How massive can neutron stars be?

January 16, 2018, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main
Emission of gravitational waves during a neutron star merger. Credit: Goethe-Universit├Ąt Frankfurt am Main

Astrophysicists at Goethe University Frankfurt set a new limit for the maximum mass of neutron stars: They cannot exceed 2.16 solar masses.

Since their discovery in the 1960s, scientists have sought to answer an important question: How massive can actually become? By contrast to black holes, these stars cannot gain in mass arbitrarily; past a certain limit there is no physical force in nature that can counter their enormous gravitational force. For the first time, astrophysicists at Goethe University Frankfurt have succeeded in calculating a strict upper limit for the maximum mass of neutron stars.

With a radius of about 12 kilometres and a mass that can be twice as large as that of the sun, neutron stars are amongst the densest objects in the universe, producing gravitational fields comparable to those of . Whilst most neutron stars have a mass of around 1.4 times that of the sun, massive examples are also known, such as the pulsar PSR J0348+0432 with 2.01 .

The density of these stars is enormous, as if the entire Himalayas were compressed into a beer mug. However, there are indications that a neutron star with a maximum mass would collapse to a black hole if even just a single neutron were added.

Together with his students Elias Most and Lukas Weih, Professor Luciano Rezzolla, physicist, senior fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies (FIAS) and professor of Theoretical Astrophysics at Goethe University Frankfurt, has now solved the problem that had remained unanswered for 40 years: With an accuracy of a few percent, the maximum mass of non-rotating neutron stars cannot exceed 2.16 solar masses.

The basis for this result was the "universal relations" approach developed in Frankfurt a few years ago [http://www.goethe-university-frankfurt.de/60913695/15]. The existence of "universal relations" implies that practically all neutron stars "look alike," meaning that their properties can be expressed in terms of dimensionless quantities. The researchers combined these "universal relations" with data on and the subsequent electromagnetic radiation (kilonova) obtained during the observation last year of two merging in the framework of the LIGO experiment. This simplifies calculations tremendously because it makes them independent of the equation of state. This equation is a theoretical model for describing dense matter inside a star that provides information on its composition at various depths in the star. Such a universal relation therefore played an essential role in defining the new maximum mass.

The result is a good example of the interaction between theoretical and experimental research. "The beauty of theoretical research is that it can make predictions. Theory, however, desperately needs experiments to narrow down some of its uncertainties," says Professor Rezzolla. "It's therefore quite remarkable that the observation of a single binary neutron star merger that occurred millions of light years away combined with the universal relations discovered through our theoretical work have allowed us to solve a riddle that has seen so much speculation in the past."

The research results were published as a Letter of the Astrophysical Journal. Just a few days later, research groups from the USA and Japan confirmed the findings, despite having so far followed different and independent approaches.

Gravitational-wave astronomy is expected to observe more such events in the near future, both in terms of gravitational-wave signals and in the more traditional frequency ranges. This will further reduce uncertainties about maximum and lead to a better understanding of matter under extreme conditions. This will be simulated in modern particle accelerators, for example at CERN in Switzerland or the FAIR facility in Germany.

Explore further: When will a neutron star collapse to a black hole?

More information: Luciano Rezzolla et al. Using Gravitational-wave Observations and Quasi-universal Relations to Constrain the Maximum Mass of Neutron Stars, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa401

Related Stories

When will a neutron star collapse to a black hole?

April 7, 2016

Neutron stars are the most extreme and fascinating objects known to exist in our universe: Such a star has a mass that is up to twice that of the sun but a radius of only a dozen kilometres: hence it has an enormous density, ...

Neutron stars on the brink of collapse

December 5, 2017

When a massive star dies, its core contracts. In a supernova explosion, the star's outer layers are expelled, leaving behind an ultra-compact neutron star. For the first time, the LIGO and Virgo Observatories have recently ...

What are neutron stars?

October 16, 2017

Thrilled physicists and astronomers announced Monday the first-ever observation of the merger of two neutron stars, one of the most spectacularly violent phenomena in the Universe.

Recommended for you

APEX takes a glimpse into the heart of darkness

May 25, 2018

The 12 m radio telescope APEX in Chile has been outfitted with special equipment including broad bandwidth recorders and a stable hydrogen maser clock for performing joint interferometric observations with other telescopes ...

142 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2018
"By contrast to black holes, these stars cannot gain in mass arbitrarily; past a certain limit there is no physical force in nature that can counter their enormous gravitational force."

Exactly what Einstein said as well:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Odd that they would apply Einstein's 1939 paper to neutron stars, then do an unscientific backtrack claiming there is a whole different set of Laws of Physics for a different kind of finite stellar mass for which they claim infinite gravity of similarly sized mass can exist at the surface of one but not the other.
Paulw789
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2018
I'm not going to read the study but I hope they solved the math and physics behind the transition from neutron star to black hole. Effectively, even the neutrons collapse down to quarks/preons/singularity. The math limits haven't been calculated yet which should be able to point to the next step a singularity or some other form of denser matter that a neutron star.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2018
Himalayas ... compressed into a beer mug

Now there's a new unit of measurement.

the maximum mass of non-rotating neutron stars cannot exceed 2.16 solar masses.

Is there a limit on the rotation speed (other than c, obviously)?
RNP
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 16, 2018
@Benni
"By contrast to black holes, these stars cannot gain in mass arbitrarily; past a certain limit there is no physical force in nature that can counter their enormous gravitational force."

Exactly what Einstein said as well:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."

Odd that they would apply Einstein's 1939 paper to neutron stars, then do an unscientific backtrack claiming there is a whole different set of Laws of Physics for a different kind of finite stellar mass for which they claim infinite gravity of similarly sized mass can exist at the surface of one but not the other.

Yet again you misunderstand everything and the Einstein reference is irrelevant to the article
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2018
Yet again you misunderstand everything and the Einstein reference is irrelevant to the article


..........no, Rguy, I have 6 years of Engineering School education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & I can solve Differential Equations, this com[pared to your degree in Journalism.

Along with Einstein, I comprehend the difference between the Laws of Physics regarding Kinetic Energy & the Laws of Physics regarding Electro-Magnetic Energy, you don't, of course with only your Journalism degree how could you?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2018
This matches observations very well, I think the old estimate predicted 3 solar masses, which of course, have never been found.
I wonder if this could open up more detailed classifications of neutron stars, do they experience phase transitions of sort depending on mass? I imagine a 1 sm neutron Star is materially different from a 2 sm, especially since they only compress themselves more as mass is added. Does this strike a blow to the idea of quark stars, or could it still be a potential last call?
mackita
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2018
The neutrons can still collapse to a free quarks (quark gluon condensate) which would form more dense quark star and these objects can be still squashed even more into lone W/Z bosons inside so-called electroweak stars (which I personally think would be already indistinguishable from black holes). At any case, the mass of these objects must be increasingly well tuned for not to collapse into black holes and they will be still unstable (prone to radiative decay, because their surface/volume ratio gets high). So that these ultradense stars would be pretty rare even if they could really exist. We could compare their scarcity to scarcity of observations of free quarks and/or W/Z bosons.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2018
Given the existence of millisecond pulsars, spinning at upwards of 700 Hz, this 2.16 SM calculation is just a first step...
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2018
The dark matter should support fast rotating pulsars (naively speaking, the dense vacuum makes these stars relatively more lightweight) and to stabilize denser states of them (strange stars). Another stabilization of these stars may come from inside of them. Ironically the nonrotating neutrons stars could be destabilized by dark matter instead up to limit by ~0.1 M_sun.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2018
The neutrons can still collapse to a free quarks (quark gluon condensate) which would form more dense quark star and these objects can be still squashed even more into lone W/Z bosons inside so-called https://en.wikipe...eak_star (which I personally think would be already indistinguishable from black holes). At any case, the mass of these objects must be increasingly well tuned for not to collapse into black holes and they will be still unstable (prone to radiative decay, because their surface/volume ratio gets high). So that these ultradense stars would be pretty rare even if they could really exist. We could compare their scarcity to scarcity of observations of free quarks and/or W/Z bosons.

Well, the articles referenced by your wiki link posit they would look more like neutron stars...
But I'm kinda with you on the black hole look-a-like thing...
If anything, it would simply be an unstoppable step towards total black hole-ness.
Ojorf
4 / 5 (8) Jan 17, 2018
.........no, Rguy, I have 6 years of Engineering School education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & I can solve Differential Equations, this com[pared to your degree in Journalism.


