0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Again in this article - not even a single word about Zero size BH.
While in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity", in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), known as a "ring singularity".
so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???
Hence - do you confirm that our scientists do not support your assumption about zero size BH?
You hope that Hawking radiation is only due to gravity. This is absolutely incorrect.
So Please - try to shut down the magnetism at CERN and see that we won't get any sort of radiation.
Magnetism is the ONLY force that can transfer energy to the new created Photons or particles.Gravity by itself is useless for new created particles or photons.This is your biggest mistake.Hence, Hawking radiation or any sort of radiation won't work without Magnetism!!!
Therefore, it acts as a wire with ultra high current.
The BH and especially the SMBH is clearly not a classical dipole.
QuoteQuoteWhile in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity", in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), known as a "ring singularity".A point has no dimensions. It has a size of zero.
QuoteWhile in a non-rotating black hole the singularity occurs at a single point in the model coordinates, called a "point singularity", in a rotating black hole, also known as a Kerr black hole, the singularity occurs on a ring (a circular line), known as a "ring singularity".
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:58The BH and especially the SMBH is clearly not a classical dipole.I agree, but only in the sense that there is no evidence that black holes have magnetic fields in the first place.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:58The BH and especially the SMBH is clearly not a classical dipole.
Hence, I hope that you agree once and for all that a "ring singularity" couldn't be considered as zero point.
Since a point cannot support rotation or angular momentum in classical physics (general relativity being a classical theory), the minimal shape of the singularity that can support these properties is instead a ring with zero thickness but non-zero radius, and this is referred to as a ringularity or Kerr singularity.
That ring sets magnetic filed at the same moment that it had been created.Therefore, there is no issue of first place or last place.Once the BH is rotating, it immediately generates magnetic field.
This is true, but a ring singularity still has zero thickness and thus is not made up of smaller particles:
There's no evidence for that.
OkPlease see the following evidence:
That article is talking about rotating black holes with net electric charge.
a ring singularity still has zero thickness and thus is not made up of smaller particles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 17/09/2020 19:29:58so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???It's what general relativity predicts.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/09/2020 19:29:58so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???
You can't say that it "surely" can't be zero. Like I said earlier, the limited speed of light does not allow a material body with structure to exist inside of an event horizon.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 16/09/2020 14:29:51So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?Because the four fundamental forces cannot overcome the speed of light limit in order to support matter against collapse inside of an event horizon.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 16/09/2020 14:29:51So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
A point has no dimensions. It has a size of zero.
So, is there a rotatable BH without net electric charge?
However, in the article it is stated that this BH is "a none zero magnetic field", therefore they referred it as "Magnetic Black Holes"So, why do you insist for "Net electric charge" and totally ignore the idea of "none zero magnetic field" or "Magnetic BH"?
In any case, do you finely agree that there is a possibility that a BH can carry a net electric charge or magnetic field?
So, how could it be that a ring with ZERO thickness (as you have stated) could carry any sort of electric charge or magnetic field?
I also would like to remind you that you have stated again and again that a BH must be located at a zero point:
Based on those answers I have got the impression that any BH must have a zero dimension and there is no way to get magnetic filed out of any kind of BH.
How could it be that general relativity suddenly doesn't work when it comes to a rotatable BH?
Why the four fundamental forces that cannot overcome the speed of light limit in order to support matter against collapse inside of an event horizon, could suddenly overcome the speed of light when it comes to rotatable BH?
If you knew that a rotatable BH has Net electric charge or Magnetic field, why you didn't confirm it at the first place?
Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?I have not.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47So, is there a rotatable BH without net electric charge?Yes. Natural ones would be expected to quickly become neutral, even if they started out with net charge.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47So, is there a rotatable BH without net electric charge?
A spinning electric charge produces a magnetic field, hence why a charged, rotating black hole would have a magnetic field.
But most importantly of all, conservation of electric charge demands that an object with a net electric charge must form an electrically-charged black hole. Charge cannot be destroyed.
As I said, a black hole with net electric charge would preferentially attract oppositely-charged particles, thus rendering them neutral over time. This would make their magnetic field disappear.
Electrically-charged particle like electrons already appear to have zero size, so there's no reason a ring with zero thickness couldn't have an electric charge as well.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47I also would like to remind you that you have stated again and again that a BH must be located at a zero point:This assumes the simplest black hole:
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47I also would like to remind you that you have stated again and again that a BH must be located at a zero point:
Don't you agree that in a zero point there must be zero energy and zero mass.
So, would you kindly backup you answer/understanding with real articles?
So, without electric charged that neutral body won't be a magnetized at the first place
What is the meaning of NON-VANISHING charge and magnetic field?
Could it be that it means "non-disappear", "steady", "constant" or "stable"?
You even add that "Charge cannot be destroyed":
So why you add you interpretation that the charge should be vanish quickly as it is "expected to quickly become neutral"?
If they say that it is non- disappear
So, would you kindly show the evidence why this "Magnetic Black Holes" should disappear quickly?
Well, what is the meaning of a ring with zero thickness?
If the thickness is zero, why can't we assume that there is no ring?
If I will tell you that there is a chair with a zero thickness, would you try to sit on it?
So, if the thickness of the ring is zero, how could it be that a zero size charge would sit on that zero thickness ring?Is it real or imagination?If a BH has real mass, real magnetic field and real electric charge, how can you fit all of it in zero thickness even if we call it ring?
They claim that an energy (not mass)
As I have stated before, in none of the articles that you had offered it was stated that a BH has a zero size.
Is it your personal understanding or do you base it on real science?
So, please, if you still believe that you can fit mass and energy in zero point or zero ring, than please show the evidence for that by real article.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:04:53So, please, if you still believe that you can fit mass and energy in zero point or zero ring, than please show the evidence for that by real article.Properties don't have a size.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:04:53So, please, if you still believe that you can fit mass and energy in zero point or zero ring, than please show the evidence for that by real article.
Do you mean particle Properties?
"in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.[7]"As due to quantum mechanics we can't fit even one particle at a zero physical size point, how can we fit the whole trillions over trillions of particles of just one sun mass in a BH with zero physical size point?Please, would you kindly direct me to an article that shows how to fit those trillions particles in a zero physical size while it is clear that "quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"?
To your credit, it is very possible that black holes do not collapse to zero size
You really need to look up what black holes are like.Since there is nothing which is strong enough to counter their gravity, they collapse down to point sized objects.Maybe they are as big as the planck length, but they certainly are not bigger.
This is known as wave-particle duality.
How quantum mechanics and relativity are reconciled inside of a black hole is not known at this time.
To your credit, it is very possible that black holes do not collapse to zero size,
but that quantum mechanics prevents them from shrinking below a size around the Planck length.
The concept of a particle's size isn't exactly well-defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity"in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.[7]"
In some experiments, particles appear to be points of zero size.
This is an unresolved issue in science
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