Superconducting black holes and neutronstars

[Sariaht]

A while ago I postulated that black holes (sometimes) are superconducting.

Neutroncount ruined my string with his heavy insults.

Recently someone got the nobel prize for a similar theory:

that neutron stars are superconducting.

It feels like someone has stolen my theory.

I created this theory about a month and a half ago.

You can read my theory at:

"Is a black hole a superconducter"
(misspelled)

Yes, I am sure he stole it. possitive...

I more or less had proof for my theory,
allthough I'm not as motivated as I was once.
I am more or less falling apart now.

Not because of this, though.

Why did that ... have to steal my theory.

Någon har stulit mitt nobelpris, as we would say in sweden.

Best wishes Quantumnet or Sariaht (Erik-Olof Wallman).

 

[russ_watters]

Any thory for which a nobel prize was awarded was likely created many years (even a decade or two) before the prize was awarded.

 

[Sariaht]

Perhaps you are right. I guess you are.

I'm sorry if I'm wrong. I think his recent esay was on the superfluidity of neutronstars, And his last was on the superconductivity of, perhaps white dwarfs.

Maybe he edited his works just before he got the noble prise.
The things i wrote ceirtanly makes it

Maybe everyone convinced him of that white dwarfs and all the other massive objects were not superconducting.

Suddenly the fact i published makes him change his mind.

If Boblock's theory is partly true, then a black hole must be (more or less) an atom. ( at the form a bb a ) were a is a number of electrones and b is a number of protones.

You must agree with me that an atom with that many electrons must be superconducting at low temperatures if it's alone.

In that case, the n-value would change dramatically if the black hole swollowed a massive object ofcourse, the average value between the two bodies would not change that dramatically though. Maybe that's the story about quantumgravity.

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by Sariaht

If Boblock's theory is partly true, then a black hole must be (more or less) an atom. ( at the form a bb a ) were a is a number of electrones and b is a number of protones.

You must agree with me that an atom with that many electrons must be superconducting at low temperatures if it's alone.

Regarding the first paragraph -- physisicists have been quite consistent in their agreement that information cannot pass out of the event horizon, so the discussion of the internal structure of a black hole is in many ways meaningless.

Moreover, the notion of superconductivity is related to spatial notions that do not exist in a black hole (at least for outside observers) so the notion seems to fall into the 'not even wrong' category of things.

Similarly, superconduction is not an atom-scale phenomenon. This is experimentally verified by seeing that some high-temperature super conductors require certain impurities to function.

 

[Sariaht]

A single conducting atom must be superconducting, must it not?
What stopps it?

It MUST be the subjects crystal-structure and possibly the polarity of the nucleus that makes the subject
non-superconducting.

a single atom don't have neither crystal-structure,
nor (not really) a polar nucleus.

How can it not be superconducting?

If a black hole is superconducting and an atom, It's n-value would jump from different values at ceirtan frequencies and temperature.

And if gravity is a relativistic effect, the average n-value between two bodies would be proportional to the attraction-force between the two bodies.

The gravity of a black hole would jump from different values.

The frequency of the light escaping from a black hole is so high that it excitates the etherparticles. Therefore it loses mass, just as Hawking said it does.

If the black hole is charged, electrones can escape from it.