[Bored chemist]

So, let me ask again::

Why should we?

You keep asking stuff that we have already answered.
Wouldn't it be better all round if you actually did some sort of study.
Once you actually understand the physics you will be able to ask better questions and also you might not keep asking the same ones.

Obviously, that's not the same as repeatedly asking questions that don't get answered so, let's start with this

If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:21:33
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.

Step by step:
1. Nuclear physics (from which a neutron star's upper mass limit can be derived) - There is no upper mass limit for a NS.
For example, the following star has 215 Sun mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1
So, if stars could be so big without any difficulty, there is no problem for a NS to become a Supper Massive NS with 4* 10^6 Sun mass.
2.  The photograph of Sagittarius A* that shows it to be black instead of glowing hot  - NS can be as cold as BH. It is all about Magnetic field. If it has strong magnetic field it should be hot. If its magnetic field is low, it would be quite cold.
3. The measurement of a neutron star's radius (which shows that it isn't inside of its own Schwarzschild radius) are some good ones - Sorry this is just hypothetical idea. We have no evidence that the radius of the physical size of a BH is shorter than the one of the NS. You even confirmed that it can't be zero. So, the physical radius of a BH is just a theoretical idea which had not been ever confirmed.
4. Gamma Ray - I have proved that Both BH and NS have Gamma Ray.
5. Crust - as the whole idea was that a gamma ray of the NS is an indication for hard crust, while the BH has the same gamma ray, then it shows that they share the same crust.
Therefore -
Any BH is actually a Neutron star with or without magnetic field.
Any SMBH is actually SMNS.
There is nothing that a SMBH can do which SMNS can't do.
Therefore, there is no BH in our universe. Only NS and SMNS.

However, there is no need to argue about it.
Once you agree that a BH/NS or SMBH/SMNS has magnetic field that sets the flare gamma ray and the Molecular jet stream, this is perfectly Ok with me.

[Bored chemist]

Nuclear physics (from which a neutron star's upper mass limit can be derived) - There is no upper mass limit for a NS.
For example, the following star has 215 Sun mass.

So, you don't understand that it's a density thing rather than a mass thing?

Why is that?
Have you not looked into it?

- NS can be as cold as BH.

No
They haven't had time to cool down yt.

Incidentally, speaking of time.
When do you plan to answer this?

If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

[Bored chemist]

However, there is no need to argue about it.

Indeed, you could just accept that you are wrong.
But, in spite of regularly demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about, you think you are the one who is right.

That's psychotic.

[Kryptid]

There is no upper mass limit for a NS.

Please stop talking about things that you don't know anything about.

So, if stars could be so big without any difficulty, there is no problem for a NS to become a Supper Massive NS with 4* 10^6 Sun mass.

Normal stars are supported against collapse by the heat from nuclear fusion. Neutron stars don't have that. You can't apply to one what you can apply to the other.

NS can be as cold as BH

Not within the current age of the Universe it can't. They would not have had enough time to cool off that much.

If it has strong magnetic field it should be hot.

That is not what makes a neutron star hot. Neutron stars are hot because they are formed from the collapse of stellar matter. That generates a massive amount of heat.

Sorry this is just hypothetical idea.

No. No it is not: https://phys.org/news/2020-03-neutron-star-kilometers-radius.html#:~:text=%22We%20find%20that%20the%20typical,between%2010.4%20and%2011.9%20kilometers.

5. Crust - as the whole idea was that a gamma ray of the NS is an indication for hard crust, while the BH has the same gamma ray, then it shows that they share the same crust.

Are you blind or just willfully ignorant?

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

Any BH is actually a Neutron star with or without magnetic field.

Absolutely not.

If its magnetic field is low, it would be quite cold.

And yet you claim that Sagittarius A* has a strong magnetic field. But it's still black. Stop being ridiculous.

There is nothing that a SMBH can do which SMNS can't do.

Neutron stars can't generate Hawking radiation (which requires the presence of an event horizon), so you're shooting yourself in the foot by claiming that all black holes are neutron stars (which is impossible).

