[Kryptid]

Ok
Please see the following evidence:

That article is talking about rotating black holes with net electric charge. Net charge on a black hole would not be expected to last long because it would preferably attract particles of the opposite charge and thus neutralize itself.

I find it quite funny that you have complained when we give you theory instead of direct observation as evidence, but now here you are giving theory instead of direct observation as evidence yourself. So why is it okay for you to use theory as evidence but not us?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That article is talking about rotating black holes with net electric charge.

Do you mean that a Kerr BH is a rotatable BH with Net electric charge?
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?
If so how that BH could have any sort of "net electric charge" or magnetic field, while its dimension is zero?
Actually, what is the meaning of rotatable BH while its dimension is zero?
How any object at zero space or zero thickness could rotate?
You have stated several times that BH has no magnetic field as its dimension Must be zero.
Even in your last answer you have claimed that "ring singularity" means zero thickness:

a ring singularity still has zero thickness and thus is not made up of smaller particles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity

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:

Quote from: Dave Lev on 17/09/2020 19:29:58
so how could you claim that a zero size BH is real???

It's what general relativity predicts.

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.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 16/09/2020 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.

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

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.
At that time you didn't distinguish between a rotatable BH to Non-Rotatable 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?

[Kryptid]

So, 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.

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"?

I didn't. The net electric charge is necessary for there to be a magnetic field around a black hole.

In any case, do you finely agree that there is a possibility that a BH can carry a net electric charge or magnetic field?

Possible? Yes. It's unlikely in nature, though. 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.

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?

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. 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.

A spinning electric charge produces a magnetic field, hence why a charged, rotating black hole would have a 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:

This assumes the simplest black hole: one that does not rotate.

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.

If you had actually gotten that impression, you sure didn't show it.

How could it be that general relativity suddenly doesn't work when it comes to a rotatable BH?

It does. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

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?

It doesn't. The ring has collapsed to zero thickness.

If you knew that a rotatable BH has Net electric charge or Magnetic field, why you didn't confirm it at the first place?

Because rotating black holes normally would not have net electric charge or a magnetic field (for reasons I've already stated).

Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?

I have not.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47
Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?

I have not.

So, would you kindly backup you answer/understanding with real articles?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47
So, 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.

Well, let's read again the following article:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989BAICz..40...65B
"There us ever increasing evidence that black holes play the central role in number of astronomical phenomena connected in particular, with extragalactic sources (see…) .Although one does not expect Black holes to carry a significant charge, some numerical works suggests (Damour 1987) that if the collapsing neutral body is rotating and magnetized, charge separation may occur and the resulting rotatable Black hole carries a non-vanishing charge and magnetic field."

It is stated clearly that "if the collapsing neutral body is rotating and magnetized, charge separation may occur..."
So, it is expected that first the neutral body would be a rotatable and magnetized.
In that stage it should carry charge as you have stated:

A spinning electric charge produces a magnetic field, hence why a charged, rotating black hole would have a magnetic field.

So, without electric charged that neutral body would be a magnetized at the first place

Hence, first we start from a neutral body that is rotating, magnetized (and have electric charged), and just after the collapse the charge separation may occur.
Then it is stated: "and the resulting rotatable Black hole carries a non-vanishing charge and magnetic field
So, we have started with a rotatable, charged & magnetized body and just after the collapse process we have got a rotatable BH which carry NON-VANISHING charge and magnetic field.
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":

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.

So why you add you interpretation that the charge should be vanish quickly as it is "expected to quickly become neutral"?

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.

How could it be that a "NON-VANISHING (or NON-disappear) electric charged and magnetic field" as explained in the article had been transformed in your answer to quickly VANISHING charge and magnetic field or "magnetic field disappear"?
Would you kindly backup this understanding by real article about the process activity at a magnetized rotatable BH?
If they say that it is non- disappear why do you take the freedom to change it to: "disappear?
Please also be aware that they even call this object:  "Magnetic Black Holes"
So, would you kindly show the evidence why this  "Magnetic Black Holes" should disappear quickly?

