9 ms·

I admit I know next to nothing about this stuff, but something doesn't add up. If everything has a Schwarzchild radius determined by its mass, then should we co

I admit I know next to nothing about this stuff, but something doesn't add up. If everything has a Schwarzchild radius determined by its mass, then should we conclude that particles like electrons and protons also have a (very small) Schwarzchild radius? If the smaller it is, the sooner it explodes, then shouldn't atomic particles have all finished exploding a long time ago? When they explode, what do they eject, if not more subatomic particles like themselves? Alternatively, is the explanation that atomic particles are extended bodies whose sizes exceed their Schwarzchild radii instead being of point masses? If so, then what kind of stuff fills the interior of an electron? I don't have any answers but I have a feeling we're on shaky ground when we start trying to extrapolate general relativity concepts to atomic scales. edit: typo

vbezhenar 4y ago
According to my calculations, schwarzschild radius of electron is 1.4e-59 m, and electron radius is 2.82e-15 m, so electron is huge and electron density (if such thing exists) is not enough to form black hole.
- platz 4y ago
  your "electron radius" is the "classical electron radius" which is a ficticious radius one uses i lf disires. in modern theory electrons have no radius.
codethief 4y ago
> If everything has a Schwarzchild radius determined by its mass, then should we conclude that particles like electrons and protons also have a (very small) Schwarzchild radius? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron > If the smaller it is, the sooner it explodes, then shouldn't atomic particles have all finished exploding a long time ago? See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31378092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31378092 > I have a feeling we're on shaky ground when we start trying to extrapolate general relativity concepts to atomic scales. Correct. We know nothing about how to marry General Relativity with atomic-scale physics (quantum mechanics). That's why everyone and their dog are looking for a theory of quantum gravity.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron Very interesting link - I suppose this could potentially make the problem slightly moot for electrons. Still, I don't think this works for other elementary particles, as black holes can't have color charge or weak hypercharge as far as I know (so they can't behave like quarks, gluons, W or Z bosons etc.) > We know nothing about how to marry General Relativity with atomic-scale physics (quantum mechanics). That's why everyone and their dog are looking for a theory of quantum gravity. True, though I think this is not even a problem in matching GR and QM, it is a problem in GR itself. The math of GR has infinities when looking at the center of a black hole, so we know there must be some other math that prevents the curvature from reaching infinity. We can of course easily invent infinitely many solutions to this problem, but there is no way to choose between them on an empirical basis, even in principle (since we can't ever experiment with the inside of a black hole). A theory of quantum gravity would solve a different problem: GR is nonlinear, while QM is linear (if we ignore the Born rule) - so they can't describe the same system. Relatedly, if applying GR to a system described by a wave function, we are not able to compute how space time will curve given that a single particle(with its mass) is usually present at many points in space-time. It is hoped that solving the second problem will also solve the first, but I'm not sure this is guaranteed.
  - codethief 4y ago
    > Still, I don't think this works for other elementary particles, as black holes can't have color charge or weak hypercharge as far as I know (so they can't behave like quarks, gluons, W or Z bosons etc.) I think it is expected they can. The simple reason there are no explicit BH solutions with color charge is that, in contrast to electrodynamics, there's no classic field theory for the strong interaction that we could put into our Einstein-Hilbert action. > I think this is not even a problem in matching GR and QM, it is a problem in GR itself. Yes and no. All kinds of theories have singularities and infinities. Classic electrodynamics is full of them and quantum field theory is, too. Nevertheless we still say the theories are fine and treat the singularities as pretty much nonphysical. ("Point particles don't really exist / a better theory will get rid of them", "We don't see the bare particles anyway, so let's remove the infinities using renormalization", et cetera.) Yes, spacetime singularities seem somewhat more severe, but I think we have good reasons to believe (e.g. the uncertainty relations) that a theory of quantum gravity would solve this conundrum. I mean, every single singularity we worry about in GR comes with infinite curvature and/or infinite energy densities, hence necessarily requires quantum mechanics to study. On an unrelated note: Why is no one complaining that quantum field theory, from a mathematical point of view, is completely ill-defined? It surprises me time and again that people ascribe severe issues to GR ("It has singularities", "It's not quantum") and yet completely forget that the issues in