When are you going to stop spouting anti-scientific nonsense? You seem to be under the impression that anything that has not been directly observed can be freely rejected as if we had no evidence for it at all. That is a perversion of science. It completely ignores the fact that there are set laws of physics that we can use to determine how the Universe operates and an abundance of experiments that tells us how matter and energy function in different circumstances. That gives us a wealth of evidence as to how neutron stars and black holes should behave. If you are denying that, then either:

(1) you think the majority of physicists are too stupid to know about the things you've spoken of, or
(2) you have stubbornly-held misconceptions about the way physics works and don't know what you are talking about.

Which is it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:56:12
NS can be as cold as BH

Not within the current age of the Universe it can't. They would not have had enough time to cool off that much.

Unless, the age of the Universe is longer than 13.8 BY.
Based on theory D the age of the Universe is infinite. So that issue by itself could be used as one more evidence why the universe is much older than our current understanding.

from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:56:12
Sorry this is just hypothetical idea.

No. No it is not: https://phys.org/news/2020-03-neutron-star-kilometers-radius.html#:~:text=%22We%20find%20that%20the%20typical,between%2010.4%20and%2011.9%20kilometers.

Thanks
The title of the article is: Team obtains the best measurement of neutron star size to date"
However, they don't explain how they really set the measurements.
It is stated: "We find that the typical neutron star, which is about 1.4 times as heavy as our Sun has a radius of about 11 kilometers," says Badri Krishnan,"
So, how they really have measured that kind of physical size, while we all understand that they can't observe the core by any sort of measurement tools.
Why they could measure that kind of object, while they couldn't do the same measurements for a BH with a similar mass?
Do you confirm that they can't really see the core of that NS as they can't see the core of a BH?
So, do you agree that it is all about estimation?
I don't claim that it is incorrect; I just say that in the article they don't show how they made this measurement.
With regards to the NS maximal size: It is stated:
"From this family, the authors selected those members that are most likely to explain different astrophysical observations; they picked models:"
"which agree with known constraints on the maximum neutron star mass from electromagnetic counterpart observations of GW170817."
Would you kindly explain that message:
1. Is it correct that they start by the assumption that NS has a maximal mass?
2. What is so unique in the electromagnetic counterpart observations of GW170817 that convinced them that this is the NS model with the maximal mass?
So, could it be that if they won't limit the mass of the NS they could find other model with higher mass?

In any case, this article is very interesting as it gives excellent explanation about the NS.
It is stated:
"Neutron stars contain the densest matter in the observable universe. In fact, they are so dense and compact, that you can think of the entire star as a single atomic nucleus, scaled up to the size of a city"
So, if that NS perfectly meets my explanation/expectation about the core of the densest object in the Universe.
However, if they claim that this NS has the densest matter in the observable universe, then why can't we believe them?
Why can't we assume that any object with similar mass can't be more dense with regards to the "densest matter in the observable universe" even if we call it BH?

Dear Kryptid,
You had already confirmed the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
"general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths."
So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?

[Kryptid]

Unless, the age of the Universe is longer than 13.8 BY.

There's no good evidence for that.

So that issue by itself could be used as one more evidence why the universe is much older than our current understanding.

Except that we know Sagittarius A* isn't a neutron star, so no, it can't be used as evidence.

So, how they really have measured that kind of physical size, while we all understand that they can't observe the core by any sort of measurement tools.

Read the article.

Do you confirm that they can't really see the core of that NS as they can't see the core of a BH?

Apples and oranges.

So, do you agree that it is all about estimation?

No. It's about comparing measurements with the known laws of nuclear physics. Models of neutron star matter aren't picked at random to tickle the fancy of the physicist. If I recall correctly, the range of different models for neutron star matter predict a maximum neutron star mass between 2 and 3 times the mass of the Sun. So they are actually fairly consistent with each other.

I don't claim that it is incorrect; I just say that in the article they don't show how they made this measurement.

They said that they made a model and compared the predictions of that model with the observations made using gravitational radiation and electromagnetic radiation. If they match, then that is evidence that the model is correct:

The research team used a model based on a first-principles description of how subatomic particles interact at the high densities found inside neutron stars. Remarkably, as the team shows, theoretical calculations at length scales less than a trillionth of a millimeter can be compared with observations of an astrophysical object more than a hundred million light years away.

