Forum: The Classroom Topic: a neutron star... started by: CatKnight Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 21 2001,19:51
...produces a gravitational pull so powerful that a marshmallow striking the star's surface would hit with the force of a thousand hydrogen bombs. just thought you should know.
Posted by Observer on Feb. 21 2001,20:38
With its acceleration starting from what point? Makes quite a difference, as I'm sure you understand.------------------ Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Feb. 21 2001,21:11
i've got an idea that a neutron star is the largest known atom there is? why?well if an atom is basically made up of protons and neutrons fused together usually you cant get much past 300 until they get too unstable to exist long enuff but a neutron star uses the sheer gravitaional force to hold them together cos they are literally just below the neutron repulsion limit (otherwise it'd be a blackhole) so there you have it my theory that a neutron star is the biggest atom possible >:] ------------------ Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 21 2001,22:03
i think u need protons to have atoms. neutron stars are just a bunch of neutrons.
Posted by incubus on Feb. 22 2001,02:10
Added to which you need orbitals of electrons. In a neutron star all the orbitals of electrons are degenerate, ie, squashed up and not really orbiting.ALL YOUR ELECTRONS ARE BELONG TO US ------------------ Posted by masher on Feb. 22 2001,02:17
a neutron star is also incredibly dense. They are only about 10 km in diametre (radius?). A matchbox full of neutron star would way several tonnesA point to ponder, if the Earth was squished done to a 25 mm diametre sphere (thats an inch for all you Americans...), then you'd get a black hole. (Thats a first order calculaion BTW) ------------------ Posted by aventari on Feb. 22 2001,18:30
quote: This is from Hawking's "A brief history of time".. the physicist John Wheeler once calculated that if one took all the heavy water in all the oceans of the world, one could build a hydrogen bomb that would compress matter at the center so much that a black hole would be created. (Of course, there would be no one left to observe it!)
------------------ Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Feb. 22 2001,21:42
erm its called a neutron star cos its the neutron repulsion keeping the star from collapsing. and it would only need one proton to constitute as an atom. and what are neutrons made up from boys and girls? thats right a proton and an electron so surely theres a proton in there somewhere
Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 22 2001,23:08
um you are a little confused. neutron stars are pure neutrons. neutrons and protons are different particles. neutrons are composed of 1 up and 2 down quarks, while protons are composed of 2 up and 1 down quark. an electron can collide with a proton to create a neutron + neutrino, but they aren't the same thing.
Posted by askheaves on Feb. 22 2001,23:14
Catknight. How do you think you get an up quark (+2/3 charge)to become a down quark (with a -1/3 charge) ? Add one electron. Suddenly, your 2U1D Proton to become a 1U2D Neutron? Convert one Up to a Down. The quickest way to do that? Add an electron... a Neutrino is let free. This is reversible.My physics is rusty, but the idea is there. Edit: I all messed up that mofo. This message has been edited by askheaves on February 23, 2001 at 06:15 PM Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 23 2001,00:26
didnt i just say that?darkknightbob made it sound like a neutron contained an electron and a proton, which it doesn't. Posted by askheaves on Feb. 23 2001,01:19
that british dialect gets me every time. damn limey bastards
Posted by masher on Feb. 23 2001,02:49
quote: That may be true, but it is the result of one of my calculations, which is why its first order... ------------------ Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 23 2001,05:44
incubus i think you are referring to electron degeneracy. that happens right when then neutron star is formed. all of the electorns collide into the protons, creating neutrons and neutrinos. this is a supernova, btw.
Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Feb. 23 2001,20:44
bah it was just an idea gimme a break its only my first year in astrophysics------------------ Posted by masher on Feb. 24 2001,00:43
free neutrons decay to a proton and an electron. The half life for this is fairly short. Can't remeber the exact number though...------------------ Posted by masher on Feb. 24 2001,06:47
quote: Serway, R.A., 1996, Physics for Scientists and Engineers: with Modern Physics 4th Ed., Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, p. 1382. The key word here is 'free'. That is, a neutron all by itself. After about 10 mins, it will spit out an electron and transform into a proton. .
quote: Tipler, P.A, 1992, Elementary Modern Physics, Worth Publishers, New York, pp. 314-315. Also, a neutron star with the mass of our sun will have a radius of 12.7 km. As the mass increases, the radius decreases, until you get a black hole. About 1.7 - 3 solar masses is the limit for neutron stars. After this you get black holes. ------------------ Posted by incubus on Feb. 24 2001,14:23
Thats called the Chandresekar limit ------------------ Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Feb. 24 2001,15:22
yeah then its squish time baby!------------------ Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 24 2001,17:09
1*10^13 years maybe? neutrons dont decay into hydrogen spontaneously as far as i know...------------------ Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 25 2001,01:58
they think thats what causes GRB's...
Posted by LazyGit on Feb. 25 2001,05:54
Yeah, but in real world (space) conditions the star would really need to be over 5 times stellar mass to have a chance of turning into a black hole.Sub atomic stuff is so annoying that you might aswell see a proton as a neutron and an electron together anyway, it saves time. Anyway, lets talk about the good shit. Super massive black holes! And when they collide! could you work out the energy released by the collision please, incubus, please? Posted by masher on Feb. 25 2001,08:29
quote: That it is...
quote: Depends on the conditions in which the star dies. I'm not an astrophysicist, but 1.7-3 solar masses for an upper limit for the formation of neutron stars is a large range, so I wouldn't be suprised if larger stars did form neutron stars instead of black holes, but I don't think you'd need >5 solar masses to have any chance, just >2 would be enough. Or a neutron as a proton plus an electron maybe? Just because something decays into something else, doesn't mean that it is composed of soley of the decay products. In order for it to decay, it must be energetically favourable. This means that energy is 'lost' in the transformation, so you can't say that a neutron is a proton plus an electron. ------------------ This message has been edited by masher on February 26, 2001 at 03:30 AM Posted by LazyGit on Feb. 25 2001,15:43
Thought I got that mixed up, I was typing faster than I was thinking. But I was just saying that if you're only bothered about the decay of a radioactive nucleus then rather than wondering about the charges of the quarks it's easier to thinki that a neutron is a proton plus an electron and that the electron has to be emitted for the neutron to become a proton.Very large stars explode though so they're going to throw off a lot of their mass in the supernova. The star's got to have enough mass to be able to lose a lot of it but have enough left to leave its gravitational radius large enough for it to be able to collapse through it. Posted by Wolfguard on Feb. 26 2001,10:21
Black holes are just places where god devided by zero------------------ Posted by Chrissy on Feb. 26 2001,11:21
my brain just exploded...and I feel really stupid now :P ------------------ Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 26 2001,13:16
lol don't worry chrissy most of these guys don't know what they are talking about anyway 'cept me of course. ------------------ Posted by kuru on Feb. 27 2001,09:24
black holes are pretty interesting buggers... all that bending of space time and all. who the hell even knows what would happen if a person went into one?but since science deals really poorly with singularities, gotta wonder, are there white holes out there? ------------------ Posted by Wolfguard on Feb. 27 2001,10:39
quote: He would get really really small... This message has been edited by Wolfguard on February 28, 2001 at 05:40 AM Posted by Wolfguard on Feb. 27 2001,12:07
quote: From what i remember. a particle of any size can come into existance from nothing at any given point at any given time. If a particle that has enough mass could start to under go gravitational collapse causing a chain reaction that would throw matter in all directions(explosion). If the conditions that caused that particle to come into existance in the first place stayed at that location it would continue to throw matter untill the conditions changed. I think this is what is called a white hole. now if i could remember where that came from i would be doing good. It may be from collage. All i know is it sounds smart so it cant be an original thought of mine ------------------ Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 27 2001,13:28
