Neutron star material

Trebuchet · 2005-01-04 15:51:08

Actually, the neutron star *would* burst into a giant spray of free neutrons. Big clumps of neutrons are unstable. It should happen in a reasonably quick period, even given the huge speed the fragment would have to have in order to break free of the neutron star's immense gravitational field. The neutrons themselves would later decay into protons and electrons... which seems to violate the laws of conservation of thermodynamics, actually, as the star was originally just hydrogen (free protons and electrons), but I suppose that the total entropy of the system was increased by whatever impact/explosion/whatever ripped loose the neutron star material.

John Creighton · 2005-01-05 11:51:24

There must be some mass, density, temperature curve for which the clump is relatively stable. What would we consider relatively stable? Well if we are considering the possibility of a clump hitting earth I guess we are talking about a half life on the order of at least years. But when you consider how far away neutron stars are the half life would have to be on the order of a minimum or longer in order for the chunk to survive long enough to hit the earth unless the clump was traveling at relativistic velocity. Come to think of it if the chunk was going close enough to the speed of light then even a small chunk could survive long enough to hit the earth. There would be no way of detecting it and I suspect such a chunk would penetrate very deeply and have enough kinetic energy to create massive explosions behind it.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-05 12:14:20

Perhpas, such chunks don't even decay??

John Creighton · 2005-01-05 12:30:26

Perhpas, such chunks don't even decay??

Even black holes decay. Some just decay very slowly.

MarsDog · 2005-01-05 14:04:38

The lonely Neutron has half life of http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … .html]10.3 minutes.

With companions, it lives longer.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-05 14:14:58

But, it is stable if combined into a nucleus.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb … on.html#c4

John Creighton · 2005-01-05 15:56:49

Not all nucli are stable. Granted most have a half life greater then a few minutes. I could image the case where a process could have a large number of unstable nucli because by some process they are constantly being created. Perhaps many of those may have a higher atomic number then on the periodic table. I guessed that in the neutron star the spacing between the neutrons would be similar to the spacing in a nucleolus. I am curious how neutron spacing in a nucleus fits with that shown on the graph presented by mars dog. I also wonder how the time dilation due to increased gravity in a neutron star effects that half life of various particles.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-05 16:12:02

I also wonder how the time dilation due to increased gravity in a neutron star effects that half life of various particles.

It is probably what holds them to the nucleous thus ending the half life. Lots of gavity could be holding the element together what ever that element is? Anyways, how big of a chunck of this stuff would Equal the mass of the Earth?

John Creighton · 2005-01-05 18:05:40

Errorist it is pretty lazy not to use any indication of what you are writing or what you are quoting. Use either quotation marks around what you are quoting or the quote button.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-05 18:17:08

"Errorist it is pretty lazy not to use any indication of what you are writing or what you are quoting. Use either quotation marks around what you are quoting or the quote button."

Sorry John! You are correct somtimes I get lazy. At other times I am just to busy going back and fourth surfing the web. :band:

John Creighton · 2005-01-07 18:30:54

Errorist, why do you always start weird, dumb topics? Honestly, you've been spamming the board with this kind of stuff for a month or two

I agree but I still enjoy them at time because it gets me thinking about the limits of science and engineering. For instance trying to understand the properties of matter in such unusual states as a chunk getting blown. off a neurtron start definitely forces one to think further about atomic physics. I just errorist would listen better to the knowledable people on this board. But then again there is the odd time they are wrong and errorist is right or at least partly right. Or maybe I just see interesting observations from misconceptions. Who knows. Anyway there is enough people correcting the post compared to those posting wild ideas that it doesn’t cause any problems on this form.

MarsDog · 2005-01-07 19:26:26

I am curious how neutron spacing in a nucleus fits with that shown on the graph presented by mars dog

That diagram assumed static internal components. Put pressure on it till it pops or merges. What are the internals of a neutron and how are they distributed ? Could you solve by a generalized inverse computation, as in seismic modelling ?

ERRORIST · 2005-01-07 21:03:14

They are in a vacuum and that alone should want to pull them apart.But they don't!

John Creighton · 2005-01-07 23:20:36

They are in a vacuum and that alone should want to pull them apart.But they don't!