1. Is it correct that they start by the assumption that NS has a maximal mass?

Yes, because neutron degeneracy pressure is finite. That demands that neutron stars have an upper mass limit because too much mass will necessary overwhelm degeneracy pressure.

2. What is so unique in the electromagnetic counterpart observations of GW170817 that convinced them that this is the NS model with the maximal mass?

Given that the actual research article is hidden behind a paywall, I can't answer that. But I'm not going to assume that the physicists are stupid.

So, could it be that if they won't limit the mass of the NS they could find other model with higher mass?

Only if the predictions of that model matched the data (which becomes less and less likely as you increase the mass limit, given that this particular model apparently matched the observations).

However, if they claim that this NS has the densest matter in the observable universe, then why can't we believe them?

It does have the most dense known matter in the Universe. Black holes, by contrast, aren't made of matter.

So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?

You would need to demonstrate that neutrons are at the limit of being squeezed inside of a neutron star (which you have not).

[Bored chemist]

Based on theory D the age of the Universe is infinite.

Which is one of the more obvious problems with the idea .
It isn't a theory.
Why do you keep pretending?

As BH (Black Hole) and NS (Neutron Star) are producing Gamma Ray, why do you claim that that they are different?

My coffee mug produces gamma rays.
Are you claiming that it is a black hole?

Now, lets see if you can be grown-up enough to answer a couple of questions.Or do you realise now, just how stupid you look?

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.

If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:42:33
So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?

You would need to demonstrate that neutrons are at the limit of being squeezed inside of a neutron star (which you have not).

I have already proved it by quantum mechanics law:

Dear Kryptid,
You had already confirmed the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
"general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths."
So, if the NS is considered as the densest matter in the observable universe, and it is made by "single atomic nucleus", then how can we squeeze it more without breaking the quantum mechanics law?

So please do you confirm that the the following quantum mechanics law is correct?
"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"
Therefore, you have to agree that there must be a minimum size for any sort of particle.
Our scientists claim that the core of Neutron Star is made out of "atomic nucleus":
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-neutron-star-kilometers-radius.html#:~:text=%22We%20find%20that%20the%20typical,between%2010.4%20and%2011.9%20kilometers
"Neutron stars contain the densest matter in the observable universe. In fact, they are so dense and compact, that you can think of the entire star as a single atomic nucleus, scaled up to the size of a city"
As atomic nucleus are made of particles, how can you hope for its collapse without breaking the quantum mechanics?
So, the quantum mechanics law is the ultimate evidence that there is no force in the whole Universe that can force particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.
Therefore, as long as we accept the quantum mechanics law, we all must agree that there is no possibility for an object that is made out of real particles to force each one of its particles to inhabit a space smaller than its wavelength.
Hence, any object that is made out of real particles must have a Minimal physical size based on the minimal size of the particles in its core.
Therefore, you have to agree that NS would never ever be converted to BH at a zero size.
Even if you believe that BH are real, than any BH that "eat" real particle wouldn't be able to force that particle to inhabit a space smaller than its wavelength.
 

It's about comparing measurements with the known laws of nuclear physics. Models of neutron star matter aren't picked at random to tickle the fancy of the physicist.

So, if our scientists accept the law of nuclear physics including the QM, how could they claim that BH could swallow a NS:
"They also find that neutron stars merging with black holes are in most cases likely to be swallowed whole, unless the black hole is small and/or rapidly rotating".
Is it real?
Hence, if those unrealistic BH were real and they will swallow a whole NS with its full size of Giant  "Single atomic nucleus", do you really believe that QM would allow for this giant atomic nucleus to inhabit a space smaller than the wavelength needed for each of its particles?
How could you claim that those scientists know "laws of nuclear physics"?

[Kryptid]

"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"

You're aware that, as a particle gains energy, its wavelength decreases, don't you? So what do you think the lower limit of a particle's wavelength is?

Therefore, you have to agree that NS would never ever be converted to BH at a zero size.