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.

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?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47
I 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:

You can call it zero point, zero ring, zero star, zero BH or even zero universe.
In all of them the zero is absolutely the same.
Don't you agree that in a zero point there must be zero energy and zero mass.
The only exception that our scientists have offered with regards to zero point is at the Big Bang story.
They claim that an energy (not mass) could exist at Zero point and ONLY during the Big Bang.
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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47
Why do you confuse me with wrong answers?

I have not.

So, would you kindly backup you answer/understanding with real articles?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47
So, 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.

Well, let's read again the following article:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989BAICz..40...65B
"There us ever increasing evidence that black holes play the central role in number of astronomical phenomena connected in particular, with extragalactic sources (see…) .Although one does not expect Black holes to carry a significant charge, some numerical works suggests (Damour 1987) that if the collapsing neutral body is rotating and magnetized, charge separation may occur and the resulting rotatable Black hole carries a non-vanishing charge and magnetic field."

It is stated clearly that "if the collapsing neutral body is rotating and magnetized, charge separation may occur..."
So, it is expected that first the neutral body would be a rotatable and magnetized.
In that stage it should carry charge as you have stated:

A spinning electric charge produces a magnetic field, hence why a charged, rotating black hole would have a magnetic field.

So, without electric charged that neutral body won't be a magnetized at the first place

Hence, first we start from a neutral body that is rotating, magnetized (and have electric charged), and just after the collapse the charge separation may occur.
Then it is stated: "and the resulting rotatable Black hole carries a non-vanishing charge and magnetic field
So, we have started with a rotatable, charged & magnetized body and just after the collapse process we have got a rotatable BH which carry NON-VANISHING charge and magnetic field.
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":

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.

So why you add you interpretation that the charge should be vanish quickly as it is "expected to quickly become neutral"?

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.

How could it be that a "NON-VANISHING (or NON-disappear) electric charged and magnetic field" as explained in the article had been transformed in your answer to quickly VANISHING charge and magnetic field or "magnetic field disappear"?
Would you kindly backup this understanding by real article about the process activity at a magnetized rotatable BH?
If they say that it is non- disappear why do you take the freedom to change it to: "disappear?
Please also be aware that they even call this object:  "Magnetic Black Holes"
So, would you kindly show the evidence why this  "Magnetic Black Holes" should disappear quickly?

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.

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?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:47
I 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:

You can call it zero point, zero ring, zero star, zero BH or even zero universe.
In all of them the zero is absolutely the same.
Don't you agree that in a zero point there must be zero energy and zero mass.
The only exception that our scientists have offered with regards to zero point is at the Big Bang story.
They claim that an energy (not mass) could exist at Zero point and ONLY during the Big Bang.
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.

[Bored chemist]

Don't you agree that in a zero point there must be zero energy and zero mass.

Obviously, no.
The electron has zero size but has a mass and a charge.

[Kryptid]

So, would you kindly backup you answer/understanding with real articles?

I have.

So, without electric charged that neutral body won't be a magnetized at the first place

Right.

What is the meaning of NON-VANISHING charge and magnetic field?

It means that it has a charge and a magnetic field. "Non-vanishing" is just another way of saying "it isn't zero".

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Nonvanishing.html

Could it be that it means "non-disappear", "steady", "constant" or "stable"?

No.

You even add that "Charge cannot be destroyed":

Right, but it can be neutralized by opposite charges.

So why you add you interpretation that the charge should be vanish quickly as it is "expected to quickly become neutral"?

I already told you. Go back and read my replies if you've forgotten that quickly.

If they say that it is non- disappear

They never did.

So, would you kindly show the evidence why this  "Magnetic Black Holes" should disappear quickly?

I already explained it.

Well, what is the meaning of a ring with zero thickness?

