Hubble confirms: galaxies are ultimate recyclers

Nov 17, 2011
Distant quasars shine through the gas-rich "fog" of hot plasma encircling galaxies. At ultraviolet wavelengths, Hubble's Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) is sensitive to absorption from many ionized heavy elements, such as nitrogen, oxygen, and neon. COS's high sensitivity allows many galaxies that happen to lie in front of the much more distant quasars. The ionized heavy elements serve as proxies for estimating how much mass is in a galaxy's halo. (Credit: NASA; ESA; A. Feild, STScI)

(PhysOrg.com) -- New observations by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope are expanding astronomers' understanding of the ways in which galaxies continuously recycle immense volumes of hydrogen gas and heavy elements. This process allows galaxies to build successive generations of stars stretching over billions of years.

This ongoing recycling keeps some galaxies from emptying their "fuel tanks" and stretches their star-forming epoch to over 10 billion years.

This conclusion is based on a series of observations that flexed the special capabilities of its Spectrograph (COS) to detect gas in the halo of our Milky Way and more than 40 other galaxies. Data from large ground-based telescopes in Hawaii, Arizona and Chile also contributed to the studies by measuring the properties of the galaxies.

Astronomers believe that the color and shape of a galaxy is largely controlled by gas flowing through an extended halo around it. The three studies investigated different aspects of the gas-recycling phenomenon.

The results are being published in three papers in the November 18 issue of Science magazine. The leaders of the three studies are Nicolas Lehner of the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind.; Jason Tumlinson of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md.; and Todd Tripp of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

The COS observations of demonstrate that a large mass of clouds is falling through the giant halo of our Milky Way, fueling its ongoing . These clouds of hot hydrogen reside within 20,000 light-years of the Milky Way disk and contain enough material to make 100 million suns. Some of this gas is recycled material that is continually being replenished by star formation and the explosive energy of novae and supernovae, which kicks chemically enriched gas back into the halo.

The color and shape of a galaxy is largely controlled by gas flowing through an extended halo around it. All modern simulations of galaxy formation find that they cannot explain the observed properties of galaxies without modeling the complex accretion and "feedback" processes by which galaxies acquire gas and then later expel it after chemical processing by stars. Hubble spectroscopic observations show that galaxies like our Milky Way recycle gas while galaxies undergoing a rapid starburst of activity will lose gas into intergalactic space and become "red and dead." (Credit: NASA; ESA; A. Feild, STScI)

The COS observations also show halos of hot gas surrounding vigorous star-forming galaxies. These halos, rich in heavy elements, extend as much as 450,000 light-years beyond the visible portions of their galactic disks. The amount of heavy-element mass discovered far outside a galaxy came as a surprise. COS measured 10 million solar masses of oxygen in a galaxy's halo, which corresponds to about one billion solar masses of gas -- as much as in the entire space between stars in a galaxy's disk.

Researchers also found that this gas is nearly absent from galaxies that have stopped forming stars. In these galaxies, the "recycling" process ignites a rapid firestorm of star birth which can blow away the remaining fuel, essentially turning off further star-birth activity.

This is evidence that gas pushed out of a galaxy, rather than pulled in from intergalactic space, determine a galaxy's fate."

The Hubble observations demonstrate that those galaxies forming stars at a very rapid rate, perhaps a hundred solar masses per year, can drive two-million-degree gas very far out into intergalactic space at speeds of up to two million miles per hour. That's fast enough for the gas to escape forever and never refuel the parent galaxy.

While hot gas "winds" from galaxies have been known for some time, the new COS observations reveal that hot outflows extend to much greater distances than previously thought and can carry a tremendous amount of mass out of a galaxy. Some of the hot gas is moving more slowly and could eventually be recycled. The observations show how gas-rich star-forming spiral galaxies can evolve to elliptical galaxies that no longer have star formation.

The light emitted by this hot plasma is invisible, so the researchers used COS to detect the presence of the by the way it absorbs certain colors of light from background quasars. Quasars are the brightest objects in the universe and are the brilliant cores of active galaxies that contain active central black holes. The quasars serve as distant lighthouse beacons that shine through the gas-rich "fog" of hot plasma encircling galaxies. At ultraviolet wavelengths, COS is sensitive to the presence of heavy elements, such as nitrogen, oxygen, and neon. COS's high sensitivity allows many to be studied that happen to lie in front of the much more distant quasars. The ionized are markers for estimating how much mass is in a galaxy's halo.

Explore further: The Great Debate over whether the universe is small or large

Related Stories

'Dead' galaxies are not so dead after all

May 30, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- University of Michigan astronomers examined old galaxies and were surprised to discover that they are still making new stars. The results provide insights into how galaxies evolve with time.

Baby booms and birth control in space

Sep 25, 2007

Stars in galaxies are a bit similar to people: during the first phase of their existence they grow rapidly, after which a stellar birth control occurs in most galaxies. Thanks to new observations from Dutch ...

Hot, massive haloes found around most spiral galaxies

Dec 14, 2005

Astronomers using ESA's XMM-Newton observatory have found very hot gaseous haloes around a multitude of spiral galaxies similar to our Milky Way galaxy. These 'ghost-like' veils have been suspected for decades ...

Recommended for you

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

Sep 17, 2014

Next week in St. Petersburg, Russia, scientists on an international team that includes Penn State University astronomers will present a paper that provides a simple explanation for mysterious ultra-long gamma-ray ...

Glowing galaxies in telescopic timelapse

Sep 17, 2014

We often speak of the discoveries and data flowing from astronomical observatories, which makes it easy to forget the cool factor. Think of it—huge telescopes are probing the universe under crystal-clear ...

User comments : 80

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 18, 2011
galaxies are ultimate recyclers


And individual stars in the galaxies, like the Sun, explode and then reform on the remnant core of the precursor star [1,2]!

1. "Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios", Proceedings of SOHO GONG Conference on Helioseismology (27 Oct-1 Nov 2002, Big Bear Lake, CA, U.S.A.)
ESA SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste) 345-348 (2003)

www.omatumr.com/a...2002.pdf

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?" The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
kevinrtrs
1.5 / 5 (24) Nov 18, 2011
The big problem with this "recycling" proposal is that there's an underlying assumption that the current way of understanding star formation is a solid, concrete fact.
However, there is no confirmed sighting/documentation that stars form out of gas of any kind.
This is purely based on guesstimates because there is once more assumed to be no other first cause that could have created stars.
According to this star from gas theory it takes an immensely long time for stars to form out of gas - hence it would have been impossible to confirm by any current or even past-living human being. There simply is not enough observational evidence to support even the most mathematically rigorous theory. Simply doesn't exist. Cannot be confirmed. Full stop.