Lol, sure and my IQ of 153 trumps your measly 6 years. Take that! :-)

If you were so smart you should be able to make insightful comments that get ratings of more than 2, go ahead try.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2018

..........no, Rguy, I have 6 years of Engineering School education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & I can solve Differential Equations, this com[pared to your degree in Journalism.

Waitaminut.... Isn't that normally a 5 year program...?
Ensign_nemo
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2018
How much energy is needed to accelerate a 12 km radius neutron star fast enough to make it spin 700 times per second?

A surface neutron moves 2 * pi * 12 = 75.4 km in 1/700 sec, or 52,800 km/sec. That's about 17.6% of light speed.

As a rough estimate, the total energy-momentum "mass" of a star that rotates at 17.6% light speed would be ~8% of the rest mass of the neutron star.

If the total amount of energy needed for the star to collapse into a black hole is 2.16 solar masses (SM) then the "rest mass" of such a quickly rotating star should be reduced by about 8% of that figure, or 0.08 * 2.16, or 0.173 SM. That's close to the 0.15 SM gap between the observed maximum of 2.01 and the theoretical limit of 2.16 for the rest masses.

This is all rough math, but the gist of the idea is that the rotational energy is on the same order of magnitude as the observed gap between theory and observation of maximum rest masses. Relativistic effects make things way more complicated.
Ensign_nemo
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2018
I went here http://iopscience...401/meta and read this in the abstract : "the quasi-universal relation between the maximum mass of nonrotating stellar models M_tov and the maximum mass supported through uniform rotation M_max = 1.20{-0.05}{+0.02}M_tov".

IOW, the abstract for the article states that the rotational "mass" can increase the total effective mass by between 0.15 and 0.22 times the rest mass, or that the rest mass for a rotating star can be as small as 1/1.22 = 0.82 or 82% of the limit of 2.16 SM for a nonrotating star. Thus, the authors estimate that the effect of rotation can decrease the rest mass to as little as 0.82 * 2.16 = 1.77 SM. That implies that the maximum observed rest mass of 2.01 SM was from a neutron star rotating significantly slower than the maximum speed.

Maybe next time I should just RTFM before I calculate ...
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2018
.......no, Rguy, I have 6 years of Engineering School education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & I can solve Differential Equations, this com[pared to your degree in Journalism.


If you were so smart you should be able to make insightful comments that get ratings of more than 2, go ahead try.
....I know better than to argue with Einstein, you don't.........

......in the meantime the same ones here keep pushing the fake science agenda by applying Kinetic Energy Equations to come up with mathematical models for creating Black Holes, exactly what Einstein disproved here:

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses

Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL:.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2018
........no, Rguy, I have 6 years of Engineering School education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & I can solve Differential Equations, this com[pared to your degree in Journalism.

Waitaminut.... Isn't that normally a 5 year program...?


Why Guy, for you it would be a FOREVER "program", I have never met a blowtorch artist with the intellectual smarts who could solve Differential Equations, it's something I need to do everyday as part of my job description. You wouldn't recognize a DE when you see one, as is found in the paper Einstein published proving the fallacy of applying Kinetic Energy Equations to an Electro-magnetic Wave.

Oh, by the way, the six years I spent in Engineering school does not include the almost two years of continuing education credits beyond that,
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2018
........no, Rguy, I have 6 years of Engineering School education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering & I can solve Differential Equations, this com[pared to your degree in Journalism.

Waitaminut.... Isn't that normally a 5 year program...?


Why Guy, for you it would be a FOREVER "program", I have never met a blowtorch artist with the intellectual smarts who could solve Differential Equations, it's something I need to do everyday as part of my job description. You wouldn't recognize a DE when you see one, as is found in the paper Einstein published proving the fallacy of applying Kinetic Energy Equations to an Electro-magnetic Wave.

Oh, by the way, the six years I spent in Engineering school does not include the almost two years of continuing education credits beyond that,

Oh...
Touched a nerve, did we...?
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2018
Touched a nerve, did we...?


Oh, well, blowtorches are hot!!!! But not you.

You're still stuck in the muck of believing Kinetic Energy math can be applied to an Electro-magnetic wave, but I do understand it's beyond your comprehension as much as you & RNP continue trying to convolute it into an alternative reality, your god doesn't exist, get used to it.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2018
Everything related to this article shows that none of you and scientists know the structure of the universe and the order of the formation of celestial bodies. You all believe that a neutron star can meet with a black hole, which is impossible because the neutron star in its development is in the opposite direction of the process in relation to the black hole. When the substance is formed from AETHER, a quark gluon plasma is first formed and a magnet is formed from it. The subsequent process with the surface magnet begins to release high-energy particles by disintegrating the gluons by forming explosive gamma rays and quark disintegrating as neutrinos. This is the beginning of the formation of a quasar, which goes into a pulsar. Then within this state of matter, neutrons form, and this becomes a neutron star. When energizing the energy in the form of a high-power wave, it turns into a supernova that explodes and begins to form all kinds of chemical elements from hydrogen further.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2018
Behind the following are gases, clouds of gases, and celestial bodies (sun, planets and smaller celestial bodies). As magnetism is reduced, now Aether forms gases with gases, which gathers matter into masses of the heavens (the above-mentioned celestial bodies). until critical mass and gravity is obtained, when a black hole is formed, where the material is transfixed back into the form of Aether from which matter is formed, these are renewable processes in the universe. The black hole has nothing to do with the neutron star. around you challenge increased magnetism, because it is the role of Aether and gluons, which are transformed into electro magnetic properties of Aether. A black hole does not have gravity, because gravity is bordered by separation with the surrounding celestial bodies.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2018
How massive can neutron stars be?

As massive as their fanciful faerie tales need them to be. How big is the 'Pot 'o Gold' at the end of the rainbow? What is the wingspan of a flying unicorn? Both questions as relevant as the details of the non-existent abortion of physics, the fictional neutron star.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2018
How massive can neutron stars be?

As massive as their fanciful faerie tales need them to be. How big is the 'Pot 'o Gold' at the end of the rainbow? What is the wingspan of a flying unicorn? Both questions as relevant as the details of the non-existent abortion of physics, the fictional neutron star.


Yeah, they love to make big fake science out of things they can't take pics of.

Neutron stars are anything but a science, they sometimes seem plausible, but no one has ever been able to figure out the glue that can make such a structure a standalone stellar reality that doesn't just blow itself off into oblivion.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2018
How massive can neutron stars be?

As massive as their fanciful faerie tales need them to be. How big is the 'Pot 'o Gold' at the end of the rainbow? What is the wingspan of a flying unicorn? Both questions as relevant as the details of the non-existent abortion of physics, the fictional neutron star.


Yeah, they love to make big fake science out of things they can't take pics of.

Neutron stars are anything but a science, they sometimes seem plausible, but no one has ever been able to figure out the glue that can make such a structure a standalone stellar reality that doesn't just blow itself off into oblivion.

Uuuhhhh ... Gravity...?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2018
How massive can neutron stars be?


Yeah, they love to make big fake science out of things they can't take pics of.

Neutron stars are anything but a science, they sometimes seem plausible, but no one has ever been able to figure out the glue that can make such a structure a standalone stellar reality that doesn't just blow itself off into oblivion.


Uuuhhhh ... Gravity...?


Uuuhhhhhhhh..........No.

Gravity is maximum at the surface of a stellar mass & zero at the center. If the mass of neutrons is of homogeneous density, no known nuclear force can bind individual neutrons together long enough for neutrons to exist in a standalone state of existence for more than a few minutes before decaying, recalling the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Maximum gravitational attraction from the surface, natural repelling between neutrons & fast decay of neutrons will overcome downward compression & pull the interior mass upwards to the surface tearing it apart.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 17, 2018


Uuuhhhh ... Gravity...?


Uuuhhhhhhhh..........No.

Gravity is maximum at the surface of a stellar mass & zero at the center.

Did you just use Schwartzchild to derive that?

If the mass of neutrons is of homogeneous density, no known nuclear force can bind individual neutrons together long enough for neutrons to exist in a standalone state of existence for more than a few minutes before decaying, recalling the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Big if...
And if it's NOT homogenous?
Maximum gravitational attraction from the surface, natural repelling between neutrons

Neutron. No Charge. Hence no repulsion, Mr. Nuke Engineer.
Are you saying gravity lessens inside the surface?
fast decay of neutrons will overcome downward compression & pull the interior mass upwards to the surface tearing it apart.

Unless... it isn't neutrons in the core...
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 18, 2018
How massive can neutron stars be?

As massive as their fanciful faerie tales need them to be. How big is the 'Pot 'o Gold' at the end of the rainbow? What is the wingspan of a flying unicorn? Both questions as relevant as the details of the non-existent abortion of physics, the fictional neutron star.


