[Kryptid]

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?

Because that doesn't make sense. The proton's constituents would be getting closer together, not further apart.

How can you crush a proton without breaking it to its basic elements as quarks and Gluons?

See above.

So, if you crush/break that interact between the quarks and the Gluons, we actually break the proton.

Nobody said anything about breaking the interaction between quarks and gluons, now did they?

Gluons is energy. Not mass.

Mass and energy are equivalent. Remember E=mc²?

Ok - you consider the gluons as some sort of charge.

I never said that.

Our scientists prefer to call it energy.

Charge and energy are different things.

Therefore, this gluons charge/energy can't represent any sort of mass as the proton is crashed.

Again, E=mc².

Why the gluons wouldn't be transformed into some sort heat or flare and lost forever without violating the energy conservation law?

Because nothing can get out of a black hole.

So, at the same moment that you crush/break the proton, the gluons is lost as energy (heat or flare)

No.

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 total mass and energy of the system remains the same.

the particles aren't moving as they crushed to zero point.

Being crushed is a form of movement because the constituent particles are moving closer to each other over time.

So, how can you compare a BH core to accelerator?

I wasn't. What I was doing was illustrating to you that protons can be broken into other particles.

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.

In some sense, the energy is released when the resulting black hole explodes into Hawking radiation. But the total energy still exists. It has just changed form from a proton into other particles.

By the way, there is no such thing as "pure energy".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:09:51
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?

Because that doesn't make sense. The proton's constituents would be getting closer together, not further apart.

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?

Sorry, I totally disagree with this kind of sense
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.
In the same token, if you take a proton and crush it, you completely break its structure.
Do you agree that the gluons are some sort of a "liquid energy" that glue the three quarks together?
So, it acts as a liquid in the car or a living animal.
Therefore, you can't crush a proton without squeezing its "liquid energy" out of it.

There is also a limit to the minimal size that you can get due to crushing.
You can decrease its size by 10, 1,000 or even 10,000 times.
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.

It almost seems to me as a reversible Big Bang story....

[Kryptid]

Don't you agree that there must be a limit for that "close together"?

Yes. That limit could be zero.

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?

The structure obviously wouldn't be the same, since a singularity is one object instead of many. All of the mass energy is concentrated in that single point.

If you crush a car, than you break its structure and all its internal liquid will run out.

Not if you crush it by throwing it into a black hole. That liquid can't get out of the event horizon.

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).

No it doesn't. If all of that mass is captured behind an event horizon, it can't get out.

If you crush a living animal as Bug, you break its structure and all its liquid will run out.

You should stop likening quantum objects to macroscopic objects. They do not behave in the same manner.

Do you agree that the gluons are some sort of a "liquid energy" that glue the three quarks together?

Gluons are absolutely not "liquid energy".

Therefore, you can't crush a proton without squeezing its "liquid energy" out of it.

Yes you can. See what I said about crushing something in a black hole.

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.

Non-sequitur.

Hence, don't you agree that there must be a limit for the minimal size after the crush?

I've already answered this.

So far you didn't offer any article that could support this unrealistic "sense".

I'm starting to think you don't know what an event horizon does.

How can you still keep any sort of mass/energy at zero size?

Ask an electron. They have mass and, to best of our experimental knowledge, are either point particles or are so small that they cannot be distinguished from having 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

Nothing 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).

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, I totally disagree with this kind of sense

Yep.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

Nothing 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).

Sorry

The event horizon doesn't mean that all the mass of the BH is located at a zero point.

As you mentioned Hawking radiation, Let's look at the following article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Black holes are astrophysical objects of interest due to their immense gravitational attraction. A black hole occurs when more than a certain amount of matter and/or energy is located within a small enough space. "
So they clearly claim the matter in the BH is located within a "small enough space".
How can you claim that this "small enough space" is Zero space?
they also add:
"Given a large enough mass in a small enough space, the gravitational forces become large enough that within a nearby region of space, nothing - not even light - can escape from inside that region to the wider universe. The boundary of that region is known as the event horizon "

So again - they only focus the boundary of that region, but they don't claim that this "small enough space" is Zero space.