quantum mechanics (both philophical and mathematical) are much more severe. GR, at the very least, is a mathematically absolutely rigorous theory, with well-defined objects and axioms and such. QFT, in turn, to this day is a toolbox of weird "shut-up-and-calculate" heuristics. > We can of course easily invent infinitely many solutions to this problem, but there is no way to choose between them on an empirical basis, even in principle (since we can't ever experiment with the inside of a black hole). There is one way: Come up with candidate theories of quantum gravity and with experiments to test quantum-gravitational effects outside a black hole (there are a few ideas) and select the right theory based on the experimental results and then have the theory predict what happens inside a black hole. Boom. If you say this approach is not valid as it'll remain a theoretical prediction and we still won't be able to peek inside a black hole, you're somewhat right. But right now we're having a discussion about spacetime singularities, which are a purely theoretical problem, too. No one has ever seen them. > GR is nonlinear, while QM is linear (if we ignore the Born rule) - so they can't describe the same system. We already know they are incompatible but linearity has nothing to do with it. The equations of motion of interacting quantum fields are non-linear, too. In fact, electrodynamics is, too, in some sense (backreaction & self-force), and we still managed to quantize it. > Relatedly, if applying GR to a system described by a wave function, we are not able to compute how space time will curve given that a single particle(with its mass) is usually present at many points in space-time. I wouldn't say this is just a related problem. This is the problem of quantum gravity. > It is hoped that solving the second problem will also solve the first, but I'm not sure this is guaranteed. Again, I think the reason people are hopeful are the uncertainty relations. A theory of quantum gravity necessarily has to incorporate them somehow.
XorNot 4y ago
I'm not sure what the issue you see here is: a very small Schwarzchild radius would be smaller then the size of the particle, and as a result the particle cannot collapse itself into a black hole.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  The problem is that electrons and quarks and other leptons are considered 0-size (point like) particles, but they do have mass - so, according to GR, they should "collapse" into black holes. Of course, experiments so far are also consistent with leptons having very small but non-0 size. Since their Schwarzschild radius is much smaller than a Planck length, we will probably never be able to design an experiment that would show a disagreement here. It's also notable that GR predicting a mathematical singularity at the center of a black hole shows that it can't be right at such extreme scales - there must be some unknown limit that prevents the density of a back hole from reaching infinity, and that would probably solve this issue as well.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    If they're incompressible (i.e. fundamental) particles though, then there's no inconsistency: any single electron can't compress itself into a black hole, because it's experienced gravitational attraction can't increase - it doesn't can't pull on itself because it has no internal structure. Two electrons on the other hand can, because above some point when you push them close together the force between them rises above electrostatic repulsive and they'll pull their 0-size closer and closer until a singularity forms. Of note, black holes on this scale aren't going to be stable though: they'll evaporate pretty much as fast as they form from Hawking radiation. EDIT: Of note - at this sort of scale it's not entirely clear to me that whether an electron is a black hole is a meaningful question either. Black holes can have spin and charge, so an electron and an black hole masquerading as an electron would be superficially indistinguishable - it would weigh the same as an electron, and so electrostatic force would dominate all its interactions. This has been speculated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron though not observed at the moment. But the inconsistency isn't because it would not be sufficiently "electron-like".
dr_dshiv 4y ago
Seems like an ultraviolet catastrophe situation
varajelle 4y ago
(Not a physicist myself) Blackholes are just a solution to Einstein equations for an object in which all its mass is concentrated in its Schwarzchild radius. Protons and electrons are bigger than that so they are not Blackholes and they will not "explode". > When they explode, what do they eject If it was possible to concentrate a proton to make a blackhole, when it evaporates, I'd say it "eject" itself (a proton) That said, Einstein's equations do not really apply at quantum scales. So what happens with such blackhole is unknown. We never observed micro blackholes, and the Hawking radiation is just a theory which may or may not be true.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  > If it was possible to concentrate a proton to make a blackhole, when it evaporates, I'd say it "eject" itself (a proton) From Wipedia: > Quantum gravity (via virtual black holes and Hawking radiation) may also provide a venue of proton decay at magnitudes or lifetimes well beyond the GUT scale decay range above, as well as extra dimensions in supersymmetry. Perhaps it's possible that a proton get transformed into a black hole and then the black hole decays into a positron and a pion (or a positron and a few photons). Nobody is sure about this, and nobody has seen this or other decays of protons. More speculative details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay#Theoretical_motivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay#Theoretical_motiv...
