On 23/01/2016 12:41 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
Yousuf Khan:

No, they do not need support from classical mechanics, because these are
quantum systems,
and classical mechanics doesn't apply at this scale. Trust me, this
debate was held nearly 100 years ago,
and people argued just like you, except it was already quite clear back
then that classical physics was no
longer in charge at this level. Nothing at this level can be explained
by classical physics, no matter how much you want it to.

So, because classical physics and logic can not be used to verify
probabilities obtained by quantum physics, makes the currently
described atomic structure an existing probability at best, not a
scientific fact. Perhaps its time to revisit the electrons
participation with an atomic nucleus because the long distance in
between electrons and nucleus is based on probability finding system
instead of being a scientifically obtained conclusion.

Or perhaps it's time for you to understand physics properly?
Understanding physics involves understanding its math -- all of its
math! Including its statistics. Just because you don't understand some
of the math doesn't mean that physics has any reason to change itself so
that you can understand it with your existing knowledge. It's time for
you to upgrade *your* knowledge.

The reason that a black hole can become more compressed than a neutron
star
is because it destroys the matter particles, and turns them into energy
particles.

This statement agrees with speculation concerning collapsing electrons
in the black hole, which is the initial topic of this post. However, the
subject concerning meaning the extent of compression when applied into
particle matter. “Mass has weigh, inertia of the motion and
occupies space,” which leads to question: is an atomic mass
compressible? The answer would explain the volume of mass in the black
hole and comparable mass distribution of the primeval matter from a
originating small object.

All particles start out as massless, including the ones we consider to
be matter. The universe then imparts mass on certain ones through
various particle interactions. Higgs field imparts mass on any particle
that participates in the Weak Nuclear interaction, which includes pretty
much everything we consider matter: quarks, and leptons. The Strong
Nuclear interaction imparts even more mass on the quarks through gluons.

So the take away here is that mass is not an intrinsic property of
particles, it is an emergent property! Mass can be taken away from
particles under the right circumstances. And mass has nothing to do with
how much space is occupied by a particle.

Bosonic statistics, which state that you can have as many energy
particles
occupying the same position in space as you like, at the same time.

Statements based on probability have no supporting mechanics for energy
to exist without being associated with the mass. The object of the
matter which specifies what kind of energy is available and it’s
use. Thus there is no reason to think that the subatomic particle energy
has reason to behave differently.

Uh, no, you simply don't get to decide what's proper math for physics,
and what isn't. Statistics was originally devised for classical physics,
and the classical physics is classified by a type of statistics known as
Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. Meanwhile Fermions are based on
Fermi-Dirac statistics, and Bosons are based on Bose-Einstein
statistics. Notice that these are all names of some of the greatest
minds in 19th and 20th century physics. They created these statistics
formulas for these physical objects. Do you purport to understand
physics better than these people?

Yousuf Khan