Actually, in the article which you had offered it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
"The surface at the Schwarzschild radius acts as an event horizon in a non-rotating body that fits inside this radius (although a rotating black hole operates slightly differently). The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to its mass. Theoretically, any amount of matter will become a black hole if compressed into a space that fits within its corresponding Schwarzschild radius. For the mass of the Sun this radius is approximately 3 kilometers and for the Earth it is about 9 millimeters."
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,
The movement of that plasma could set ultra high current.
That current should form high magnetic field.
So, why did you claim that the matter in the BH should be located at a zero point?
I hope that you agree that the article which you had offered fully supports theory D.
So, how could you offer this article that fully supports this theory (please, theory D - not model D)?

[Bored chemist]

The event horizon doesn't mean that all the mass of the BH is located at a zero point.

Nobody said it did.

So they clearly claim the matter in the BH is located within a "small enough space".

Yes.
If you put matter into a space smaller than the schwarzschild radius  of that mass, then gravity shrinks it down to zero radius.
And a Black hole appears- just as it said in the text you quoted.

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.

No

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.

Your problem here is not to do with physics or cosmology.
You just don't understand common sense and logic.

Why do you post stuff like that?

Do you really not understand that "smaller than" doesn't rule out "much smaller than" or even " infinitely smaller than"?

they don't claim that this "small enough space" is Zero space.

Nor did anyone else...

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

Yes. Hence crushing a proton into a black hole does not represent a loss of mass or energy. It's all inside of an event horizon.

Hence, this matter might be highly compressed and "close together" as you have stated, but it surly can't considered as a zero point.

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.

Therefore, that compressed matter could form some sort of a very heavy an hot plasma that move or orbit at the core,

No, no it cannot. See above.

So, 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.

(please, theory D - not model D)

You literally said that your model requires a miracle in order to work. That ain't a theory.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid & Bored chemist

Let's go back to the main issue in this discussion.
I have stated that the Hawing radiation and all/most of the phenomenon that we can monitor around the BH is due to the BH's magnetic field.
You have stated that as the BH mass is located at a zero Size/space it can't move and therefore, it has no ability to generate any sort of magnetic field.
I clearly don't agree with this idea.
So, if you accept the idea that a BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field, then there is no need to argue about its real size.

If not, then let's continue:

Your problem here is not to do with physics or cosmology.
You just don't understand common sense and logic.

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.
The Total mass is always a multiply of the density by the volume.
If The BH size is zero (physical radius is zero), then by definition its total mass must be zero.

I assume that you don't share with me this common sense.
Therefore, let me offer one more article:
In the following articale they specifically discuss about - Physical radius, Volume and density:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
The Schwarzschild radius of a body is proportional to its mass and therefore to its volume, assuming that the body has a constant mass-density.[12] In contrast, the physical radius of the body is proportional to the cube root of its volume. Therefore, as the body accumulates matter at a given fixed density (in this example, 997 kg/m3, the density of water), its Schwarzschild radius will increase more quickly than its physical radius. When a body of this density has grown to around 136 million solar masses (1.36 × 108) M☉, its physical radius would be overtaken by its Schwarzschild radius, and thus it would form a supermassive black hole."

They don't say even one word about zero space.

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.

In the following article it is stated that "any amount of matter will become a black hole if compressed into a space that fits within its corresponding Schwarzschild radius"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon
"The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to its mass. Theoretically, any amount of matter will become a black hole if compressed into a space that fits within its corresponding Schwarzschild radius. For the mass of the Sun this radius is approximately 3 kilometers."

Again, not even a single word about Zero size BH.

Unfortunately, you insist on zero size.

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.

I clearly don't agree that "There is nothing in the universe which can stop it shrinking".
However, I don't want to argue about it.
Therefore, I get excellent help from those articles.
None of them supports your assumption for zero size including the one that Kryptid had offered.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:29:51
So, 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

If that is correct, then why can't you offer one article that can support your idea about zero size or zero physical radius.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote 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.

