text:
Talk:Black hole electron

Planck length/ Compton wavelength
A clear size relationship is specified by an equation that compares length values as shown below. The length labeled (L2) is defined as 1/2 of the electron Compton wavelength. The value used for the Planck length is 1.616x10 exp-35 meters.

(L2)squared=(L3)(2pi)(Planck length)(3/2)exponent 1/2

When this equation is solved for (L3) the value found is 1.1835x10 exp 10 meters. This is a unique value because it is the wavelength of a photon that has energy equal to the Planck constant divided by the constant (2pi) squared. The implied value for the Planck length is 1.6159455x10 exp-35. I believe this relationship will become useful as the Bh electron article is filled in with information from other contributors.DonJStevens 15:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The reader will note that the constant value h/(2pi)squared is directly related to fundamental features of the natural world just as h/2pi and h are related to fundamental features of the natural world.DonJStevens (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The (L3) value is extremely close to the wavelength of a photon that has the energy value h divided by (2pi) squared. When the implied value for the Planck length is 1.6159455x10 exp-35, the implied value for the gravitational constant is 6.6717456x10 exp-11. It is an interesting surprise to find that the G value implied by electron properties is close to and even overlapped by G values that have been previously determined from laboratory measurements.DonJStevens 17:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Don, I'm not sure I entirely follow what you're trying to do here. You've defined
 * $$L_3 = \frac{1}{8 \pi} \cdot \left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^\frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{\lambda_{e}^2}{l_P}$$
 * and then you say that this is very close to "the wavelength of a photon that has the energy value h divided by (2pi) squared". But h has the dimensions of action (energy × time).  How are you getting from h to a photon energy?  -- Jheald 17:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Answer; The L3 equation as you have written it is correct. The numerical value for L3 is 1.1834933x10 exp 10 meters when the Planck length value is 1.616x10 exp -35 meters. The L3 value found is very close to one light second (or 2.9979246x10 exp 8 meters) multiplied by the constant (2pi) squared. A photon with wavelength equal to one light second (and frequency of one cycle per second) will have (E=h times one cycle /sec) while a photon with the wavelength (2pi) squared times one light second will have [E=h times (1/2pi) squared cycle /sec]. It is correct to say L3 is approximately equal to (2pi) squared times one light second however rotating black hole properties imply that L3 should be precisely equal to (2pi) squared times one light second.DonJStevens 14:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

More facts; The approximate electron Schwarzschild radius can be specified as shown. The Le value is the electron Compton wavelength.

rs = 2/3 (Le/4pi)(Le/2L3) squared

With L3 equal to (2pi) squared times one light second, the radius is 1.3524368x10 exp-57 meter. This is approximately equal to the well known value 2Gm/c squared. The approximate radius and the well known radius values will be numerically equal when the implied G value (6.6717456x10 exp-11) is used. The two radius values are approximately equal when any of the (other) published G values is used.

The following equations can be easily verified to be approximately correct. They will be numerically correct when the implied G value is used.

3Gm/c squared = (Le/4pi)(Le/2L3) squared

m = (c squared/3G)(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3) squared

m = (1/3G)(Le/4pi) cubed, times (1/2pi) squared

m c squared = (c exp 4)(1/3G)(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3) squared

hc/Le = (c exp 4)(1/3G)(Le/4pi)(Le/2L3) squared

m = (h/4pi c)(c/3pi hG) exponent 1/4

The values h and G are shown to be closely related. The applicable G value is defined as shown.

G = (Le/4pi)^3 (1/2pi)^2 (1/3m) DonJStevens 16:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Superfluid 3He
I'm reverting the most recent edit by User:Quasarq again:
 * 1) Micro black hole is already linked
 * 2) superfluid 3He stuff:
 * 3) It's not written well
 * 4) It's original research (reference to primary sources, I'm going to check out the SA article)
 * 5) It doesn't follow WP:MoS
 * 6) unification: M-Theory claims unification. M-Theory is unverified, but is definitely (not really arguable) adequate. Also, non-"M-theory" string theory also has a good explanation of unification (I'm not familiar with loop quantum gravity), so unless you're willing to list all the exceptions (which I can't say how many there are), it should remain closer to how it is.

It should be noted that I'm not opposed to this content in general, but it's going to have to be incorporated better. McKay 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the relevant article in Scientific American. Black hole analogies, are merely that -- analogies of black holes. They are not black hole electrons with a new name. They do not belong in this article. For more information see User_talk:Quasarq. McKay 04:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Binary Black Holes Needed

This page looks pretty good now, do we still need it? X [' Mac Davis '] ( SUPERDESK | Help me improve ) 07:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Page still needs a link to article about theory of merging/colliding of black holes into one. Theoretically it is impossible for one black hole to press mass in its event horizon below the event horizon of another black hole. It is almost as difficult to lift mass back out of an event horizon at least in significant quantity. So offhand I would say two black holes merge extremely slowly due to relativistic effects at their event horizons and only at the point of contact between event horizons. Remember all new mass becomes frozen in relativistic time at the event horizon and black holes grow onion layer wise as the event horizon increases. So if an "object" if stops moving with respect to the event horizon surface...exactly how can two black holes deform geometrically to become one? Can the event horizon change shape increasing the area of contact? It initially appears that they might bounce into mutual orbit and eventually cluster cheek to cheek welded on position by gravity without merging for galactic eons. If one or both are rotating I can see how thin layers of mass would "adhere" to and rub off on to the larger black hole at the point of contact. On the other hand what happens to mass now inside the event horizon due to growth of the black hole? Apparently it still exists in some way as reflected by the gravity field. But maybe it is free to shift about inside at speeds above the speed of light - after all they call it a singularity in the mathematics of space-time. Is this an instantaneous macroscopic quantum event? Damn think of the gravity waves as the two separate centers of mass (potentially kilometers apart for stellar sized black holes) displace to be one. Gulp think of the gravity waves for two merging galactic black holes!!! Can you say life sterilizing event for much of the local universe - at least that galactic cluster? Or is the eventual merger an end of the universe type event where the black holes do deform but ever so gradually? 69.23.124.142 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply. See article "Naked Singularities",Scientific American, February, 2009, by Pankaj S. Joshi. Quote: "Charging up a black hole is harder because a charged hole repels particles of the same charge and draws in oppositely charged ones. -- Researchers continue to debate whether the black hole would eventually save itself or would crack open --." -- "Because general relativity breaks down at singularities, it cannot predict what those singularities will do."DonJStevens (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)]]

Reply 2. Overview at Binary black hole. Studying the coalescence of astrophysical black holes is done under the moniker CBC "compact binary collisions" (since analysis when one or both of the partners is, say, a neutron star, is quite similar.) For recent sources see references discussed on p2 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9602024.pdf. At present (2020,) likely long after your posting, LIGO has observed many of these events.

As they observed, black holes do not take forever to get together. Once two black holes, the kind you're familiar with (without charge or extremal spin,) are "close enough," the system will start losing energy like crazy by radiating gravitational waves, and the two objects will spiral toward each other. One reason the infinitely-long scenario you suggest does not happen is that their event horizons are still quite far apart when the two black holes coalesce and become one. Roughly speaking, this starts when their photon spheres touch. This last phase, known as "ring down," irons out any bumps in the structure and is very rapid.

Because astrophysical black holes with large, but not 'extremal,' spin have been observed, such as MAXI J1535-571, CBC calculations for them, as well as even for hypothetical "charged compact binary collisions" (cCBC,) which involve one or more charged objects, have been studied.

But the hypothetical black hole electron discussed in the current article has so much charge and spin relative to its invariant mass that it would have a naked singularity - that is, one unshielded by any event horizon. You would not need to worry about a second object taking forever to get to its event horizon ... there is none.

Matter-wave quantum
The electron mass energy is related to a specific photon wavelength so its mass energy is related to the Planck constant. In the book "The Enigmatic Electron", by Malcolm MacGregor (page 25) the electron is referred to as "the discrete quantum of matter-wave systems". Later (page 67) the author suggests that electron properties may be a guide to bridge the quantum and classical domains. From the electron mass and light velocity, a relationship between the (quantum) Planck constant and the (classical) gravitational constant is specified.

Le = 2(3Gm)exp 1/3, times (2pi)exp 5/3

h/2mc = (3Gm)exp 1/3, times (2pi)exp 5/3

h = 2mc(3Gm)exp 1/3, times (2pi)exp 5/3

This provides a partial bridge between the two domains.

DonJStevens 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stability / Infinite density
When an electron is infinitely small, its electric field will be infinitely large. In his book "The Quantum World", author Kenneth Ford writes, "Physicists will be happy if the things we call particles and that seem to exist at points are eventually shown to occupy some region - albeit an incredibly small region - of space" (page 241).

Theorists are not satisfied with words like infinitely small and infinitely large to describe electron properties. It is known that negative electric charge elements repel one another so that a significant force is required to hold the electron together. No combination of electric and magnetic forces has been proposed that can produce a stable state. Author, Malcolm MacGregor noted that gravitational forces could solve the stability problem if the electron is incredibly small. See book, "The Enigmatic Electron" page 72. The density required for stability is clearly achieved before the electron radius is reduced to zero meters (a point). The electron must occupy a small region of space so that its electric field and density are not required to be infinitely large.