Given that we have just observed gravitational waves from the merger of two such objects, and that the follow up observations match very well with theory, then I suggest that the woo merchants shut the **** up, until they can come up with an alternative, scientifically credible, explanation for said event. And we all know that that won't happen.
434a
5 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2018
http://imgsrc.hub...rint.jpg

http://hubblesite...on-stars

This is the first direct look, in visible light, at a lone neutron star, as seen by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble results show the star is very hot (1.2 million degrees Fahrenheit at the surface), and can be no larger than 16.8 miles (28 kilometers) across. These results prove that the object must be a neutron star, because no other known type of object can be this hot, small, and dim (below 25th magnitude).


Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2018
Unless... it isn't neutrons in the core


.....then it's not a neutron star, think before you write something totally foolish.

Neutron. No Charge. Hence no repulsion
.......you think this because being the mere artist that you are you don't know what happens to neutrons as they have been OBSERVED in the Hadron Collider.

Neutrons cannot bind to one another to form a stable mass for more than 10-20 minutes & they decay, nuclear forces aside. Thus, there's no reason to believe that what is OBSERVED in the Hadron Collider is any different beyond planet Earth, all OBSERVED EVIDENCE is against it, but what would an artist know compared to what I know as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer (that's a question, maybe Stumpo could give you a cogent response?).
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2018
I suggest that the woo merchants shut the **** up, until they can come up with an alternative, scientifically credible, explanation for said event. And we all know that that won't happen.


Yeah wooguy, you're here & that proves the point you're making.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2018
@~Benni
Neutrons cannot bind to one another to form a stable mass for more than 10-20 minutes & they decay, nuclear forces aside......


It is individual neutrons that decay in about 15 minutes *because of* nuclear forces, not aside from them.
Besides, in neutron stars, the neutrons are held together by gravity - individual neutrons can not "bind" together any other way including by nuclear forces. Everybody that you are talking to knows this.

.. what would an artist know compared to what I know as a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer.


More than you it would seem, as your comments in this thread so far show you know nothing.

AGAIN, please note that your repetitive bleating about having a scientific education is sufficient proof for most that you lie, but your complete lack of understanding, shown in everything you have posted here, makes it indisputable.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2018
@WG and those who gave high marks to his last comment.

Even though I am allergic to physorg because of all the dust bunnies and carpet crawlers that keep on creeping on this site, (don't worry WG, I do not consider you one of those) we should not gratify questionable comments.

When somebody wants to defend science, his arguments should sit on solid ground, only this way knowledge wins over ignorance. Giving high marks to questionable replies, do not favor higher scientific standards to stand and spread.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2018
Besides, in neutron stars, the neutrons are held together by gravity


Hey, Mr Freelance Journalist, when something decays within less than 15 minutes of having been created, the recoil forces of Kinetic Energy prevent MASS from agglomerating to due absence of a neutron for triggering nuclear forces to bind ANYTHING together, including neutrons to neutrons.

Before you shoot your mouth off, at least learn a little something about Nuclear Physics.

individual neutrons can not "bind" together any other way including by nuclear forces.
Give me thanks for pointing that out to you, something you never knew before.

Everybody that you are talking to knows this.


You never knew neutrons can't bind together by ANY means; you only just learned it from reading about it in my above Comments.

Additionally, you also never knew freestate neutrons can exist as such for no more than 15 minutes until you read about that in my above Comments.

Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 18, 2018
When somebody wants to defend science, his arguments should sit on solid ground, only this way knowledge wins over ignorance


You mean like asking logical questions such as:

"If a neutron can exist in a standalone free state for only 15 minutes, explain how it is possible for such a particle to agglomerate into a MASS that can be millions or even billions of years old & be dubbed a NEUTRON STAR?"

Does this even remotely occur to you as an impossibility? Well of course not, because you, RNP, WhyGuy, Ojo, etc, all who never knew neutrons have a 15 minute lifespan until it decays out of existence, that is until I have been pointing out that little factoid of nuclear physics that is getting so many of you all bent out of shape.

So, to answer the author's question: How massive can neutron stars be? ZERO, simply because neutrons cannot be bound together by gravity as recoil forces from particle decay scatter newly formed protons & electrons via neutron decay.

milnik
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2018
Does any of you know how neutron is formed? See the isotope table and see if the neutrons exist for more than 10-20 minutes. When substance is formed from the ETHER substance, 3KG particles (3 quarks and 3 gluon bonds) are first formed. Free gluons are formed as the energy state of matter. To form quark gluon plasma (magnetists), gluons are held with quarks with a terribly great force. In a further process, when the thermodynamic size decreases, the gluons partially disintegrate, and most enter the 3KG particles and form neutrons (the beginning of the formation of a neutron star).
So these discussions that you lead have no basis or support from the knowledge of the structure of the universe.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2018
Unless... it isn't neutrons in the core


.....then it's not a neutron star, think before you write something totally foolish.

It can still have a decent supply of them in the outer layers.

Neutrons cannot bind to one another to form a stable mass for more than 10-20 minutes & they decay, nuclear forces aside.

And... What do they decay TO....?
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2018
Unless... it isn't neutrons in the core


.....then it's not a neutron star, think before you write something totally foolish.


Neutrons cannot bind to one another to form a stable mass for more than 10-20 minutes & they decay, nuclear forces aside.


It can still have a decent supply of them in the outer layers.


Really? You surmise there are replacement quantities of neutrons coming into existence entering the system as fast as previous neutrons exited the system via 10-15 minute decay cycle?

So tell us all about these replacement neutrons Have they just sort of been laying around somewhere somehow never having also been subject to the known 10-15 minute decay cycle for every neutron in existence?

And... What do they decay TO....?


WhyGuy, learn to read:
....neutrons cannot be bound together by gravity as recoil forces from particle decay scatter newly formed protons & electrons via neutron decay.


Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2018
And... What do they decay TO....?


WhyGuy, learn to read:
....neutrons cannot be bound together by gravity as recoil forces from particle decay scatter newly formed protons & electrons via neutron decay.

That was just a test to see if you're keeping up...
As to not being bound by gravity, you are thinking only on a small scale. In a Neutron star sized body (Maybe 12km or so) you have the gravity of up to 2.16 SM. The gravity felt at the surface (and thruout the whole body, btw) would be way more than enough to hold in the mass of protons (as well as neutrons) subjected to the neutron producing fission/fusion processes constantly occurring inside (and on the surface of) that body...
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2018
Really? You surmise there are replacement quantities of neutrons coming into existence entering the system as fast as previous neutrons exited the system via 10-15 minute decay cycle?

So tell us all about these replacement neutrons Have they just sort of been laying around somewhere somehow never having also been subject to the known 10-15 minute decay cycle for every neutron in existence?

I think my previous comment does pretty well at that.
They're being PRODUCED all the while others are decaying...
While gravity may not be enough to contain the light given off, it IS sufficient to contain the mass and fission/fusion processes required to maintain that production...
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2018

"If a neutron can exist in a standalone free state for only 15 minutes, explain how it is possible for such a particle to agglomerate into a MASS that can be millions or even billions of years old & be dubbed a NEUTRON STAR?"


I think your argument rests on the shaky ground that neutrons will "agglomerate" onto each other snowballing into a high density object which we call a Neutron Star. I don't think anyone here on the side of science believes that's the case. Protons and electrons are forced into each other under the weight of a massive star FIRST. Then the outer shell of the star is blown away in ~10ms by neutrinos and the rebound from free falling onto the smaller core. From there on I believe it has a shell of Fe weighing down on the neutron core and since we're at supranuclear densities gravity is strong enough to hold it but not overcome degeneracy pressure.
http://iopscience...ext.html
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2018
"If a neutron can exist in a standalone free state for only 15 minutes, explain how it is possible for such a particle to agglomerate into a MASS that can be millions or even billions of years old & be dubbed a NEUTRON STAR?
It's all about curvature of space-time inside the particle. Recently we discussed the negative matter aspect of neutrons: they contain surplus of energy due to presence of both matter (proton and electron), both antimatter (antineutrino) in their core. The antineutrino makes the neutron unstable, because it has tendency to annihilate with the rest of particle. But this antineutrino is quite lightweight - so it makes this tendency rather weak. It makes the neutron to behave like so-called antibubble, i.e. the blob of matter with thin layer of space-time of opposite curvature inside it. The particles with opposite curvature of space-time, which behave like bubbles are generally considered a negative matter.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2018
From negative matter aspect of neutrons should follow some anomalies like the fifth force, which should be exerted by matter with excess of neutrons, because the negative matter, because the neutrons should violate the equivalence principle in certain respect (after all, in similar way like the antineutrinos, which they contain).