I don't know why the meaning isn't clear to you. You know what thickness means, don't you? A doughnut is thicker than a wedding ring. Both are ring shapes.

If the thickness is zero, why can't we assume that there is no ring?

It has mass and angular momentum, so it exists.

If I will tell you that there is a chair with a zero thickness, would you try to sit on it?

No form of matter that is stable at standard conditions can have zero thickness, so your hypothetical chair couldn't exist in the first place.

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?

Charge and mass are properties of objects. They don't have a size. Asking how they can "fit" somewhere doesn't make sense.

Don't you agree that in a zero point there must be zero energy and zero mass.

You have asked this before and my answer has not changed since then: no.

They claim that an energy (not mass)

E=mc².

As I have stated before, in none of the articles that you had offered it was stated that a BH has a zero size.

Then you didn't read reply 876.

Is it your personal understanding or do you base it on real science?

It's 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.

Properties don't have a size.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:04:53
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.

Properties don't have a size.

Do you mean particle Properties?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
"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"?

[Kryptid]

Do you mean particle Properties?

Yes. Charge and mass don't have a size.

"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"?

The concept of a particle's size isn't exactly well-defined. In some experiments, particles appear to be points of zero size. In others, they appear to be waves with a defined wavelength. 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. This is an unresolved issue in science.

[Bored chemist]

To your credit, it is very possible that black holes do not collapse to zero size

It looks like he finally did what was suggested a while ago.

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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

This is known as wave-particle duality.

I have tried to learn this issue and found the following explanation:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15280/1/Wave-ParticleDuality2.pdf
"Entities in physics are discrete; both the mass particle and the energy photon are quantized. Entities have a dimensional presence in the sense of occupying (residing in) a dimension; the particle requires a space interval (volume), photon oscillation requires a time interval."
So it is stated very clearly that particle requires a space interval (volume). Hence, it must have real dimensional presence in the sense of occupying (residing in) a dimension
therefore, don't you agree that we can't set a particle at a zero size. If a particle is losing its minimal dimension in space it can't be considered any more as the same particle with the same mass at it used to be.

How quantum mechanics and relativity are reconciled inside of a black hole is not known at this time.

If it is not known at this time, why are you so sure that you can fit trillions of particles at zero size?
As "quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths", then it should be very clear to all of us that any particle requires a space interval (volume) wherever it is. It could be at the open space, at the surface of the sun, at the core of the BH and even at the core of the biggest SMBH in the whole Universe. There is no way for 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,

Thanks
Do appreciate.

but that quantum mechanics prevents them from shrinking below a size around the Planck length.

Well, "quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths" If that size is around the Planck length than your answer is correct.
However, if we take trillions over trillions of particles (each one at size of Planck length) we might get a significant volume. It is surly not zero.

The concept of a particle's size isn't exactly well-defined.

Sorry, it is perfectly 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.

Which kind of experiments?
Please offer the relevant article.

This is an unresolved issue in science

Why do you claim that it is an unresolved issue in science?
We have a perfect answer from quantum mechanics:
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.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, it is perfectly defined:

No, it is not.

Why do you claim that it is an unresolved issue in science?

We don't know the answer.

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.

Go on then

Calculate, as an example, the size  of any black hole you like.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Calculate, as an example, the size of any black hole you like.

Very easy
Let's assume that we have a BH with one Sun mass.
The ratio in each Hydrogen atom between its size to its nuclease is one to 10,000
The main mass in each nuclease is due to one proton.

Therefore, assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons while in the sun there are only Hydrogen atoms:
Then, the total physical radius of a BH with one sun mass is:
Sun radius / 10,000 = 696,340 /10,000 = 69.9 Km.

[Bored chemist]

The ratio in each Hydrogen atom between its size to its nuclease is one to 10,000

You made that number up.
So that's not really an estimate of the size of the BH; at best, it is a guess.