at_a_remove 4y ago
You have some misconceptions. 1) For all that we have been able to measure it, the electron is a point particle. It does not have a radius. The concept of radius does not apply. Every time we try to measure it, we just end up setting a smaller upper bound for the radius than last time. This is true of all of the leptons ("lightweight particles"). The same sorts of probes of electrons suggest that there is no "stuff" in them. That's all you get, this point with some numbers associated with it (charge, mass, angular momentum, lepton number, etc). 2) Black holes -- and I am going to constrain myself to a "no-hair" situation for those of you in the know -- have only three variables that describe them: mass, charge, and angular momentum. Anything else describes its position and how it is moving at the time. They're really quite dull. (Exploration of where the information that fell into the black hole went is ... contentious, abandoned, frustrating, etc). Radius is a function of mass (and angular momentum, you can distort the event horizon if it had enough spin). 3) They don't "explode." The theorized-but-not-yet-observed Hawking radiation is about chucking out the occasional particle and "borrowing" it from the black hole. This is done under conservation of the above mass, charge, and angular momentum. The smaller they get, the more chance they throw something out, so it is really a runaway process that only looks like an explosion at the end. 4) Due to this conservation, if you somehow made a single electron into a black hole, that black hole could only ever spit out one thing in its lifetime: an electron. 5) The proton is quite different. It is not the opposite of an electron. It is known as what is called a baryon ("heavyweight particle") and it has a size. It is also composed of smaller things, unlike the electron, three quarks and some gluons (which serve to hold the whole thing together). 6) Atomic scales are fine. We can understand things about relativity at the atomic scale. For example, we use the surprisingly extended half-lives of certain incoming particles to verify time dilation. Or just look up how relativity affects the orbital radii of very heavy atoms, in particular gold. Subatomic scales are more interesting.
- gradschool 4y ago
  Thank you for your comments. I might have at least one other misconception in need of clearing up. My impression from reading about it somewhere was that the Hawking radiation is predicted to happen as a consequence of vacuum fluctuations. When an electron-positron pair spontaneously forms close to the event horizon, and one particle falls in but the other doesn't, they can't annihilate so the one that's left outside appears to emanate from the black hole. Is that not the consensus, or if it is, why should the amount of radiation depend on anything but the surface area of the event horizon?
awiesenhofer 4y ago
> edit: typo > Schwarzchild Nitpick, but you missed one ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild
- wildmanx 4y ago
  To add some understanding: the name does not mean "the child of Schwarz". It's composed of two German words: "schwarz" which means "black" and "Schild" which means "shield". So "Blackshield". No children involved here.
a1369209993 4y ago
You're forgetting quantum mechanical effects. Effectively, a electron is constantly quantum-tunneling out of its own event horizon. (Or, equivalently, a electron, considered as a black hole, always immediately decays into Hawking radiation consisting of exactly one electron (with the same position, momentum, electric charge, etc, as the supposed black hole, since black holes aren't exempt from the various conservaton laws).)
pdonis 4y ago
> If everything has a Schwarzchild radius determined by its mass It doesn't, not in the sense you mean. You can calculate a Schwarzschild radius for any mass, but that radius only means something physically for an actual black hole. You can use the calculated radius to estimate how hard it would be to turn some ordinary object into a black hole; that's what the article does by comparing the Schwarzschild radius for various masses or energies to the actual radius within which we can compress them by processes we can currently control (and of course the latter radius is very, very much larger than the Schwarzschild radius for those masses or energies, which means we have no feasible way of turning any of those objects into black holes). But that in no way means that those ordinary objects have some actual, physical Schwarzschild radius that acts like the horizon of a black hole. They don't.
slowmovintarget 4y ago
Every mass has a corresponding Schwarzchild radius because mass is just a variable in the equation. Almost everything in the universe has an actual radius far far larger than it's Schwartzchild radius, hence most objects in the universe are not black holes.