What is important, the negative space-time curvature of neutrons manifests itself only when the neutron resides in flat free space-time. Once the neutron gets trapped inside the atom nuclei, which has highly positive space-time curvature by itself, then the slightly negative curvature of space-time inside the neutron changes into slightly positive one and the neutrons will become stable. Just at the case of atom nuclei with high excess of neutrons with respect to protons the intrinsic instability of neutrons will manifest itself again.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2018
If a neutron can exist in a standalone free state for only 15 minutes, explain how it is possible for such a particle to agglomerate into a MASS

Electrons get pushed into neutrons by gravity. Neutrons decay into protons and electrons...which isn't possible on a neutron star because they get pushed back into neutrons by gravity.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2018
I think your argument rests on the shaky ground that neutrons will "agglomerate" onto each other


Dead-on WRONG, you certainly live up to your name & keep fooling yourself.

Neutrons CANNOT BIND to one another, EVER, not for any reason; that in a nutshell is what you & the rest of the FANTASY BRIGADE above do not comprehend about nuclear physics. Weak nuclear binding forces DO NOT EXIST between NEUTRONS, ever.

Because neutrons have a mere 10-15 minute decay cycle & no nuclear binding forces between them, it is NEVER possible to collect enough neutrons in one place at a single point in time to create a mass that can exist for more than 10-15 minutes, observations in the Hadron Collider PROVE this to be true, it's also the reason you need someone who has way more education in the field than you do to explain these things to you, right WhyGuy? RNP? Jonesy? You, know, like someone who spent 6 years in Engineering School majoring in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering.

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2018

Electrons get pushed into neutrons by gravity. Neutrons decay into protons and electrons...which isn't possible on a neutron star because they get pushed back into neutrons by gravity.

Repeating the fanciful pontifications and lies of the plasma ignoramuses by no means makes it true.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2018
Neutrons CANNOT BIND to one another

And no one ever said they do. So what are you angry about?
mackita
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2018
@antialias: This doesn't explain why the neutrons get stabilized by atom nuclei, where gravity force is weak...

Neutrons CANNOT BIND to one another

They can - just weakly (check "Tetraneutron" topic at the web)
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2018
If a neutron can exist in a standalone free state for only 15 minutes, explain how it is possible for such a particle to agglomerate into a MASS


Electrons get pushed into neutrons by gravity. Neutrons decay into protons and electrons...which isn't possible on a neutron star because they get pushed back into neutrons by gravity.


You too are totally out of touch. You're trying the "which came first approach, the chicken or the egg".

Because weak binding nuclear forces DO NOT exist between neutrons, neutrons cannnot agglomerate & form a compact mass to create the forces of gravity you SPECULATE about. This in addition to the 10-15 minute decay cycle in which the recoil forces of Kinetic Energy completely blow progeny protons & electrons far off into outer space, thus further preventing an agglomerating MASS to create forces of gravity about which you TOTALLY speculate.

Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2018
Neutrons CANNOT BIND to one another


And no one ever said they do. So what are you angry about?


.......and just like WhyGuy, Rguy, Jonesy, etc, I love the ENTERTAINMENT FACTOR of coming here & creating easy to understand explanations as to why your fantasyland cosmology does not work in the real Universe.

Not ONE of you ever before knew neutrons have a 10-15 decay cycle lifespan until I brought it up, or did you know nuclear binding forces do not exist between neutrons, or that a neutron decays into a proton & electron within 15 minutes of the creation of a neutron, or that recoil forces of Kinetic Energy blows progeny electrons, protons & maybe a neutrino so far away from the point of decay that no new mass can ever form, all this simply because there is no immediate MASS DEPENDENT gravity in the local vicinity preventing such progeny reaching Escape Velocity.

Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2018
@antialias: This doesn't explain why the neutrons get stabilized by atom nuclei, where gravity force is weak.


Neutrons CANNOT BIND to one another


Mack, this is beyond his comprehension, He doesn't believe the strength of a gravity field has anything to do with being MASS DEPENDENT. He along with all the Black Hole Enthusiasts thinks gravity is DENSITY DEPENDENT even though there is nothing in General Relativity for such a convoluted & preposterous concept.

They constantly resort to their convoluted fallback arguments invoking Schwarzschild Black Hole Math & imply Einstein approved the concept in General Relativity, when in fact he denied any possibility that gravity is DENSITY DEPENDENT.

Understand, these guys are simply Pop-Sci enthusiasts, mostly overage Trekkies who are totally unable to comprehend the differences between the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy & the Laws of Physics for Electro-Magnetic Energy.

mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2018
He's along with all the Black Hole Enthusiasts thinks gravity is DENSITY DEPENDENT even though there is nothing in General Relativity for such a convoluted & preposterous concept
Yep, the general relativity doesn't care about density of massive body. In real (i.e. quantum gravity) physics such a dependence indeed exists, but it violates the general relativity instead. Actually it can be derived by combination of mass energy equivalence of curved space-time and Einstein field equations, but in original relativity the energy of curved space-time has no mass (no additional dimensions where this mass could apply exist there) - therefore no gravity of curved space-time which would compensate the gravity of massive body, responsible for this curvature could exist in classical general relativity. We already know, that such counter-gravity really exists though, it's called dark matter and it violates general relativity.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2018
In real (i.e. general relativity violating) physics indeed the curved space-time has its own mass and gravity, which counteracts the gravity responsible for this curvature. So that when massive object collapses, the curved space-time AROUND IT becomes gradually more and more curved, this curvature gets gradually more and more heavy and dense. Once this space-time will become as dense as the collapsing object, then its matter will lose reason for its further collapse due to buoyancy effect and its surface will change into an undulating quantum wave floating and bouncing freely within space-time curved by it. This is therefore how real black hole should look like in quantum gravity theory. One would expect, that the undulating surface of massive body would bounce beneath the event horizon of dense object formed so that it remain black and it cannot radiate - but it can occasionally protrude it and to eject some energy outside it. So that the real black holes "burp" from time to time.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2018
@mackita,

Whether science is a new field of discovering true causes of phenomena, using countless new names, unknown causes, invoking phenomena that have nothing in common with each other and so on. Why have you transformed the universe into something unknown, where you can invent and add events that are to you as something that could help you find out what you do not know about. You have made some discussion about neutrons, and none of you knows how neutrons are formed. People in a low understanding of the structure of the Uiverzum, and those who do not respect and do not know what the Spiritual Entity is and what is its role in human beings, these people have renounced their origins, and these are very dangerous people in the search for truth. They are ready to destroy anyone who tries to prove the truth.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2018
Do not be incalculable and without spirituality, because your knowledge will lose the connection to the truth and then you will have countless stupid and unconnected variants for each occurrence.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2018
Do not be incalculable and without spirituality, because your knowledge will lose the connection to the truth and then you will have countless stupid and unconnected variants for each occurrence.


Can you solve Differential Equations? I can.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2018
Not ONE of you ever before knew neutrons have a 10-15 decay cycle lifespan until I brought it up

Erm..whut? I dunno about where you come from, but over here that's taught in highschool.
RNP
4 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2018
@Benni
After reading your repeated uninformed and nonsensical comments in this thread I have realised the perfect way to describe your posts;

You create ridiculous approximations of the REAL science and pretend that they somehow disprove it. You are therefore constantly fighting against figments of your own imagination.... I believe the phrase for this is Shadow Boxing.

I AGAIN remind you that bragging about your qualifications is more likely to make people disbelieve you than believe you, That is why nobody else does it.
RNP
4 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2018
[@Benni

I AGAIN remind you that bragging about your qualifications is more likely to make people disbelieve you than believe you, That is why nobody else does it.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2018
@Benni,
Each differential equation is invented on the basis of the parameters taken, which do not have to be accurate, nor correspond to the natural laws. The result is also dependent on the parameters inserted. What benefit do you have from the wrong equations. ?
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2018
Does it have the purpose of discussing the neutron star, when it is unknown to the way and cause of its origin, and especially when it does not know how a neutron is formed in the processes of formation of matter.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2018
I AGAIN remind you that bragging about your qualifications is more likely to make people disbelieve you than believe you, That is why nobody else does it.


Rguy,

It ain't bragging when you can do it & pull down a paycheck FOR DOING IT.

I'll stack up my Engineering degrees against your worthless degrees in Journalism any day. Yeah, remember when you were bragging about having that Journalism degree?

