| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » A 20 solar mass neutron star is discovered!... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Yousuf Khan... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is
claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20
Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from
collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
Other than that, the article is okay, describes a newly formed neutron
star that still has an atmosphere of carbon on it. The carbon was
created from left over fusion reactions in an atmosphere of hydrogen and
helium on the surface of the neutron star even after it had gone supernova.
CBC News - Technology & Science - Canadian physicist IDs young neutron star
"Craig Heinke and his colleague Wynn Ho at the University of
Southampton, U.K., say that the remnant of the supernova Cassiopeia A is
a very young neutron star, 20 times heavier than the sun, but only 20
kilometres wide."
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/04/tech-space-alberta-neutron-star.html
Yousuf Khan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yousuf Khan wrote:
[quote]Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is
claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20
Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from
collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
[/quote]
It is horseshit, that's why. There is no possible way it is 20 solar masses.
[quote]
Other than that, the article is okay, describes a newly formed neutron
star that still has an atmosphere of carbon on it. The carbon was
created from left over fusion reactions in an atmosphere of hydrogen and
helium on the surface of the neutron star even after it had gone
supernova.
CBC News - Technology & Science - Canadian physicist IDs young neutron
star "Craig Heinke and his colleague Wynn Ho at the University of
Southampton, U.K., say that the remnant of the supernova Cassiopeia A is
a very young neutron star, 20 times heavier than the sun, but only 20
kilometres wide."
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/04/tech-space-alberta-neutron-
star.html
Yousuf Khan[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| G=EMC^2 Glazier... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sam Stop me if I am wrong(you do it when I am right) Medium stars end up
as supergiants,and stars of greater mass end up as white dwarfs,a
neutron star,or black hole. Yes Possibly Sun like stars can go
supergiants to white dwarfs too. That leads me to believe universe will
be flooded with white giant dwarf stars Bert |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
[quote]Sam Stop me if I am wrong(you do it when I am right) Medium stars end up
as supergiants,and stars of greater mass end up as white dwarfs,a
neutron star,or black hole. Yes Possibly Sun like stars can go
supergiants to white dwarfs too. That leads me to believe universe will
be flooded with white giant dwarf stars Bert
[/quote]
(sigh)
Stars spend the majority of their "lives" on the main sequence, i.e.,
fusing hydrogen into helium. and the secondary, tertiary, etc. fusion
processes are short lived by comparison. Stars that initiate secondary
nuclear fusion, typically swell up to red giants for a small percentage
of the lives.
Star are born and stars die... just like us. The big massive stars have
but short lives, a few millions of years. Stars like our sun last for a
good 10 billions of years, and the little red stars like Barnard's Star
might last for 100 billion years. How long stars live, is determined by
their mass (which must be at least 80 Jupiter masses to sustain
thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen).
There are four (4) fates for the end of stars depending on their masses
and the masses of their cores:
Red/Brown Dwarfs - less than 0.6 Ms <== Main Sequence 0.076-0.8 Ms
Stars less than about 0.6 solar masses, when nuclear fuel is used up,
gravitational collapse shrinks the star, but no more than the gas
temperature-pressure-volume laws of classical physics allow. We have
not found any white dwarf less massive than 0.6 solar masses. Part of
the answer is that the universe may not be old enough for lower mass
stars to have evolved off the main sequence.
White Dwarfs - 0.6 and 1.44 Ms <== Main Sequence 0.8-8 Ms
Stars with core masses between 0.6 and 1.44 solar masses are
destined to become white dwarfs. White dwarfs are degenerate matter.
Further collapse is halted by electron degeneracy pressure. See pages
456-459 in your textbook. The vast majority of stars are in this mass
range and are destined to become white dwarfs
Neutron Stars - 1.44 and 2.9 Ms <== Main Sequence 8-30 Ms
Core masses between 1.44 and 2.9 solar masses overcome electron
degeneracy pressure and collapse to form neutron stars, a star that is
essentially one gigantic nucleus. Further collapse is halted by neutron
degeneracy pressure.
Black Holes - 3 or more Ms <== Main Sequence > 30 Ms
But for cores with mass of 3 or more solar masses, neutron
degeneracy pressure does not stop the collapse and the star becomes a
black hole with zero physical size, but with all the mass. Gravity
really wins!
In each case, gravity eventually wins, but, to what extent is
determined by the mass and the relative pressures of the quantum
mechanical forces, electron and neutron degeneracy pressure. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Knecht... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:49 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
[quote]
One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass
pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star
under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
[/quote]
Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit
for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the
former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar
masses.
Nature and empirical evidence trumps theoretical assumptions.
Every time.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yousuf Khan wrote:
[quote]
Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is
claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20
Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from
collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
Other than that, the article is okay, describes a newly formed neutron
star that still has an atmosphere of carbon on it. The carbon was
created from left over fusion reactions in an atmosphere of hydrogen and
helium on the surface of the neutron star even after it had gone supernova.
CBC News - Technology & Science - Canadian physicist IDs young neutron star
"Craig Heinke and his colleague Wynn Ho at the University of
Southampton, U.K., say that the remnant of the supernova Cassiopeia A is
a very young neutron star, 20 times heavier than the sun, but only 20
kilometres wide."
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/04/tech-space-alberta-neutron-star.html
Yousuf Khan
[/quote]
One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass
pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star
under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Knecht... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 5:31 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
[quote]
idiot
[/quote]
Not a very scientific response, and certainly not a scientific
argument.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Knecht wrote:
[quote]
On Nov 6, 2:49 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass
pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star
under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit
for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the
former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar
masses.
[/quote]
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Knecht wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 2:49 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass
pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star
under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit
for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the
former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar
masses.
Nature and empirical evidence trumps theoretical assumptions.
Every time.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
[/quote]
Now we wait for the furious backpedal once the misreporting error is
revealed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Knecht... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 3:43 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
[quote]
idiot
[/quote]
Speaking of intolerance, ignorance and wetware,
I can't understanding why he is still running
Reptillian 1.0 when most enlightened people
have switched to Humanbean 3.0 . |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