Therefore it's dishonest for anyone to report and use words like "a place of star formation" as if it's a fact. It's not. I wish people would stop doing it and consistently state that "it is thought that..." instead of spreading lies.
eric96
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2011
@kevinrtrs or nothing than a smart alec

Incorrect. First nothing comes of nothing. This is an axiom. Star formation, of course, as everything, cannot be exempt from that axiom. Stars contain hydrogen and helium; that has to come from somewhere; hmmmm takes a genius to figure that out ehhhh kevinrtrs. The only possibility is that it is formed from surrounding gas. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt; was the gas teleported from one place to another and the end result a new Star? Lmao. Of all assumptions made in all of physics, this is probably the soundest one. In fact, in physics, there aren't so much assumptions as there are patterns and equations to express to patterns; physicist try not to stray away from patterns and defying them because they are patterns with extremely high verification rates Of course, all patterns are bound to circumstances, and the biggest assumption is that these circumstances remain the same everywhere; it is hard for them to conceive otherwis
eric96
2 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
This was a very good article, appreciate. Now it is pretty clear that supernovas play a role in recycling the contents, or if too many happen at once then to the galaxy's death, but the role of the black hole is what??? When a supernova explodes, what are the resulting particles, gasses? What comes out of a black whole or the bigger variant quasars; just photons cannot be. The idea I'm getting is that galaxies, I believe are self-sustaining, so then what role does the blackhole play in that?
I know the article states that a galaxy maximum lifespan is like 10 billion years old, however and this is the mind twist, the universe is also a recycling unit therefore, this dead galaxy will also be recycled, possibly by eventually colliding with another galaxy; that being said what now is the role of dark energy that pushes everything away from a certain point?? hmmmm
matter0ni
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2011
If nothing comes from nothing then not only are we immortal, but you can throw the big bang theory out of the window. What I'm saying is the whole 'ex nihilo nihil fit' argument is only a model of logic created by the human mind. to state it as fact seems hubris since its only an idea
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (13) Nov 18, 2011
Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios
Which has no evidence at all of the Sun's interior. Oliver, you can frequently be seen claiming to only go on evidence and not use models and have made it clear that no one has seen the Sun's interior. Yet your Iron Sun idea is a model and it is quite duplicitous to claim it isn't.

The MODEL includes such idea as Sun that gets cooler to interior, rigid iron mantel, and a neutron star inside it. None of this is based on any physical evidence at all. Indeed it is counter to the evidence that the Sun is a gas plasma all the way through. The neutrino output of the Sun shows it is powered by fusion of hydrogen.

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?" The Journal of Cosmology 13
The answer is yes. A crank journal isn't going to change the universal redshift. That article is purest crap.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 18, 2011
Oppenheimer and Volkoff (1939) advanced this idea and predicted that a neutron star of mass (m) would be stable only in the mass range of 1/3 Mo < m < 3/4 Mo, where Mo is one solar mass
Which is wrong. Try something newer. The stability range is much larger and they can't form in the first place unless they are larger than one solar mass.

Neutron-emission from the solar core
Totally made up as there is no evidence for this occurring.

Neutron-decay to hydrogen
Can't happen in a neutron star. The pressure that forced the protons into becoming neutrons is more than adequate to keep them that way.

Partial fusion of hydrogen into helium
The neutrino evidence shows that is the only source of the Sun's energy.

Discharge of solar wind hydrogen and helium with traces of severely mass-fractionated heavier elements from the Sun's iron-rich mantle
Or its just that the Sun is almost entirely hydrogen and helium. Which is what the spectral evidence shows.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 18, 2011
The volume of the particle increases by a factor of about 1015 in the decay of a neutron into a hydrogen atom
Which is not happening in the first place because the neutron are not decaying in the manner claimed and in the second place how the hell does that magically make space expand? There is absolutely no physics behind that claim. It is purest handwaving.

I think that enough of that paper.

Now how can neutron stars form in the first place when you insist that Neutron Repulsion is so strong that Black Holes cannot form. This is self contradictory to go along with the circular reasoning you use to claim the Sun has a rigid iron mantel, which is impossible, and neutron core which is contrary to the Sun being a gas plasma which is what the evidence supports.

Ethelred
Pressure2
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2011
Ethelred, we have been through this before and there is absolutly no reason neutrons cannot decay on the suface of a neutron star. The gravitational pressure on the surface of neutron star are about billion X a billion X a billion weaker than the strong force pressure is in a nucleus. An neutrons decay inside the nucleus all the time.

Pressure2
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2011
Kevin must be on a roll. He has a point about the difficulty of the first stars forming out of light gas clouds alone. I do not think anyone knows exactly how this could happen or how long it would take. But a few hundred million years after the BB seems like a very short time period for all the galaxies that have been detected to form so shortly after the BB.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2011
Kevin must be on a roll. He has a point about the difficulty of the first stars forming out of light gas clouds alone. I do not think anyone knows exactly how this could happen or how long it would take. But a few hundred million years after the BB seems like a very short time period for all the galaxies that have been detected to form so shortly after the BB.
If kevin has made a valid point then it is only by accident as he has little knowledge of science, and what he does know he distorts and mashes up in order to use for confirming his religionist agenda. He knows the cause BEFORE he addresses the effect. This is not science - this is propaganda.

But then this is what kevin gets paid to do. 'From whom all blessings flow'... the parishioners, the donations plate.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2011
I'm a complete novice at this, so someone please help me out here.

After a star has expended its' hydrogen fuel & becomes a neutron star, what is its' source of energy if there is no longer any hydrogen available to be fused into helium?
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
In dense aether model the galaxies are condensing and evaporating randomly across Universe like the giant density fluctuations of very dense gas. The first stage is the cloud of dark matter (photons and neutrinos), which collapses into dense glowing spherical object similar to white hole (gravastar). This object gradually condenses into particles of visible matter and it changes into system of many jets. The number of jets gradually decreases until the two are remain. These jets are serving like pair of giant fountains and it forms the flat pancake-like shape of galaxy. These jets gradually disappear and only neutrinos are emanated from central zone of galaxy (which is the present stage of Milky Way). At the end the galaxy will change into spherical object again. The formation of jets can be interpreted like the exaggerated case of gravitational brightening or like the formation of holes in event horizon of central black hole.
roboferret
5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2011
Hey Kev, have you ever seen a human being being born, growing up, maturing and dying of old age? No. Does this mean you should dismiss the human aging process as myth? No. There are billions of stars, just as there are people, at different stages of development.
I've noticed creationists, bizarrely, like to consider eyewitness testimony as the highest form of evidence. That's understandable, as all the evidence they have is narrative from ancient screeds. Unfortunately for them, it doesn't have particularly high regard in science and law, as it is obviously subjective and prone to error, bias, and downright lying.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
After a star has expended its' hydrogen fuel & becomes a neutron star, what is its' source of energy if there is no longer any hydrogen available to be fused into helium?
It's believed it's residual internal heat of this star itself. This star is very dense, which means, it has relatively small surface so it cools slowly. In addition, the thermal capacity of its material is very high and its thermal conductivity is very low, which corresponds the low speed of energy spreading inside of black hole core. Of course, we can imagine some exotic processes inside of such dense star, which would lead into formation of energy. For example the breaking of neutrons into their constituents and burning of quarks.

