undefined

points

[-]

>Rather than compressing particles [...] If you packed enough photons into one spot

I haven't watched the video, but if we're compressing electrons, neutrons, or other fermions, I imagine if we want to keep compressing that down to an arbitrarily small radius, won't we pretty quickly find it favorable to shift those fermions to something else, probably photons, to respect Pauli exclusion?

Really, I don't know enough physics to figure out the reason why it shouldn't always end up in this incorporeal energy-curving-space situation either way, if we're compressing arbitrarily far.

by georgeburdell1 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Pauli Exclusion is just another “force” than can be overridden. Nature isn’t a list of rules

by inigyou1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

But then you "fill up all the photon slots" too (not literally because they are not fermions, but they do spontaneously convert back into things like electrons at that density) and you can work around the Pauli exclusion principle by stacking your electrons at higher and higher energy levels.

Pauli exclusion isn't an impenetrable force field - as you say, it's just often more favourable to do something else than to work around it. Consider an iron atom with however many electrons though - all those orbitals except the inner one are electrons working around Pauli.

I'm not a physicist either.

by cscheid6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Pauli exclusion is a QM thing. Black holes are a GR thing. Famously, we don’t know how to mix the two.