0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
don't you agree that there must be also lower limit?
If the electron collapse below that lower limit how can we still consider it as electron?
Could it be that your assumption that Electrons could be a zero point particle is incorrect?
So, as you confirm that atom has a size then you also must confirm that its nucleus MUST has a size.
I have offered full explanation about Proton:
So, there is no way to break the proton.
Even if this value represents its upper limit, don't you agree that there must be also lower limit?
So, as you confirm that atom has a size then you also must confirm that its nucleus MUST has a size.A proton is located in that Nucleus.
Hence, what could be the outcome if it collapses much below its minimal size?
How the Gluons could still exist if we disconnect it from the three quarks?
Don't you agree that at the moment that we break the structure of the proton, the Gluons is lost forever?
At that moment 99% of the proton mass (938 Mev/c^2) had been lost.
In any case, if you believe that a proton could carry mass at a size of zero, then why atom couldn't carry mass at size of zero?
So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:49:22So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?Yes.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:49:22So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?
Who said anything about disconnecting gluons from quarks?
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.
You can't have free quarks,
Protons are broken all the time in particle accelerators. It's just that new quarks and anti-quarks are created in the process so that no single quark is left by itself.
So, you confirm that it has a minimal size. However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?
Ok - you consider the gluons as some sort of charge.
Our scientists prefer to call it energy.
Therefore, this gluons charge/energy can't represent any sort of mass as the proton is crashed.
Why the gluons wouldn't be transformed into some sort heat or flare and lost f
So, how can you compare a BH core to accelerator?
However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?
How can you crush a proton without breaking it to its basic elements as quarks and Gluons?
So, if you crush/break that interact between the quarks and the Gluons, we actually break the proton.
Gluons is energy. Not mass.
Why the gluons wouldn't be transformed into some sort heat or flare and lost forever without violating the energy conservation law?
So, at the same moment that you crush/break the proton, the gluons is lost as energy (heat or flare)
In other words - at the same moment that the proton is crushed into a singularity, the gluon is transformed into pure energy (as it is energy) and as we can't have free quarks, those quarks also should transform their mass into energy.
the particles aren't moving as they crushed to zero point.
In any case, can you please offer the article that proves that you can crush a proton to zero without breaking it to its basic elements or losing most/all of its mass into pure energy.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:09:51However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?Because that doesn't make sense. The proton's constituents would be getting closer together, not further apart.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:09:51However, why don't you agree that if a proton is crushed, we actually split it to its basic element as three separated quarks and gluons?
Don't you agree that there must be a limit for that "close together"?
So, do you mean that it make sense to crush a proton to absolutely zero size and still maintain its structure and all its mas/energy in that zero size?
If you crush a car, than you break its structure and all its internal liquid will run out.
So, even without breaking the atoms of that car, it must lose some mass (due to the fact that all the liquid had been lost).
If you crush a living animal as Bug, you break its structure and all its liquid will run out.
Do you agree that the gluons are some sort of a "liquid energy" that glue the three quarks together?
Therefore, you can't crush a proton without squeezing its "liquid energy" out of it.
If you take this ratio to the infinity and hope to get zero size, than you must know that you also get zero mass/energy as a left over.
Hence, don't you agree that there must be a limit for the minimal size after the crush?
So far you didn't offer any article that could support this unrealistic "sense".
How can you still keep any sort of mass/energy at zero size?
So, please again, would you kindly offer an article that proves the feasibility to crush an object (any object as Car, Bug, atom or particle) to zero size and still maintain its structure and its total mass/energy in that absolutely zero size.
Sorry, I totally disagree with this kind of sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizonNothing can get out of an event horizon, so the mass/energy of the object being crushed can't get out either (except through Hawking radiation).
The event horizon doesn't mean that all the mass of the BH is located at a zero point.
So they clearly claim the matter in the BH is located within a "small enough space".
So do you agree once and for all that a BH with one Sun mass would keep all its mass/matter in a radius of 3 Km?Hence, this matter might be highly compressed and "close together" as you have stated, but it surly can't considered as a zero point.
they don't claim that this "small enough space" is Zero space.
So do you agree once and for all that a BH with one Sun mass would keep all its mass/matter in a radius of 3 Km?
Hence, this matter might be highly compressed and "close together" as you have stated, but it surly can't considered as a zero point.
Therefore, that compressed matter could form some sort of a very heavy an hot plasma that move or orbit at the core,
So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
(please, theory D - not model D)
Your problem here is not to do with physics or cosmology.You just don't understand common sense and logic.
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.
Simple question for you.Once a black hole starts to collapse under gravity, what force in the universe is strong enough to stop it getting smaller?Once you realise that the answer to that question is "There is nothing in the universe which can stop it shrinking", you realise it must have zero size.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 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 Yesterday at 14:29:51So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:29:51(please, theory D - not model D)You literally said that your model requires a miracle in order to work. That ain't a theory.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:29:51(please, theory D - not model D)
If that is correct, then why can't you offer one article that can support your idea about zero size or zero physical radius.
Once a black hole starts to collapse under gravity, what force in the universe is strong enough to stop it getting smaller?Once you realise that the answer to that question is "There is nothing in the universe which can stop it shrinking", you realise it must have zero size.
You have stated that it is due to 1/r^3That message was clearly incorrect.
You had confused me with regards to the magnetic filed.
None of them supports your assumption for zero size
Everything in my house is in England, but that does not mean that my house is the size of England.Everything in a BH is within the event horizon, but that does not mean the BH is the size of the EH.
However, I don't want to argue about it.
Well, if we discuss on a common sense, then it is very clear to me that the total mass in a zero size/volume (or zero physical radius) must be zero.