DonJStevens 18:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC) DonJStevens 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not infinitely large as in area. You meant its field strength would be required to be infinitely intense/large. However there is no reason that the volume occupied by elementary particles needs to fall into the range measurable by photonic energy. That would mean finite but unmeasurable size...unless we find a different force/spectrum to measure with. How about gravity? Have we quantized it into Heisenberg terms yet? Oh rats we have indirectly. All mass is composed of oodles of quantum states and thus varying mass...except potentially stable Planck sized black holes which are basically undetectable themselves. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

super-extremal?
A black hole must satisfy |Q| ≤ M for there to be an event horizon, while |Q_e| >> M_e. Without an event horizon, how can an object meaningfully be termed a black hole? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.250.133.53 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

 * Hmm, I made reference to a problem with the page you referenced. Take a look at the talk page. But if I understand you correctly, it's actually the whole point behind this article. McKay 01:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Added reply: The Russian physicist, Alexander Burinskii describes the Kerr-Newman black hole electron as a particle without a horizon. In his paper "The Dirac-Kerr electron" he writes (page 2) "Recall, that angular momentum J=h bar/2 for parameters of electron is so high that black hole horizons disappear and the source of the spinning particle represents a naked singular ring". DonJStevens 18:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Wow, I think that's just a tad bit over my head. I guess I'm not sure how that applies to a comparison of Charge and Mass? McKay 05:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Improved reply: The charge and mass comparison discussion should begin with relationships that all can agree on. The electron charge energy (electric field plus magnetic field) will be equal to the electron mass energy and this energy will be equal to 1/2 of the energy of a photon with wavelength 1.213x10 exp-12 meters (approx). This wavelength photon will have the energy density to convert to a pair of black hole particles when subjected to appropriate gravitational blue shift (time dilation) and an equal amount of gravitational space contraction. If this wavelength photon is absorbed by a black hole, its electromagnetic energy becomes mass. If the black hole is unstable after absorption, it may emit a pair of electron mass particles. Each mass particle will have a size closely related to its Schwarzschild radius value. In order to be extremal and stable, the electron must have the minimum energy required for it to be confined by its own gravitational field. DonJStevens 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Ahh, so we're comparing the energy of the charge and the energy of the mass, if so, then you've basically determined that the electron is the basis for comparison, then saying that the electron is a denerate case of the black hole because q=m doesn't really say much. Where did the comparisons of Q and M come from? McKay 04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Be careful here: There are three parameters to consider here:  mass, charge, and angular momentum (actually angular momentum per unit mass).  The last one is usually represented by a.  For the case of $$m^2 > q^2 + a^2$$, the Kerr-Newman horizins do vanish.  To compare all three, geometrized units are used where c=G=1.  More specifically, $$m = MG/c^2$$, $$q = Q\sqrt{G k_c}/c^2$$ (in cgs units), and $$a = A/c$$, where the capital letters are in "normal" units and the small letters are in geometrized units.  Note that all geometrized units are lengths.  I regret that I don't have the time to do the calculations for an electron right now. --EMS | Talk 06:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The electron mass and the electromagnetic energy released during particle annihilation are "given" values that require explanation. The dimensionless ratio (electron Compton wavelength) divided by 4pi(3Gm/c squared) is required to be a function of the gravitational potential at the radius 3Gm/c squared. When this ratio is explained we will be close to explaining why the electron mass is quantized. DonJStevens 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, I can help with the calculations for an electron. For an electron:
 * m = 6.76345536e-58 meters
 * q = 1.38057828e-36 meters
 * a = ...
 * I can't quite get the units to work out right. you say it should be a = A / c, but A is in units of J * s, or kg * m^2 / s. Dividing by c gives us units in kg * m, which gets us off by a factor of kilograms, the conversion to eliminate the kilograms (G/c2), results in a units of m2 which is also wrong, can I just take the square root? That doesn't quite seem right, I'm not sure. In any case, what I got was 3.04639314e-43 m kg.
 * Where do we go from here? I still don't feel right about applying "$$m^2 > q^2 + a^2$$" because my units aren't right yet. McKay 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Angular momentum has geometric dimension of area. Angular momentum per unit mass will be meters.DonJStevens 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I missed the parenthetical remark "(actually angular momentum per unit mass)" so, the numbers are:
 * m = 6.76345536e-58 meters
 * q = 1.38057828e-36 meters
 * a = 3.34423694e-13 meters
 * For this case, the mass is much smaller than the combined charge and angular momentum (when geometrized with G and c), so there isn't an event horizon (according to this metric). Perhaps this should be incorporated into the article? McKay 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm glad that you figured out the per-unit-mass business. Sorry that I was not around to help earlier with that.  As for incorporating this into the article:  I would first double-check the numbers, but if they are right the next issue may be seeking a reliable source for this.  This looks like something that should be known, but without a source I cannot vouch that it is.  (BTW, the m and q values do look right to me, but I have never computed a before.) --EMS | Talk 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we can't add it until we have a source. I'm merely adding information to (and learning about :) ) a claim that someone made on the talk page. It does appear as if the claim has merit, I would imagine that the person who made the intial edit (User:209.250.133.53) might have a source, Feel free to check my work. I could have made a mistake. I feel confident about my work, it was done on google calculator. I usually use units to check my work, and they came out clean. Feel free to check it, errors could be anywhere.McKay 06:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't doubt your math and have fewer doubts on the conclusion. I have run across the electron being super-extremal before.  My only concern here is the integrity of the encyclopedia, but even then I see this as an important and relevant finding which almost certainly has been noticed before.  Perhaps using the fact template may be sufficient to permit the inclusion of this interesting finding in the article.  At the least, this is not a controverial finding for those of us who are familiar with GR and see the math. --EMS | Talk 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I need a math check so we can all be on the same page. I have angular momentum value (h/4pi)(G/c cubed) or 1.306x10exp -70. This value divided by 6.763x10exp -58 is 1.931x10exp -13. The "a" value would then be close to 1.931x10exp -13 meters unless I missed something. Let me know if I made an error. DonJStevens 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, at first, I thought your units were messed up, but they're not.
 * So I reduced yours to elminate duplicates, and only then did I check that it was off by a factor of two. hbar is h/2pi, not h/4pi. so I think my original number is correct.
 * For my result:Check this out Google calculator McKay 05:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi McKay. Thanks for the math check. In any case the horizons appear to vanish. This is significant. DonJStevens 15:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reader will note that the (m) value found, 6.763x10 exp-58 meters is equal to the radius (L2/2pi) meters (or 1.931x10 exp-13 meters) multiplied by the time dilation ratio (L1/L2) squared and also multiplied by the fraction (1/3). Values obtained will be numerically consistant when the implied G value is used. This will require further evaluation.DonJStevens 18:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the electron, (m) squared is not greater than (a) squared. Centrifugal forces are expected to halt the collapse before a Schwarzschild radius size is reached, so it is misleading to call the electron a black hole without further explanation. Like a black hole it has the energy density needed for gravitational confinement and like a geon, it is a gravitationally confined wave. A better name is needed. DonJStevens (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Source; m squared requirement
In his book "The Road To Reality" page 832, Roger Penrose writes, regarding electrons and the K-N gyromagnetic ratio 2,"It could only apply if an electron could be regarded as being, in some sense a black hole". He then notes that the electron does not meet the requirement that (m)exp 2 must be equal to or greater than (a)exp 2 plus (e)exp 2 in order that the "--Kerr-Newman metric can represent a black hole".

Many theorists agree however, with the statement by Chris Isham; "One of the major predictions of Einstein's theory is the phenomenon of gravitational collapse in which ---, matter that is compressed to more than a critical density will inevitably collapse under its self-gravitational attraction until it becomes a --- gravitational singularity".

The critical density is clearly reached before the electron radius is reduced to a point. DonJStevens 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the problem of cosmic censorship, Roger Penrose has noted that "cosmic censorship" is a mathematical conjecture that is " -- as yet neither proved or refuted -- concerning general solutions of the Einstein equation". See pages 768 and 769 in his book "The Road To Reality". DonJStevens 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Many readers will agree that the electron is, in some sense a black hole particle if it has the (black hole) mass density required for gravitational confinement. Theorist A. Burinskii included a "naked singular ring" in his electron particle description. The absence of horizons was expected by Burinskii however, this is in the realm of quantum gravity, about which little is known. Theory predicts there is a maximum angular momentum that a black hole of a given mass can have. The electron will have the maximum value (h/4pi). When the electron is analyzed as a thin ring its angular momentum defines a ring radius.

h/4pi = mcr

h/4pi mc = r = 1.9307963x10exp -13 meter

This radius value will have a ring circumference equal to 1/2 of the electron Compton wavelength. With a 720 degree rotation to complete a spin cycle, this circumference is consistant with wavelength. With gravitational collapse, angular momentum is conserved. The resulting black hole will have zero temperature as long as its spin is maximal. If its angular momentum is not retained (reduced to zero by merging with a positron antiparticle) it will immediately become hot, explode and lose all of its mass by Hawking radiation. DonJStevens 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Balanced pattern
When lengths labeled (L1) and (L4) are compared to lengths previously labeled (L2) and (L3) an interesting ratio pattern appears.

L1 = 2pi (Planck length)(3/2) exp 1/2

L2 = 1/2 (Le)

L3 = (2pi)squared times (one light second)

L4 = 2pi (3Gm/c squared)

A balanced ratio pattern follows.

L1/L2 = L2/L3 = L4/L1 = 2(L1)/Le = Le/2(L3) = (L4/L2) exp 1/2 = (L4/L3) exp 1/3

When the implied G value is used, these dimensionless ratios are all equal. In the following equation, the G value will cancel so that the equation is correct without regard to a true G value.

L4/L2 = (L1/L2) squared

The above equation can be solved for (L1) to show that (L1) squared is (3pi hG/c cubed). This (L1) value is 2pi (Planck length) times (3/2) exponent 1/2. The gravitational time dilation ratio at the (L4) circumference is required to be equal to (L1/L2) and also equal to (L2/L3). This restricts the electron mass so that all electrons are identical. The equations below are derived from the balanced ratio pattern.

2(L4)/Le = [Le/2(L3)] squared

L4/L3 = (L2/L3) exp 3

(2pi) exp 5,(3Gm) = (L2) exp 3

The above equation defines the wavelength (L2) as a direct function of the gravitational constant and the electron mass.

(2pi) exp 5,(3G)(h/2c) = (L2) exp 4

2pi (3pi hG/c) exp 1/4 = L2

4pi (3pi hG/c) exp 1/4 = Le

There is no known reason why these equations should apply to the electron if the electron is not incredibly small and stabilized by its self-gravitational attraction. The balanced pattern results from relationships that are readily verifiable.---DonJStevens 19:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The relationship, L1/L2 = L2/L3 can be altered so that the gravitational constant will cancel, as shown.

(L1) exp 1/2,divided by (L2) = (L2/L3)(1/L1) exp 1/2

With L2 equal to 2pi(3pi hG/c) exp 1/4 and (L1) exp 1/2 equal to (3pi hG/c cubed) exp 1/4, the G values cancel so that the ratio equation shown is correct without using a precise value for the constant G. However, the value 2(L2) or 4pi (3pi hG/c) exp 1/4 will be equal to the electron Compton wavelength only if the G value is (very close to) 6.6717456x10 exp-11. ---DonJStevens (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This "Balanced pattern" shows that general relativity and quantum mechanics can merge without conflict.DonJStevens (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Quantum - gravitational effect
At the extreme high energy photon wavelength (L1), a critical energy density is reached. This wavelength photon has energy equal to the mass energy of two black holes. Each of these black holes has a photon capture circumference [2pi (3Gm/c squared)] equal to the photon wavelength.