Vacuum's don't pull. Preasure push.

MarsDog · 2005-01-07 23:28:15

Under no pressure, half life of neutron is 8.3 minutes.
Packed into a neutron star, indefinetively.

Somewhere inbetween are neutrons in radioactive nuclei.
So the stability is indication on internal processes influenced by externals.

I wonder how string theory deals with neutron instability.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-08 20:56:39

Something I found interesting on another thread about the same subject.

"I'd like to point out diamonds.

Once was coal, under heat and pressure it turns into diamonds.

REMOVE the pressure and it doesn't turn back into coal.

It may be the same with this, it may not.

It's about the same as bringing a container of gas up from the bottom of the deepest sea. Once on the surface the container would just explode because the container is still highly pressurized inside, but now outside, is normal sea level pressure.

So on the one hand, removing part of the neutron star may yield neutron chunks where the dencity remains the same."

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 21:01:06

"REMOVE the pressure and it doesn't turn back into coal."

Yes it does, it just takes a long time.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-08 21:13:25

Same could be true for the Neutron star??

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 21:16:45

The same is very likly true if you withdraw a subcritical mass of "neutron matter"

ERRORIST · 2005-01-08 21:18:52

Explain further!

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 21:24:09

*sigh*

The theory is that the neutron matter inside of a neutron star is being held together by its incredibly intense gravity. In order for this to happen and be maintained, a sufficent quantity of matter must be held in a small volume to produce said gravity.

But if you were to remove some of this neutron material, it would no longer be compressed by the fantastic gravity, and would probobly not hold together anymore. So, the material would rapidly fall apart and become an incredibly intense source of neutron radiation, which would promptly kill you and everyone in the area.

Within about 15 minutes, these neutrons will have decayed to become Hydrogen nucleii that would be spreading in all directions.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-08 21:38:06

"a sufficent quantity of matter must be held in a small volume to produce said gravity."

Is this matter Neutrons or a possible new undiscovered element?

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 22:35:02

No, just neutrons. It wouldn't be made of atoms at all, but rather purely subatomic particles.

ERRORIST · 2005-01-09 20:16:41

So are you saying the white dwarf star would do the same thing if you removed some of the material? It should explode, also? The white dwarf weighs 5 tons per spoonfull as compared to the 10 million tons per spoonfull for the neutron star??

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-09 20:19:42

A white dwarf is still a star isn't it? If you removed some of its material, all you would have is very hot light elements, which would also melt or explode the container most likly. Though there would be no massive neutron radiation pulse and the material wouldn't just radiate away like "neutronic" matter.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-01-04 15:51:08

Re: Neutron star material

#27 2005-01-05 11:51:24

Re: Neutron star material

#28 2005-01-05 12:14:20

Re: Neutron star material

#29 2005-01-05 12:30:26

Re: Neutron star material

#30 2005-01-05 14:04:38

Re: Neutron star material

#31 2005-01-05 14:14:58

Re: Neutron star material

#32 2005-01-05 15:56:49

Re: Neutron star material

#33 2005-01-05 16:12:02

Re: Neutron star material

#34 2005-01-05 18:05:40

Re: Neutron star material

#35 2005-01-05 18:17:08

Re: Neutron star material

#36 2005-01-07 18:30:54

Re: Neutron star material

#37 2005-01-07 19:26:26

Re: Neutron star material

#38 2005-01-07 21:03:14

Re: Neutron star material

#39 2005-01-07 23:20:36

Re: Neutron star material

#40 2005-01-07 23:28:15

Re: Neutron star material

#41 2005-01-08 20:56:39

Re: Neutron star material

#42 2005-01-08 21:01:06

Re: Neutron star material

#43 2005-01-08 21:13:25

Re: Neutron star material

#44 2005-01-08 21:16:45

Re: Neutron star material

#45 2005-01-08 21:18:52

Re: Neutron star material

#46 2005-01-08 21:24:09

Re: Neutron star material

#47 2005-01-08 21:38:06

Re: Neutron star material

#48 2005-01-08 22:35:02

Re: Neutron star material

#49 2005-01-09 20:16:41

Re: Neutron star material

#50 2005-01-09 20:19:42

Re: Neutron star material

Board footer