http://physicswor...ws/41269
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
@Pressure2,
there is absolutly no reason neutrons cannot decay on the suface of a neutron star
And there is no reason protons can remain stable on the surface of a neutron star, as the gravitational pressure there is sufficient to cram any errant electron onto any available proton and turn that proton back into a neutron in the process. Indeed, these rapid decay-and-recombination events are probably quite common on a neutron star's surface, and would account for some of its energy emission.

Besides, the strong force is just as active on the surface of a Neutron Star (which really is just one giant, over-sized nucleus.) The *weak* force that leads heavy nuclei to decay by *emitting* neutrons can't do crap against the force of gravity on a neutron star's surface (a neutron would need to somehow gain relativistic-grade velocity to escape from the surface of a neutron star.)
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
I'm a complete novice at this, so someone please help me out here.

After a star has expended its' hydrogen fuel & becomes a neutron star, what is its' source of energy if there is no longer any hydrogen available to be fused into helium?

There are many other fusion processes that can take place that release energy, but let's just go to the neutron star period. A neutron star does not cool off it actually starts heating up again. It get this energy from the background of neutrinos. It is unlikely that neutrinos can penetrate a neutron star, they are either refected or absorbed. The one's that are absorbed cause the neutrons on the surface heat up and decay into hydrogen gas and when enough hydrogen gas builds up, the fusion process starts again.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
Kevin must be on a roll. He has a point about the difficulty of the first stars forming out of light gas clouds alone.
Kevin has no clue. Apparently, he is utterly oblivious of actual observations of star-forming nebulae (a.k.a. Bok Globules), actual young stars directly observed in the middle of forming by infrared telescopes (including Hubble), and the fact that star formation from gas clouds is inevitable in the context of basic physics, reliably reproduced by physics-based computer simulations.

His logic of "process X takes longer than a human lifespan and is therefore impossible to observe or deduce" is as flawed as his entire mind and thinking process (if the latter can be even whimsically described as such...)
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Ethelred, we have been through this before and there is absolutly no reason neutrons cannot decay on the suface of a neutron star.
We have been through this before yes. The other part is still false.They are NOT on the surface. The surface is degenerate matter, mostly iron. You ignored this the last time. Deal with it. Ignoring things is one of the reason Oliver gets banned on most sites. Odd thing is YOU have been banned here and he hasn't.

http://spacedaily...ake.html

The diameter of a neutron star is uncertain, but based on the estimate of about 12 miles across, the crust would be about 1 mile deep. This figure, based on the observed frequencies, is in line with theoretical estimates.
This supports the model of a degenerate surface not naked neutrons which is what you are claiming.>>
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
PE, if the strong force in a nucleus cannot "cram" the electon back into a protron from a decaying neutron there is NO way the "relatively" weak gravitational force on the surface of a neutron star can accomplish that task.
The force that created the neutrons in the first place, the supernova explosive backlash, is no longer present to keep the neutrons from decaying. It is only a lack of energy that keeps that from happening. (That energy source is explained in my previous posting.)
Can you even explain to me why a neutron in a nucleus decays?
If you cannot answer that question what makes you think you can make the claim that a neutron cannot decay on the surface of a neutron star?
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
Ethelred: It makes little difference as to how much degenerate matter you try to protect your neutron star with, the background of neutrinos can penetrate it and cause the surface neutrons to decay.

Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2011
he gravitational pressure on the surface of neutron star are about billion X a billion X a billion weaker than the strong force pressure is in a nucleus.
No. Even the strong force cannot match the weight of the degenerate that is over the neutrons.

An neutrons decay inside the nucleus all the time.
Really? How come you are still alive? They never decay in iron and is mostly iron on the surface of a neutron star not neutrons. So how do the neutron get up there where you think they can decay?

They only decay in unstable atoms.

He has a point about the difficulty of the first stars forming out of light gas clouds alone.
It is quite possible that plasma currents are involved. A few hundred millions years is not a short time. Even in astronomical terms. Our galaxy makes a full rotation in less time.

Have a link to a LONG discussion where Oliver was banned.
http://www.bautfo...scussion
>>
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
PE: Kevin might not have a clue, I have already admitted I don't have one and you may not have a clue either.
For all you know there easily could be an earth size chunk of matter that started the star forming process you mention. Well there were NOT any earth size chunks of matter to start that process after the BB.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Have Wiki link
http://en.wikiped...ron_star

Have some more links
http://www.astro....tar.html
http://hyperphysi...sar.html
Above 1.44 solar masses, enough energy is available from the gravitational collapse to force the combination of electrons and protons to form neutrons.
If it is that strong what magic is reversing it PERMANENTLY? Which is what you are claiming. After all if it strong enough to do it the first time it is strong enough to again. This probably does happen but most of the energy released goes to the neutrino which zips out of the star, this process is thought to rapidly cool neutron stars.

Another source of cooling:
http://news.scien...evi.html
This helps show that the model for neutron stars is pretty good.>>
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
@Ethelred,

You misunderstand what is described as a neutron star's "crust". The "crust" is indeed composed of neutrons, not some "degenerate matter". From the very article you reference:
The crust, they say, is close to a mile deep and so tightly packed that a teaspoon of this material would weigh about 10 million tons on Earth.
That isn't a description of any iron compound, that's a description of pure Neutronium.