E = hc/L1 = 2E black hole = L1 (c exp 4)(1/3pi G)

hc/L1 = L1 (c exp 4)(1/3pi G)

L1 = (3pi hG/c cubed) exp 1/2

The (L1) wavelength photon is an effective model for all photons because photon energy is inversely proportional to wavelength. The (L1) wavelength provides a useful conversion factor to relate the Planck constant to the gravitational constant.

(L1) squared, (c cubed/3pi) = hG

(L1) squared, (c cubed/3pi h) = G

(L1) squared, (c cubed/3pi G) = h

When (L1) and G are known, h can be derived. The Planck length to electron Compton wavelength relationship (shown earlier) is known to be either precisely correct, as implied or extremely close to correct, as is clearly demonstrated.

(L2) squared = (L3)(L1)

Full confirmation of this relationship would allow the electron to be correctly defined as a "quantum - gravitational" mass particle as shown below. This is significant because it would raise our understanding of particles to a new level.

m = (h/4pi c)(c/3pi hG) exp 1/4

The derived electron mass formula, like the black hole entropy formula, contains the Planck constant as well as the gravitational constant, indicating that the electron mass value is the result of a quantum - gravitational effect. See page 715,in "The Road To Reality" by Penrose.

DonJStevens 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Constants; one too many
In 1963, P.A.M. Dirac wrote an article titled "The Evolution Of The Physicist's Picture Of Nature". He predicted, the physics of the future, "--- cannot have the three quantities h bar, e and c all as fundamental quantities". Dirac wrote, "I think one is on safe ground if one makes the guess that --- e and c will be fundamental and h bar will be derived".

As noted under Matter-wave quantum, the Planck constant can be derived from the electron mass, light velocity and the gravitational constant.

h = 2mc(3Gm)exp 1/3, times(2pi)exp 5/3

h/2pi = 2mc[12(pi squared)Gm]exp 1/3  DonJStevens 15:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Dirac said another problem to be solved is, "--- how to introduce the fundamental length (Planck length) to physics in some natural way ---". The natural way described here shows that the electron Compton wavelength is a function of the Planck length.

DonJStevens 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)]]

Recent edits
Don -

A lot of stuff that is somewhere between speculative and wring have ended up in the this article recently. First of all singulatities usually exist behind an event horizon, and so are useless in describing the chataceristics of an electron. This also applies to the ring singularity of the Kerr metric.

I also have my doubts that gravitaition can solve the "stability problem" for the electron as gravitation is repulsive when one gets close enough that a charged enough particle. (GR loves to pull stunts like that.) Even so, that statement is quite permissible if you can provide an explicit reference in which Greene and MacGregor make this claim.

Overall, I am wondering if this article may not be better off by being rolled back a month or two. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also wonder what you thing you are doing with the numerology given above. I once did check out a speculation like your Plank's constant one once and found it to diverge in the 4th decimal place. Without a sound theoretical basis for that supposed connection, nothing like that is going to work, and I see no such basis here. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Answer; The relationships I have described are consistant and easy to verify. I believe they can help to develop a better understanding of electrons, though you have said they are just numerology. I will respect your opinion and still disagree, knowing that whatever is correct will eventually prevail. A quote from Brian Greene, from his book The Elegant Universe (page 333) follows; "For many years, some of the most accomplished theoretical physicists speculated about the possibility of space-tearing processes and of a connection between black holes and elementary particles. Although such speculations might have sounded like science fiction at first, the discovery of string theory, with its ability to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics, has allowed us now to plant these possibilities firmly at the forefront of cutting-edge science". Much more info. is presented pages 320 through 344.

 * If you have acces to "The Enigmatic Electron" book by Malcolm MacGregor you can see his comment on page 72 regarding electrons: no combination of electric and magnetic forces has been proposed that can produce a stable state. Gravitational forces could solve the stability problem if the electron is extremely small and dense. This is from notes that I took when reading. I don't have this book in my library.
 * DonJStevens 19:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Thank you much. Please plave those references into the article. --EMS | Talk 19:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

 * References have been added. I share your concern regarding the event horizon. The electron properties indicate (a) squared should equal (m) squared if it is an "extreme Kerr" black hole. This suggests that the charge (e) is just a reflected property of a collapsed (stationary) electromagnetic wave. The wave is stationary due to inertial frame dragging. If an electric charge can produce an electromagnetic wave, can an electromagnetic wave produce a charge? Clearly, the answer is yes but the wave must produce a pair of opposing charges and an energy threshold must be met before this can happen.    --DonJStevens 15:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that for the Reissner-Nordstrom metric (solution of Einstein-Maxwell equations) the condition for the black hole to be extremal with zero temperature, is m = e rather than m squared = a squared plus e squared.---DonJStevens 17:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been following the micro black hole speculation for perhaps 15 years without before discovering the black hole electron, so my guess is; it is not mainstream opinion. I suspect quantum physics is well supported by math, but seriously lacking in experimental and observational support. Much of quantum physics could diasappear in the coming century, unlike the physics of Sir Isaac Newton which may endure forever. Neil
 * Neil;The black hole electron concept relates to string theory and quantum gravity evaluations. This concept can become mainstream opinion only when further evaluations are completed to more precisely explain how general relativity and quantum mechanics merge. Note that electron properties imply that gravitational time dilation (and space contraction) become quantized when the relative time rate approaches zero seconds per second. The twin gravitational effects of time dilation and space contraction are then required to be quantized.--DonJStevens 16:40, 3 August--DonJStevens 14:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC) 2007 (UTC)

Matter-antimatter wormhole?
Wouldn't the electron-postitron pair imply a micro-wormhole between them if this idea is correct? --Ceriel Nosforit 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I made pictures to show what I mean. The first one shows the electron black hole on top with a wormhole down to the positron black hole. They are connected on the same... membrane? - The second pic shows what happens when you take all the unnecessary dimension out and shrink the matter-antimatter pair to its smallest possible size. Side-view to the left and front-view to the right.
 * http://i8.tinypic.com/6ew2vsj.gif
 * http://i3.tinypic.com/54kdvyu.gif
 * I, for one, think it's elegant. :)
 * --Ceriel Nosforit 11:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It might imply that, and it might be elegant, but wikipedia is concerned with WP:A and WP:OR, so until the concept can be attributable, we don't include it here. McKay 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ceriel;Many theorists would like to know the answer to your question. You may find words by Wheeler in his book "Geons, Black Holes and Quantum Foam"(page 239) are interesting, where he notes that with "curved" space, lines of electric field can "disappear" and still not be lost to the universe.DonJStevens 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cerial; You must see page 1200 in book "Gravitation" (Misner, Thorne, Wheeler), "Electric charge as lines of force trapped in topology of space". "Lines of force nowhere end. Maxwell's equations nowhere fail." You will appreciate the illustration. DonJStevens 15:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that is one horribly expensive book... :( I'll keep checking back to the Amazon page to see if I can get a used copy cheaper. But thank you very much for the tip. BTW, I figure all fermions would work according to the same principle as the electron, and that bosons don't have holes in them but would rather be vibrations traveling through the same medium. Also, it seems the rather unintuitive properties of gyroscopes will lend me a bit more insight into how this stuff works. ...The musings continue. :)
 * Ceriel; added reply. For more insight into how this stuff works, look at my User page. More information and references are provided there that may not be appropriate for this article.--DonJStevens 13:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Naked singularity
Stephen Hawking recently conceded that the laws of nature do permit a naked singularity to be formed during a gravitational implosion (collapse). This was the subject of a wager between Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne. Hawking conceded when a naked singularity was produced in an implosion simulated on a computer.--DonJStevens 11:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC) This brings theorists one step closer to accepting the Burinskii concept that the electron spinning particle is a naked singular ring.--DonJStevens 01:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC) A naked singular ring electron (without an event horizon) is not a black hole but is a quantum gravitationally confined entity that has some properties in common with a black hole.--DonJStevens (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Decay and conservation of charge
Forgive the "undergraduate question", but the argument that an electron black hole should immediately decay into a shower of photons ignores the question of conservation of charge. Could it be that the electron charge somehow "stabilizes" the particle?

So when a positron and an electron collide, the charge is neutralized. Now the resulting "larger mass black hole" CAN decay.

Into two photons instead of a shower of them? That bit about the mass equation? I'm willing to chalk these minor issues up to some future fusion of relativity and quantum theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.119.172 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: In the toroidal topology electron model, the electron charge is the result of spin. When an electron and positron come together their opposite angular momentum values are added so that they cancel. Without angular momentum, there is no charge and no photon confinement. In this model spin stabilizes the particle.--DonJStevens (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mass as an energy of gravitationally confined photons
Thinking about mass and particles it occurred to me that mass could be completely eliminated from physics if particles could be treated as electromagnetic waves gravitationally confined in spacetime wrapped by the presence of EM energy.

Now after reading this article and discussion page it looks like model of electron discussed here is a realization of a similar (if not the same) idea but I am still not 100% sure.

Can you please tell me if this is the case? Are the results presented here compatible with a model in which electron is a photon propagating along a toroidal singularity?

It seems like a really nice idea, tying many loose ends. I certainly hope it will be researched more.Enemyunknown (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply: The results presented are compatible with "a model in which electron is a photon propogating along a toroidal singularity", and also compatible with light velocity inertial frame dragging of the toroidal singularity. --DonJStevens (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Added Reply: Later evaluations suggest that an electromagnetic geon, consisting of a single photon in a one wavelength loop is not stable. The electromagnetic geon appears to morph into a pair of gravitational wave geons. This pair of geons (particles) each has light velocity reference frame spin. Each particle has 1/2 of the electromagnetic geon energy and 1/2 of the electromagnetic geon angular momentum. --User:DonJStevens

Electron as quantum gravitational resonator
In the gravitationally collapsed electron model, the electron radius is equal to the (electron Compton wavelength /4pi) times (Gtf). The (Gtf) value is the gravitational time dilation factor that applies at the photon sphere radius (3Gm/c^2).

r1 = (Le/4pi) (Gtf) = (3/2)^1/2 (Planck length)

r2 = (Le/4pi) (Gtf)^2 = 3Gm/c^2

The r2 value is the result of gravitational blue shift and an equal amount of gravitational space contraction.