It technically wouldn't have to collapse to zero size to be a black hole anyway. All it has to do is be so dense that it is inside of its own Schwarzschild radius.

So, if our scientists accept the law of nuclear physics including the QM, how could they claim that BH could swallow a NS:

Finite degeneracy pressure, that's how.

Is it real?

Yes, it is.

Hence, if those unrealistic BH

Congratulations on calling something "unrealistic" that we know exists.

do you really believe that QM would allow for this giant atomic nucleus to inhabit a space smaller than the wavelength needed for each of its particles?

It doesn't have to. The wavelength associated with those particles becomes shorter and shorter as the neutron star collapses because those particles continuously gain energy from the gravitational collapse.

How could you claim that those scientists know "laws of nuclear physics"?

Because they don't tenaciously cling to misunderstandings like you do. That's one reason they are the scientists and you are not.

[Bored chemist]

How could you claim that those scientists know "laws of nuclear physics"?

It's called science.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:41:13
Hence, if those unrealistic BH

Congratulations on calling something "unrealistic" that we know exists.

My intention was that BH with zero physical size is unrealistic!!!
There are many objects that we can't see. We can call them NS or BH. But all of them must have some minimal physical size.
Zero size is imagination!
Do you agree that in order to gain a zero size, infinite pressure or gravity force is needed?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:41:13
"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"

You're aware that, as a particle gains energy, its wavelength decreases, don't you? So what do you think the lower limit of a particle's wavelength is?

No, I don't, and it is very clear that also quantum mechanics does aware about it.

The wavelength associated with those particles becomes shorter and shorter as the neutron star collapses because those particles continuously gain energy from the gravitational collapse.

1. Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?
Don't you agree that the gravitational is relative to the total available mass/particles in the core of the NS?
Hence, you have to agree that the NS mass sets the gravitational force which sets the pressure on each particle at that NS core. Therefore, if something should collapse, it is the particle and not the gravitational. So why do you claim the other way?
2. Let's consider a BH with one sun mass.
Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?
Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core? Don't you agree that a particle at its core will face a similar pressure/gravity force as a particle at the core of the Sun?
3. Is there any possibility for a BH to set INFINITE pressure at its core? How a BH with finite mass could set infinite pressure in its core?
4. If the pressure is finite, then the energy which the particle gains must be finite.
If that energy is finite that the wavelength decreases must be finite.
5. Can you please offer the physical law which can bypass the QM law in order to set a BH at zero size?

[Bored chemist]

No, I don't, and it is very clear that also quantum mechanics does aware about it.

So, you seem to be saying you don't know (or don't understand) QM.
Well, that's remarkably honest.

Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

[Bored chemist]

Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?

Because there's nothing that could stop it, is there?

[Halc]

Dave, you seem to be trying extra hard today to appear completely ignorant.

1. Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?
Don't you agree that the gravitational is relative to the total available mass/particles in the core of the NS?
... Therefore, if something should collapse, it is the particle and not the gravitational.

You're treating 'the gravitational' as a noun here, where it is in fact an adjective. This troll move makes zero sense, like trying to talk about the location of 'the awesome'. Your choice of this wording shows all the maturity of an older sibling doing the 'why are you hitting yourself?' trick with much younger siblings.

2. Let's consider a BH with one sun mass.
Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?

Masses do not have a gravity force. If you think otherwise, then how many Newtons does Earth have?
Masses have a gravitational field (expressible as an acceleration field or as a potential field), and the gravitational field of the sun and your small BH is very different.

Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core?

Pressure isn't a function of force. If you think otherwise, then how much pressure is generated by a Newton of force?
A particle at the center of the sun has on average no net force acting on it. It is for such reasons that the core of Earth stays at the center and doesn't move elsewhere.

4. If the pressure is finite, then the energy which the particle gains must be finite.

Similarly, pressure and energy are not the same thing. Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic, as it would entail infinite mass, which no object, BH or otherwise, has.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks Halc

Pressure isn't a function of force. If you think otherwise, then how much pressure is generated by a Newton of force?
A particle at the center of the sun has on average no net force acting on it. It is for such reasons that the core of Earth stays at the center and doesn't move elsewhere.

