On Density
Sven Gelbhaar
25.07.2019
Upon re-reading my earlier paper /On Black Holes/ (16.10.2018), it occurs to me
that there must be a proscribed maximum density when it comes to the composition
of atoms (and therefore superstructures of the same). In the paper I had argued
that a conglomerate of matter cannot have infinite density, but used a rather
(glancing at now, at 2am) specious argument to arrive at this conclusion.
So, dear reader, let us explore this topic in greater depth. So far, given the
stipulations of /Unified Force Theory/ (20.02.2009 – 22.02.2009) and papers
following it, we can suppose that matter is comprised of two elementary
particles. One being negatively charged, termed the electron, the other being
inversely/positively charged, called the proton. Unlike charges attract,
whereas like charges repel. This suggests that matter is comprised of groups of
oppositely charged particles clinging to one another and so on and on.
Furthermore, in my paper /How Mass and Radiation Pressure Arise From Unified
Force Theory/ (30.05.2019 – 01.05.2019), I stipulate that:
Force = Constant / Distance^2
The salient point (for the sake of this paper) from the aforementioned (paper)
is that there is a constant involved here. To quickly reiterate: if objects
exert ever more force the closer they get to their inversely-charged
counterpart(icle), then electrons and protons would not be point particles at
all. The two would merge (in simple 1 proton + 1 electron, in close proximity
and electrical vacuum situations). Furthermore, the two would be inseparable,
but this is impossible given that fission does indeed occur. Why inseparable?
Because the closer the two get, the more adhesive their bond and therefore
the exponentially greater the force acting upon them would need to be. And yet,
fission occurs naturally — on this very planet even without artificial/human
aid — in elements heavier than lead (Pb). [I’m sure I’ll elaborate on this more
later, if pressed or bored]
Now, having set the stage, let us introduce some actors. We have the lovely,
beautiful Ideal Neutron. The neutron is, as I’m sure you’ll remember, a
combination of 1 proton covered in a sea of electrons. What makes this neutron
ideal is that it is comprised of the central, core proton, and as many
equidistant (from one another) electrons covering this core proton which the
proton can support. Great, you say, but if we include another proton then
surely the combined attractant force of these two protons would allow for more
electrons to remain situated between the two (protons). Yes, I’ve covered this
in a prior paper of mine. [Sven: I know I’ve mentioned this concept in the past,
but I can’t find the bloody reference. It’s currently 2am, so I’ll update this
later.]
The point is this: there remains the fact that repulsion is also at play. Only
so many electrons can be maintained sandwiched between two protons before the
repulsive force of the electrons therein overpowers the attractant force brought
to bear by the protons. This will occur ideally/theoretically at the point
farthest away from the two core protons (which comprise the ideal neutrons), so
right smack in the middle of our inter-proton electron stew.
Sure, we’re looking at this from a two (2) dimensional perspective, but the same
problem arises even on a three (3) dimensional plane. I will, as is my wont,
leave this as an exercise for the reader.
Now, given that elements come about as a combination of neutrons and their ilk
(protons lacking in enough electrons to merit the term neutron, etc), the
problem is foundational or rather fundamental. The fact that only so many
electrons can be sandwiched between protons before they build up enough
repulsion to their own kind (other electrons) to render these systems unstable
can only mean/necessitate one thing for the sake of this paper: there is a hard
limit to the density of stable configurations of matter.
This, I claim, is a much more elegant counterargument to the idea that a black
hole is a system of infinite matter of infinite density resulting in the
infinite curvature of something as improbable as space-time.
Yes, black holes have been observed to exist in our cosmos. However, these
phenomena can be readily explained by something more benign than a ‘naked
singularity’: they are a net-positively charged body of mass. Given that light
is electro-magnetically active by the work of Michael Faraday, Albert Einstein,
and probably others, this net-positive object simply co-opts light into itself.
In summation, there is a hard-limit pertaining how dense objects can be.
Exactly what this limit is, I will leave to experimental physicists and/or
mathematicians