In this model, the resonance frequency of electron resonator is:

frequency = mc^2/h = E/h = c/Le

DonJStevens (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)DonJStevens (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As i understood, you used the following radiuses:
 * $$r_1 \approx \lambda_0(\frac{m_0}{m_P})^1 \ $$
 * $$r_2 \approx \lambda_0(\frac{m_0}{m_P})^2, \ $$

where $$m_0 - \ $$ rest mass of electron, $$\lambda_0 = \frac{h}{cm_0} - \ $$ electron Compton wavelength, $$m_P = \sqrt{\frac{c\hbar}{G}}- \ $$ Planck mass. What connections between electron resonator (electromagnetic or gravitational) model and these scales? 195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the relationships between electron and Planck mass. So, I don't know the "derivation" of gravitational constant. I am suspicious to "numerology", "piramidology", etc. However, as a zero approach, some numerological steps could be done. But without strict physical approach any numerological attempts are useless. Sorry, but latest approach to electrogravity (by JERRY E. BAYLES) also is based on numerology and piramidology (nothing to say about trivial errors). 195.47.212.108 (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply: The electron mass is equal to (Planck mass)(1/2)(2/3)^1/2 times the time dilation factor [(3/2)^1/2 (Planck time)(1/2pi seconds)]^1/2. The (Gtf) value is the time factor applicable at the electron photon orbit radius (3Gm/c^2).

(Gtf) = [(3/2)^1/2 (Planck time)(1/2pi seconds)]^1/2

(Gtf)^2 = (3/2)^1/2 (Planck time) (1/2pi seconds)

The electron mass value (h/4pi c)(c/3pi hG)^1/4 is precisely correct when G is equal to (Le/4pi)^3 (1/2pi)^2 (1/3m), where (Le) is the electron Compton wavelength and (m) is the electron mass. DonJStevens (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Standard definition of the dielectric constant is:
 * $$\epsilon_E = \frac{e^2}{2hc\alpha_E} = \frac{1}{2c\alpha_E}\cdot \frac{1}{R_{HE}} \ $$

where $$R_{HE} = \frac{h}{e^2} \ $$ is the electromagnetic von Klitzing constant. Standard definition of the gravitational dielectric-like constant is:
 * $$\epsilon_G = \frac{m_{\alpha}^2}{2hc\alpha_G} = \frac{1}{2c\alpha_G}\cdot \frac{1}{R_{HG}} \ $$

where $$R_{HG} = \frac{h}{m_{\alpha}^2} \ $$ is the gravitational von Klitzing constant. Considering that $$\epsilon_G \ $$ is connectet with $$G \ $$ by:
 * $$G = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_G} = \frac{c\alpha_G}{2\pi}\cdot R_{HG} \ $$

This is the only correct definition of $$G \ $$ ($$\alpha_G = \alpha_E \ $$), based on the Maxwell-like gravitational equations.

Sorry, I don't understand yours formulae... Please, use the standard Wiki formulae lenguage, to be clear... I try to consider some yours formulae, but it looks like pure numerology, since its dimensions are incorrect. For example, known JERRY E. BAYLES used the base velosity in the form:
 * $$v_{LM} = \sqrt{\alpha} \cdot 1m/s. \ $$

This is the pure numerology.
 * As you could see, all changes are gone... So, we have no ground to discuss. But I would be pleased, when you present the formulae in the clear form... 195.47.212.108 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Deleted text:

Electron as quantum gravitational resonator
Compton wavelength of electron is:
 * $$\lambda_0 = \frac{h}{m_0c}. \ $$

Electron radius in the quantum resonator approach is:
 * $$r_e = \frac{\lambda_0}{2\pi \sqrt{2}} = \lambda_0\cdot \frac{\rho_{G0}}{\rho_{Gc}}, \ $$

where
 * $$\rho_{G0} = \sqrt{\frac{\mu_G}{\epsilon_G}} = \frac{4\pi G}{c} = 2\alpha\cdot \frac{h}{m_{\alpha}^2} $$

is the gravitational vacuum characteristic impedance; $$\mu_G = \frac{4\pi G}{c^2}\ $$ is the gravitational vacuum permeability, $$\epsilon_G = \frac{1}{4\pi G} \ $$ is gravitational permittivity of vacuum and
 * $$\rho_{Gc} = \frac{v_cr_c}{m_{\alpha}} = \sqrt{2}\frac{G}{c} = \frac{\alpha}{\pi \sqrt{2}}\cdot \frac{h}{m_{\alpha}^2} \ $$

is the Planck mass black hole impedance, $$v_c = c/\sqrt{2} \ $$, $$m_P = \sqrt{\frac{G}{\hbar c}} \ $$, $$m_{\alpha} = \sqrt{\alpha}m_P \ $$. So, to the "black hole" mode closer the Planck mass (presenting in the real word "electric charge"), but not the inertial mass of electron ($$m_0 \ $$). The last is the fundamental constant of Nature and is independent of Planck mass. Electron resonator surface:
 * $$S_e = 4\pi r_e^2 = \frac{\lambda_0^2}{2\pi}. \ $$

Gravitational quantum capacitance of electron resonator:
 * $$C_{Ge} = \frac{\epsilon_G}{\lambda_0}\cdot S_e. \ $$

Gravitational quantum inductance of electron resonator:
 * $$L_{Ge} = \frac{\mu_G}{\lambda_0}\cdot S_e. \ $$

Gravitational characteristic impedance of electron resonator:
 * $$\rho_{Ge} = \sqrt{\frac{L_{Ge}}{C_{Ge}}} = \sqrt{\frac{\mu_G}{\epsilon_G}} = 2\alpha \frac{h}{m_{\alpha}^2}. \ $$

Resonance frequency of electron resonator:
 * $$\omega_{Ge} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{L_{Ge}C_{Ge}}} = \frac{\lambda_0c}{S_e} = \frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}. \ $$

Rotation velocity of the spherical electron resonator is:
 * $$v_{Ge} = \omega_{Ge}\cdot r_e = \frac{c}{\sqrt{2}}. \ $$

So, the electron resonator approach yields the same scale of rotation velocity as the black hole does(?). However, electron Schwarzschild radius is:
 * $$r_{Se} = \frac{2Gm_0}{c^2}. \ $$

The relationships between resonator and Schwarzschild radiuses will be:
 * $$\frac{r_e}{r_{Se}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}(\frac{m_P}{m_0})^2. \ $$

Considering that, the resonator electron radius is much greater then the Schwarzschild radius, therefore electron couldn't be presented as "gravitational black hole". Furthermore, considering the Planck length scale:
 * $$\lambda_P = \frac{h}{cm_P} = \frac{h}{c}\sqrt{\frac{G}{c\hbar}}, \ $$

we could derive the following relationships of the electron Schwarzschild radius and the Planck length:
 * $$\frac{\lambda_P}{r_{Se}} = \pi(\frac{m_P}{m_0})^1. $$

This is another factor that electron isn't the "gravitational black hole". Note that, the main electron length parameters are interconnected by the following relationship:
 * $$\lambda_P^2 = \pi \lambda_0r_{Se}. \ $$

Another words, the Planck length scale is intermediate between Compton wavelength of electron and its Schwarzschild radius. Considering that the Planck mass Schwarzschild radius is:
 * $$r_{SP} = \frac{2Gm_P}{c^2} = \frac{\lambda_P}{\pi}, \ $$

therefore the above relatinship could be rewritten as:
 * $$\lambda_P\cdot r_{SP} = \lambda_0\cdot r_{Se} = \frac{2hG}{c^3}, \ $$

which is fundamental, and could be used for another elementary particles.

Standard classical "black hole approach"
Let us consider classical cilcular rotation. The centrifugal and gravitation force relationship is:
 * $$F_{cen} = \frac{mv_c^2}{r} = F_N = G\frac{mM}{r^2}, \ $$

where $$F_N \ $$ is the gravitational force. From this condition the cilcular velocity can be derived as:
 * $$v_c = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}. $$

Note that parabolic velocity is:
 * $$v_p = \sqrt{2} v_c = \sqrt{2\frac{GM}{r}}.$$

When the parabolic velocity takes the value of light velocity:
 * $$v_p = c, \ $$

then the s.c. Schwarzschild radius can be derived:
 * $$r_S = \frac{2GM}{c^2}. \ $$

Note that, only the probe mass $$m \ $$ is rotating, but object mass $$M \ $$ could be steel. Furthermore, we controlled the cilcular and parabolic velocities, but the interaction force could be any (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.). So, when we say that quantum resonator forces restrict electron size about $$r_e \ $$ radius, with above relationships between circular and parabolic velocities, then this electron is like black hole.

Electrical radius
Let us consider rotation of the charged probe mass $$m_0 \ $$ in the electric field:
 * $$F_{cen} = \frac{m_0v_{cE}^2}{r} = F_C = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_E}\frac{e^2}{r^2}, \ $$

where $$F_C \ $$ is the Coulomb force, and $$\epsilon_E \ $$ is the dielectric constant. From this condition the cilcular velocity can be derived as:
 * $$v_{cE} = c\sqrt{\frac{r_0}{r}}, $$

where $$r_0 = \frac{\alpha \lambda_0}{2\pi} \ $$ is the classical electron radius. When the parabolic velocity takes the velocity of light value
 * $$v_{pE} = \sqrt{2}v_{cE} = c\sqrt{2\frac{r_0}{r}} = c, \ $$

then the s.c. Schwarzschild radius could be derived:
 * $$r_{SE} = 2r_0. \ $$

Gravitational radius
By analogically to electric force, the gravitational classical radius of electron could be derived from relationship:
 * $$m_0c^2 = \frac{1}{4\pi \epsilon_G}\frac{m_0^2}{r^2}, \ $$

where $$\epsilon_G \ $$ is the gravitational electric-like dielectric constant. So, the gravitational classical electron radius is:
 * $$r_{0G} = \frac{\alpha_G\lambda_0}{2\pi}\cdot (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^2 = r_{0E}\cdot (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^2 \ $$

where $$\alpha_E \ $$ is electrical fine structure constant, and $$\alpha_G \ $$ is the gravitational fine structure constant. Furthermore, this constants are equal to each other:
 * $$\alpha_E = \alpha_G. \ $$

Note that, the Schwarzschild radius is two-times greater then the classical gravitational radius:
 * $$r_{Se} = \frac{2Gm_0}{c^2} = 2r_{0E}\cdot (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^2 = 2r_{0G}. \ $$

Transition to the classical electric radius
The work needed to transite electron from $$r_e \ $$ radius to $$r_{0E} \ $$ radius is:
 * $$A_E = \int_{r_{0E}}^{r_e} F_C(r)\, dr = \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_E}\cdot \frac{r_{0E} - r_e}{r_{0E}r_e} = -m_0c^2(\frac{1}{\alpha \sqrt{2}} - 1). \ $$

Therefore, to make lesser radius of electron by the Coulomb force require about 137-times more energy then the rest energy of electron. It is evidently, that such process couldn't happen spontaneously, like some collaps for example.

