[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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37
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.

Thanks
Do appreciate

So, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Magnetic BH

That kind of BH is the leading power for any new creation particles in our Universe.
Hawking claims that negative + positive mass particles are created due to gravity.
This is a fatal error.
There are no negative mass in our universe.
Negative mass is just a fiction.
Any new particle creation must be based on two particles (both with positive mass) but with opposite charge.
Their creation could be take place ONLY by using the energy transformation from the magnetic BH.
If we shut down the magnetic field of the BH, not even a single photon would be created by gravity.
So, a BH without magnetic field wouldn't be able to create any sort of new particle.
Therefore, any BH with accretion ring is by definition a magnetic BH.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:55:37
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.

Thanks
Do appreciate

So, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.

Briefly.

[Bored chemist]

So, it's now th e4th time...

In the meantime, for the third time of asking.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:10:06
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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

It is all about the ratio between the size of proton with regards to the size of Hydrogen Atom.
I only know that it should be more than 10,000.
How more is not fully clear at this stage.
Do you have an idea what is the correct ratio?

[Kryptid]

So, as we discuss on a rotatable BH with net electric charge - then we all agree that this kind of BH should be considered as magnetic BH.

But there isn't any significant electric charge on natural black holes. At least not ones that have been around for very long.

That kind of BH is the leading power for any new creation particles in our Universe.
Hawking claims that negative + positive mass particles are created due to gravity.
This is a fatal error.
There are no negative mass in our universe.
Negative mass is just a fiction.

And, as expected, you have no idea how Hawking radiation works.

Any new particle creation must be based on two particles (both with positive mass)

That would violate conservation of mass, so we know it isn't true.

Their creation could be take place ONLY by using the energy transformation from the magnetic BH.
If we shut down the magnetic field of the BH, not even a single photon would be created by gravity.
So, a BH without magnetic field wouldn't be able to create any sort of new particle.
Therefore, any BH with accretion ring is by definition a magnetic BH.

Wrong, as usual.

[Bored chemist]

Do you have an idea what is the correct ratio?

Why do you imagine it's a ratio?
Surely you must understand that, at the least, with more mass- and thus more gravity the effect should be bigger.
So the compression factor would depend on the initial size. A bigger star would compress more.

But remember- you are the one who said this was easy- so get on with it.

It is all about the ratio between the size of proton with regards to the size of Hydrogen Atom.

Why would it be just protons?
Like most of  your posts, that makes no sense, does it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Neutron Star
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
It seems that Neutron star fully meets my expectation about a magnetic rotatable BH.
Size - "A 2 M☉ neutron star would not be more compact than 10,970 meters radius (AP4 model). Its mass fraction gravitational binding energy would then be 0.187, −18.7% (exothermic). This is not near 0.6/2 = 0.3, −30%."
Magnetic field-  "The neutron stars known as magnetars have the strongest magnetic fields, in the range of 10^8 to 10^11 tesla,[32] "
Density and pressure- "Neutron stars have overall densities of 3.7×1017 to 5.9×1017 kg/m3 (2.6×1014 to 4.1×1014 times the density of the Sun),[c] which is comparable to the approximate density of an atomic nucleus of 3×1017 kg/m3"
Rotation - "Neutron stars are known that have rotation periods from about 1.4 ms to 30 s."
Jet Beam - "If the axis of rotation of the neutron star is different to the magnetic axis, external viewers will only see these beams of radiation whenever the magnetic axis point towards them during the neutron star rotation."
Do you remember the Molecular Jet stream that we see above and below the galactic disc?
That exactly what we get from a Neutron star due to its powerful magnetic field.
New particles creation at the accretion disc (or thin cylinder) -  "Photons can merge or split in two, and virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are produced. The field changes electron energy levels and atoms are forced into thin cylinders."
Those new created partials fully meets my explanation about the idea that a pair with positive mass and opposite polarity are created due to magnetic field.
Made by atomic nucleus - "A neutron star has some of the properties of an atomic nucleus, including density (within an order of magnitude) and being composed of nucleons. In popular scientific writing, neutron stars are therefore sometimes described as "giant nuclei".

Therefore, after all it seems that I was fully correct. In my vision I thought about rotatable (Kerr) BH while our scientists call it neutron star.

So what is the real difference between Neutron star to rotatable magnetic BH?
We really don't see them both.
We only see the activity around them and it is almost identical.
So, how do we know that our estimation about each physical size is correct?
How can we distinguish between the two objects?
Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?

[Kryptid]

It seems that Neutron star fully meets my expectation about a magnetic rotatable BH.

Neutron stars are not black holes. They don't have event horizons.

Therefore, after all it seems that I was fully correct. In my vision I thought about rotatable (Kerr) BH while our scientists call it neutron star.