vbezhenar 4y ago

According to my calculations, schwarzschild radius of electron is 1.4e-59 m, and electron radius is 2.82e-15 m, so electron is huge and electron density (if such thing exists) is not enough to form black hole.

platz 4y ago
your "electron radius" is the "classical electron radius" which is a ficticious radius one uses i lf disires. in modern theory electrons have no radius.

codethief 4y ago

> If everything has a Schwarzchild radius determined by its mass, then should we conclude that particles like electrons and protons also have a (very small) Schwarzchild radius? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron > If the smaller it is, the sooner it explodes, then shouldn't atomic particles have all finished exploding a long time ago? See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31378092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31378092 > I have a feeling we're on shaky ground when we start trying to extrapolate general relativity concepts to atomic scales. Correct. We know nothing about how to marry General Relativity with atomic-scale physics (quantum mechanics). That's why everyone and their dog are looking for a theory of quantum gravity.

tsimionescu 4y ago
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron Very interesting link - I suppose this could potentially make the problem slightly moot for electrons. Still, I don't think this works for other elementary particles, as black holes can't have color charge or weak hypercharge as far as I know (so they can't behave like quarks, gluons, W or Z bosons etc.) > We know nothing about how to marry General Relativity with atomic-scale physics (quantum mechanics). That's why everyone and their dog are looking for a theory of quantum gravity. True, though I think this is not even a problem in matching GR and QM, it is a problem in GR itself. The math of GR has infinities when looking at the center of a black hole, so we know there must be some other math that prevents the curvature from reaching infinity. We can of course easily invent infinitely many solutions to this problem, but there is no way to choose between them on an empirical basis, even in principle (since we can't ever experiment with the inside of a black hole). A theory of quantum gravity would solve a different problem: GR is nonlinear, while QM is linear (if we ignore the Born rule) - so they can't describe the same system. Relatedly, if applying GR to a system described by a wave function, we are not able to compute how space time will curve given that a single particle(with its mass) is usually present at many points in space-time. It is hoped that solving the second problem will also solve the first, but I'm not sure this is guaranteed.
- codethief 4y ago
  > Still, I don't think this works for other elementary particles, as black holes can't have color charge or weak hypercharge as far as I know (so they can't behave like quarks, gluons, W or Z bosons etc.) I think it is expected they can. The simple reason there are no explicit BH solutions with color charge is that, in contrast to electrodynamics, there's no classic field theory for the strong interaction that we could put into our Einstein-Hilbert action. > I think this is not even a problem in matching GR and QM, it is a problem in GR itself. Yes and no. All kinds of theories have singularities and infinities. Classic electrodynamics is full of them and quantum field theory is, too. Nevertheless we still say the theories are fine and treat the singularities as pretty much nonphysical. ("Point particles don't really exist / a better theory will get rid of them", "We don't see the bare particles anyway, so let's remove the infinities using renormalization", et cetera.) Yes, spacetime singularities seem somewhat more severe, but I think we have good reasons to believe (e.g. the uncertainty relations) that a theory of quantum gravity would solve this conundrum. I mean, every single singularity we worry about in GR comes with infinite curvature and/or infinite energy densities, hence necessarily requires quantum mechanics to study. On an unrelated note: Why is no one complaining that quantum field theory, from a mathematical point of view, is completely ill-defined? It surprises me time and again that people ascribe severe issues to GR ("It has singularities", "It's not quantum") and yet completely forget that the issues in quantum mechanics (both philophical and mathematical) are much more severe. GR, at the very least, is a mathematically absolutely rigorous theory, with well-defined objects and axioms and such. QFT, in turn, to this day is a toolbox of weird "shut-up-and-calculate" heuristics. > We can of course easily invent infinitely many solutions to this problem, but there is no way to choose between them on an empirical basis, even in principle (since we can't ever experiment with the inside of a black hole). There is one way: Come up with candidate theories of quantum gravity and with experiments to test quantum-gravitational effects outside a black hole (there are a few ideas) and select the right theory based on the experimental results and then have the theory predict what happens inside a black hole. Boom. If you say this approach is not valid as it'll remain a theoretical prediction and we still won't be able to peek inside a black hole, you're somewhat right. But right now we're having a discussion about spacetime singularities, which are a purely theoretical problem, too. No one has ever seen them. > GR is nonlinear, while QM is linear (if we ignore the Born rule) - so they can't describe the same system. We already know they are incompatible but linearity has nothing to do with it. The equations of motion of interacting quantum fields are non-linear, too. In fact, electrodynamics is, too, in some sense (backreaction & self-force), and we still managed to quantize it. > Relatedly, if applying GR to a system described by a wave function, we are not able to compute how space time will curve given that a single particle(with its mass) is usually present at many points in space-time. I wouldn't say this is just a related problem. This is the problem of quantum gravity. > It is hoped that solving the second problem will also solve the first, but I'm not sure this is guaranteed. Again, I think the reason people are hopeful are the uncertainty relations. A theory of quantum gravity necessarily has to incorporate them somehow.