Transition to the classical gravitational radius
The work needed to transite electron from $$r_e \ $$ radius to $$r_{0E} \ $$ radius is:
 * $$A_G = \int_{r_{0G}}^{r_e} F_N(r)\, dr = \frac{m_0^2}{4\pi \epsilon_G}\cdot \frac{r_{0G} - r_e}{r_{0G}r_e} = -m_0c^2. \ $$

So, we need only the rest enegy of electron additionally to transite mass $$m_0 \ $$ to the classical gravitational radius. This is a small energy and could be easily realized by experimentally, but...   There are no particles without electric charge (compencated or not). So, we need to transport elementary electric charge with elementary mass. Transport electric work will be in that case:
 * $$A_{EG} = \int_{r_{0G}}^{r_e} F_C(r)\, dr = \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_E}\cdot \frac{r_{0G} - r_e}{r_{0G}r_e} = -m_0c^2(\frac{m_{\alpha}}{m_0})^2 . \ $$

Therefore, we have the great problem with electric charge transport, but not with inertial mass. Yes, the gravitation radius of electron could be achived experimentally by applying the great amount of external energy, but there are no any spontaneous process, like collapse which shortened electron radius without external energy.

Special relativity
It is known, that acselerated electron has the mass dependence on velocity:
 * $$m(v) = \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}. \ $$

So, we could use the following energy relationship:
 * $$-A_{EG} = m_0c^2(\frac{m_{\alpha}}{m_0})^2 = m(v)c^2, \ $$

from which the maximal electron velocity can be derived:
 * $$v_{max} = c \sqrt{1 - (\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^4} \approx c[1 - \frac{1}{2}(\frac{m_0}{m_{\alpha}})^4]. \ $$

Probably, that this velocity is maximal to any inertial mass in the our Universe. 195.47.212.108 (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted text
As I think, the text was deletet for the following reason: because there are no any gravitational black holes. Actually, to collapse electron to the gravitational radius need great energy:
 * $$\Delta W = W_0 (\frac{m_{\alpha}}{m_0})^2 \approx 2\cdot 10^{42} MeV \ $$

This value is equivalent to the following mass:
 * $$M_x = \frac{e\Delta W }{c^2} \approx 4\cdot 10^{12} kg. \ $$

Furthermore, if we transvers the whole Moon mass to collapse electrons, its number will be about $$10^{10}$$. This is the tupical concentradion of electrons in the dielectric materials per $$cm^{-3}$$. 195.47.212.108 (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 * It was deleted because it's original research. Please read WP:OR. -- BenRG (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not oririnal investigation. Actually, in the Ross paper (Ross McPherson. Stoney Scale and Large Number Coincidences. Apeiron, Vol. 14, No. 3, July 2007) we could see the TWO different orbital velocities, due to gravity (gravitational speed), and due to elecricity (electromagnetic speed). Equating these velocities to the maximal parabolic velocity yields the s.c. Schwarzschild radius.195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, we have moved too far into original research. We expect the research discussion will continue (not in Wikipedia) because we need to explain how the electron mass is quantized and stable.DonJStevens (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Added reply:Research discussion continues. See, http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discussionpost/Electron_as_a_ring_singularity_56595

DonJStevens (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Superluminal velocity?
In the section "Problems": "Quantum mechanics permits superluminal speeds for an object with as small a mass as the electron over distance scales larger than the Schwarzschild radius of the electron".

I don't believe quantum mechanics allows superluminal speeds, unless by that is meant some wave notion such as wave velocity or group velocity (signal velocity is always lower than that of light). Who wrote that sentence should explain it better, say why it should consitute a problem, and provide references. Otherwise the section should be removed --131.130.45.41 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Reply: Alexander Burinskii has theorized that electron angular momentum (J = h bar/2) is so high that black hole horizons disappear. With this concept, the electron spinning ring is a naked singularity that is larger than its Schwarzschild radius. With the larger radius, superluminal speed is not required. The light orbit radius value, 3Gm/c^2 provides good numerical agreement with a number of known electron properties. DonJStevens (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

New changes
I'm trying to fix up this article a bit, to make it better express standard views on physics, and to provide references for all the claims made. I'm a mathematical physicist and an expert on general relativity and quantum field theory, so I think I can do this. John Baez (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

better explanation possible?
The text says:

...In the Reissner–Nordström metric, which describes electrically charged but non-rotating black holes, there is a quantity r_q, defined by ... Since this (vastly) exceeds the Schwarzschild radius, the Reissner–Nordström metric has a naked singularity.

It would be great if r_q could be motivated a bit, what is it?--Haraldkir (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Black hole muon?
Im curious if these calculations generalize to the other charged leptons such as the muon? 87.63.114.242 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Black hole electron


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert W. Mitchell

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo  talk  00:46, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Robert W. Mitchell
Even less notable than Bryan R. Holloway (he lost the election against him). Not noteworthy.  Barfooz  (talk)  03:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No elected office. A и D я 01D  TALK  EMAIL  04:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Could be mentioned in the Bryan R. Holloway article, but isn't notable otherwise.  -- Un  focused  04:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; losing candidates for national legislatures are encyclopedic, as are winning state reps, but the union of the two sets is the line for me. Meelar (talk) 05:47, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Having worked on the United Kingdom General Election results recently, I disagree. There are an awful lot of losing candidates for national legislatures, I suspect more than you think.  See some of the candidates listed in Newbury (UK Parliament constituency), for example.  Would you really have an encyclopaedia article on someone whose sole claim to fame would be that 49 people (out of 57,399) voted for them in 1993?  If the only thing (apart from raw genealogy data) that can be said of someone is that they ran for national-level political office and lost, that doesn't warrant an encyclopaedia biography article — unless, of course, they lost repeatedly in a deliberate and spectacular fashion, and gained notoriety for exactly that.  This person ran for state-level office and lost, of course.  Delete. Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * Should have qualified that, my mistake--major party candidates are notable. Obviously, some college student running under the Pimpz 'n Thugz Party is not. Meelar (talk) 19:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, vanity. And overuse of boldness. --Etacar11 21:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that simply losing an election does not establish notability. Indeed, I've argued as much here and here. Alas, I was shot down both times. But this time poor Mr. Mitchell seems to be destined for deletion! The only difference I can see is that he ran for office in the U.S. and the other guys ran for office in Canada and the U.K. Could it be that unsuccessful U.S. politicians are less notable than unsuccessful politicians in other countries? Isaac R 02:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's way too many failed politicians in America lol. It's too big.
 * Delete - Definately non-notable. I've added his name to Bryan R. Holloway in case anyone wanted to know. Celestianpower 19:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. Joolz 01:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Beth Littleford

Elizabeth Littleford (born July 17, 1968) is an American actress, comedian and television personality. She is best known as one of the original correspondents on The Daily Show on Comedy Central from 1996 to 2000. Littleford has also appeared in the shows I'm in the Band and Dog with a Blog.

Early life
Littleford was born in Nashville, Tennessee, the daughter of Jackie, a professor, and Philip O. Littleford, a cardiologist and inventor. She grew up in Winter Park, Florida. Her father and brother died when she was sixteen in a pontoon plane accident during an Alaskan fishing trip. A National Merit Scholarship Program finalist in high school, she attended Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania for three years before taking up acting classes at New York University; she eventually graduated from The New School for Social Research.

Career
Early in her acting career, Littleford worked in improvisational theatre with the Chicago City Limits group, founded a sketch comedy troupe, and wrote her own one-woman show, This Is Where I Get Off, which she performed with the Circle Repertory Company. Littleford is perhaps most famous for her pioneering role as one of the original female correspondents on The Daily Show. Littleford's segments on the show were satirical celebrity interviews in the style of Barbara Walters, and used soft focus cinematography for comic effect, in that almost nothing in the interviews were visually discernable to the viewer. Her time on the Daily Show brought her to the attention of actor/producer Michael J. Fox. Fox was the lead and executive producer of the Sitcom Spin City. Two years after she began on The Daily Show, she secured a recurring part of Deirdre West on Fox's show, Spin City. She has guest-starred on numerous television programs beginning in the late 1990s: The West Wing, Family Guy, and Frasier. Littleford was also a celebrity commentator on VH1's I Love the 80s Strikes Back in 2003, I Love the 90s in 2004, I Love the 90s: Part Deux in 2005, I Love the New Millennium, and The Great Debate in 2009.

She was the female lead on the short-lived Fox series Method and Red, and also starred as Ben Tennyson's mother Sandra in Ben 10: Race Against Time, and reprised the role in the Ben 10: Alien Force episode 20 and again in Ben 10: Ultimate Alien. She has appeared in TV commercials for Laughing Cow cheese, Cascade, and a hotel chain.

Littleford starred in the Disney XD original show I'm in the Band, the 2010 Disney Channel film Starstruck, and played Suzanne Berger on MTV's The Hard Times of RJ Berger, Dana on ABC's Desperate Housewives, and the realtor on The Fosters. More recently, she had a starring role as Ellen Jennings in the Disney Channel original series Dog with a Blog and a guest appearance on Dead to Me on Netflix.

In 2015, Littleford received a Peabody Award for her groundbreaking work on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart from 1996 to 2000 as the show's "Original Female Correspondent."

In 2021, Littleford was in the film Senior Moment starring William Shatner, Jean Smart and Christopher Lloyd.

Personal life
Littleford lives in Los Angeles. She was married to Rob Fox, a director and producer who worked alongside her on The Daily Show, from 1998 to 2015; they had a son (b. 2005) and an adopted daughter (b. 2012). Fox died in 2017.

title: Beth Littleford


text:
Dimitar Yakimov

Dimitar Nikolov Yakimov (Димитър Николов Якимов; born 12 August 1941) is a Bulgarian former professional footballer who played as an attacking midfielder or forward. He represented Septemvri Sofia and CSKA Sofia at club level, and the Bulgaria national team internationally.

International career
Yakimov was part of the Bulgaria under-18 team that won the 1959 UEFA European Under-18 Championship. On 11 October 1959, he first played for the Bulgarian senior squad, in a match versus France. Yakimov played for Bulgaria at the 1960 Summer Olympics.