No. Neutron stars are not black holes.

So what is the real difference between Neutron star to rotatable magnetic BH?

Neutron stars have a solid surface. Black holes don't. Black holes can also be significantly more massive than neutron stars.

So, how do we know that our estimation about each physical size is correct?

The laws of physics.

How can we distinguish between the two objects?

Mass. Anything more than about 2.16 times the mass of a neutron star is a black hole. A neutron star cannot withstand such high levels of mass without collapsing into a black hole. Neutron degeneracy pressure simply isn't strong enough to support it against such crushing gravity.

Also, neutron stars are very hot, especially immediately after they have formed (millions of degrees). That would make their surfaces glow brightly. A black hole with the same mass as a neutron star would be completely black, by contrast. The Hawking radiation it emits would be very cool, low frequency radio waves. We've already taken a picture of the black hole at the center of our galaxy (Sagittarius A*), and it is black (as expected). It is absolutely not a neutron star.

Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?

I absolutely, positively do not!

Coincidentally, a study was recently done that can distinguish black holes from neutron stars: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-x-rays-reveal-a-distinctive-signature-of-black-hole-event-horizons/

[Bored chemist]

It seems that Neutron star fully meets my expectation about a magnetic rotatable BH.

Except... it isn't one.
It's not dense enough.
I already pointed this out.

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

You even said
"

Thanks for that excellent message.

"
But now, it seems you have forgotten it.

So what is the real difference between Neutron star to rotatable magnetic BH?

Well, for one thing, the ,magnetic field of a neutron star lasts long enough to produce observable effects.
Also- here's a hint- neutron stars are not black.

Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?

No.
Two reasons.
1) You can't remove the magnetic field from a neutron star  without it stopping being one.
2) You need to increase the density a bit.
Well, quite a lot actually.
About 10^114 fold
That's not a typo.
You are wrong by a factor of roughly 1 with 114 zeroes.
The radius of a neutron star is about 10 km
That of a BH is about the Planck length (if you are lucky) that's 10^-34 M
So that's a ratio of about 10^38
And the volume (and thus density) scale with the cube of the radius.
So that's (10^38) ^ 3
which is 10^114


How wrong are you going to be before you get embarrassed?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:19:21
Actually, do you agree that if we eliminate the magnetic field from a neutron star we get a BH?

I absolutely, positively do not!

Coincidentally, a study was recently done that can distinguish black holes from neutron stars: https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-x-rays-reveal-a-distinctive-signature-of-black-hole-event-horizons/

In the following article it is stated:
https://scitechdaily.com/cosmic-x-rays-reveal-a-distinctive-signature-of-black-hole-event-horizons/
"A black hole is an exotic cosmic object without a hard surface predicted by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. Although it does not have a surface, it is confined within an invisible boundary, called an event horizon, from within which nothing, not even light, can escape. Definitive proof of the existence of such objects is a holy grail of modern physics and astronomy."
So, the main difference between BH to Neutron star is the idea that a BH has a soft surface while Neutron star has hard surface.
Why is it?
Why Einstein’s theory of General Relativity doesn't predict a hard surface for a BH but only for Neutron star?
 In any case, it is also stated that there is no proof for that as it is just a theoretical concept which had not been validated yet.
So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?
They also claim:
Using the archival X-ray data from the now decommissioned astronomy satellite Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer, they have identified the effect of the lack of hard surface on the observed X-ray emission, and thus have found an extremely strong signature of accreting stellar-mass black holes."
So, it is all about X-ray radiation.
With regards to the graph of X-ray it is stated:
"The graph shows measured values of two source properties – electron temperature and Comptonization parameter – from many X-ray observations of about two dozens of black holes and neutron stars. It is clearly seen that the black hole (red symbols) and the neutron star (blue symbols) are almost entirely separated in an unprecedented manner, thus identifying the black holes indubitably. Credit: Srimanta Banerjee, Sudip Bhattacharyya, Marat Gilfanov"What is the meaning of "Comptonization parameter" in that X-ray graph?
How do they know that the red dots represent Neutron stars while the Blue represent BHs?
What is there in that "Comptonization parameter" that shows which one has Hard surface and which one has a soft surface?

[Bored chemist]

A black hole is an exotic cosmic object without a hard surface

So; not like a neutron star then...

Definitive proof of the existence of such objects is a holy grail of modern physics and astronomy."

We have pictures etc.

So, the main difference between BH to Neutron star is the idea that a BH has a soft surface while Neutron star has hard surface.

No. It's not clear that a black hole has a surface at all, but to the extent that it does, it's the hardest surface there is. Nothing survives an impact with it.

The difference is that one is a black hole and the other is a neutron star.
We already explained this to you, at some length.
It's just plain bad mannered of you to ignore that.