@Pressure2,
PE, if the strong force in a nucleus cannot "cram" the electon back into a protron
That's not what the strong force does. The strong force acts on quarks, and does not apply to leptons (of which the electron is an example.)
what makes you think you can make the claim that a neutron cannot decay on the surface of a neutron star?
What makes you think I made such a claim? A free neutron decays into a proton an electron. Neutrons on a neutron star are not free; the resulting p e will recombine into n because neither can escape the surface.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
Ethelred, you are right neutrons do not decay in iron and a host of other stable nuclei. Now to the real question can you explain why a neutron decays is an isotope with a half life of a million or more years? Why does it all of a sudden decay? If you cannot answer that question you cannot make the claim that a neutron cannot decay on the surface of a neutron star.
Pressure2
1.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
PE, I agree the neutrons cannot escape the surface of a neutron star but that has nothing to do with whether they can decay BACK into a hydrogen gas AFTER the supernova explosion.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
However, in other respects, neutron stars and atomic nuclei are quite different. In particular, a nucleus is held together by the strong interaction, while a neutron star is held together by gravity.


So how do the neutron get up there where you think they can decay?

Go read the links this time. Just staying NO NO NO A THOUSANDS TIME NO will no more make you right than it does Oliver. THEN discuss it and show how the neutrons can reach the surface where they would be under less pressure.

Ethelred
PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
@Pressure2,

You don't seem to understand: hydrogen gas CANNOT EXIST on the surface of a neutron star. The gravity there is too high: it will compress your hydrogen gas to such a degree that its electrons will collapse onto its protons, and it will turn into a thin film of neutrons.

The only way a neutron star's surface can have any "gas" or more accurately, high-energy plasma 'atmosphere' (a rather thin one, at that) is when the star hasn't yet cooled down enough after the explosion that formed it. But once it cools down (by radiating away its heat over time -- which does take quite a while), it is basically a solid chunk of Neutronium. And while there will always be ongoing, fleeting neutron decay events rapidly followed by recombination of the resulting proton-electron pair back into a neutron, as a whole this body of ultra-dense matter is VERY stable and will basically, literally, last well past the point when the whole universe freezes over.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Ethelred: It makes little difference as to how much degenerate matter you try to protect your neutron star with, the background of neutrinos can penetrate it and cause the surface neutrons to decay.
More handwaving. No iron neucleus has ever been seen to decay. There are no free neutron on the surface. It isn't MY neutron star it is the one that actual astrophycisists have modeled as opposed to you or Oliver. The neutrons were NOT formed from the force of the supernova. They are formed by pressure that is from gravity.

Get back to me when you read the links.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
You misunderstand what is described as a neutron star's "crust".
Actually no. I have it right assuming the physicists have it right. It is generally thought the surface is mostly degenerate iron.

http://en.wikiped...tructure
On the basis of current models, the matter at the surface of a neutron star is composed of ordinary atomic nuclei crushed into a solid lattice with a sea of electrons flowing through the gaps between them. It is possible that the nuclei at the surface are iron, due to iron's high binding energy per nucleon.


That isn't a description of any iron compound, that's a description of pure Neutronium.
Read more. It is degenerate matter. That is a white dwarf density.

Neutronium is more dense
A neutron star is so dense that one teaspoon (5 milliliters) of its material would have a mass over 5.5×1012 kg,
Which is 1,250,000,000 Tons.>>
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
Ethelred, now you gave me a good chuckle, as the neutrons decay on the surface the neutrons directly below BECOME the surface.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
PE, it is NOT the gravitational pressure on the surface of a neutron star that created the neutron star, it was the BACK pressure from the exploding supernova that created the neutron star!
Back to basic, for every action there is an equal reaction, the exploding supernova creates the pressure that creates the neutron star. It is NOT the gravitational pressure that created the neutron star, nor is it the gravitational pressure what keeps the neutrons from decaying.
Goodnight!
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
That's not what the strong force does. The strong force acts on quarks, and does not apply to leptons (of which the electron is an example.)
Now that one is right. The strong force holds quarks in sets. A secondary effect is to hold the nucleus together despite the electro-magnetic force driving the protons apart.

A free neutron decays into a proton an electron. Neutrons on a neutron star are not free; the resulting p e will recombine into n because neither can escape the surface.
Well they aren't actually on the surface but the concept is close.

Ethelred
PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 18, 2011
@Ethelred,

OK, I suppose it's a matter of continuum. Perhaps some of the heavier white dwarfs might have a small neutronium core (maintained by pressure from overlaying dense matter), and some of the lighter neutron stars might have a white dwarf-like outer layer. But heavier neutron stars (closer to the neutron degeneracy limit) won't have such a layer. I was thinking of the more 'pure' neutron star variety, as I don't like to mix metaphors.

That said, "ordinary atomic nuclei crushed into a solid lattice" isn't exactly the same thing as ordinary atomic nuclei any longer. One could draw tentative boundaries around particular fleeting groupings of protons and neutrons, and call these groupings "nuclei", but that's only a colloquial approximation for the actual state of such matter.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (2) Nov 18, 2011
@Pressure2,
it is NOT the gravitational pressure on the surface of a neutron star that created the neutron star, it was the BACK pressure from the exploding supernova that created the neutron star
Correct.
nor is it the gravitational pressure what keeps the neutrons from decaying
Not entirely correct. Gravitation does not prevent neutron decay, but it is what keeps any hydrogen gas from emerging through neutron decay. Once again, hydrogen gas cannot (nor can any other kind of atomic gas or mineral) exist on the surface of a neutron star: the gravity is too high. Hydrogen can't even exist as a liquid, or as a solid, on the surface of a neutron star. There are no atoms there of any sort, because the enormous gravity collapses them.

A neutron star is just a step or two short of a black hole (with perhaps quark stars being the last step.) These are EXTREME objects, far from conditions on any ordinary star, and your intuitions don't quite work there.

Read Ethelred's links.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
OK, I suppose it's a matter of continuum.
It tends to be described as shells.

Perhaps some of the heavier white dwarfs might have a small neutronium core
Due to the phase transition releasing neutrinos and removing energy the transition is apparently pretty major. The core of neutrons would form shrink and the collapse of the volume would drop the upper layers which I suspect would be rather catastrophic. All the stuff I have read on this leads to it being either all white dwarf with a non-degenerate surface or a mostly neutron core with a degenerate matter surface. Both can have an atmosphere of actual gas.

I was thinking of the more 'pure' neutron star variety, as I don't like to mix metaphors.
There don't seem to be any of those. If there is that much mass you could get one of the exotic stars but the difference between all of those and black hole is quite close. There are only two candidates for quark stars at the moment.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
One could draw tentative boundaries around particular fleeting groupings of protons and neutrons,
The electrons are still there in a sort of soup surrounding the nuclei. I suppose it could be you way but in that case I don't see where the star quakes have come from because that would not be rigid.

Correct.
No. It could be that is involved but the math for the limits, maximum and minimum, is based on pressure.

Once again, hydrogen gas cannot (nor can any other kind of atomic gas or mineral) exist on the surface of a neutron star: the gravity is too high.
The models don't have it that way. A gas is possible on the surface over the degenerate matter.