So tell us Mr Journalism Genius, when did you learn for the first time in your life that neutrons have a decay time of 10-15 minutes before they decay & forever wink out of existence into an electron & a proton? If other than from me in this Comments section, then prove it.

Or, when did you learn for the first time in your life that nuclear binding energy cannot bind neutrons together?

Or if your response is affirmative for either of the two questions, put up the link so we can see what you knew & when you knew it.

Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2018
Rguy,

It ain't bragging when you can do it & pull down a paycheck FOR DOING IT.

I'll stack up my Engineering degrees against your worthless degrees in Journalism any day. Yeah, remember when you were bragging about having that Journalism degree?

So tell us Mr Journalism Genius, when did you learn for the first time in your life that neutrons have a decay time of 10-15 minutes before they decay & forever wink out of existence into an electron & a proton? If other than from me in this Comments section, then prove it.

Or, when did you learn for the first time in your life that nuclear binding energy cannot bind neutrons together?

Or if your response is affirmative for either of the two questions, put up the link so we can see what you knew & when you knew it.


You're being even worse of a dink than usual...
Benni
not rated yet Jan 19, 2018
You're being even worse of a dink than usual.


This the best response you can make after I made such a mess out of your foolish ideas?

How interesting it is for those of you in the name calling Rant Brigade living here, that even when your cherished ideas are proven wrong, that you imagine you have a superior moral high ground that transcends the Laws of Physics. If you had such a moral high ground you would never indulge in the prolific responses of NAME CALLING that you have done Past, are doing PRESENT, will continue to do in the FUTURE.

OK, we'll start over:

1. Prove there exists NEUTRONS that have a decay time that is more than 10-15 minutes.

2. Prove there exists NEUTRONS that can be bound by nuclear binding forces preventing decay to an electron & a proton.

If you can't prove the above two, then there is ZERO scientific basis for the existence of a neutron star & you can't prove differently, and this is what jerks you into your name calling rants.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2018
1. Prove there exists NEUTRONS that have a decay time that is more than 10-15 minutes.

Just hypothesizing on that. But, since the best place to test that would be inside a neutron star - after you, sir...
2. Prove there exists NEUTRONS that can be bound by nuclear binding forces preventing decay to an electron & a proton.

My main argument is that gravity alone is an aggregating force for them, not nuclear force binding.
I'm simply postulating that almost as many neutrons are being produced internally as are decaying on the surface.
BTW - that wasn't name calling - it was a simple observation of your dialogue when YOU are ranting.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2018
oops - (double post)
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2018
It's sorta cute how he bandies his ignorance about

Hint: look up the words 'degeneracy pressure', 'Fermi surface/Fermi level/Fermi energy' and 'Pauli exclusion principle'

This isn't exactyl high school stuff, but this does get taught in introductory physics courses for EEs...sooo, Benni: you shoulda known this.

Or didya flunk out in the first semester?
Benni
not rated yet Jan 19, 2018
1.Prove there exists NEUTRONS that have a decay time that is more than 10-15 minutes.


Just hypothesizing on that. But, since the best place to test that would be inside a neutron star


No, it is proven every time the Hadron & similar COLLIDERS are operated, you don't need to be "hypothesizing", we do it right here on planet Earth with substantial accuracy, 10-15 minutes.

2. Prove there exists NEUTRONS that can be bound by nuclear binding forces preventing decay to an electron & a proton.


My main argument is that gravity alone is an aggregating force for them


And the problem with your main argument is that due to high rate neutron decay, neutrons do not have enough time to begin accumulating into a homogeneous mass before they decay, this because there is no nuclear force binding energy that can pair up the first two neutrons to start building an agglomerating mass to build a gravity field, no bound mass....no gravity.

mackita
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2018
The physical people often don't realize, that neutrons (and another nucleons) are under similar stress inside the atom nuclei, like inside the neutron stars. The reason is collective force known like the surface tension from classical macroscopic physics. The main point there is, atom nuclei behave like liquid droplet and the hydrostatic pressure inside of droplets is indirectly proportional its radius. The atom nuclei are quite tiny, so that pressure inside them gets extremely high. Once some neutron decides to commit suicide and to decay itself, this external pressure will usually convince it to think over it and to stay alive...
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2018
Hint: look up the words 'degeneracy pressure', 'Fermi surface/Fermi level/Fermi energy' and 'Pauli exclusion principle'


Degeneracy pressure can't build when there is no BOUND MASS for it to build over. Neutrons NEVER have been observed to form a BINDING MASS due to ZERO nuclear force binding energy between neutrons, and yeah, for which case the Pauli Exclusion Principle applies, but you don't even know what that states or you wouldn't have tried to invoke it.

I guess you think it's sorta cute how you bandy your ignorance about because you've never passed a course in nuclear physics. I'm running circles around you at such a dizzying pace that you can't even figure out why it is the Pauli Exclusion Principle I've been invoking, but you haven't recognized it because you don't even know how to apply it to zero binding energy between neutrons.

mackita
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2018
Degeneracy pressure can't build when there is no BOUND MASS for it to build over.
Neutrons inside neutron star are held together by their mutual gravity (large distance shielding force), not by their nuclear forces (short distance shielding force). There is also Yukawa force, which keeps them together - but this force is weak in similar way like its macroscopic counterpart (Casimir force).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2018
Just hypothesizing on that. But, since the best place to test that would be inside a neutron star


No, it is proven every time the Hadron & similar COLLIDERS are operated, you don't need to be "hypothesizing", we do it right here on planet Earth with substantial accuracy, 10-15 minutes.

The magic words - "right here on planet Earth" (under Earths gravity)

And the problem with your main argument is that due to high rate neutron decay, neutrons do not have enough time to begin accumulating into a homogeneous mass before they decay,...

Simple answer is that it wasn't a neutron star to begin with...
You'd think a "Nuclear technician" who is also an" amateur astronomer" would figure that out...
Can you say - "Supernova remnant"?
Benni
not rated yet Jan 19, 2018
Just hypothesizing on that since the best place to test that would be inside a neutron star


No, it is proven every time the Hadron & similar COLLIDERS are operated, you don't need to be "hypothesizing", we do it right here on planet Earth with substantial accuracy, 10-15 minutes.


The magic words - "right here on planet Earth" (under Earths gravity)


So, you seen Hadron Collider results where Earth "gravity" binds neutrons together? Put up the link before you lose that ridiculous passing thought.

And the problem with your main argument is that due to high rate neutron decay, neutrons do not have enough time to begin accumulating into a homogeneous mass before they decay,


Simple answer is that it wasn't a neutron star to begin with
No kidding, count above to the numbers of times I've been telling you this.

Can you say"Supernova remnant"?
What's that got to do with anything?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2018
The magic words - "right here on planet Earth" (under Earths gravity)


So, you seen Hadron Collider results where Earth "gravity" binds neutrons together? Put up the link before you lose that ridiculous passing thought.

No, we have not. And that's the point. We cannot duplicate the gravity of 2 SM inside a volume the size of Chicago in ANY collider on the planet.
Simple answer is that it wasn't a neutron star to begin with
No kidding, count above to the numbers of times I've been telling you this.

No, you've just been saying there is no such thing as a neutron star.

Can you say"Supernova remnant"?
What's that got to do with anything?

Guess that's why you're an AMATEUR astronomer, not a a pro...
Where do you think that neutron star got it's start...?
They can't ALL become BH's, ya know...
Benni
not rated yet Jan 19, 2018
No, we have not. And that's the point. We cannot duplicate the gravity of 2 SM inside a volume the size of Chicago in ANY collider on the planet.


Just gotta love all you overage Trekkies who when faced with immutable Laws of Physics have to find a way around them to make your theories sound plausible.

WhyGuy, there isn't a Nuclear Physicist alive who would sign onto your fantasy, a_p's fantasy, or anybody else's fantasy here, that gravity can generate a substitute binding force of such magnitude that it can replace the nuclear binding energy that can hold subatomic particles together.