Honours
Septemvri Sofia
 * Bulgarian Cup: 1959–60

CSKA Sofia
 * Bulgarian League (7): 1960–61, 1961–62, 1965–66, 1968–69, 1970–71, 1971–72, 1972–73
 * Bulgarian Cup: 1960–61, 1964–65, 1968–69, 1971–72

Individual
 * Bulgarian League top scorer: 1970–71
 * World XI: 1966, 1967

title: Dimitar Yakimov


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-06-06/Password security

An old list of accounts with matching passwords was deleted last week after its existence prompted an extended discussion on Slashdot. In the aftermath of this debate, the developers took advantage of server maintenance downtime to upgrade password security.

The page in question, User:Tim Starling/Password matches, was mentioned on Slashdot on 29 May in an anonymous comment in a separate discussion about the security weaknesses of places that use email addresses as user IDs. The gist of this posting was resubmitted and appeared two days later as a separate news item on the site, resulting in a sometimes heated debate about the appropriateness of this practice.

Why it existed in the first place
Developer Tim Starling had actually created this page back in July 2004, in an effort to identify people who were using multiple accounts in a disruptive fashion. Passwords on Wikimedia sites are stored using a hash function, so Starling determined which passwords were identical by running a query to find accounts with matching password hashes.

The page did not publish any of the actual passwords, only the accounts that matched. Starling has indicated that he only listed accounts having the same password as "the few most active trolls on Wikipedia at the time." The largest group identified was those matching the password being used by Lir, who at the time was involved in an arbitration case dealing with his misuse of sockpuppet accounts.

Even at the time, the use of this tactic in uncovering sockpuppets proved controversial, and the page was nominated for deletion. It had survived this process, although once the Slashdot story was published Erik Möller replaced it with a brief message of explanation. The list itself continued to be accessible thru the history function until developer Brion Vibber learned of its continued existence and promptly deleted the page, replacing it with a copy of Möller's message.

The primary concern was that some of the accounts might belong to different people, and if so this meant that publishing the list had automatically disclosed their password to anyone else with accounts in the same group. Möller reported that at least one of the accounts listed was a legitimate user, Perrak, who is actually an administrator on the German Wikipedia. It was also pointed out that the page might reveal accounts that had weak passwords and could be vulnerable to guessing. In fact, the password for one group of accounts in the list was discovered to be "troll", so these had to be changed.

Adding salt to store passwords
Many of the arguments initially raised in the deletion debate reappeared in the discussion on Slashdot. The easiest way to address the privacy concern mentioned was to use a salt, which is a random string of values added to the password hash, so that otherwise identical passwords do not match each other. Starling has also said he would not use this tactic again, which if repeated would violate the recently adopted privacy policy.

According to Vibber, MediaWiki has had support for salted passwords for a long time, but this had not been applied to Wikipedia because this would render existing (unsalted) passwords inoperative. The code for adding salt to the password hashes was actually one of Starling's first contributions to the software. To correct the situation, during some downtime for server maintenance on Wednesday Vibber ran a database query that upgraded existing password hashes to add the salt.

Afterward, a few users did report that their passwords were no longer working, possibly due to a glitch in the upgrade. After investigating, Vibber said he believed the problem was traceable to having used the "email me a new password" feature without then changing the password. Apparently, the new passwords in those cases were not updated, so the operation was performed again for accounts that might be affected.

Also this week: Downtime — Passwords — Content arbitration — Brockhaus — Features — Top 100 list — T.R.O.L.L. — Press coverage


text:
Talk:Edgar Caysey

Does anybody know anything about Edgar Casey? --Yum yum puppies 03:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I rolled back the page to the last version by Yummy Puppies- anon addition was a copyvio from here. freestylefrappe 21:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Edgar Caysey


text:
Bitter Sweet Symphony

"Bitter Sweet Symphony" is a song by the English rock band the Verve, released on 16 June 1997 by Hut Recordings and Virgin Records as the lead single from their third album, Urban Hymns (1997).

"Bitter Sweet Symphony" was produced by Youth at Olympic Studios, London. The Verve developed it from a sample from a 1965 version of the Rolling Stones song "The Last Time" by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra, adding vocals, strings, guitar and percussion. They obtained rights to use the sample from the copyright holder, Decca Records, but were denied permission from the Rolling Stones' former manager, Allen Klein. Following a lawsuit, the Verve relinquished all royalties and the Rolling Stones members Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were added to the songwriting credits. In 2019, ten years after Klein's death, Jagger, Richards, and Klein's son ceded the rights to the Verve songwriter, Richard Ashcroft.

The music video features Ashcroft walking down a busy pavement in Hoxton, London, bumping into passersby. It was played frequently on music channels and was nominated for Video of the Year, Best Group Video and Best Alternative Video at the 1998 MTV Video Music Awards. It has been parodied in television advertisements and other music videos.

"Bitter Sweet Symphony" reached number two on the UK Singles Chart, and stayed on the chart for three months. It was released in the US in March 1998 by Virgin Records America, reaching number 12 on the Billboard Hot 100. It was named Rolling Stone and NME Single of the Year and was nominated for Best British Single at the 1998 Brit Awards. In 1999, it was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Rock Song. "Bitter Sweet Symphony" is considered one of the defining songs of the Britpop era and has been named one of the greatest songs of the decade by several publications. Rolling Stone included "Bitter Sweet Symphony" in two editions of its "500 Greatest Songs of All Time".

Writing and recording
"Bitter Sweet Symphony" is based on a sample of a 1965 orchestral version of the Rolling Stones song "The Last Time" by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra. The group was formed by Andrew Loog Oldham, the former producer and manager of the Rolling Stones, who enlisted musicians to create symphonic versions of Rolling Stones songs. The strings in the sample were written and arranged by David Whitaker.

The Verve songwriter, Richard Ashcroft, heard the Andrew Oldham Orchestra version of "The Last Time" and thought it could be "turned into something outrageous". The Verve sampled and looped four bars, then added dozens more tracks, including strings, guitar, percussion and several layers of vocals from Ashcroft. Ashcroft said he imagined "something that opened up into a prairie-music kind of sound", similar to the work of the Italian composer Ennio Morricone, and that "the song started morphing into this wall of sound, a concise piece of incredible pop music". He likened the use of the sample to the golden age of hip hop: "To take something but really twist it and fuck it up into something else. Take it and use your imagination."

The strings that open "Bitter Sweet Symphony" were arranged by Wil Malone, based on the melody in the sample. Malone expanded on the melody to add "bounce" and "jump". The strings were recorded in Olympic Studios, London, and performed by a group of 24 players. Malone instructed the players to make the strings "tough" and "determined" rather than pretty or poetic.

"Bitter Sweet Symphony" was produced by Youth at Olympic Studios. According to Youth, Ashcroft initially recorded a version with the producer John Leckie but did not proceed with it; Youth persuaded him to record another version. Youth said: "It was only once we'd put strings on it that he started getting excited. Then, towards the end, Richard wanted to chuck all the album away and start again. What was my reaction? Horror. Sheer horror. All I could say was, I really think you should reconsider."

Music
For MTV, Gil Kaufman wrote that "Bitter Sweet Symphony" was "built on a slow-rolling fat beat, a pomp and circumstance violin loop and ... elliptical, snake-swallowing-its-tail lyrics". Jon Wiederhorn of Rolling Stone wrote that it "intertwines baroque strings worthy of Pachelbel with sedated vocals and shimmering guitar lines". Malone observed that the song is built on a single chord, and likened it to Arabic music.

Credits dispute
The Verve negotiated rights to use the "Last Time" sample from the copyright holder, Decca Records. However, they did not obtain permission from the Rolling Stones' former manager, Allen Klein, who owned the copyrights to their pre-1970 songs, including "The Last Time". When "Bitter Sweet Symphony" was about to be released as a single, Klein, then the head of ABKCO Records, refused clearance for the sample, saying the Verve had used a larger portion than agreed. According to the Verve's guitarist, Nick McCabe, the dispute depended not on the sample but Ashcroft's vocal melody, which a musicologist determined was a half-time version of the Rolling Stones' "Last Time" melody.

The Verve's co-manager, Jazz Summers, contacted their record label, Virgin Records, for help. Virgin played "Bitter Sweet Symphony" for the Rolling Stones members Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, who liked it but declined to become involved in the dispute. Summers also sent a copy to Oldham, who wrote back: "Fair cop! Absolute total pinch! You can see why [ABKCO are] rolling up their sleeves."

Following a lawsuit, the Verve relinquished all royalties to Klein and the songwriting credits were changed to Jagger–Richards. Ashcroft received $1,000. His co-manager, John Kennedy, described it as "one of the toughest deals in music history". According to the Verve's bassist, Simon Jones, the Verve were told they would be given half the royalties, but when the single began selling well, they were instructed to relinquish 100% of the royalties or remove it from sale.

Rolling Stone wrote that the outcome was "patently absurd", noting that Jagger and Richards were not involved with the sample or Ashcroft's melody and lyrics. Ashcroft said sarcastically that "Bitter Sweet Symphony" was "the best song Jagger and Richards have written in 20 years", and that it was the Rolling Stones' biggest UK hit since "Brown Sugar" (1971). Asked in 1999 whether he believed the situation was fair, Richards said: "I'm out of whack here, this is serious lawyer shit. If the Verve can write a better song, they can keep the money." David Whitaker, who wrote the string line in the "Last Time" sample, said in 2001: "The whole thing just makes one a bit sick, really."

In 1998, "Bitter Sweet Symphony" was used in a television advertisement for Nike. According to a statement released by the Verve's management, the Verve had a policy against licensing their music to advertising and would not have consented had they retained the rights to the song. As Virgin retained the synchronisation rights, the Verve received a percentage of the money earned from the advertisement. In 1999, Oldham sued ABKCO, saying he was owed up to £1 million in mechanical royalties for the use of the "Last Time" sample.

Return of credits to Ashcroft
In 2019, Billboard estimated that "Bitter Sweet Symphony" had generated almost $5 million in publishing revenue. In 2018, Ashcroft expressed his anger over the situation, saying: "Someone stole God-knows-how-many million dollars off me in 1997, and they've still got it ... Anyone, unless you are mentally ill, will always remember the day when 50 million dollars was stolen off them." He said he intended to pursue the matter with Klein's son, Jody, who had become the head of ABKCO following Klein's death in 2009.

