Gravity and Singularities

[ICN5D]

I've held the belief that atomic nuclei are nothing more than tiny singularities, or regions of very sharply curved gravity. Ultimately, atomic matter itself does not produce gravity, even a large amount of it. It's really the density of matter that increases a gravitational pull. It seems that the proximity of atomic nuclei are responsible for bending space on a large scale. Could this be from a constructive interference of tiny bends in space? I imagine a scenario that plays out in the same way as bose-einstein condensates. We get a bunch of tiny waves together and they overlap into a super-giant wave. So, perhaps through an unknown mechanism, nuclei, and their constituents, are in fact tiny pin-pricks of very high gravity, or even singularities for that matter (no pun intended).

Case in point is to consider the earth, for example. Here is an 8,000 mile wide sphere that generates a 22 mph/s acceleration. For every second you fall, you gain another 22 mph to your speed, maxing out at about 120~150 or so. However, if we shrink the earth, without adding any more matter, we will in effect increase the force of gravity. At an astounding three inches across, we get a singularity: the escape velocity is now over 186,282 mile/s/s beyond the event horizon. We had to crush a 506,880,000 inch wide clump of matter down to 3 inches across. This level of concentration generates a singularity, and could come from overlapping a lot of tiny singularities. And I mean a lot. As in 3.6 x 10^51 amu's. Has anyone ever tried to express quark behavior in gravitational singularity terms? I understand the problem with evaporation, blackholes dissipate faster the smaller they get. But, it makes me think about converging wave functions, and how we see it happen in the ultracold labs. Maybe we see gravity as another kind of entangling wave function, due entirely on the subatomic structure of matter.

[wendy]

Atomic nucleii are too small in weight to be singularities. They're actually bubbles of quark soup. That's the next stage after 'neutron star' . Ye have to have something like 1.00.00.00.00 atoms to make a singularity (planck mass).

[ICN5D]

That's also something I've wondered: are there quark stars? It makes sense, and would appear like a singularity. It won't emit light, and has a high gravity field.


" 1.00.00.00.00 " , how many is that?

[wendy]

1.00.00.00.00 is a large number around 3E8.

It's supposed to be a state of matter denser than neutron stars. In essence one thinks of the neutron or proton as a bag of quarks, and then imagine emptying out all the bags into one big bag.

I don't know if quark stars actually exist, or if we can tell them from neutron stars.

[John Done]

The analysis of quark stars was first proposed in 1965 by Soviet physicists D.D. Ivanenko and D.F. Kurdgelaidze, however, their existence has not been confirmed.

[PatrickPowers]

The existence of quark stars depends on knowing more precisely the diameter of neutron stars. Considerable progress has been made in this via gravity wave data from neutron star collisions, so a result could be available by and by. Quark stars would look like a neutron star from the outside. The definitely would emit light.

My heuristic view is yes. Mother Nature isn't going to make something cool that exists only in the laboratory. Like masers. They occur commonly in nature. One can assume that lasers occur too but are too faint to observe.