So do you confirm that also a particle at the center of the BH has on average no net force acting on it?

Similarly, pressure and energy are not the same thing. Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic, as it would entail infinite mass, which no object, BH or otherwise, has.

Thanks again
You actually confirm that infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic.
Therefore, without infinite energy how can we accept the idea of zero size at a finite region at the core of the BH?
Do you agree that the following law QM is correct?
"quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths"
If I understand correctly the message from Kryptid, in order to bypass that law, he is dealing with the wavelengths of the particle. Therefore, he claims that:

The wavelength associated with those particles becomes shorter and shorter as the neutron star collapses because those particles continuously gain energy from the gravitational collapse

However, as you claim that the energy which the particles gain can't be infinite, then at a finite energy there must be a finite wavelength.
Therefore, at a finite wavelength, the particle must have a minimal size.
Hence, a core of an object with real particle must have a minimal size.
It is correct for an atom as it correct for NS or BH (all with real particale).
Do you agree with that?

[Bored chemist]

Your choice of this wording shows all the maturity of an older sibling doing the 'why are you hitting yourself?' trick with much younger siblings.

To be fair, I don't think English is his first language.

OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.

Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth

[Kryptid]

Do you agree that in order to gain a zero size, infinite pressure or gravity force is needed?

According to the math, that's exactly what you get as an object collapses towards zero size. Gravity obeys the inverse square law. Cut the distance between an object's components in half, and you quadruple the gravitational force between those components. Divide it by ten, and the force increases one hundred-fold. So as the distance approaches zero, the force becomes greater and greater without limit.

No, I don't, and it is very clear that also quantum mechanics does aware about it.

I don't know what this means.

1. Why do you claim that the gravitational collapse? Is it real for the gravitational to collapse?

Because there is no force that can oppose that collapse.

Don't you agree that the gravitational is relative to the total available mass/particles in the core of the NS?

And also the distance.

Therefore, if something should collapse, it is the particle and not the gravitational. So why do you claim the other way?

It is the particles collapsing. They are collapsing because of the gravitational force.

Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?

Depends on the distances involved.

Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core?

According to current models, infinite.

Don't you agree that a particle at its core will face a similar pressure/gravity force as a particle at the core of the Sun?

Absolutely not.

3. Is there any possibility for a BH to set INFINITE pressure at its core? How a BH with finite mass could set infinite pressure in its core?

Yes. Go find the gravitational force equation. Put zero in for the distance and see what happens.

As for the issue of wavelength, this is the equation for the Compton wavelength of a subatomic particle:

wavelength = Planck constant/(mass x the speed of light)

A black hole with a mass three times that of the Sun will have a mass of 1.98847 x 10³⁰ kilograms x 3 = 5.96541 x 10³⁰ kilograms. Putting that into the equation, we get:

wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10⁻³⁴)/((5.96541 x 10³⁰) x (299,792,458))
wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10⁻³⁴)/((1.78838 x 10³⁹
wavelength = 3.70507 x 10^-73 meters

So the Compton wavelength associated with the singularity of that black hole is about 3.70507 x 10^-73 meters. But there is something very important about that number: it is much, much smaller than the Planck length (which is 1.616255 x 10^-35 meters). Heisenberg's uncertainty principle places a lower limit on the distance scales that can be measured, and that distance scale is around the Planck length. Any distance scales smaller than that are indistinguishable, at least experimentally, from no distance at all. So a singularity with a Compton wavelength of 3.70507 x 10^-73 meters might as well, for practical purposes, have no size at all.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As for the issue of wavelength, this is the equation for the Compton wavelength of a subatomic particle:
wavelength = Planck constant/(mass x the speed of light)

Thanks
That is the equation for particle due to QM.
Based on this equation we can calculate the size/radius of each particle.
With regards to proton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Mass   1.672×10^−27 kg
wavelength (proton) = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((1.672×10^−27 kg) x (299,792,458)) = 1.32 * 10^-15
Based on the article it is stated that its size should be: 0.84×10^−15 to 0.87×10^−15 m. So, there is no big difference between that no to the calculated wavelength.
This is the size of a proton. We have just found that it surly not zero!!!
So, even that the radius of the smallest particle might be very small, it still has some sort of a size which can't be considered as a zero.
Therefore, that minimal size sets the minimal distance between the particles in the core of a BH or NS.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43
Do you agree that in order to gain a zero size, infinite pressure or gravity force is needed?

