black holes can't be made of matter (off-topic from Quantum Fluctuations/Foam)

[MarkE]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

There has been no evidence presented to support that contention. The assertion that neutron stars are the densest form of matter is simply wrong, since quark degeneracy would represent a denser material.

Quark-degenerate matter may occur in the cores of neutron stars. It may also occur in (hypothetical) quark stars, formed by the collapse of objects above the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff mass limit for neutron-degenerate objects. Quark stars are considered to be an intermediate category among neutron stars and black holes. Few scientists claim that quark stars and black holes are one and the same. Not enough data exist to support any hypothesis but neutron stars with awkward spectrums have been used in arguments (link).

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

I haven't seen any evidence presented that suggests a new particle is necessary, or, if it existed, that it would not count as matter.

Because the properties of hypothetical, more exotic forms of degenerate matter are even more poorly known than those of neutron-degenerate matter, most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into a black hole (link).

A stellar black hole (or stellar-mass black hole) is a black hole formed by the gravitational collapse of a massive star. They have masses ranging from about 5 to several tens of solar masses. The process is observed as a hypernova explosion or as a gamma ray burst. These black holes are also referred to as collapsars. Note that this proof of existence of stellar black holes is not entirely observational but relies on theory: We can think of no other object for these massive compact systems in stellar binaries besides a black hole. A direct proof of the existence of a black hole would be if one actually observes the orbit of a particle (or a cloud of gas) that falls into the black hole (link).

[Mordred]

Great so your copy post supports the possibility of quark matter being denser. So did the article I linked, How does that support your claim that BH singularities cannot be made of SM particles when quarks is an SM particle ?

[MarkE]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Great so your copy post supports the possibility of quark matter being denser. So did the article I linked, How does that support your claim that BH singularities cannot be made of SM particles when quarks is an SM particle ?

On the contrary, I've underlined those sentences that seem contradictory, and do not support it.

Take for instance "Quark stars are considered to be an intermediate category among neutron stars and black holes", which indicates that it's not a denser, but an intermediate form. Or am I interpreting the meaning of that sentence wrong?

"Few scientists claim that quark stars and black holes are one and the same" and "most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into a black hole" are both suggesting that it's more plausible that black holes are different from a neutron star or quark star, instead of the same thing. Or am I interpreting the meaning of that sentence wrong as well?

Edited May 26, 2018 by MarkE

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Quark-degenerate matter may occur in the cores of neutron stars. It may also occur in (hypothetical) quark stars, formed by the collapse of objects above the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff mass limit for neutron-degenerate objects. Quark stars are considered to be an intermediate category among neutron stars and black holes. Few scientists claim that quark stars and black holes are one and the same. Not enough data exist to support any hypothesis but neutron stars with awkward spectrums have been used in arguments (link).

Because the properties of hypothetical, more exotic forms of degenerate matter are even more poorly known than those of neutron-degenerate matter, most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into a black hole (link).

A stellar black hole (or stellar-mass black hole) is a black hole formed by the gravitational collapse of a massive star. They have masses ranging from about 5 to several tens of solar masses. The process is observed as a hypernova explosion or as a gamma ray burst. These black holes are also referred to as collapsars. Note that this proof of existence of stellar black holes is not entirely observational but relies on theory: We can think of no other object for these massive compact systems in stellar binaries besides a black hole. A direct proof of the existence of a black hole would be if one actually observes the orbit of a particle (or a cloud of gas) that falls into the black hole (link).

And none of that actually supports the claim that the BH is not made of SM particles. You have a combination of a false dichotomy and argument from incredulity here (it's either SM particles or nothing, and since you can't believe it's SM particles, you must be right)

3 minutes ago, MarkE said:

On the contrary, I've underlined those sentences that seem contradictory, and do not support it.

Take for instance "Quark stars are considered to be an intermediate category among neutron stars and black holes", which indicates that it's not a denser, but an intermediate form. Or am I interpreting the meaning of that sentence wrong?

From your link, on quark degeneracy:

"At densities greater than those supported by neutron degeneracy"

[MarkE]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

And none of that actually supports the claim that the BH is not made of SM particles. You have a combination of a false dichotomy and argument from incredulity here (it's either SM particles or nothing, and since you can't believe it's SM particles, you must be right)

Does this mean that your answer to my question therefore is 'yes'?

1 hour ago, MarkE said:

Let's get back to the physics. What’s the best evidence we have that Fermi gas is be responsible for the mass in the center of a black hole?

Do you agree that, if it can’t be Fermi gas, a neutron star is the densest form of matter (degeneracy pressure being the best evidence for that statement), and therefore a black hole can’t be an object?

If you don’t think this is the right conclusion to make, does that mean you think that a yet undiscovered particle has to be responsible?

 

[swansont]

7 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Does this mean that your answer to my question therefore is 'yes'?

My answer is "I don't know."  

[MarkE]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

My answer is "I don't know."  

If that's the case, then how are you able to know for sure that I'm wrong? You've said this multiple times:

On 5/16/2018 at 6:16 PM, swansont said:

I'm just not banking on the part of a theory where we know it to be wrong

and

22 hours ago, swansont said:

I have only argued that you were wrong

and

On 5/18/2018 at 3:46 PM, swansont said:

But since you haven't actually ruled out anything, this conclusion is bogus.

