>>13107718that's what i get for dropping out of highschool
have to go fuckin google terms to keep up
okay. fermion. firm-ion. the firm stuff of atoms and antimatter, then. bosons, as in magic higgs boson and photons. the stuff that isn't so concrete. the exclusion principle states that this shit can't be identical, that the parameters of two given fermions cannot be identical numbers. bosons are force-carriers? bosons are required for fermions to "talk" to each other, then? they exchange bosons to change flavor and
a bose-einstein condensate isn't made of fermions, but is made of atoms? what the fuck bosons make atoms
wait, atoms ARE bosons? deuterium is a fucking boson, but is itself made of fermions?
okay, that solves that pretty fucking quick
if bosons have no trouble occupying the same space, and fermions can be made to behave like bosons when they're comprising something like deuterium, then a black hole could be made of pure deuterium and have no trouble, right? i very much doubt that any laws of physics are ever "broken", even under the incredible force of gravity. rather, i'd suggest that things like the exclusion principle are not as rigid as imagined, or that like you suggest all fermions are necessarily converted to bosons under the stress of that gravity.
then again i didn't take calculus
>>13107705see this is what i'm talking about
"tightly packed"
this exclusion principle is what you're talking about with this packing nonsense, right? except, mathematically, a black hole does form a singularity, right? like, a literal infinity sign in your equation. that's what's required for there to be a black hole, right? you need to have come upon that infinite density, which means that at least two particles are occupying the exact same point in space, apparently disregarding the exclusion principle?