oh i checked up on that neutron thing. the half life is about 11 minutes, PROVIDED it doesn't interact with anything first, which is highly unlikely since the average distance neutrons travel is on the order of atomic nuclei scales.singularities are caused by inconsistancies in theories and math dealing with the standard model, which as of recently has become challenged. it looks as if the string theory will finally get the credit it deserves. Posted by askheaves on Feb. 27 2001,15:52
quote: I'd put my money on Trek. Surprised some dilithium crystals didn't make an appearance. :P Posted by masher on Feb. 27 2001,17:22
quote: Don't worry chrissy. Modesty is a virtue. You'll never catch me telling you how good I am, except when I do. Four years of physics at uni plus another 3.5 to go (PhD) is enough to send anyone bonkers... ------------------ Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 27 2001,21:24
i thought it would say "undef" or "domain error"and no singularities are 0 size, thats the point. we can only calculate them to the point where they are very very very small, but according to the standard model they should be zero size. Posted by hair on Feb. 28 2001,00:54
quote: The existence of a black hole is really only a theory as of yet, but the theoretical black hole is just a massive amount of gravity that sucks anything and everything into it (nearby planets, stars, even light itself). So a person would be crushed before they even got close enough to "enter" it... ------------------ Posted by CatKnight on Feb. 28 2001,02:19
quote: black holes have been proven to exist. although they have not been directly observed (which would be very difficult if not impossible), we can observe their effects. if we see 1 star orbiting around something else we can't see, we can determine the mass of the unknown object by the way the regular star orbits. several objects have been found to have masses larger then the chandrasekhar limit. the best blach hole candidte is Cyg X-1. a black hole is not just a 'massive amount of gravity', it is the core of a collapsed star whos mass is so large that light is curved so much that it just curves into itself, and can't escape (the event horizon). einstein's theory of relativity was proven by looking at the sun during an eclipse and observing a slight curvature of space right around the sun (stars right near the sun appeared to bend inwards). a black hole is the same thing but much stronger.
quote:
Posted by LazyGit on Feb. 28 2001,05:11
I'm lovin' that line, askheaves.Singularities aren't zero size, they're just very very very very small. And if God did divide anything by zero wouldn't it just say "Error 2" in the middle of the galaxy. That's what my calculator does anyway. Posted by Wolfguard on Feb. 28 2001,10:54
quote: Nope Still makes my head hurt. ------------------ Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Mar. 02 2001,05:21
if i could be assed to re-write out my previous posts that never came into existance i mihgt actually have some interesting stuff to put forward but seeing as i cant really remember much of what i wrote i cant really can i------------------ Posted by Dark Knight Bob on Mar. 02 2001,05:24
oh yeah it involved something like if you actualy enjoy reading that quantum crap then you are a saaad man/woman------------------ Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 03 2001,07:31
well your theory is original i'll give you that, but i'm pretty sure photons would be absorbed by extremely densely packed neutrons, therefore it would appear to be black.practically though, neutron stars are either accreting matter from a binary, in which case the surface would be burning white hot, or are ejecting material/light from nearby dust and such therefore beaming out radio jets like the VELA pulsar does. Posted by LazyGit on Mar. 03 2001,09:25
Interesting fact:Astronomers thought they'd found signals from other civilisations when they discovered nuetron stars because they emitted a repeated signal. They called the 4 sources LGM 1, 2, 3 and 4, LGM standing for Little Green Men. Okay, not that interesting. Posted by masher on Mar. 03 2001,09:38
The person that discovered the pulsars was a PhD student. Her supervisor got the Nobel Prize for that. Ripped off hey? ------------------ Posted by remoford on Mar. 03 2001,17:35
You know technically scince a neturon star shouldnt be charged (neutrons wouldnt decay becuase gravity works to keep them in a bound state) it would be TRANSPARENT! (photons only react w/ charged partices.)
|