You had confused me with regards to the magnetic filed.
Based on the following clear Formula, the magnetic field is relative to 1/r with regards to Current = I

http://wikipremed.com/01physicscards600/371a.gif

B = μ * I /  ( 2 π r)

Hence, B is affected by 1/r

You have stated that it is due to 1/r^3
That message was clearly incorrect.
As the magnetic field is relative to 1/r there is no need for any sort of miracle in order for Theory D to work.

[Bored chemist]

If that is correct, then why can't you offer one article that can support your idea about zero size or zero physical radius.

We didn't need to.
Why would an article asking this question and citing this corollary

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.

be any different from me pointing it out?
BTW, you still have not answered it.
Please do so before going any further with the notion of a finite sized BH.

[Bored chemist]

You have stated that it is due to 1/r^3
That message was clearly incorrect.

The magnetic force produced by a dipole (for example, a spinning neutron star and, by analogy your idea of a magnetised, finite sized black hole) is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.

The gravitational force produced by gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

This will remain true no matter how many times you try to pretend that it isn't.

The reason for your misunderstanding seems to me that you think a BH is long and thin like a wire.

It's not.

[Bored chemist]

You had confused me with regards to the magnetic filed.

That's really not down to us.

[Bored chemist]

None of them supports your assumption for zero size

Yes they do
Don't you remember me explaining it?

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 you can't argue that it's wrong, you need to accept that it's right.

[Bored chemist]

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.

Application of "common sense" to quantum mechanics and the like is seldom a success.

But what you were not applying it to was essentially the fact that "smaller than" includes "much smaller than".
That's simple enough for a child to understand.
Why can't you accept it?

[Kryptid]

I have stated that the Hawing radiation and all/most of the phenomenon that we can monitor around the BH is due to the BH's magnetic field.

Hawking radiation is not caused by magnetism.

So, if you accept the idea that a BH has the ability to generate Magnetic field, then there is no need to argue about its real size.

I don't accept 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.
The Total mass is always a multiply of the density by the volume.
If The BH size is zero (physical radius is zero), then by definition its total mass must be zero.

That isn't common sense. It's a non-sequitur.

Again, not even a single word about Zero size BH.

Because they are talking about the event horizon, not the singularity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

If that is correct, then why can't you offer one article that can support your idea about zero size or zero physical radius.

Look at the singularity article that I just posted.

As the magnetic field is relative to 1/r there is no need for any sort of miracle in order for Theory D to work.

If you insist that a black hole has a magnetic field and use the Earth and Sun as analogues, then what you have is a magnetic dipole. The strength of the field of a magnetic dipole falls off to the cube of distance. So you still have a problem in explaining how an accretion disk is formed.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:05:49
Again, not even a single word about Zero size BH.

Because they are talking about the event horizon, not the singularity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Again in this article - not even a single word about Zero size BH.
They only claim for "Zero size" with regards to the BBT (as I was expecting)
"The classical version of the Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all time-like geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe with all spatial dimensions of size zero, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite spacetime curvature."
So the zero size at the  BBT comes with "infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite spacetime curvature."
However, our scientists do not claim for the same zero size at a BH.
Actually it is stated that: "Some theories, such as the theory of loop quantum gravity, suggest that singularities may not exist.[8] This is also true for such classical unified field theories as the Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations."
So, could it be that in our current Universe there is no real singularity?
It is also stated:
"Physicists are undecided whether the prediction of singularities means that they actually exist (or existed at the start of the Big Bang), or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe what happens at such extreme densities."
So, if our scientists claim that the "current knowledge is insufficient to describe what happens at such extreme densities", and they don't say even one word about zero size BH, so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???
Therefore, you still couldn't prove this wrong assumption.
Hence - do you confirm that our scientists do not support your assumption about zero size BH?

Hawking radiation is not caused by magnetism.

That is a sever mistake.
You hope that Hawking radiation is only due to gravity. This is absolutely incorrect.
Without magnetism around a BH, there won't be any radiation.
You actually offered CERN as an example.
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!!!