XorNot 4y ago

I'm not sure what the issue you see here is: a very small Schwarzchild radius would be smaller then the size of the particle, and as a result the particle cannot collapse itself into a black hole.

tsimionescu 4y ago
The problem is that electrons and quarks and other leptons are considered 0-size (point like) particles, but they do have mass - so, according to GR, they should "collapse" into black holes. Of course, experiments so far are also consistent with leptons having very small but non-0 size. Since their Schwarzschild radius is much smaller than a Planck length, we will probably never be able to design an experiment that would show a disagreement here. It's also notable that GR predicting a mathematical singularity at the center of a black hole shows that it can't be right at such extreme scales - there must be some unknown limit that prevents the density of a back hole from reaching infinity, and that would probably solve this issue as well.
- XorNot 4y ago
  If they're incompressible (i.e. fundamental) particles though, then there's no inconsistency: any single electron can't compress itself into a black hole, because it's experienced gravitational attraction can't increase - it doesn't can't pull on itself because it has no internal structure. Two electrons on the other hand can, because above some point when you push them close together the force between them rises above electrostatic repulsive and they'll pull their 0-size closer and closer until a singularity forms. Of note, black holes on this scale aren't going to be stable though: they'll evaporate pretty much as fast as they form from Hawking radiation. EDIT: Of note - at this sort of scale it's not entirely clear to me that whether an electron is a black hole is a meaningful question either. Black holes can have spin and charge, so an electron and an black hole masquerading as an electron would be superficially indistinguishable - it would weigh the same as an electron, and so electrostatic force would dominate all its interactions. This has been speculated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron though not observed at the moment. But the inconsistency isn't because it would not be sufficiently "electron-like".

dr_dshiv 4y ago

Seems like an ultraviolet catastrophe situation

varajelle 4y ago

(Not a physicist myself) Blackholes are just a solution to Einstein equations for an object in which all its mass is concentrated in its Schwarzchild radius. Protons and electrons are bigger than that so they are not Blackholes and they will not "explode". > When they explode, what do they eject If it was possible to concentrate a proton to make a blackhole, when it evaporates, I'd say it "eject" itself (a proton) That said, Einstein's equations do not really apply at quantum scales. So what happens with such blackhole is unknown. We never observed micro blackholes, and the Hawking radiation is just a theory which may or may not be true.

gus_massa 4y ago
> If it was possible to concentrate a proton to make a blackhole, when it evaporates, I'd say it "eject" itself (a proton) From Wipedia: > Quantum gravity (via virtual black holes and Hawking radiation) may also provide a venue of proton decay at magnitudes or lifetimes well beyond the GUT scale decay range above, as well as extra dimensions in supersymmetry. Perhaps it's possible that a proton get transformed into a black hole and then the black hole decays into a positron and a pion (or a positron and a few photons). Nobody is sure about this, and nobody has seen this or other decays of protons. More speculative details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay#Theoretical_motivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay#Theoretical_motiv...

