Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> guy that 
> concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was 
> proven right

  I don't think that's correct.

  "However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed."

  "Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems
this effect is too small to be observed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

> How do 
> you get denser than that, even if you reduce the particles to 
> sub-particles, like quarks and muons?

  Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
anymore.

  Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a singularity
inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
observed or even plausibly conjectured.

> But, its still a question to physicists. There has to be a finite size 
> for distance *period*, as with time. If you don't have those, time 
> couldn't pass, and distance could never be crossed.

  What does "finite size for distance, as with time" even mean?

> But, we can't 
> observe the result, to see if that is true, so there *may* be a finite 
> "density", beyond which you can't get any more compact, no matter how 
> much gravity you throw at it.

  You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message