Go back to your blowtorch & metal bending, being involved in anything to do with nuclear physics will never your best claim to fame in life.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
Use logic and awareness, not imagination and other opinions. The neutron star has no gravity as you are discussing. It is necessary to know how a neutron star is created. And before that, how does a neutron build up and when it breaks down and why. Take this sequence of the formation of such celestial bodies.
First, from substance Aether, matter is formed by the high vibrations of Aether, when in the cross-sections of these strings are formed particles with two opposite spins, and quarks and binders of gluons are formed in collisions. It is the first particle of 3kg (3 quarks and 3 gluon binders that hold quarks on a combination-strong binding force).
milnik
not rated yet Jan 20, 2018
After that, free gluons are formed (again, the particles of the opposite spins, which represent the energy state of matter). It all forms a quark gluon plasma and this plasma forms magnetars (a very high level of magnetism). Behind this process, free gluons enter into 3 kg of particles, when neutrons are formed. On the surface of this mass begins the breakdown of neutrons and quasars appear, so the pulsars and the rest are a neutron star. In this group, high magnetism and neutrons explode, a neutron star splits in the form of a supernova. It forms chemical elements, gases, clouds of gases, and from the 3kg of Aether particles, gravity arises, which gathers these gases in the mass of the mass until a critical mass and a critical gravitational force is achieved.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
This is happening until the galaxies in whose centers black holes are formed, and these are the places where matter returns to the form of Aether from which matter is formed.
Some of you think that neutrons break up so fast, this only happens with materials called isotopes, in which they have more neutrons than protons. This excess of the neutron breaks down and there is a reason (certain laws). This is my Copyright Law and KNOW HOW, which should be respected and when it accepts science it will be easier to understand the structure of the universe and all the phenomena in it.
mackita
4 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
...there is a reason (certain laws). This is my Copyright Law and KNOW HOW, which should be respected...
Do you mean Unknow How? You should patent this stuff...
milnik
not rated yet Jan 20, 2018
Nothing can be patented if no one understands the given explanation. Then we should wait for science to begin to return to the respect of the one who is Creator and us and everything that exists in the MEEU, and within us. If you have any level of knowledge about the structure of the universe, then it is not necessary to patent it, because it is not private property, but knowledge gained through intuition, from the Absolute consciousness of the universe, which is the immense power of creating everything in the MEEU. I keep all this and I wait for someone from the scientific circles to come and help me in technical actions to publish this.
mackita
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
I keep all this and I wait for someone from the scientific circles to come and help me in technical actions to publish this
You're typical dumb gopnik, who wants to keep copyright for things developed by someone else and who replaces ability to do it with religion.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
Nothing can be patented if no one understands the given explanation. ...

Can't be patented if it doesn't give a logical, sensible result, either.
Let's take your drabble, fer instance...
What the hell IS a gopnik, anyway?
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
...there is a reason (certain laws). This is my Copyright Law and KNOW HOW, which should be respected...
Do you mean Unknow How? You should patent this stuff...

Sorry, Mack. That should have been a 5. That's what I get for not having coffee first...
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2018
No, we have not. And that's the point. We cannot duplicate the gravity of 2 SM inside a volume the size of Chicago in ANY collider on the planet.


Just gotta love all you overage Trekkies who when faced with immutable Laws of Physics have to find a way around them to make your theories sound plausible.

WhyGuy, there isn't a Nuclear Physicist alive who would sign onto your fantasy, a_p's fantasy, or anybody else's fantasy here, that gravity can generate a substitute binding force of such magnitude that it can replace the nuclear binding energy that can hold subatomic particles together.

What's immutable is how small you think...
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2018
What's immutable is how small you think..


Actually, what's immutable is how little you know about Nuclear Physics compared to what I know.

I know for an immutable fact from reviewing neutron decay results from the Hadron Collider that gravity can NEVER prevent a free neutron from decaying into a proton & electron within 10-15 minutes.

I also know as an immutable fact of the Laws of Nuclear Physics, that gravity cannot bind sub-atomic particles to a neutron, be those sub-atomic particles another neutron, or anything else.

I know WhyGuy, you overage Trekkies hate losing your Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark Matter, & Dark Energy, but it is a simple fact of life that those of us who have studied & passed nuclear physics courses in college are a lot smarter than someone who only knows how to operate a blowtorch for a living, that's you.

milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
@mackita,
thank you very much for your "virtual compliment." You have now 100% proved that you were formed of virtual particles, which came from some dark matter and energy that formed you in such an unconscious state, so you do not know what the universe is or who it is I formed you. But I will try to find out who is the one in the universe, who gives such such opportunities to "recognize" the truth. Do not send me your worn out "cultural and scientific nicknames". Do not stay culturally poor without them !!
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2018
@mackita,
thank you very much for your "virtual compliment." You have now 100% proved that you were formed of virtual particles, which came from some dark matter and energy that formed you in such an unconscious state, so you do not know what the universe is or who it is I formed you. But I will try to find out who is the one in the universe, who gives such such opportunities to "recognize" the truth. Do not send me your worn out "cultural and scientific nicknames". Do not stay culturally poor without them !!


Can you solve Differential Equations?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2018
Actually, what's immutable is how little you know about Nuclear Physics compared to what I know.

Sorry, Khan - I will not bow before your "superior intellect"
I know for an immutable fact from reviewing neutron decay results from the Hadron Collider that gravity can NEVER prevent a free neutron from decaying into a proton & electron within 10-15 minutes.

Tut, tut, tut... NEVER say never...
I also know as an immutable fact of the Laws of Nuclear Physics, that gravity cannot bind sub-atomic particles to a neutron,

Who said anything about "binding"? Close proximity is enough.
.. you overage Trekkies...

who provided you nuclear energy and computers, btw...
..., that those of us who have studied & passed nuclear physics courses in college are a lot smarter than someone who only knows how to operate a blowtorch for a living.

Smart ain't having the "info". Smart is how you use it...
Belittling others shows your narcissistic ego.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
@Benni,
to which differential equations do you mean? If this is a differential equation that explains the behavior of a cat, I do not know how to solve it because it does not originate from the Spiritual Entity of the universe.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2018
Smart ain't having the "info". Smart is how you use it...
Belittling others shows your narcissistic ego.
.........just following your lead after you again started on the usual name callling routine.

By the way, have you done a recent leak test on those hose lines from those gas bottles in your studio? I'm just kind of wondering if your suppliers may not be sneaking nitrous oxide laughing gas into those gas cylinders without your knowing about it, thinking maybe that would explain your spaced out attempt at being a Nuclear Physicist.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
@Benni,
to which differential equations do you mean? If this is a differential equation that explains the behavior of a cat, I do not know how to solve it because it does not originate from the Spiritual Entity of the universe.


You're WhyGuy using a different pseudo-name, right?
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2018
@Benny,
You're too intelligent and I can not understand you. There are no such expressions in my language that give a very simple picture and behavior to people.
But can you help me explain why our Moon always has one side to the Earth. And is it in close connection with the topic we are talking about?
Benni
not rated yet Jan 20, 2018
@Benni,
to which differential equations do you mean? If this is a differential equation that explains the behavior of a cat, I do not know how to solve it because it does not originate from the Spiritual Entity of the universe.


You're WhyGuy using a different pseudo-name, right? .......Oh, you're Stumpo !!!!!! Same difference I guess.
mackita
not rated yet Jan 20, 2018
Particle theorists in the US have come up with theory that occasionally neutrons decay to a previously unknown particle which might account for the universe's dark matter. IMO the neutron is living and well all the time, just the neutrino in its belly oscillates, thus making whole neutron inert to detectors and collisions mediated by weak nuclear force. One could expect that similar process runs inside the neutron stars - just at large scale.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 20, 2018
Smart ain't having the "info". Smart is how you use it...
Belittling others shows your narcissistic ego.
.........just following your lead after you again started on the usual name callling routine.

Oh, that's right... You're a follower, not a leader...
Who's trying to be a Nuclear Physicist, other than you?
I'm just an open-minded hypothesyzer...
Her, let me help you with that;
A neutron star is the collapsed core of a large star which before collapse had a total of between 10 and 29 solar masses. Neutron stars are the smallest and densest stars known to exist.[1] Though neutron stars typically have a radius on the order of 10 kilometres (6.2 mi), they can have masses of about twice that of the Sun. They result from the supernova explosion of a massive star, combined with gravitational collapse, that compresses the core past the white dwarf star density to that of atomic nuclei.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2018
A neutron star is the collapsed core of a large star which before collapse


How does anyone know the core is composed of neutrons? What's the evidence?

densest stars known to exist.[1] Though neutron stars typically have a radius on the order of 10 kilometres (6.2 mi)


That's too small to see with a telescope, so there are no pics, it is assumed.

they can have masses of about twice that of the Sun.


Mass only twice that of the Sun?

They result from the supernova explosion of a massive star, combined with gravitational collapse, that compresses the core past the white dwarf star density to that of atomic nuclei.


So? How does anyone know that what's left is an object comprised of neutrons? Let me guess, you collaborated with RNP, Stumpy, & jonesy & put your blowtorch to work constructing a super rocket & sent it 500 light years away & collected all this data from the one nearest planet Earth? When? Last week?

Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 20, 2018
So? How does anyone know that what's left is an object comprised of neutrons? Let me guess, you collaborated with RNP, Stumpy, & jonesy & put your blowtorch to work constructing a super rocket & sent it 500 light years away & collected all this data from the one nearest planet Earth? When? Last week?

Actually I just cut and pasted that from the first paragraph of wikipedia article on "Neutron Star"...
https://en.wikipe...ron_star
Benni
not rated yet Jan 20, 2018
WhyGuy..........I'm still trying to get you to explain how gravity can prevent a free neutron from decaying within 10-15 minutes.

C'mon here, you've got some data you collected on that rocket you sent out there last week & you're being pissy about sharing it right?

After you collect your Nobel Prize for Physics for collecting all that FTL data on your FTL rocket, you're gonna share it right, and WOW really set back my narcissism a few light years? Can't wait.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 20, 2018
So? How does anyone know that what's left is an object comprised of neutrons? Let me guess, you collaborated with RNP, Stumpy, & jonesy & put your blowtorch to work constructing a super rocket & sent it 500 light years away & collected all this data from the one nearest planet Earth? When? Last week?

Actually, I think they use radio telescopes. Arecibo, fer instance...
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Jan 20, 2018
WhyGuy..........I'm still trying to get you to explain how gravity can prevent a free neutron from decaying within 10-15 minutes.

Who says it does? How can you NOT realize that during that 15 minutes, OTHER stuff is going on besides free neutrons decaying to protons, inside a mass that dense? Those protons are just being reconverted back into neutrons, which begin the decay process all over again.

C'mon here, you've got some data you collected on that rocket you sent out there last week & you're being pissy about sharing it right?
After you collect your Nobel Prize for Physics for collecting all that FTL data on your FTL rocket, you're gonna share it right, and WOW really set back my narcissism a few light years? Can't wait.

Who wants a Nobel? Just means I'd have to hob knob with snide elitist narcissists like you.
No thanks.

Enthusiastic Fool
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2018
Isn't it the case that during electron capture the newly made neutrons are actually in their lowest energy state so they don't decay? There are free electrons in a neutron star but they are also degenerate. Pauli Exclusion contributes to prevent decay as fermions are stacked up occupying the lowest energy states first at the supra-nuclear densities. In order for decay to occur a neutron would have to emit an electron with momentum above the fermi surface. Even if there's a non-homogenous distribution of electrons and decay were to happen it would just lead to electron capture again.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2018
All these "finds" that show and interpret many scientific institutions do not correspond either to natural laws or to logic that observes the sequence of the process of forming matter in the universe, from the basic substance from which matter forms until the formation of all kinds of celestial bodies. Science has no evidence, exact causes, if it does not know what is matter, how and from what it forms. To this day, science has not explained. Whether any of you, who are discussing here, can explain how matter forms and from which it forms. Is it logical to talk about something, without knowing the origin of what is being debated? If everything is in the universe, it is created from nothing, then all discussion about it are nothing, representing and worth NOTHING !!!.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2018
In the article claim that a neutron star arises after a supernova explosion ??? And what is the supernova and from which it was formed and such a series of formations would have led us to everything that was created out of nothing. If the neutron star is so small, how much would it be, for example her "grand-grandmother", that we do not ask, what is the grand-grandmother of this great-grandmother?
From your discussions you can see that you do not even know what is neutron and how it is created, why and when it breaks down and it's a whole series of processes through which it passes according to the prescribed natural laws, which you and the science ignore.
mackita
not rated yet Jan 21, 2018
Isn't it the case that during electron capture the newly made neutrons are actually in their lowest energy state so they don't decay?
OK, but why they should be in their lowest energy state whereas the free neutrons not?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2018
If any of you are interested in this, I can give you some help, but do not turn your intelligence into an instinct and inhumanly attack and insult those who can give something new. I see that today's science is TAJKUN GREAT POWER, which is interested in money, not progress and the knowledge of the unknown in the universe.
Again, I note that we are ALL EVERYONE, Nothing, without understanding the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNIVERSE and the existence of AETHER substance !!
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2018
You are too fictitious about neutrons, and unknown how neutrons are formed.
The first particle, formed from Aether, as a set that forms the basis of the formation of chemical elements, is 3KG particles (3 quarks and 3 bonds of gluon).
When this science understands everything will be much easier to explain. When a free gluon enters that particle, a neutron forms. In many chemical elements there are more neutrons than protons (isotopes) and due to energy imbalance, there is a breakdown of neutrons. How and why, judge yourself.
Benni
not rated yet Jan 21, 2018
You are too fictitious about neutrons, and unknown how neutrons are formed.
The first particle, formed from Aether, as a set that forms the basis of the formation of chemical elements, is 3KG particles (3 quarks and 3 bonds of gluon).
When this science understands everything will be much easier to explain. When a free gluon enters that particle, a neutron forms. In many chemical elements there are more neutrons than protons (isotopes) and due to energy imbalance, there is a breakdown of neutrons. How and why, judge yourself.


You have like minded company with RNP, WhyGuy, Jonesy, etc, they believe in funny farm science fiction as well.
Benni
not rated yet Jan 21, 2018
Who says it does? How can you NOT realize that during that 15 minutes, OTHER stuff is going on besides free neutrons decaying to protons, inside a mass that dense? Those protons are just being reconverted back into neutrons, which begin the decay process all over again.


OTHER stuff is going on


Really? How can "other stuff" be going on when only NEUTRONS are present in the system? It hasn't dawned on you that if other stuff is going on then the MASS cannot be a neutron star.

You conveniently ignore the effects of kinetic energy recoil of the electron, proton, neutrino when those free neutrons decay causing the progeny to exceed Escape Velocity & become permanently lost to the system.

C'mon here WhyGuy, you've got progeny recoil Escape Velocity data you collected on that rocket you sent out there last week & you're being pissy about sharing it, right?

Benni
not rated yet Jan 21, 2018
Isn't it the case that during electron capture the newly made neutrons are actually in their lowest energy state so they don't decay?
.......No, that's WHY they decay, neutrons cannot bind to neutrons.

There are free electrons in a neutron star but they are also degenerate.


If a neutron star is a neutron star, then there are no orbital electrons orbiting about a nucleus creating conditions of electron degeneracy. You obviously don't know what the Pauli Exclusion Principle for orbital electrons is about.

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2018
There are free electrons in a neutron star but they are also degenerate.


If a neutron star is a neutron star, then there are no orbital electrons orbiting about a nucleus creating conditions of electron degeneracy. You obviously don't know what the Pauli Exclusion Principle for orbital electrons is about.

HEre's a picture for you to look at and consider...;
https://en.wikipe...tion.svg
mackita
not rated yet Jan 22, 2018
Helium-3 and deuterium Atoms Seem to Have Different Masses Depending on How They're Measured This anomaly may correspond with the above one linked, because both He-3, both D-2 atoms are relatively rich of neutrons...
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018
There are free electrons in a neutron star but they are also degenerate.


If a neutron star is a neutron star, then there are no orbital electrons orbiting about a nucleus creating conditions of electron degeneracy. You obviously don't know what the Pauli Exclusion Principle for orbital electrons is about.


HEre's a picture for you to look at and consider...;
https://en.wikipe...tion.svg


So you in spite of all the evidence EVERY Nuclear Physicist knows about the decay cycle of NEUTRONS, you believe the caption suggesting this is a stellar body composed of nothing but NEUTRONS? You've been staring into the bright glare of too many blowtorches.

I would suggest once again that you have those gas cylinders & hoses in your metal bending studio checked for leaks of nitrous oxide laughing gas, I think your supplier is short changing you.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018
https://gizmodo.com/strangely-these-atoms-seem-to-have-different-masses-de-1821748467, because both He-3, both D-2 atoms are relatively rich of neutrons...


So?
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018
"This will further reduce uncertainties about maximum mass and lead to a better understanding of matter under extreme conditions. This will be simulated in modern particle accelerators, for example at CERN in Switzerland or the FAIR facility in Germany."

........in the meantime inside the Hadron Collider in Cern, Switzerland........free neutrons continue decaying into protons & electrons every 10-15 minutes. It'll be entertaining to say the least how this Author imagines there are "extreme conditions" that can prevent NEUTRON DECAY, extending it to millions & billions of years.
mackita
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2018
@Benni: My private explanation is, the methods which are using magnetic field are shortening neutron's life. In similar way, like the rotating neutron stars (with magnetic field) should decay faster. Another version of observation, which has been also done by accident showed that the loss rate of very slow free neutrons appeared to depend on the direction and strength of the magnetic field applied (original study, followup of ArxivBlog.).
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2018
@Benni: https://www.reddi...rons/.).


So?