If you insist that a black hole has a magnetic field and use the Earth and Sun as analogues, then what you have is a magnetic dipole.

There is big difference between the structures of the Sun to BH.
You have stated that the BH size is virtually zero.
I claim that it is not zero but close to zero.
It might be 3Km, 300m or just 3m.
However, in that ultra compact size ultra high current flows due to the Ultra hot & dense plasma.
Therefore, it acts as a wire with ultra high current.
This meets the following explanation:
 

http://wikipremed.com/01physicscards600/371a.gif
B = μ * I /  ( 2 π r)
Hence, B is affected by 1/r

The BH and especially the SMBH is clearly not a classical dipole.
We see those symmetrical molecular jet streams above and below the poles.
ONLY the mighty SMBH' magnetic field can set this kind of stream.
It shows that there are two unique features:
1. The poles are located high above the physical mass of the SMBH. So, it acts as virtual poles that go all the way up to 27,000 Ly (or above).
2. As the stream are symmetrical above and below the galactic disc,  the poles are changed at high frequency. It might be once a day or 100 times per second.
Please be aware that the changing frequency at the Sun is once in 11 years.
Therefore, the BH magnetic field works quite differently from the Sun or earth.
I'm not sure that we can clearly understand how the magnetism works at the BH/SMBH, but it is there at Ultra high force/field

[Bored chemist]

Again in this article - not even a single word about Zero size BH.

I haven't seen many articles that refer to disease transmission in 150 to 180 cm adult humans, or to reactions of hydrogen atoms that are about 100 pm in diameter.

Why would you bother to state something that well defined (and, indeed irrelevant- even if the BH was finite, we wouldn't know about it because it would be hidden behind the EH.)

Therefore, you still couldn't prove this wrong assumption.

I can prove it doesn't matter.
It's hidden behind the curtain of the EH.

You hope that Hawking radiation is only due to gravity. This is absolutely incorrect.

Did you check that with Hawking?
Because, according to all the stuff I have seen Prof Hawking didn't consider  that a magnetic field was needed.

If there's some other "magic" that uses a magnetic field (which the BH still doesn't have but...) then OK, so be it.
But it can't be Hawking radiation.

Magnetism is the ONLY force that can transfer energy to the new created Photons

You do know that photons are not affected by a magnetic field, don't you?
Magnets don't "look funny".

[Bored chemist]

...
I'm not sure that we can clearly understand how the magnetism works at the BH/SMBH,
 ...

Yay!
You accidentally got something right.

"At the BH" is inside the EH so we will never know what happens there.
I can postulate that all matter falling past the EH turns into unicorns.
Nobody will ever prove me wrong.

But, if I say " and because of the unicorns we will observe [whatever] " then anyone will be able to point out that I'm wrong.
Because, if I was right, that would mean information (about unicorns) leaving a BH.
And nothing ever leaves a BH.

That's how we know you are wrong about the magnetic field having any influence outside the EH.

[Bored chemist]

The poles are located high above the physical mass of the SMBH. So, it acts as virtual poles that go all the way up to 27,000 Ly

So, you either don't know what the poles are, or you are saying that it's not the BH that's creating the field.

[Kryptid]

Again in this article - not even a single word about Zero size BH.

Read again:

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".

A point has no dimensions. It has a size of zero.

so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???

It's what general relativity predicts.

Hence - do you confirm that our scientists do not support your assumption about zero size BH?

Nope. We don't know for sure whether there is a singularity or not, but it certainly is a widely-spread idea in general relativity.

You hope that Hawking radiation is only due to gravity. This is absolutely incorrect.

Then you don't know how Hawking radiation works.

So Please - try to shut down the magnetism at CERN and see that we won't get any sort of radiation.

CERN doesn't make Hawking radiation. There's a reason that "Hawking" is in front of the word "radiation" here.

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!!!

All unevidenced, ignorant statements.

Therefore, it acts as a wire with ultra high current.

Nope.

The 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.