical rather than simply curved space. A sub-atomic particle I would assume to have a degree of 2 dimensional qualities but I am uncertain of whether any particle has a definable 3rd dimension or how to quantify that concisely?

Weird friend of yours. A baryon does not create spherical space. Definitely not.

More precisely, a baryon does not create space at all. It bends space through its gravitational attraction. That bending is identical to the bending created by a planet. Remember that every planet is made of baryons.

Not sure I would define composite space curvature as the same as that for a singular baryon.

In addition to 3-D space and 1-D time, a baryon possesses quantum numbers defining such properties as spin angular momentum, isospin, flavour, excitement. It could conceivably said that these quantum numbers define extra dimensions above the normal four, but such dimensions can only take values such as 0, 1, 2, … and sometimes -1, -2, …

meh …. picking on my word choice……

what words would you use then?

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Weird friend of yours. A baryon does not create spherical space. Definitely not.

More precisely, a baryon does not create space at all. It bends space through its gravitational attraction. That bending is identical to the bending created by a planet. Remember that every planet is made of baryons.

Not sure I would define composite space curvature as the same as that for a singular baryon.

In addition to 3-D space and 1-D time, a baryon possesses quantum numbers defining such properties as spin angular momentum, isospin, flavour, excitement. It could conceivably said that these quantum numbers define extra dimensions above the normal four, but such dimensions can only take values such as 0, 1, 2, … and sometimes -1, -2, …

meh …. picking on my word choice……

what words would you use then?

I was splitting the hair between whether there is a discernible difference between curvature of space and something that might be definable as spherical space. Sometimes these questions are easier considered in writing.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

meh …. picking on my word choice……

what words would you use then?

I was splitting the hair between whether there is a discernible difference between curvature of space and something that might be definable as spherical space. Sometimes these questions are easier considered in writing.

I guess a BH enforces closed ‘spherical’ space.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

meh …. picking on my word choice……

what words would you use then?

I was splitting the hair between whether there is a discernible difference between curvature of space and something that might be definable as spherical space. Sometimes these questions are easier considered in writing.

I guess a BH enforces closed ‘spherical’ space.

Not “splitting the hair” at all. Spherical space has a well-defined definition that if you start off in one direction you will eventually come back to your starting point (without a change in orientation).

Like a black hole, exactly. A baryon cannot be a black-hole-like.

A lepton (such as an electron) on the other hand is more debatable. There have been numerous discussions dating back to Einstein about whether an electron can be considered as a type of black hole.

“In physics, there is a speculative notion that if there were a black hole with the same mass and charge as an electron, it would share many of the properties of the electron including the magnetic moment and Compton wavelength. This idea is substantiated within a series of papers published by Albert Einstein between 1927 and 1949. In them, he showed that if elementary particles were treated as singularities in spacetime, it was unnecessary to postulate geodesic motion as part of general relativity.”

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

BUT

“An electron black hole would be super-extremal and have a naked singularity.”

By way of introduction, a naked singularity is very like a black hole but it isn’t black, light can move into and out of it, and spacetime around it is not spherical.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

I was splitting the hair between whether there is a discernible difference between curvature of space and something that might be definable as spherical space. Sometimes these questions are easier considered in writing.

I guess a BH enforces closed ‘spherical’ space.

Not “splitting the hair” at all. Spherical space has a well-defined definition that if you start off in one direction you will eventually come back to your starting point (without a change in orientation).

Like a black hole, exactly. A baryon cannot be a black-hole-like.

A lepton (such as an electron) on the other hand is more debatable. There have been numerous discussions dating back to Einstein about whether an electron can be considered as a type of black hole.

“In physics, there is a speculative notion that if there were a black hole with the same mass and charge as an electron, it would share many of the properties of the electron including the magnetic moment and Compton wavelength. This idea is substantiated within a series of papers published by Albert Einstein between 1927 and 1949. In them, he showed that if elementary particles were treated as singularities in spacetime, it was unnecessary to postulate geodesic motion as part of general relativity.”

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

BUT

“An electron black hole would be super-extremal and have a naked singularity.”

By way of introduction, a naked singularity is very like a black hole but it isn’t black, light can move into and out of it, and spacetime around it is not spherical.

Thanks moll. :)