These are EXTREME objects, far from conditions on any ordinary star, and your intuitions don't quite work there.
Yes. That is why they are so interesting.

Both you guys to read those links. Not that it is likely to do Pressure any good.

This not just math. There are observations that support it.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Sudden changes in the rotation rate of pulsars accompanied by major x-ray and sometimes gamma ray bursts. Rapid cooling for one neutron star. Millisecond pulsars put a limit on the size because even with the standard models the surface is rotating at relativistic speeds of around 10% of C. A larger volume would entail a higher surface velocity.

http://en.wikiped...8-2446ad

Its radius is constrained to be less than 16 km. At its equator it is spinning at approximately 24% of the speed of light, or over 70,000 km per second
That is more than 10%.

White dwarfs have a radius close to that of the Earth so millisecond pulsars cannot be white dwarfs. They must be more compact than degenerate atoms. In other words we cannot directly measure their radius the millisecond pulsars give us a limit.

Those are the sorts of things that are needed to support ideas that can't be directly tested. Waving hands about like Pressure and Oliver are doing is just Cranking.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2011
Now to the real question can you explain why a neutron decays is an isotope with a half life of a million or more years? Why does it all of a sudden decay?
Sure. The Weak Force, though I think the Uncertainty Principle is also involved.

If you cannot answer that question you cannot make the claim that a neutron cannot decay on the surface of a neutron star.
You can't answer the question asked so you can't claim it can decay AND there aren't any free neutron on the surface. That is just you waving your hands on two things and then claiming I must prove things. Well I did and you have is your magical passes.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2011
the neutrons decay on the surface the neutrons directly below BECOME the surface
That is handwaving and ignoring all the models. The degenerate matter layer is around a mile deep according to that one link I posted so the neutron are NOT on the surface. You keep making that claim and nothing whatsoever to support it. PE was wrong, so are you.

BACK pressure from the exploding supernova that created the neutron star
Not according to the physics that has been done. It IS from the pressure of gravity.

for every action there is an equal reaction, the exploding supernova creates the pressure that creates the neutron star
No. The gravity is enough in the mathematical models.

It is NOT the gravitational pressure that created the neutron star, nor is it the gravitational pressure what keeps the neutrons from decaying
Waving your hands does not make it true. How about some actual support from people that have done the math. Oliver is not one of those.

Ethelred
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
Due to the phase transition releasing neutrinos and removing energy the transition is apparently pretty major.
Are you referring to the process of combining an electron with a proton? That doesn't yield any neutrinos AFAIK; it actually consumes energy (the reverse -- neutron decay -- does emit neutrinoes and occurs spontaneously because it's exothermic.) Or are you referring to superfluidity?

At the cores of neutron stars, it is hypothesized that free quarks may exist. So, neutron stars may not be neutronium throughout. In a similar vein, I don't see any strong argument to preclude formation of neutronium at the cores of white dwarfs. In both cases, the exceptionally dense state at the core would exist and be stable only because of pressure from overlaying matter.

This is what I meant when I spoke of a continuum: white dwarf -> neutron star -> quark star, where "->" may be gray areas blending the two compositions, rather than binary transitions.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 19, 2011
Both can have an atmosphere of actual gas.
No way, nohow. Even ordinary stars don't have gas atmospheres. Yes, a thin and very dense layer of extremely hot *plasma* (not gas) may hover above the surface, but only while the "star" is still hot or while there is infalling matter. It takes A LOT of energy (relativistic quantities) for matter to hover above the surface of a neutron star.
The electrons are still there in a sort of soup surrounding the nuclei.
I wouldn't call those things "nuclei". There would be constant jostling of neutron/proton clusters, the equivalent of fusion (endothermic) and fission (exothermic) reactions, ongoing there at a frenetic pace.
I don't see where the star quakes have come from because that would not be rigid
Quakes occur on the Sun, which isn't rigid either. Liquids and gases can oscillate and reverberate simply in terms of traveling pressure waves, even without taking electromagnetic forces and nuclear reactions into account.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Nov 19, 2011
the math for the limits, maximum and minimum, is based on pressure
Yes of course, but in the case of a supernova a large percentage of that pressure comes from the recoil of the explosion that throws off the outer layers of the star.

Yes, theoretically if you just assembled a large enough ball of cold iron, it would collapse into a neutron star under its own weight without needing a supernova.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2011
That doesn't yield any neutrinos AFAIK;
There are two ways for it to happen. When a neutron decays it yields a proton, an electron and an electron-antineutrino. The reverse could occur IF electron-antineutrinos were hanging around waiting to join in on the neutron creation orgy. What happens instead:

http://en.wikiped...on_stars

In neutron stars, neutron heavy nuclei are found as relativistic electrons penetrate the nuclei and produce inverse beta decay, wherein the electron combines with a proton in the nucleus to make a neutron and an electron-neutrino:
And energy leaves the star on via that electron-neutrino.

At the cores of neutron stars, it is hypothesized that free quarks may exist.
In really massive stars close to the Black Hole limit.

So, neutron stars may not be neutronium throughout.
Even in the core there should be some protons. The numbers I found where either six or eight neutrons per proton.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2011
In a similar vein, I don't see any strong argument to preclude formation of neutronium at the cores of white dwarfs.
Might occur at a low rate with neutrons also decaying back to protons. However if very many of the protons undergo inverse beta decay it is likely it will begin to undergo collapse because the neutrons have a much smaller volume making the change a bit of a one way street. The collapse increases density and thus the gravitational pressure increases. This may lead to a runaway collapse if there is more than a very small percentage of protons become neutrons. The main cause of that would be accretion of matter from a companion star but that should cause a type 1 supernova instead.

may be gray areas blending the two compositions, rather than binary transitions.
Due to the major increase in density between electron degeneracy and neutron degeneracy this is unlikely to occur except in small amounts near the limits.>P>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2011
Once the limit is reached it is by-by white dwarf. Quark vs neutron doesn't seem to have as much of an abrupt change in density so that might actually occur but the density zone is really close to becoming a black hole and there is no such thing as partial there.

Even ordinary stars don't have gas atmospheres.
Its called the corona and yes its plasma. Technically plasma is a gas.

but only while the "star" is still hot
Yep, but they are pretty hot and the depth is in inches.

It takes A LOT of energy (relativistic quantities) for matter to hover above the surface of a neutron star.
Yes if you mean over 1%C. It isn't going to iron, just some hydrogen and helium.