So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?

In reality. we have evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(natural_phenomenon)#Starquake

Why don't you learn about things rather than making up nonsense?

from many X-ray observations of about two dozens of black holes and neutron stars. It is clearly seen that the black hole (red symbols) and the neutron star (blue symbols) are almost entirely separated in an unprecedented manner,

Yes; that's even more reason to recognise that they are not the same thing.

"What is the meaning of "Comptonization parameter" in that X-ray graph?

It's a thing you should either learn about or accept.

How do they know that the red dots represent Neutron stars while the Blue represent BHs?

From the other differences between the two types of objects.

It's as if there's a paper that says "apples produce fewer terpenes than oranges" and you are saying that, because you don't understand what "terpene" means, the two fruit must be the same.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:17:03
So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?

In reality. we have evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(natural_phenomenon)#Starquake

Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_(natural_phenomenon)#Starquake
It is stated:
"Starquakes are thought to result from two different mechanisms:
One is the huge stresses exerted on the surface of the neutron star produced by twists in the ultra-strong interior magnetic fields.
A second cause is a result of spindown. As the neutron star loses angular velocity due to frame-dragging and by the bleeding off of energy due to it being a rotating magnetic dipole,"
Hence, based on "one" it is due to magnetic field, based on "second cause" it is due to rotating magnetic dipole.
Therefore, it is all about magnetic - in one way or the other.
It is also stated:
"The quake, which occurred 50,000 light years from Earth, released gamma rays equivalent to 1037 kW. Had it occurred within a distance of 10 light years from Earth, the quake could have triggered a mass extinction.["
This is very similar to a "flare" at a BH or even a SMBH.
In both cases there is high release of gamma rays.
So, why that gamma rays or quake in a neutron star gives an indication about the crust of that Neutron star, while when we see a similar/identical gamma rays phenomenon (that we call "flare") from a BH we don't claim that it gives any indication about its crust?

[Kryptid]

So, the main difference between BH to Neutron star is the idea that a BH has a soft surface while Neutron star has hard surface.

No, that is not the main difference. The main difference is that one has its mass inside of its own Schwarzschild radius while the other does not.

Why is it?

Because one has an escape velocity exceeding that of light and the other does not.

Why Einstein’s theory of General Relativity doesn't predict a hard surface for a BH but only for Neutron star?

Because no solid structure can withstand the forces in a black hole.

In any case, it is also stated that there is no proof for that as it is just a theoretical concept which had not been validated yet.

As I have stated many, many times, there is no such thing as proof in science. However, every single bit of evidence to date supports it.

So, could it be that the idea of a hard/soft surface is none realistic for any of those objects?

It is absolutely realistic because not only is that exactly what the known laws of physics predicts, but observations support it.

How do they know that the red dots represent Neutron stars while the Blue represent BHs?

Mass.

So, why that gamma rays or quake in a neutron star gives an indication about the crust of that Neutron star, while when we see a similar/identical gamma rays phenomenon (that we call "flare") from a BH we don't claim that it gives any indication about its crust?

Because it is literally impossible for a black hole to have a crust.

[Bored chemist]

This is very similar to a...

No; it's not.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:59:14
This is very similar to a "flare" at a BH or even a SMBH.

No; it's not.

Are you sure about it?

In the following article it is stated:
https://www.uab.cat/web/newsroom/news-detail/registry-of-unusual-black-hole-gamma-ray-flares-1345668003610.html?noticiaid=1345677915100
"The MAGIC telescopes on the island of La Palma registered the fastest gamma ray flares seen to date, produced in the vicinity of a super-massive black hole"
So, do you agree that:
" the fastest gamma ray flares seen to date, produced in the vicinity of a super-massive black hole"?
If yes, do you confirm a Flare from a BH or SMBH means "gamma ray"?
As BH (Black Hole) and NS (Neutron Star) are producing Gamma Ray, why do you claim that that they are different?

So, let me ask again::

So, why that gamma rays or quake in a neutron star gives an indication about the crust of that Neutron star, while when we see a similar/identical gamma rays phenomenon (that we call "flare") from a BH we don't claim that it gives any indication about its crust?

As I have stated many, many times, there is no such thing as proof in science. However, every single bit of evidence to date supports it.

Which kind of evidence?
Do you mean Gamma ray?

[Kryptid]

So, let me ask again::

And let me answer again:

Because it is literally impossible for a black hole to have a crust.

Which kind of evidence?
Do you mean Gamma ray?

Nuclear physics (from which a neutron star's upper mass limit can be derived), the photograph of Sagittarius A* that shows it to be black instead of glowing hot and the measurement of a neutron star's radius (which shows that it isn't inside of its own Schwarzschild radius) are some good ones.