According to the math, that's exactly what you get as an object collapses towards zero size. Gravity obeys the inverse square law. Cut the distance between an object's components in half, and you quadruple the gravitational force between those components. Divide it by ten, and the force increases one hundred-fold. So as the distance approaches zero, the force becomes greater and greater without limit.

The distance is limited by the radius of each particle.
We have already confirmed that each particle must have a minimum radius.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43
Do you confirm that its gravity force is equivalent to the gravity force of the Sun (as they have the same mass)?

Depends on the distances involved.

As the distance/size/radius of a particle is not zero, than the gravity force can't be infinite.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:47:43
Hence, what is the pressure due to gravity force at its core?

According to current models, infinite.

As the gravity force isn't infinite, then the pressure can't be infinite.
It seems that you have missed the explanation by Halc:

Pressure isn't a function of force. If you think otherwise, then how much pressure is generated by a Newton of force?
A particle at the center of the sun has on average no net force acting on it. It is for such reasons that the core of Earth stays at the center and doesn't move elsewhere.

Similarly, pressure and energy are not the same thing. Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic, as it would entail infinite mass, which no object, BH or otherwise, has.

Therefore, I hope that by this time you do understand that Infinite energy in a finite region is unrealistic while the distance isn't zero!!!

A black hole with a mass three times that of the Sun will have a mass of 1.98847 x 1030 kilograms x 3 = 5.96541 x 1030 kilograms. Putting that into the equation, we get:

wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((5.96541 x 1030) x (299,792,458))
wavelength = (6.62607015 x 10−34)/((1.78838 x 1039
wavelength = 3.70507 x 10-73 meters

This is your biggest mistake!
Based on this calculation the size of the whole BH (3.70507 x 10^-73 meters) is smaller than the size of a single proton (1.32 * 10^-15 m) by almost 10^58 times.
How can we beleive that this represents real science?
In this calculation you assume that the BH acts as a single particle.
This is totally incorrect as QM specifically aim to use this formula for a single particle. How could you make so sever mistake and use that particle formula for a BH as it is a single particle?
The size of the BH is the direct outcome from the total size of all its particles.
In NS for example, there are limited no of particles. It might be in the range of 10^10...000, but it is still finite no.
Each one of those particles has a minimal radius based on its wavelength.
Therefore, the radius of the NS is the outcome of the combined size/radius of all its particales under the pressure of its mass/gravity (which is a finite value).
That NS would never ever collapse under any sort of particles no as the pressure on each particle is finite due to finite radius of each particale as confirmed.
Therefore, the NS can become a massive NS or a Supper Massive NS without any difficulty.
So, the idea that NS should collapse at 3 Sun mass is a pure imagination.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 15/09/2020 05:49:22
So, do you agree that a proton MUST have a minimal size?

Yes. 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.

As I have proved, (and as Halc confirmed) there is no way for infinite pressure. Therefore, there is no real singularity in the core of NS or any sort of object, even if we call it BH.
Hence, any BH that we see must have a real minimal physical size (assuming that it carries real particles).:

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, that minimal size sets the minimal distance between the particles in the core of a BH or NS.

No it does not.
That's a complete non sequitur.

How can we beleive that this represents real science?

Because it's the answer you gave- though you didn't do the arithmetic.

Do you remember saying it?

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.

So, you are now arguing against yourself.
Perhaps you should stop and answer this

OK Dave...
You seem to have missed this one again.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:55:08
Now try answering  these questions. You have been ignoring one of them since the start of this thread.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:58:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:41:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2020 08:54:25
If the observable universe was a big (say 100 billion light years)  box with solid black walls cooled to 2.7K, what would the CMBR look like from here on Earth