I wouldn't call those things "nuclei".
Near the surface that is what they get called. See the neutron drip link.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2011
Quakes occur on the Sun, which isn't rigid either
Not from the same cause. A neutron star can support difference in surface level of about 4 inches according to of the link(I had thought it was 1 inch, that's what I get for going on Dr. Forwards novel Starquake(1985)). As the neutron star continues to loose heat the surface has to realign thus causing starquakes.

http://en.wikiped...%27s_Egg
http://en.wikiped...8book%29

Dr. Forward's specialty was gravity. Oddly enough he worked for Hughs and not a University. The books aren't very good stories. They are read for the hard SF, not the characters who are purest pasteboard, in space, and even flatter on the neutron star.

If you think life ON a neutron star is radical there is one book with it IN a neutron star, within the degenerate matter crust.

Stephen Baxter's Flux
http://en.wikiped...novel%29

The characters in this one are not mere pasteboard. They are cardboard

Ethelred
cheifgene
3 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2011
I do believe this wouldn't be the correct place to post this but I have things that need getting to. As I do not have any degrees in astrology/physics as I am still in highschool I think the group of people that frequent this sight should be able to inform. Seeing as the universe is every expanding (slowing I believe) from the point of the big bang logic asks what made that little cosmic egg come about? It would seem that the universe goes through a cycle. It expands for a very long time then once that stops it starts to reverse. until we are back to the big bang part. this would be a very simplified way of saying this of course but it does seem like all we are doing now may be useful for a very long time but eventually this all will be part of that cosmic egg. This is going to sound like im trolling but everything is pretty much the matrix as it all will happen again to the same end.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
Seeing as the universe is every expanding (slowing I believe)
Present evidence is that the expansion is speeding up.

big bang logic asks what made that little cosmic egg come about?
The logic is that Universe is expanding thus it must have been smaller in the past. Run it back to the logical conclusion and you get something really small and eventually even the math breaks down.

It would seem that the universe goes through a cycle.
That is one guess but the apparent acceleration of the expansion rate goes against that. Looks like the Universe ends with a whimper.>>
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2011
This is going to sound like im trolling but everything is pretty much the matrix as it all will happen again to the same end.
The Matrix had a bad end. The Universe will have really boring end. Timelike Infinity. The End of History and not in the brain damaged Marxist sense. In the sense that every particle will be so far from every other particle that nothing will happened except to get farther apart. Then again if the Universe started from a vacuum fluctuation this vast expanse of vacuum for an infinite period of time, should that have any meaning, could be a good source of a new vacuum fluctuation.

Its a all craps shoot. No one knows the ultimate answers. Especially not the ones that are certain they have the answer.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
The Universe will have really boring end. Timelike Infinity.
This is just a religion based on mainstream Big Bang extrapolation. At the water surface all surface ripples are dispersed into underwater in sufficient distance, so that the observer at the water surface can get an impression, the universe emerged from singularity before some time. And he can extrapolate the thermal death from this model...

But as we can see, the water surface is static and it has no apparent evolution in time. Most of the red shift observed is just a result of light wave dispersion with tiny density fluctuations of vacuum, which are manifesting like the CMBR noise.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
As usual you are full of it. It has nothing to do with religion. If it did I would not have mentioned it.

The water surface isn't involved either.

Redshift isn't going to go away just because you don't like it.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2011
Redshift isn't going to go away just because you don't like it.
Of course it doesn't. Dense aether model doesn't deny the red shift - it explains it instead - i.e. it's not just using it in extrapolations of Universe evolution. And the red shift can be interpreted in many ways. The explanation of red shift based on dilatation of light during Universe expansion (which was explained as a Universe expansion based on red shift observation) is essentially tautological, i.e. circular reasoning.

And the Big Bang theory doesn't explain, why the red shift does depend on wavelength, why it disappears for microwaves and why it becomes blue shift for radiowaves. Such effect indeed make whole the model of cosmological expansion virtual.

http://aetherwave...ime.html

Big Bang theory was maybe a good theory for the primitive religious people of the last century - but today it's a bit too much schematic...
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2011
For example, if space-time would expand, then the more distant galaxies would be more compressed in space, not more sparse as we can see at the result of SLOAN survey

http://summitlake...rvey.jpg

If the space-time would expand, we would see the remote galaxies smaller, instead of larger.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956

Many observations of distant galaxies essentially violating the Big Bang model. They're of higher metalicity, than the Big Bang model allows. And so on...

http://wellbalanc...7001.htm
Tuxford
1 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2011
'While hot gas "winds" from galaxies have been known for some time, the new COS observations reveal that hot outflows extend to much greater distances than previously thought and can carry a tremendous amount of mass out of a galaxy.'

One of my first posts predicted exactly this scenario, for which I have been since ridiculed.

http://www.physor...ars.html

And yes, ellipticals grow into spirals in LaViolette's SQK cosmology.

'The observations show how gas-rich star-forming spiral galaxies can evolve to elliptical galaxies that no longer have star formation.'

And massive outflows is exactly what SQK superwave model predicts.

And 'The amount of heavy-element mass discovered far outside a galaxy came as a surprise.'

Not in SQK cosmology, where the universe is far older than the BB fantasy.

And in SQK physics, something does come from nothing, as our observable universe is simply a subset of a larger regime of undetectable objects, called ethero
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2011
I'm a complete novice at this, so someone please help me out here.

After a star has expended its' hydrogen fuel & becomes a neutron star, what is its' source of energy if there is no longer any hydrogen available to be fused into helium?


That is a good question!

Nuclear rest mass data reveal the answer: Repulsive forces between neutrons:

"Neutron Repulsion" (2001)
www.youtube.com/w...yLYSiPO0

"Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", J Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001)
http://www.omatum...tnuc.pdf

"Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", J Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2002)
www.springerlink....6685079/

"The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass",
Phys Atomic Nuclei 69, 1847-1856 (2006)
http://arxiv.org/.../0609509

"Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
Tuxford
1 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2011
Is the Universe Really Expanding?


An earlier study of distant source time dilation (from 2000?) was finally cited to discredit this conclusion that the universe geometry is in fact static and Euclidean. However, LaViolette predicted in his 2002 SQK book that this conclusion would be eventually overturned, stating that it was likely reached via data-selection effects.

In April of last year, his prediction became true. A more comprehensive review of a larger data set refuted the earlier claim. However, as the BB fantasy has received so much attention in last few years, few are willing to reconsider this nonsense. Expanding space-time has become scientific propaganda.

http://www.physor...752.html
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2011
I'm a complete novice at this, so someone please help me out here.

After a star has expended its' hydrogen fuel & becomes a neutron star, what is its' source of energy if there is no longer any hydrogen available to be fused into helium?


