0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So, let me ask again::
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:21:33Which kind of evidence?Do you mean Gamma ray?Nuclear physics (from which a neutron star's upper mass limit can be derived), the photograph of Sagittarius A* that shows it to be black instead of glowing hot and the measurement of a neutron star's radius (which shows that it isn't inside of its own Schwarzschild radius) are some good ones.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:21:33Which kind of evidence?Do you mean Gamma ray?
Nuclear physics (from which a neutron star's upper mass limit can be derived) - There is no upper mass limit for a NS.For example, the following star has 215 Sun mass.
- NS can be as cold as BH.
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
However, there is no need to argue about it.
There is no upper mass limit for a NS.
So, if stars could be so big without any difficulty, there is no problem for a NS to become a Supper Massive NS with 4* 10^6 Sun mass.
NS can be as cold as BH
If it has strong magnetic field it should be hot.
Sorry this is just hypothetical idea.
5. Crust - as the whole idea was that a gamma ray of the NS is an indication for hard crust, while the BH has the same gamma ray, then it shows that they share the same crust.
it is literally impossible for a black hole to have a crust.
Any BH is actually a Neutron star with or without magnetic field.
If its magnetic field is low, it would be quite cold.
There is nothing that a SMBH can do which SMNS can't do.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:56:12NS can be as cold as BHNot within the current age of the Universe it can't. They would not have had enough time to cool off that much.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:56:12NS can be as cold as BH
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:56:12Sorry this is just hypothetical idea.No. No it is not: https://phys.org/news/2020-03-neutron-star-kilometers-radius.html#:~:text=%22We%20find%20that%20the%20typical,between%2010.4%20and%2011.9%20kilometers.
from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:56:12Sorry this is just hypothetical idea.
Unless, the age of the Universe is longer than 13.8 BY.
So that issue by itself could be used as one more evidence why the universe is much older than our current understanding.
So, how they really have measured that kind of physical size, while we all understand that they can't observe the core by any sort of measurement tools.
Do you confirm that they can't really see the core of that NS as they can't see the core of a BH?
So, do you agree that it is all about estimation?
I don't claim that it is incorrect; I just say that in the article they don't show how they made this measurement.
The research team used a model based on a first-principles description of how subatomic particles interact at the high densities found inside neutron stars. Remarkably, as the team shows, theoretical calculations at length scales less than a trillionth of a millimeter can be compared with observations of an astrophysical object more than a hundred million light years away.
1. Is it correct that they start by the assumption that NS has a maximal mass?
2. What is so unique in the electromagnetic counterpart observations of GW170817 that convinced them that this is the NS model with the maximal mass?
So, could it be that if they won't limit the mass of the NS they could find other model with higher mass?
However, if they claim that this NS has the densest matter in the observable universe, then why can't we believe them?
So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?
Based on theory D the age of the Universe is infinite.
As BH (Black Hole) and NS (Neutron Star) are producing Gamma Ray, why do you claim that that they are different?
So, it's now th e4th time...Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/09/2020 21:26:31In the meantime, for the third time of asking.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:10:06Well, since you say it is easy, please show us how you do it.Show how you can use QM to calculate the size of the BH.
In the meantime, for the third time of asking.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:10:06Well, since you say it is easy, please show us how you do it.Show how you can use QM to calculate the size of the BH.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:42:33So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?You would need to demonstrate that neutrons are at the limit of being squeezed inside of a neutron star (which you have not).
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:42:33So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?
Dear Kryptid,You had already confirmed the following:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity"general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths."So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?
It's about comparing measurements with the known laws of nuclear physics. Models of neutron star matter aren't picked at random to tickle the fancy of the physicist.
"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"
Therefore, you have to agree that NS would never ever be converted to BH at a zero size.
So, if our scientists accept the law of nuclear physics including the QM, how could they claim that BH could swallow a NS:
Is it real?
Hence, if those unrealistic BH
do you really believe that QM would allow for this giant atomic nucleus to inhabit a space smaller than the wavelength needed for each of its particles?
How could you claim that those scientists know "laws of nuclear physics"?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:41:13Hence, if those unrealistic BHCongratulations on calling something "unrealistic" that we know exists.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:41:13Hence, if those unrealistic BH
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:41:13"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"You're aware that, as a particle gains energy, its wavelength decreases, don't you? So what do you think the lower limit of a particle's wavelength is?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:41:13"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"
The wavelength associated with those particles becomes shorter and shorter as the neutron star collapses because those particles continuously gain energy from the gravitational collapse.
No, I don't, and it is very clear that also quantum mechanics does aware about it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?
1. Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?Don't you agree that the gravitational is relative to the total available mass/particles in the core of the NS?... Therefore, if something should collapse, it is the particle and not the gravitational.
2. Let's consider a BH with one sun mass.Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?
Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core?
4. If the pressure is finite, then the energy which the particle gains must be finite.
Pressure isn't a function of force. If you think otherwise, then how much pressure is generated by a Newton of force?A particle at the center of the sun has on average no net force acting on it. It is for such reasons that the core of Earth stays at the center and doesn't move elsewhere.
Similarly, pressure and energy are not the same thing. Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic, as it would entail infinite mass, which no object, BH or otherwise, has.
The wavelength associated with those particles becomes shorter and shorter as the neutron star collapses because those particles continuously gain energy from the gravitational collapse
Your choice of this wording shows all the maturity of an older sibling doing the 'why are you hitting yourself?' trick with much younger siblings.
Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth
Do you agree that in order to gain a zero size, infinite pressure or gravity force is needed?
1. Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?
Don't you agree that the gravitational is relative to the total available mass/particles in the core of the NS?
Therefore, if something should collapse, it is the particle and not the gravitational. So why do you claim the other way?
Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?
Don't you agree that a particle at its core will face a similar pressure/gravity force as a particle at the core of the Sun?
3. Is there any possibility for a BH to set INFINITE pressure at its core? How a BH with finite mass could set infinite pressure in its core?
As for the issue of wavelength, this is the equation for the Compton wavelength of a subatomic particle:wavelength = Planck constant/(mass x the speed of light)
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43Do you agree that in order to gain a zero size, infinite pressure or gravity force is needed?According to the math, that's exactly what you get as an object collapses towards zero size. Gravity obeys the inverse square law. Cut the distance between an object's components in half, and you quadruple the gravitational force between those components. Divide it by ten, and the force increases one hundred-fold. So as the distance approaches zero, the force becomes greater and greater without limit.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43Do you agree that in order to gain a zero size, infinite pressure or gravity force is needed?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?Depends on the distances involved.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core?According to current models, infinite.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core?
A black hole with a mass three times that of the Sun will have a mass of 1.98847 x 1030 kilograms x 3 = 5.96541 x 1030 kilograms. Putting that into the equation, we get:wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((5.96541 x 1030) x (299,792,458))wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((1.78838 x 1039wavelength = 3.70507 x 10-73 meters
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 15/09/2020 05:49:22So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?Yes. If all three quarks are crushed into a singularity, then you no longer have a proton but a black hole instead. That singularity will have the charge and mass of the proton so that conservation laws are not violated.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 15/09/2020 05:49:22So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?
Therefore, that minimal size sets the minimal distance between the particles in the core of a BH or NS.
How can we beleive that this represents real science?
There is no way for particles to "inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths".Once we understand that simple explanation by quantum mechanics, we can easily calculate the real size of mass in any BH or SMBH.
OK Dave...You seem to have missed this one again.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08Now try answering these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years) box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth