0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sorry, it is perfectly defined:
Why do you claim that it is an unresolved issue in 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.
Calculate, as an example, the size of any black hole you like.
The ratio in each Hydrogen atom between its size to its nuclease is one to 10,000
assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons
Once we understand that simple explanation by quantum mechanics, we can easily calculate the real size of mass in any BH
Nevertheless, there is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized wavepacket, the wavepacket can be represented as a quantum superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly localized. Moreover, the interactions of the particle can be represented as a superposition of interactions of individual states which are localized. This is not true for a composite particle, which can never be represented as a superposition of exactly-localized quantum states. It is in this sense that physicists can discuss the intrinsic "size" of a particle: The size of its internal structure, not the size of its wavepacket. The "size" of an elementary particle, in this sense, is exactly zero.
Therefore, assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons
Then, the total physical radius of a BH with one sun mass is:Sun radius / 10,000 = 696,340 /10,000 = 69.9 Km.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46The ratio in each Hydrogen atom between its size to its nuclease is one to 10,000You made that number up.So that's not really an estimate of the size of the BH; at best, it is a guess.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46The ratio in each Hydrogen atom between its size to its nuclease is one to 10,000
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46Then, the total physical radius of a BH with one sun mass is:Sun radius / 10,000 = 696,340 /10,000 = 69.9 Km.Wrong. It's actually 2.95 kilometers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius#Parameters
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46Then, the total physical radius of a BH with one sun mass is:Sun radius / 10,000 = 696,340 /10,000 = 69.9 Km.
We know that's not true, because, even neutron stars (which are less compact than BH don't have free protons any more.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46Therefore, assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protonsThey're not.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46Therefore, assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons
It is real:
At a ratio of one to 235,000 we get exactly that 2.95 Km.
Yes, a star is made by atoms and molecular while BH is made out of particles as Protons.
That proves that BH would never ever be created out of collapsing star.
Atom wouldn't give up its physical size not even due to supernova or ultra high gravity.
Just as an example, one of the biggest star has 1700 times the Sun radius (and it is still a star)
Can you please prove that a BH is not made out of particles as protons
Well, 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.
It is all about the ratio between the size of the hydrogen atom to its Proton.
BH is made out of particles as Protons.
So, a star could be very massive without any need to collapse and transfer into BH.
Just as an example, one of the biggest star has 1700 times the Sun radius (and it is still a star)https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html"The largest known star in the universe is UY Scuti, a hypergiant with a radius around 1,700 times larger than the sun."Hence, a star can be very massive and it would never be converted to BH.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989BAICz..40...65B"The Kerr BH are known to be the most general isolated BH. In fact they are the ONLY BH which have a none zero magnetic field and that is why they are also referred to as "Magnetic Black Holes"
Do we all agree that a BH has a real physical size?
A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?
Quote from: Kryptid on 21/09/2020 06:07:10Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.ThanksDo appreciateSo, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37A Kerr BH or a Rotatable BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field and therefore It should be referred as "Magnetic Black Hole"Please, yes or no?If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.
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.
So, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.
That kind of BH is the leading power for any new creation particles in our Universe.Hawking claims that negative + positive mass particles are created due to gravity.This is a fatal error.There are no negative mass in our universe.Negative mass is just a fiction.
Any new particle creation must be based on two particles (both with positive mass)
Their creation could be take place ONLY by using the energy transformation from the magnetic BH.If we shut down the magnetic field of the BH, not even a single photon would be created by gravity.So, a BH without magnetic field wouldn't be able to create any sort of new particle.Therefore, any BH with accretion ring is by definition a magnetic BH.
Do you have an idea what is the correct ratio?
It is all about the ratio between the size of proton with regards to the size of Hydrogen Atom.
It seems that Neutron star fully meets my expectation about a magnetic rotatable BH.
Therefore, after all it seems that I was fully correct. In my vision I thought about rotatable (Kerr) BH while our scientists call it neutron star.
So what is the real difference between Neutron star to rotatable magnetic BH?
So, how do we know that our estimation about each physical size is correct?
How can we distinguish between the two objects?
Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?
Thanks for that excellent message.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:19:21Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?I absolutely, positively do not!Coincidentally, a study was recently done that can distinguish black holes from neutron stars: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-x-rays-reveal-a-distinctive-signature-of-black-hole-event-horizons/
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:19:21Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?