That is a good question!

Nuclear rest mass data reveal the answer: Repulsive forces between neutrons:

Because I am such a complete novice at this (However I have had three semesters of chemistry, two in physics, & two in thermodynamics), but nothing in "astrophysics". So in a paragraph or two, explain how neutrons being neutral in charge can repel each other and in the process create heat.

Thank You, Benni.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2011
Oliver, your theory has problems, spam will not fix it

You insist there is such a thing as neutron repulsion. You insist it is strong enough to stop the formation of black holes, not just stellar black holes but ALL black holes no matter what the size. Also it you claim it is long ranged enough to sunder galaxies. Though you refuse to answer any question about its actual strength or range those claims make it clear that it MUST be more powerful than gravity per unit of mass even if the mass is mostly hydrogen atoms as we can see makes up most the mass in the in the Universe, based on your denial of Dark Matter that is.

It really doesn't require a great deal of effort to notice that there is a severe problem with that set of claims. They make galaxies, stars, even neutron stars, planets and pretty much everything held together by gravity impossible.

Please explain this contradiction of reality that is an inevitable conclusion based on your own claims for Neutron Repulsion

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
So in a paragraph or two, explain how neutrons being neutral in charge can repel each other and in the process create heat.

Thank You, Benni.


Benni,

Nuclear rest mass data reveal:

a.) Repulsive N-N forces as added mass
b.) Attractive N-P forces as reduced mass
c.) Repulsive P-P forces that are like N-N forces augmented by Coulomb repulsion.

Please read the introduction chapter to the nucleus in any good textbook and these two early papers on neutron repulsion:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy," Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001)

www.omatumr.com/a...tnuc.pdf

2. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2002)

www.springerlink....6685079/

Please do not hesitate to ask if you have questions.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2011
What separates Neutron Repulsion from the Pauli Exclusion Principle? Keeping in mind that there is no evidence for a long range force which WOULD separate it from the PEP, but such evidence does not exist.

Since you CLAIM that neutron repulsion is a long range force, unlike the PEP, AND the force is strong enough to stop the formation of Black Holes and strong enough to disrupt galaxies then there is a serous problem for you theory that the Sun has a Pulsar in it. Pulsars couldn't form because a force that stops Black Holes would also have to stop the formation of pulsars, galaxies, planets, meteorites, comets and pretty much anything that wasn't held together by short range electro-magnetic forces that clearly outweigh Neutron Repulsion even in your magical havewaved form.

Please explain how these gravity formed bodies could form if Neutron Repulsion is what you claim. Magical passes of hands need not apply as this is physorg and not the Harry Houdini site.

Ethelred
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2011
@omatumr
@Ethelred

Interesting diametrical opposites in your posts. I tried to follow the "paper" of omatumr, but I still cannot discern how neutrons "repel", there is no clear explanation what creates this condition in neutron stars only.

I've been reading other sites about neutron stars whereby there is speculation that three "quark stars" may have been discovered. Quark stars being a degeneration of a neutron stars' neutrons into what is presumed to be the ultimate building blocks of all matter, quarks. I presume this kind of star would be even heavier than a neutron star & would have to be the heaviest celestial body in the universe if "quarks" cannot be broken down into even smaller particles. The material I've been reading suggests that "quark stars" are the building block of "black holes", & when a neutron star is totally transformed to a "quark star" it becomes a black hole.

You guys are the Astro-Physicists here: Any thoughts?
roboferret
5 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2011
I presume this kind of star would be even heavier than a neutron star & would have to be the heaviest celestial body in the universe if "quarks" cannot be broken down into even smaller particles.


It would be denser, not heavier. Even if a star becomes a black hole, its mass stays the same (ignoring losses of material in the process).

The material I've been reading suggests that "quark stars" are the building block of "black holes", & when a neutron star is totally transformed to a "quark star" it becomes a black hole


Not necessarily as I understand it. A black hole or quark star is only formed if the mass is greater than the TolmanOppenheimerVolkoff limit. If quark stars do exist, they could be stablised by quark degeneracy. They would only collapse into a black hole if the mass was greater than that supported by quark degeneracy.
roboferret
not rated yet Nov 21, 2011
Deleted - Comment system borked on me.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
I presume this kind of star would be even heavier than a neutron star & would have to be the heaviest celestial body in the universe if "quarks" cannot be broken down into even smaller particles.


It would be denser, not heavier. Even if a star becomes a black hole, its mass stays the same (ignoring losses of material in the process).


OK, I follow you, "denser" makes more sense than the same quantity of mass suddenly becoming heavier for no reason. I told you guys at the outset that I'm a novice at this, this only proves it. Just trying to learn & at the same help out our astronomy club while doing so. Three meetings ago one of the members made a brief presentation on black holes but never made mention of the "limit" you brought up, I'll point it out to her so she can prepare a followup as a future topic.

Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2011
I tried to follow the "paper" of omatumr, but I still cannot discern how neutrons "repel", there is no clear explanation what creates this condition in neutron stars only.
They don't. Oliver is basing it on the one table that is covered by the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Many persons have pointed out to him that larger nuclei need extra neutrons, more than one per proton, to be stable. Which is quite contrary to his idea where neutrons repel not only each other but, from context only, everything.

The reason we have to go on context is because Oliver is either unable or unwilling to give to any details at all. He refuses to answer on it range or strength. He make claims for it being able to disrupt galaxies and that black holes cannot form because of it. This would make it stronger than gravity at both the kilometer range and the the kiloparsec range. True gravity is rather weak but it is cumulative.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2011
I've been reading other sites about neutron stars whereby there is speculation that three "quark stars" may have been discovered.
I have seen one and maybe another. If they can form they are still bound to be rare as it there isn't much room for a mass between the smallest conceivable quark star and the smallest black hole.

would have to be the heaviest celestial body in the universe if "quarks" cannot be broken down into even smaller particles.
Short of black holes. There are several other possible things but they are still quark based, just with the heavier order of quarks.

You guys are the Astro-Physicists here: Any thoughts?
Neither I nor Oliver are astrophysicists. I never graduated from college and Oliver never took an astronomy course. I read a lot and Oliver spams a lot.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2011
Here is a link for a forum that an actual discussion took place between Oliver and critics. Oliver struggled mightily to avoid answering inconvenient questions and eventually was banned. At physorg's sister forum physicsforum he lasted five posts before being banned for being rude under the color of politeness. Oliver is fully capable of calling people, me for instance as well as others, a commie or pinko and then sign off with 'with kind regards'. Based on other bad behaviors of his he thinks he can get away with anything if he say 'with kind regards'.

http://www.bautfo...scussion

That was back when Oliver was still allowed on the University of Missouri Rolla, now the Missouri University of Science and Technology, campus.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2011
I have not gone through that whole discussion yet. However I did see a shorter discussion about the thread where it was claimed that it took three weeks to get Oliver to answer a question about the Sun's surface temperature. He has become more reticent since.