"

assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons

"
We know that's not true, because, even neutron stars (which are less compact than BH don't have free protons any more.

Do you remember saying this

Once we understand that simple explanation by quantum mechanics, we can easily calculate the real size of mass in any BH

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.

[Kryptid]

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

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

They're not.

Then, 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

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46
The ratio in each Hydrogen atom between its size to its nuclease is one to 10,000

You made that number up.
So that's not really an estimate of the size of the BH; at best, it is a guess.

It is real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius
Under most definitions the radii of isolated neutral atoms range between 30 and 300 pm (trillionths of a meter), or between 0.3 and 3 ångströms. Therefore, the radius of an atom is more than 10,000 times the radius of its nucleus (1–10 fm),[2] and less than 1/1000 of the wavelength of visible light (400–700 nm).
So, the ratio between the nucleus to its atom is one to 10,000 or more.
Based on one to 10,000 we have got that radius of 68Km.
However, it is stated more than 10,000. Therefore, if the real ratio is one to 200,000 than we should get a radius of about 3.4 Km.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46
Then, 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

It is all about the ratio between the size of the hydrogen atom to its Proton.
At a ratio of one to 235,000 we get exactly that 2.95 Km.

We know that's not true, because, even neutron stars (which are less compact than BH don't have free protons any more.

Thanks for that excellent message.
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.
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.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:53:46
Therefore, assuming that all particles at the BH are made out of protons

They're not.

Can you please prove that a BH is not made out of particles as protons

[Bored chemist]

It is real:

It's a real number, but it's a measure of the wrong thing.

At a ratio of one to 235,000 we get exactly that 2.95 Km.

So, by picking the right number, you get the right answer.
But you picked that number by knowing what the answer is.

That's not very useful.
And it's not science.

Yes, a star is made by atoms and molecular while BH is made out of particles as Protons.

No it isn't.

That proves that BH would never ever be created out of collapsing star.

Even if it was true, it still wouldn't prove that.

Atom wouldn't give up its physical size not even due to supernova or ultra high gravity.

And again...
what would stop it?

Just as an example, one of the biggest star has 1700 times the Sun radius (and it is still a star)

The reason it is a star and not a BH is that it is too big- too spread out.

Give it time.

Can you please prove that a BH is not made out of particles as protons

I already did.
You noted that it was a good point.
And then you misinterpreted it.

In the meantime, for the third time of asking.

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.

[Kryptid]

It is all about the ratio between the size of the hydrogen atom to its Proton.

No, it isn't. That doesn't have anything to do with the Schwarzschild radius.

BH is made out of particles as Protons.

No, they aren't.

That proves that BH would never ever be created out of collapsing star.

Non-sequitur. How do you think black holes are created in the first place?

Atom wouldn't give up its physical size not even due to supernova or ultra high gravity.

And yet that's exactly what happens when a star goes supernova and becomes a neutron star.

So, a star could be very massive without any need to collapse and transfer into BH.

If it's massive enough, it would have to.

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.

You know that mass and size are different things, don't you? Do you even know what the Schwarzschild radius is?

Can you please prove that a BH is not made out of particles as protons

First of all, they can't be made out of protons because the matter that collapses to form them contains both protons and electrons. Under sufficient pressure, protons capture those electrons and become neutrons. This is what forms neutron stars. Neutron stars are held up by neutron degeneracy pressure. However, the degeneracy pressure has a finite strength. If the star is too massive, gravity will overwhelm degeneracy pressure and crush those particles. That's the kind of conditions you find inside of a black hole.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Magnetic Black Holes

Before we continue to any new idea, let's close the highlight of our discussion.
Do we all agree that a BH has a real physical size?
Therefore, as it is stated in the following article:

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"

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?

[Kryptid]

Do we all agree that a BH has a real physical size?

Depends on whether you mean the singularity or the event horizon.

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?

If it has net electric charge, yes. Otherwise, no.