Your conclusion seems to be that I'm wrong. Therefore it's not true that you "don't know" whether I'm wrong or not. If someone says he "doesn't know", it means that both possibilities are still optional, but you don't think that my suggestion is equally possible, it's not even optional, you've ruled it out completely, without backing up your own explanation in defence. But, if I understand you correctly, you don't need to back anything up, only I have to provide you with evidence:

22 hours ago, swansont said:

You need to do more than that, though. You own the burden of proof. When you make a claim, you have to convince people that you are right.

I really don't think this is how one should treat physics. If you have reasons to suspect that a particle is responsible for the mass inside of a black hole, you have to back that up as well.

 

Edited May 26, 2018 by MarkE

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, MarkE said:

If that's the case, then how are you able to know for sure that I'm wrong? You've said this multiple times:

The first case wasn't a response to you and concerned the fact that QM and GR haven't been reconciled at the smallest scales. Since I'm pretty sure you were not involved in the development of either theory, it has nothing to do with you.

Bogus ≠ wrong. Bogus in this case means pull-it-out-of-your-ass unsupported assertion.

And in the absence of any science to support your position, the default position is that you are wrong, until such time that you present evidence and a model that support you.

 

Quote

Your conclusion seems to be that I'm wrong. Therefore it's not true that you "don't know" whether I'm wrong or not. If someone says he "doesn't know", it means that both possibilities are still optional, but you don't think that my suggestion is equally possible, it's not even optional, you've ruled it out completely, without backing up your own explanation in defence. But, if I understand you correctly, you don't need to back anything up, only I have to provide you with evidence:

Mainstream physics has had many years and countless experiments that back it up. No, I don't think I need to re-hash all that. It's kind of assumed that you are already familiar with it.

Quote

I really don't think this is how one should treat physics. If you have reasons to suspect that a particle is responsible for the mass inside of a black hole, you have to back that up as well.

It's a little less about physics and a little more about the rules of this site. It's about not wasting time with people who refuse (or are unable) to back up their claims with science, on a science site. Without falsifiability you can make any claim you want. But we've chosen to not waste time on "Black holes are really invisible pink unicorns. Prove me wrong."

[MarkE]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's about not wasting time with people who refuse (or are unable) to back up their claims with science, on a science site. Without falsifiability you can make any claim you want. But we've chosen to not waste time on "Black holes are really invisible pink unicorns. Prove me wrong."

With the only difference that there’s no evidence for pink unicorns, but there is evidence that not only particles may exert attraction (i.e. 'have mass'), because 1) there's no evidence that dark matter has to be a particle, and 2) there's no evidence that the graviton exists, and 3) there's no evidence that any object/particle is able to reside in the center of a BH (and hence is responsible for its mass), and 4) massless photons in flat space (geometrically non curved space) are still attracted by the gravitational field that is created by massive BHs. So I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree (again ). Remember that I've never said that you are wrong at any point in our discussion, I just haven't been provided with irrefutable evidence why it should be more plausible that only a (yet undiscovered) particle may possess and exert gravity/attraction/mass, that's all. Thanks anyway for sharing your thoughts (again), and enjoy your Saturday!

Edited May 26, 2018 by MarkE

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, MarkE said:

With the only difference that there’s no evidence for pink unicorns, but there is evidence that not only particles may exert attraction (i.e. 'have mass'), because 1) there's no evidence that dark matter has to be a particle

For the Nth time, we aren't looking at dark matter, but also, while something other than particles can cause attraction, particles are typically involved. IOW, something has to have the energy that's responsible.

22 minutes ago, MarkE said:

, and 2) there's no evidence that the graviton exists, and 3) there's no evidence that any object/particle is able to reside in the center of a BH (and hence is responsible for its mass),

You seem to be invoking the argument from ignorance fallacy

22 minutes ago, MarkE said:

and 4) massless photons in flat space (geometrically non curved space) are still attracted by the gravitational field that is created by massive BHs.

If the space is flat there is no gravitational attraction.

22 minutes ago, MarkE said:

So I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree (again ). Remember that I've never said that you are wrong at any point in our discussion

I have made no claims outside of mainstream physics.

22 minutes ago, MarkE said:

, I just haven't been provided with irrefutable evidence why it should be more plausible that only a (yet undiscovered) particle may possess and exert gravity/attraction/mass, that's all. Thanks anyway for sharing your thoughts (again), and enjoy your Saturday!

Any evidence at all.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, MarkE said:

With the only difference that there’s no evidence for pink unicorns, but there is evidence that not only particles may exert attraction (i.e. 'have mass'), because 1) there's no evidence that dark matter has to be a particle

That logic is rather twisted.

For there to be positive evidence that not only particles can have mass then there would have be positive evidence that dark matter is not a particle. There is no such evidence, therefore there is no evidence that things other than particles can have mass.

(Never mind that we already know that things other than particles can cause gravitation. Energy, for example. Admittedly, the energy is a property of the particles rather than a thing in itself but ...)

2 hours ago, MarkE said:

4) massless photons in flat space (geometrically non curved space) are still attracted by the gravitational field that is created by massive BHs.

That is not flat space; the presence of a black hole means that space-time is curved and that is why black hole shave gravity, and why photons and everything else are attracted to it.

 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, MarkE said:

Remember that I've never said that you are wrong at any point in our discussion, I just haven't been provided with irrefutable evidence why it should be more plausible that only a (yet undiscovered) particle may possess and exert gravity/attraction/mass, that's all. Thanks anyway for sharing your thoughts (again), and enjoy your Saturday!

!

Moderator Note

Irony meters are breaking everywhere. Thread closed.