[demadone (OP)]

I believe it does in a black hole. Hawkins thought in those lines though not exactly. He later changed his opinion.

My opinion is that when an electron collapses into the nucleus, the larger gravitational force turns the mass (or Atom) into a singularity.

So by me it follows that a singularity is a mass (atom) that has lost energy so that the electron cannot rotate.

In my view of this, a singularity has no infinite density but is something like the volume of sub-atomic particles divided by their masses. I'll work it out and present it.

Larger black holes are not in a singularity state.

These are new ideas, so more thought is required to refine them. But it's better than saying a black hole is a window. There are no white holes. They don't exist.

[syhprum]

I believe that a Neutron can decay into a Proton with the emission of an Electron and an anti Neutrino so presumably the reverse happens in Neutron stars.

[Vern]

My opinion is that when an electron collapses into the nucleus, the larger gravitational force turns the mass (or Atom) into a singularity.

Its just my own personal opinion but I have trouble with the idea of a singularity. Its like infinity; you can never really get there; and when you use either in arithmetic you get into problems.

[demadone (OP)]

As you may observe that I also don't believe a singularity has infinite density. It is very high density but not infinite. Matter can't have infinite mass nor zero volume. Not even a black hole's atom.

[demadone (OP)]

syhprum. That is a very good point. I also think that somehow an electron can collapse into the neutron. More like reverse radiation. Protons and electrons forming neutron.
Only question is, what kind of particles are radiated by a black hole?

[Vern]

As you may observe that I also don't believe a singularity has infinite density. It is very high density but not infinite. Matter can't have infinite mass nor zero volume. Not even a black hole's atom.

I just Googled around a little to see how other people think of a singularity. It seems that astronomers think of it as:

A singularity means a point where some property is infinite. For example, at the center of a black hole, according to classical theory, the density is infinite (because a finite mass is compressed to a zero volume). Hence it is a singularity. Similarly, if you extrapolate the properties of the universe to the instant of the Big Bang, you will find that both the density and the temperature go to infinity, and so that also is a singularity. It must be stated that these come due to the breaking down of the classical theory. As yet, there is no theory of quantum gravity, but it is entirely possible that the singularities may be avoided with a theory of quantum gravity.

In my own personal speculation that mass is composed in its entirety of electromagnetic fields, mass could never be compressed except by increasing the frequency of its constituents and this should make it unstable.

[lyner]

One reason for the electron not 'collapsing' into the nucleus would be the Uncertainty principle. The electron energy is very well defined so its position would be very undefined. Its wave property would, essentially, dominate because it would, effectively, occupy the whole volume of the so-called lower shell - millions of times the size of how we regard an electron whilst it is flying between atoms, for instance. So you can't regard it as a particle when in such a bound state. Nothing new there - QM gives you the model.

[surreyscientist]

Isn't a neutron star formed when the pressure from an exploding star causes the electrons to be physically pushed into the nucleus?

[demadone (OP)]

I know that black holes, though not admitted by most scientists are a result of a break down in the fine-tuning of the 4 atomic forces (gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force).
I am doing some research into this and will present my theory as soon as I work it out.

[Vern]

Isn't a neutron star formed when the pressure from an exploding star causes the electrons to be physically pushed into the nucleus?

I think that electrons being pushed into the nucleus is not a requirement of the current speculation about neutron stars. Folks originally thought such stars might be composed entirely of neutrons. That notion probably needs to be updated. 

[Vern]

I know that black holes, though not admitted by most scientists are a result of a break down in the fine-tuning of the 4 atomic forces (gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force).
I am doing some research into this and will present my theory as soon as I work it out.

You probably shouldn't call your work a theory [] I can easily unite the four forces but it is only speculation.

[lyner]

In a neutron star, the Uncertainty principle would (must?) apply. But that's ok because the energy state is much much less well defined under conditions of such high density. My original statement rather assumed the gas state.

[Vern]

In a neutron star, the Uncertainty principle would (must?) apply. But that's ok because the energy state is much much less well defined under conditions of such high density. My original statement rather assumed the gas state.

You've probably got it as close as anybody else. I think this link represents the current thinking. From the link:

The neutron star resembles a single giant nucleus because the density everywhere except in the outer shell is as high as the density in the nuclei of ordinary matter. There is observational evidence of the existence of several classes of neutron stars: pulsars are periodic sources of radio frequency, X ray, or gamma ray radiation that fluctuate in intensity and are considered to be rotating neutron stars. A neutron star may also be the smaller of the two components in an X-ray binary star.

[demadone (OP)]

I'm mostly focused on black holes and not neutron stars because the principle behind them may not be the same.

The main reason I believe the electron may be involved in the great reduction of volume in the formation of a black hole is that electrons are placed at a vast distance from the neutron. The volume all matter is actually mostly because of the distance of an electron from the neutron. If that were reduced, the you and I would be very small indeed. We are actually empty space.

Our mass however is only from the nucleus. So if we had no nucleus we would be as light as air.

Now if you see what I am getting at you'll realize that black holes are mostly composed of the nucleus, either with the absence of electrons or with these pushed into the nucleus. Less volume, more mass => High density.

Then comes the electromagnetic force/gravity relationship. I would explain more but it's like writing a book.

[Vern]

Now if you see what I am getting at you'll realize that black holes are mostly composed of the nucleus, either with the absence of electrons or with these pushed into the nucleus. Less volume, more mass => High density.

I think if you do the arithmetic you'll find that your black hole, so formed, would not be different than a neutron star.

[demadone (OP)]

You may just be right but I need to know about what can differentiate neutron stars from black holes in terms of this process.

[Vern]

You may just be right but I need to know about what can differentiate neutron stars from black holes in terms of this process.

I think the thing that makes a neutron star different from a Black Hole is that the neutron star does not contain a singularity. The neutron star is not so massively dense that we run out of numbers when trying to quantify it.

A Black Hole is thought to be that dense.

[JP]

In addition, in a neutron star, gravity isn't strong enough to overcome all other physical forces.  The neutrons still exist, and they aren't all squashed into the same point.  In a black hole, the neutrons will be torn apart into their component particles, and all of this will be smushed together into one point.  The exact physics of what happens to all these quantum particles is still unknown.

[demadone (OP)]

Last two comments are quite good. I am still researching. But I'm wondering about your comment about sub atomic components being torn into their building blocks. What are they? Did I miss something out in Physics?

[Vern]

Last two comments are quite good. I am still researching. But I'm wondering about your comment about sub atomic components being torn into their building blocks. What are they? Did I miss something out in Physics?

You missed his last sentence:

The exact physics of what happens to all these quantum particles is still unknown.

Which means when we get to this point we're just guessing []