In early 2019, Ashcroft's managers approached Jody Klein. He connected them to the Rolling Stones' manager, Joyce Smyth, who agreed to speak to Jagger and Richards. That April, ABKCO, Jagger and Richards agreed to return the "Bitter Sweet Symphony" royalties and songwriting credits to Ashcroft. Ashcroft announced the agreement in May, when he received the Ivor Novello Award for Outstanding Contribution to British Music from the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers, and Authors. He said it was a "kind and magnanimous" move, and said: "I never had a personal beef with the Stones. They've always been the greatest rock and roll band in the world. It's been a fantastic development. It's life-affirming in a way." In a statement, the Rolling Stones said they acknowledged the financial and emotional cost of "having to surrender the composition of one of your own songs".

Music video
The "Bitter Sweet Symphony" music video was directed by Walter Stern and released on 11 June 1997. In the video, Ashcroft walks down a busy pavement in Hoxton, London, oblivious to passersby and bumping into them. The other Verve band members join him and walk down the street into the distance. Critics likened it to the 1991 Massive Attack video "Unfinished Sympathy", which has the singer Shara Nelson walking in Los Angeles.

The music video was played frequently on music channels and was nominated for a number of awards, including three MTV Awards at the 1998 MTV Video Music Awards. The British comedy band Fat Les released a parody of the video for their 1998 song "Vindaloo", an alternative anthem for England at the 1998 FIFA World Cup. In the video, the comedian Paul Kaye, dressed as Ashcroft, walks down the same Hoxton pavement and is mocked by passersby. In 2015, the video was parodied in a television advertisement for Radio X that featured the DJ Chris Moyles walking down a street colliding with people. It triggered 106 complaints from viewers who felt the video was offensive and encouraged antisocial and violent behaviour.

In 2016, The Telegraph named Hoxton Street one of the locations that defined the Britpop era, and the Guardian journalist Francesca Perry included the video in a list of the best music videos about city life. Perry wrote that "Hoxton Street in the late '90s was just on the cusp before the area underwent rapid gentrification and hipsterisation, so the video has become a kind of historic snapshot".

Legacy
"Bitter Sweet Symphony" is the Verve's signature song and one of the defining songs of the Britpop era. It was named the Rolling Stone and NME Single of the Year for 1997. In 1998, BBC Radio 1 listeners voted it the third-greatest track of all time, and it was named the third-best single of 1997 by The Village Voice's Pazz & Jop annual critics' poll. In a 2005 Channel 4 poll, the music video was ranked eighth on a list of the 100 Greatest Pop Videos. The song received further exposure when it was used in adverts for Vauxhall and Nike.

On 2 July 2005, at the Live 8 concert in Hyde Park, London, Coldplay invited Ashcroft to perform the song with them during their set. They played it after only one rehearsal in Crystal Palace. Coldplay's singer, Chris Martin, introduced Ashcroft as "the best singer in the world" and described the song as "probably the best song ever written".

In 2007, NME named "Bitter Sweet Symphony" the 18th-greatest "indie anthem". In September 2007, a poll of 50 songwriters in Q named it one of the ten greatest tracks. In the Australian Triple J Hottest 100 of All Time, 2009, it was voted the 14th-best song of all time. Pitchfork named it the 29th-best track of the 90s, and included it in the 2008 book The Pitchfork 500. In 2011, NME named it the ninth-best track of the previous 15 years. Though the Verve have several hit singles, Paste named "Bitter Sweet Symphony" the best one-hit wonder of the 1990s. Rolling Stone included it at number 382 in its 2004 list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time" and at number 392 in its 2010 list. In 2015, Rolling Stone readers voted it the third-greatest Britpop song, after "Common People" by Pulp and "Don't Look Back in Anger" by Oasis.

Track listings

 * UK CD1 and cassette single; Japanese CD single
 * 1) "Bitter Sweet Symphony" (original)
 * 2) "Lord I Guess I'll Never Know"
 * 3) "Country Song"
 * 4) "Bitter Sweet Symphony" (radio edit)

 * UK CD2
 * 1) "Bitter Sweet Symphony" (extended version)
 * 2) "So Sister"
 * 3) "Echo Bass"

 * UK 12-inch single
 * A1. "Bitter Sweet Symphony (original)
 * A2. "Lord I Guess I'll Never Know"
 * B1. "Bitter Sweet Symphony" (James Lavelle mix)
 * B2. "Country Song"

 * European CD single
 * 1) "Bitter Sweet Symphony" (radio edit)
 * 2) "So Sister"

 * US CD and cassette single
 * 1) "Bitter Sweet Symphony" (original) – 5:58
 * 2) "Lord I Guess I'll Never Know" – 4:50
 * 3) "So Sister" – 4:10
 * 4) "Echo Bass" – 6:38

title: Bitter Sweet Symphony


text:
User talk:SlimVirgin/sandbox

This article should be called "Lockerbie air disaster" and the American name should redirect to it. Just my 2c ;-). Grace Note 03:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:SlimVirgin/sandbox


text:
Lady Washington

Lady Washington is a ship name shared by at least four different 80-100 ton-class Sloop-of-war and merchant sailing vessels during two different time periods. The original sailed during the American Revolutionary War and harassed British shipping. Post war, the vessel was used as a merchant trading vessel in the Pacific. A somewhat updated modern replica was created in 1989. The replica has appeared in numerous films and television shows, standing in as other real or fictional ships.

Lady Washington (18th century original)
The original USS Lady Washington was a 90-ton brig. Her early history is documented in the Massachusetts Soldiers and Sailors of the Revolutionary War as well as other documents. As part of the Columbia Expedition, she left Boston Harbor on October 1, 1787. She sailed around Cape Horn and participated in the maritime fur trade with the coastal indigenous people of the Pacific Northwest and in tea and porcelain across the Pacific in China. She was the first American-flagged vessel to round Cape Horn. She was the first recorded vessel to make landfall on the Oregon coast near Tillamook, Oregon. John Meares claimed that she was the first non-native vessel to circumnavigate Vancouver Island.

Named in honor of Martha Washington, she was captained during the American Revolutionary War by Nailer Hatch, and post war by Robert Gray, and John Kendrick, former captain of her larger sailing partner, Columbia Rediviva and commander of the expedition. At the end of the first trading season, Kendrick ordered Gray to sail Columbia to China, while Kendrick took command of Lady Washington. Under the command of Kendrick, she was refitted in Macau as a brigantine.

Lady Washington became the first American vessel to reach Japan in an unsuccessful attempt to move some unsold pelts. Lady Washington remained in the Pacific trade and eventually foundered in the Philippines in 1797. She was lost at the mouth of the Mestizo River, near Vigan, northwest Luzon in July 1797.

Lady Washington (20th-century replica)

A ship replica of Lady Washington was built in Aberdeen, Washington, United States in time for the 1989 Washington State Centennial celebrations. Aberdeen is located on Grays Harbor, an inlet of the Pacific Ocean named for Robert Gray, the man who entered the harbor under sail for the first time as master of Columbia.

The ship was designed by marine expert Ray Wallace and built by Richard Miles. Wallace is also known for designing the Sailing Ship Columbia in Disneyland alongside Admiral Joe Fowler.

Named "Washington State's Tall Ship Ambassador", as well as the State Ship, the new Lady Washington is operated by a professional and volunteer crew under the auspices of the Grays Harbor Historical Seaport Authority. She sails up and down the Pacific coast, educating students in the history of merchant trading, life of common sailors, and responsibilities of the ship's officers.

The current replica's mainmast is rigged with a topgallant sail and topsail above a gaff mainsail, as based on the post-Macau refit configuration. Old World (UK/international) terminology refers to this sail plan as brigantine, and New World (American) terminology refers to this as a brig.

Film and television appearances
Lady Washington has appeared and served as a set in various films and television series.
 * The brig Enterprise, a namesake of the Starship Enterprise, on the holodeck in Star Trek Generations.
 * The ship used to transport Chinese immigrants to America in the IMAX film The Great American West
 * The reference ship for the animated RLS Legacy in the Disney film Treasure Planet
 * HMS Interceptor in the film Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
 * As Queen Anne's Revenge in the miniseries Blackbeard
 * Captain Hook's ship Jolly Roger in Once Upon a Time
 * A recurring background piece in Revolution
 * The Queen Anne's Revenge in "The Curse of the Earth Totem" episode of DC's Legends of Tomorrow
 * Appeared in S01 E04 of Prop Culture while talking about filming Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Outside of film and television, the ship serves as the central visual element for the Christian music group For KING & COUNTRY in their music video "Burn the Ships". She also appeared in the music video for rapper Macklemore's "Can't Hold Us".

title: Lady Washington


text:
Mishkenot Sha'ananim

Mishkenot Sha'ananim (משכנות שאננים, lit. Peaceful Dwellings) was the first Jewish settlement built outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, on a hill directly across Mount Zion. It was built in 1859–1860. This guesthouse was one of the first structures to be built outside the Old City, the others being Kerem Avraham, the Schneller Orphanage, Bishop Gobat school, and the Russian Compound.

Ottoman period
Mishkenot Sha'anim was built by British Jewish banker and philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore in 1860, after he acquired the land from the Governor of Jerusalem, Ahmad Agha Duzdar.

On the night of 1 January 1873, Aaron Hershler was standing guard at the Montefiore Windmill, when a group of Arab Muslims from Silwan attempted to rob his family's home in Mishkenot Sha'ananim. Hershler took chase and was shot 12 times. He died in the hospital on 5 January and was buried on the Mount of Olives. Seventy-five years after his death, Hershler was recognized by the Israel Defense Forces as the first "national martyr" in the Jewish-Arab conflict. He is one of approximately three dozen Jews killed during Ottoman-ruled Palestine, who are commemorated as part of Israeli's annual Yom Hazikaron memorial day.

It was built as an almshouse, paid for by the estate of an American Jewish businessman from New Orleans, Judah Touro. Since it was outside the walls and open to Bedouin raids, pillage and general banditry rampant in the region at the time, the Jews were reluctant to move in, even though the housing was luxurious compared to the derelict and overcrowded houses in the Old City. As an incentive, people were paid to live there, and a stone wall was built around the compound with a heavy door that was locked at night for defense. The name of the neighborhood was taken from the Book of Isaiah: "My people will abide in peaceful habitation, in secure dwellings and in peaceful resting places". It later became part of Yemin Moshe which was established in 1892–1894.