Don't expect much of an answer from Oliver if you get any at all.

Ethelred
MarkyMark
not rated yet Nov 22, 2011
Heh a great link never guessed that the Paedo Omatard used to actually debate things.
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2011
I tried to follow the "paper" of omatumr, but I still cannot discern how neutrons "repel" . . . in neutron stars only.


I did NOT explain WHY neutrons repel. They DO. I showed experimental evidence of neutron repulsion as stored nuclear energy (E)- rest mass (m) - in every nucleus with two or more neutrons.

Enjoy the journey of life, Benni, and seek insight yourself to the many paradoxes of nature.

1. Neutron repulsion is a powerful:

a. Destructive force that scared world leaders into uniting nations by vaporizing Hiroshima in 1945

b. Creative force that gave birth to the solar system five billion years (5 Gyr) earlier

c. Sustaining force for the dynamic lives of people, stars, galaxies and cosmos.

2. Fundamental particles that repel each other also pair:

a. Electrons repel electrons; Electrons pair in atoms

b. Protons repel protons; Protons pair in the nucleus

c. Neutrons repel neutrons; Neutrons pair in the nucleus

What is, IS. http://myprofile....anuelo09
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2011
I tried to follow the "paper" of omatumr, but I still cannot discern how neutrons "repel" . . . in neutron stars only.


I did NOT explain WHY neutrons repel. They DO. I showed experimental evidence of neutron repulsion as stored nuclear energy (E)- rest mass (m) - in every nucleus with two or more neutrons.

I'm trying to understand in the simplest terms possible your hypothesis how neutrally charged particles can repel one another. I understand electrons can exist alongside one another without repulsion even though they are both negatively charged, it is due to their opposite spins as they settle into the lowest possible orbit around a nucleus, otherwise they would repel.

I presume inside the nucleus, the neutrons can act as a buffer to prevent the repulsion of positively charged protons from just blowing the nucleus apart due to proton repulsion caused by their positive charge.

But where does the "charge" come from causing neutrons to repel one another?
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2011
I did NOT explain WHY neutrons repel. They DO.
That is your hypothesis. It exists to support the Iron Sun idea and is not based on any evidence that isn't covered by the Pauli Exclusion Principle. WHY is not part of physics. How and what is.

I showed experimental evidence of neutron repulsion as stored nuclear energy (E)- rest mass (m) - in every nucleus with two or more neutrons.
You, or rather the students that don't support you, showed the Pauli Exclusion Principle in action.

Enjoy the journey of life, Benni, and seek insight yourself to the many paradoxes of nature.
What paradoxes?

1Neutron repulsion is a powerful
Yet so carefully undefined there is no way to test it . There is no actual evidence for it so far that the PEP doesn't cover. Claims that it is powerful without producing a single testable prediction makes it hard to consider it as something other than yet another crank idea.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2011
Destructive force that scared world leaders into uniting nations by vaporizing Hiroshima in 1945
Little Boy was made with U235 not U238.

The repulsion came from the electric fields of the protons. The Strong force from both the neutrons and protons hold the nucleus together.

If neutrons repelled each other the U235 would be MORE stable than U238 which is definitely not the case as it is U235 that is in the Bomb and not U238. As the nuclei get larger with more protons it takes MORE neutrons per proton to maintain stability which is exactly the opposite of what would happen if neutrons had a repelling force. This has been pointed out to you many times. You just ignore it. Ignoring it does not change the facts.

As you frequently say, you have to look at the evidence. The evidence is that neutrons do not repel. There is NO evidence that they do. If they did, nuclei would have to have LESS neutrons to be stable as they got heavier.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2011
Ah I found where DO specify a bit of details of neutron repulsion
http://www.bautfo...on/page8
Attractive n-p interactions, and repulsive n-n and p-p interactions that are symmetric after correcting for Coulomb repulsion between positive nuclear charges.
So after two years of trying to get a smidgen of detail from Oliver I found some on another site from 2004. In Oliver's view neutrons attract protons and both protons and neutrons repel themselves. So what force is this the does the repulsion?

We have:
Electro-magnetic force - that does provide the repulsion of protons by protons. But neutrons well they are called neutron for a reason.

Weak force which is usually weakly and vague described as the force responsible for vague radioactive decay. Over the years I have managed to figure out that they mean mostly but not exclusively beta decay. It is the weak force that is responsible for the decay of neutron and not neutron repulsion.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (7) Nov 23, 2011
Strong force - this holds the quarks together and is very strong and very short ranged.

Gravity - this is not a force in the same sense as the other three it is a fictitious force due the warping of space. People rarely ever hear that it is a fictitious force but if you think about it you will see it is. I ran across this by accident just a couple years ago on physicsforum.

http://en.wikiped...us_force

Funny how it never got put that way in ANYTHING had seen until very recently.

So neutron repulsion isn't there. Indeed one of the thing Oliver claims for it, beta decay, is caused by the Weak force.

Then of course there are all those neutron stars out there that are NOT producing scads of hydrogen or energy beyond that expected by more standard theories. Basically nearly every pulsar we see disproves neutron repulsion. And the one that doesn't disprove it does not prove it as all the rest don't produce any unexpected heat.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2011
Creative force that gave birth to the solar system five billion years (5 Gyr) earlier
Actually the evidence is that another star underwent a supernova not our star. The evidence is that there may have been more than one star near at or near the end of its life involved in the formation of they Solar System. Nothing in you evidence has ever required that our Sun be the source of the supernova.

Fundamental particles that repel each other also pair:
Protons only pair if they have a neutron involved. The pairing you are talking about may be that due to spin but even so at least one neutron is needed to get protons to pair up.

Electrons repel electrons; Electrons pair in atoms
Due to the electro-magnetic force which is not relevant to neutrons.

Protons repel protons; Protons pair in the nucleus
Only with help.>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2011
Neutrons repel neutrons; Neutrons pair in the nucleus
There is no evidence for that. Indeed there is evidence against that since large nuclei need extra neutrons to be stable and those need not be pairs for stability. Platinum with 78 protons has an odd number of neutrons at 117 for 34% of atoms one less at 116 and its even but only 33% 115 neutrons is unstable 114 is stable again, yes that is due to pairing but 112 is unstable. Which is contrary to neutrons repelling each other.

Ethelred