at_a_remove 4y ago

You have some misconceptions. 1) For all that we have been able to measure it, the electron is a point particle. It does not have a radius. The concept of radius does not apply. Every time we try to measure it, we just end up setting a smaller upper bound for the radius than last time. This is true of all of the leptons ("lightweight particles"). The same sorts of probes of electrons suggest that there is no "stuff" in them. That's all you get, this point with some numbers associated with it (charge, mass, angular momentum, lepton number, etc). 2) Black holes -- and I am going to constrain myself to a "no-hair" situation for those of you in the know -- have only three variables that describe them: mass, charge, and angular momentum. Anything else describes its position and how it is moving at the time. They're really quite dull. (Exploration of where the information that fell into the black hole went is ... contentious, abandoned, frustrating, etc). Radius is a function of mass (and angular momentum, you can distort the event horizon if it had enough spin). 3) They don't "explode." The theorized-but-not-yet-observed Hawking radiation is about chucking out the occasional particle and "borrowing" it from the black hole. This is done under conservation of the above mass, charge, and angular momentum. The smaller they get, the more chance they throw something out, so it is really a runaway process that only looks like an explosion at the end. 4) Due to this conservation, if you somehow made a single electron into a black hole, that black hole could only ever spit out one thing in its lifetime: an electron. 5) The proton is quite different. It is not the opposite of an electron. It is known as what is called a baryon ("heavyweight particle") and it has a size. It is also composed of smaller things, unlike the electron, three quarks and some gluons (which serve to hold the whole thing together). 6) Atomic scales are fine. We can understand things about relativity at the atomic scale. For example, we use the surprisingly extended half-lives of certain incoming particles to verify time dilation. Or just look up how relativity affects the orbital radii of very heavy atoms, in particular gold. Subatomic scales are more interesting.

gradschool 4y ago
Thank you for your comments. I might have at least one other misconception in need of clearing up. My impression from reading about it somewhere was that the Hawking radiation is predicted to happen as a consequence of vacuum fluctuations. When an electron-positron pair spontaneously forms close to the event horizon, and one particle falls in but the other doesn't, they can't annihilate so the one that's left outside appears to emanate from the black hole. Is that not the consensus, or if it is, why should the amount of radiation depend on anything but the surface area of the event horizon?

awiesenhofer 4y ago

> edit: typo > Schwarzchild Nitpick, but you missed one ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild

wildmanx 4y ago
To add some understanding: the name does not mean "the child of Schwarz". It's composed of two German words: "schwarz" which means "black" and "Schild" which means "shield". So "Blackshield". No children involved here.

a1369209993 4y ago

You're forgetting quantum mechanical effects. Effectively, a electron is constantly quantum-tunneling out of its own event horizon. (Or, equivalently, a electron, considered as a black hole, always immediately decays into Hawking radiation consisting of exactly one electron (with the same position, momentum, electric charge, etc, as the supposed black hole, since black holes aren't exempt from the various conservaton laws).)

pdonis 4y ago

> If everything has a Schwarzchild radius determined by its mass It doesn't, not in the sense you mean. You can calculate a Schwarzschild radius for any mass, but that radius only means something physically for an actual black hole. You can use the calculated radius to estimate how hard it would be to turn some ordinary object into a black hole; that's what the article does by comparing the Schwarzschild radius for various masses or energies to the actual radius within which we can compress them by processes we can currently control (and of course the latter radius is very, very much larger than the Schwarzschild radius for those masses or energies, which means we have no feasible way of turning any of those objects into black holes). But that in no way means that those ordinary objects have some actual, physical Schwarzschild radius that acts like the horizon of a black hole. They don't.

slowmovintarget 4y ago

Every mass has a corresponding Schwarzchild radius because mass is just a variable in the equation. Almost everything in the universe has an actual radius far far larger than it's Schwartzchild radius, hence most objects in the universe are not black holes.