Jordanian period

After the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, when the Old City was captured by the Arab Legion, Mishkenot Sha'ananim bordered on no man's land in proximity to the armistice line with the Kingdom of Jordan, and many residents of the Yemin Moshe quarter left in the wake of sniper attacks by Jordanian Arab Legionnaires. Only the poorest inhabitants remained, turning the complex into a slum.

Restoration after 1967
The no-man's-land bordering Mishkenot Sha'ananim was captured by Israel during the 1967 War, together with the rest of Eastern and Old Jerusalem.

In 1973, Mishkenot Sha'ananim was turned into an upscale guesthouse for internationally acclaimed authors, artists and musicians visiting Israel. Apart from guesthouse facilities, it is now a convention center and home of the Jerusalem Music Center. The music center was inaugurated by Pablo Casals shortly before his death.

The Jerusalem Center for Ethics was established in Mishkenot Sha'ananim in 1997. Yitzhak Zamir has been heading the board of directors since his retirement as justice of the Israeli Supreme Court in 2001.

title: Mishkenot Sha'ananim


text:
User talk:Vind r

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 03:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

India quick links
pamri 13:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vind r


text:
Peggy Cartwright

Peggy Cartwright (November 14, 1912 – June 12, 2001) was a Canadian silent film actress and for a short time a leading lady of the Our Gang comedy series during the silent film era. She appeared in four short films released in 1922 (and, possibly, the initial entry of the series, Our Gang). Cartwright is confirmed as having starred in these first four Our Gang shorts: One Terrible Day premiered on September 10, 1922; Fire Fighters premiered on October 8, 1922; Young Sherlocks premiered on November 26, 1922; and Saturday Morning premiered on December 3, 1922.

Early life and career
Peggy Cartwright was a child actress born on November 14, 1912, in Vancouver, British Columbia. She appeared in several of the early Our Gang short films from the silent film era; although her appearances would solely be those released in 1922.

As Cartwright's career was beginning to advance, her father—a doctor—insisted that his family return to Canada in order that his children receive decent scholarships. Subsequently, Cartwright continued her studies in Vancouver. She later became proficient in Russian ballet.

In 1927, Cartwright traveled with her mother to London, where she entered RADA. Two years later, she worked on the London stage at the St. Martin's Theater.

In 1931, she briefly returned to filming, first with a minor role in Victor Saville's The Faithful Heart (which would be released in 1932). She also appeared as Greta, together with Jack Buchanan and Anna Neagle, in the musical film Goodnight, Vienna. The same year, Cartwright performed in the British drama film Hindle Wakes, which would prove to be the final film in which she would appear. Shortly thereafter, Cartwright relocated to New York, where she married comedian Phil Baker, with whom she subsequently had four children: Margot, Stuart, Michael, and Susan. She divorced Baker in 1941, and later married actor William "Bill" Walker in 1962.

Later years
When her children reached adulthood, Cartwright obtained a job as a secretary in Los Angeles. Here, she became acquainted with William Walker, whom she later married. They remained married until his death in 1992.

Cartwright made an appearance at the 12th International Sons of the Desert Convention in 2000. This was her first and only appearance at the convention, and she happily discussed her brief tenure in the Our Gang series. She was the last surviving member of the original Our Gang group of children.

Death
Cartwright died shortly thereafter, in 2001. She and Walker, a United States Army World War I veteran, are buried at Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, California.

Filmography

 * The Birth of a Nation (1915) - Young Girl in Cabin (uncredited)
 * Intolerance (1916) - Little Girl (uncredited)
 * A Kentucky Cinderella (1917)
 * The Poor Boob (1919) - Little Girl (uncredited)
 * From Hand to Mouth (1919, Short) - The Waif
 * The Third Generation (1920) - Nancy Jane
 * Love (1920) - Beatrice Storm
 * Penrod (1922) - (uncredited)
 * Afraid to Fight (1922) - Sally Harper
 * Robin Hood, Jr. (1923) - The Girl, later Maid Marian
 * A Lady of Quality (1924) - Clorinda (age 6)
 * The Iron Horse (1924) - Miriam as a Girl (uncredited)
 * Hindle Wakes (1931) - (uncredited)
 * Goodnight, Vienna (1932) - Greta
 * The Faithful Heart (1932) - (final film role)

Our Gang

 * One Terrible Day (1922, Short) - Girl At Estate
 * Fire Fighters (1922, Short) - Peggy
 * Young Sherlocks (1922, Short) - Mary Jane
 * A Quiet Street (1922, Short) - Banty's Sister (uncredited)

title: Peggy Cartwright


text:
Kwame Harris

Kwame Harris (born March 15, 1982) is a Jamaican-born former American football player who was an offensive tackle for six seasons in the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for the Stanford Cardinal, when he won the Morris Trophy as the top offensive lineman in the Pac-10 Conference in 2002. He was selected by the San Francisco 49ers with the 26th overall pick in the first round of the 2003 NFL Draft.

Harris played high school football in Delaware, and was among the top prep offensive lineman in the country. He played three years at Stanford, twice earning all-conference honors and earning named honorable mention All-American in his final season. Harris was among the top-rated offensive linemen available in the 2003 draft, and he played five seasons with the 49ers and one with Oakland Raiders. He was a starter for most of his career, but often struggled with blocking and committing penalties.

Early life
Harris was born in Jamaica and came to the United States when he was three years old. His family first settled in The Bronx, New York before moving to Delaware, where Harris' father operated multiple successful restaurants. Harris started playing the piano at age five and the violin in seventh grade. He grew up in Newark, Delaware, and attended Newark High School. Harris played violin in his high school orchestra along with playing high school football. He was a unanimous All-American selection and generally considered one of the top prep offensive linemen in the nation.

As a child, Harris knew he was attracted to men. In high school, when confronted by his mom about his sexuality, he came out as gay to his family. Not all of them were initially supportive, contributing to Harris's decision to attend Stanford University on the opposite coast.

College career
Harris was a music major at Stanford. He played three years of football for the Cardinal, and he was a two-year starter at right tackle. Harris played seven games at left tackle in his freshman year, when he was the team's top reserve offensive lineman. He became one of the top lineman in the Pac-10 Conference, earning Second-team All-Pac-10 honors in his sophomore year after starting 12 games at right tackle. In his final season in 2002, Harris started 11 games, and he was named First-team All-Pac-10 and won the Morris Trophy as the top offensive lineman in the conference. He was also an honorable mention All-American and an honorable mention Academic All-Pac-10. Harris gave up his final year of eligibility at Stanford to enter the NFL.

San Francisco 49ers
Harris was ranked the No. 2 offensive tackle available in the 2003 NFL Draft, behind only Jordan Gross. He was selected in the first round of the 2003 NFL Draft with the 26th overall pick by the San Francisco 49ers, and he played five seasons with the team. He started 37 consecutive games from 2004–2007, beginning with the final five games of 2004 at left tackle, followed by 32 games at right tackle the two years after. Harris was a good run blocker, but he was inconsistent on pass protection, struggling to block defensive linemen while frequently committing penalties. He allowed nine sacks and committed 15 penalties including seven false starts in 2005, and eight sacks with four holding penalties and one false start the following year. The 49ers drafted Joe Staley in the first round in 2007, and he won the starting job at right tackle as Harris was relegated to a backup role in his final year.

Oakland Raiders
In 2008, Harris signed a three-year contract for $16 million with the Oakland Raiders, who hoped that line coach Tom Cable could revive his career. He started 11 games that year. Late in the season, however, he again struggled with his blocking and penalties, and the Raiders released him after the season.

Florida Tuskers
He retired after being cut in 2010 by the Florida Tuskers in the United Football League, and he was replaced by former Pittsburgh Steelers offensive guard Darnell Stapleton. He played six seasons in his NFL career, starting 55 times in 86 games. Profootballtalk.com called Harris "a major disappointment in the pros." Harris partly attributed his decline to the pressure of hiding his sexuality.

After football
Harris returned to college after retiring from football in order to complete his undergraduate degree.

On November 4, 2013, Harris was convicted on misdemeanor counts of domestic violence, assault and battery against his ex-boyfriend, Dimitri Geier, stemming from an incident on August 21, 2012. He was acquitted of felony counts of domestic violence causing great bodily injury and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. Geier also sued Harris for assault, battery, false imprisonment, negligence and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, but later dropped the lawsuit. According to the suit, Harris became upset and the two men argued after Geier poured soy sauce on a plate of rice at a restaurant in Menlo Park, California. The situation escalated as the two exchanged blows. Harris' attorney, Alin Cintean, said Geier assaulted Harris first. "Unfortunately, Mr. Geier is the one who ended up with an injury," he said. Harris' defense team argued that the statute of limitations on the misdemeanor charges for the 2012 incident had expired. However, the judge sentenced Harris to five days in jail and three years of probation, and ordered him to take domestic violence counseling and pay a fine.

After the incident became public, Cintean stated that Harris identifies as gay, remarking that "he is a very private person. He doesn't like to talk about his personal life." On March 29, 2013, Harris came out as gay during an interview with CNN. Until Michael Sam in 2014, no NFL player had come out while they were playing, and only a few had after retiring.

He was inducted into the Delaware Sports Hall of Fame in 2023.

Personal life
Harris' younger brother, Orien, also played in the NFL as a defensive tackle. Their older brother, Duevorn, was a defensive tackle in the Arena Football League.

title: Kwame Harris


text: User talk:81.168.161.8

title: User talk:81.168.161.8


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lark Nadakine

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo  talk  00:35, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Lark Nadakine
No google hits Samw 03:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Smells like fanfic or amateur fic. No hits on "Lark Nadakine" or "A Crisis Paradigm". --khaosworks 04:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Barfooz  (talk)  04:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. -- Infrogmation 04:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete just someones imagination. Unverified. --Etacar11 21:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Thomas Corcoran

Thomas Corcoran may refer to:

 * Thomas Corcoran (footballer) (1909–?), English professional footballer
 * Tommy Corcoran (1869–1960), baseball player
 * Tom Corcoran (writer) (1943–2023), American writer of mystery novels
 * Tom Corcoran (skier) (1931–2017), American alpine skier
 * Tom Corcoran (politician) (born 1939), American politician
 * Thomas E. Corcoran (1839–1904), U.S. Navy sailor and Medal of Honor recipient
 * Thomas Gardiner Corcoran (1900–1981), American lawyer and political figure; advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt
 * Thomas Corcoran (mayor) (1754–1830), mayor of Georgetown, District of Columbia, U.S.

title: Thomas Corcoran