What's this got to do with the 10-15 minute decay rate for neutrons into protons & electrons? And what's this got to do with the impossibility of nuclear forces to bind free neutrons to one another. Yeah, I know, just a minor "inconvenient truth" that a fictional gravitational collapse theory can find a way around.

Boy, you guys really hate losing your neutron stars don't you? Especially since I've teaching you about a10-15 minute decay rate you never before knew existed. Now the whole bunch of you are scurrying around in a state of absolute apoplexy trying to save your neutron stars at any cost.
mackita
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2018
You may imagine the neutron like proton and electron pair, which contain "scalar bubbles" in their center. Their attractive Coulombic forces are shielded by repulsive charge of antineutrino, which strongly repels both proton, both electrons by weak nuclear force, being formed by "scalar bubble" by itself (Falaco/Weyl soliton of scalar waves). The normal magnetic field is rather inert to neutrons, so it evaded attention - but once two magnets are positioned in mutually repulsive arrangement, then this volume area of vacuum concentrates scalar waves and slow neutrinos, which would balance the shielding effect of neutron antineutrino and which would accelerate the decay of neutrons.

This theory may look like quite exotic one - but we already know, that both magnetic field, both neutrinos accelerate the nuclear reactions.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018
You can discuss infinity, if you do not know how the matter forms. Neutrons arise in these processes, but they need to know how and when. Again I tell you, without understanding Aether and the way of forming matter from that Aether, there is no possibility to find out the true causes of the phenomenon.
Somewhat guess what exactly, like a tough hen when looking for a grain of corn.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018

The interaction of neutrinos with nucleons may be strongly dependent or resonance and oscillations of neutrinos inside atom nuclei. Therefore some nuclides (or even their particular isomers) may be highly sensitive to neutrinos and magnetic field, whereas others not, because the period of neutrino oscillations wouldn't coincide with period in which neutrinos bounce across atom nuclei.

In this regard it should be noted, that the for example ultracold neutrons are surprisingly well reflected with 58-Ni isotope, which could have a close relation to the cold fusion mechanism, proposed by Widom-Larsen theory. The size/density of nickel atoms may be tuned in such a way, the volume waves of electron orbital resonate with surface waves of atom nuclei (there is strong isotopic effect for neutron optical potential).
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018
@mackita,
You can discuss infinity, if you do not know how the matter forms. Neutrons arise in these processes, but they need to know how and when. Again I tell you, without understanding Aether and the way of forming matter from that Aether, there is no possibility to find out the true causes of the phenomenon.
Somewhat guess what exactly, like a tough hen when looking for a grain of corn.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018
Where do neutrons come from and how they originate, and if we do not know what they are, how can they know the traits?
When science understands what is magnetism, then it has the chance to achieve a fusion, but not with chemical elements with more neutrons, especially if they are stable elements such as 58 Ni.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018
See also Neutrons escaping to a parallel world? and my remarks about neutrons bellow article about mirror matter. The neutron has an antiparticle trait: we could say, it contains an antiparticle, i.e. negatively curved space-time in itself. I can compare the neutron to so-called antibubble: when such an antibubble (a neutron) will pop, a tiny bubble (a neutrino) will be released. This gives the neutron a properties of a floater bouncing at the space-time brane in similar way, like the normal floater is bouncing at the water surface. The large mass of neutron just makes this bouncing slower with compare to neutrino. In some theories the sterile neutrinos should correspond to mirror neutrinos instead.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018
How the oscillations of neutrons could manifest itself in AdS/CFT dual world of neutron stars? These objects would also undulate and their magnetic field would alternatively appear and disappear. In their dark periods these objects would resemble unobtrusive black holes, whereas normally they would resemble pulsars with jets. You can for example imagine, that the whole neutron star would contain large "mirror matter", "warp field" or "scalar wave" bubble, which would undulate inside it and to change its inertia (i.e. frequency of rotation) and surface radiation including magnetic field and jets. We can imagine this oscillation like non-Abelian transform of the whole star in the language of gauge theory or quantum zitterbewegung of Dirac fermions in language of condensed phase theory..
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2018
These internal oscillations would also explain observed cases of black holes without magnetic field (we just catched and observed them in their quiet phase) - but also their occasional eruptions of black holes without apparent accretion of any neighboring matter. They're just violating standard physics in both directions due to internal quantum (gravity) character of these objects.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2018
HEre's a picture for you to look at and consider...;
https://en.wikipe...tion.svg


So you in spite of all the evidence EVERY Nuclear Physicist knows about the decay cycle of NEUTRONS, you believe the caption suggesting this is a stellar body composed of nothing but NEUTRONS?

No, I do not.
If you have 1//100th the training you claim, you would see that, too.
Maybe you need glasses or something...
(Or just reading the caption labels)
IONS and NUCLEI are NOT neutrons...
It's a massive nuclear reactor inside o there...
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2018
Boy, you guys really hate losing your neutron stars don't you? Especially since I've teaching you about a10-15 minute decay rate you never before knew existed. Now the whole bunch of you are scurrying around in a state of absolute apoplexy trying to save your neutron stars at any cost.


Christ, what an idiot! They've just indisputably detected the merger of two of them, you prawn! You're the one scurrying around making excuses. You're losing, and you are too stupid to realise that.

jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2018
What's this got to do with the 10-15 minute decay rate for neutrons into protons & electrons? And what's this got to do with the impossibility of nuclear forces to bind free neutrons to one another. Yeah, I know, just a minor "inconvenient truth" that a fictional gravitational collapse theory can find a way around.


Lol. You think that they theorised, and then found, neutron stars that couldn't possibly exist in theory?
You really think they are that stupid? Or is it more likely that you have made an error based on a quick Google search about neutrons under 'normal' conditions?
Maybe this will help, but I don't hold out much hope!
https://physics.s...ron-star

jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2018
Especially since I've teaching you about a10-15 minute decay rate you never before knew existed.


Deary me. Anybody who has taken a first year undergrad course in astronomy/ astrophysics knows about that. You haven't taught us anything, All you've done, yet again, is display that your understanding of the subject under discussion is somewhere between negligible and nil.
Look up 'neutron degeneracy pressure'. You need to actually understand what you're talking about before you can teach anybody anything.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2018
@mackita,

If you think there are some curved space time, some waves without data, anti-neutron, some mirrors and parallel worlds, you will never be able to get out of such misconceptions because you have sunk into the black hole of fatamorgana you see by your fantasies.
Antichrists can be obtained in particle collisions, but these are not existing particles, and scientists do not know how they were obtained. OPET YOU MUST KNOW THAT AETHER, THAT IS IN THESE PIPES, IS FOR THAT. Neutrons can be stable and can decompose, if they are in chemical elements. A neutron star is made up of only neutrons, and when they begin to decay, waves of various frequencies and energies occur. But most of the neutrons from the center towards the outside have no gravity, but magnetism is much stronger and it tends to be equal to Aether which fills the neutron star, and there is an explosion (supernova).
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2018
Anybody who has taken a first year undergrad course in astronomy/ astrophysics knows about that.

Not even that. This is school stuff. The various forms of radioactive decay is part of the school curriculum (at least where I live).
I find it so funny that he thinks this is 'deep knowledge'.
What's next? Will he tell us that he taught us that 2+2 = 4?
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2018
Jonesy,
Deary me. Anybody who has taken a first year undergrad course in astronomy/ astrophysics knows about that. You haven't taught us anything
......in our business we don't hire astonomers/asrophysicists to do the work of nuclear physicists & nuclear engineers & certainly not someone whose demonstrable highest level of achievement is unending name calling rants.

What you have learned for the first time in your life is that free neutrons have a 10-15 decay cycle, you never learned that during the 2 years you spent at Uni when you took Differential Equations as part of that Algebra course you told us you took.

Did you even pass the Algebra course, and why only 2 years? I guess it's easy enough to figure that out.

WhyGuy,
If you have 1//100th the training you claim, you would see that, too
, I know how to read the data that comes directly from the Hadron Collider facility, ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 10-15 minute decay rate, no exceptions.

Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2018
Anybody who has taken a first year undergrad course in astronomy/ astrophysics knows about that.

Not even that. This is school stuff. The various forms of radioactive decay is part of the school curriculum (at least where I live).
I find it so funny that he thinks this is 'deep knowledge'.
What's next? Will he tell us that he taught us that 2+2 = 4?


.......uh huh, coming from someone who learned for the first time in his life from me that free neutrons have only a 10-15 minute decay rate before decaying into electron & proton.

Yeah, I know, next you're gonna next say you always knew that but the problem for proving it is you don't have a track record of links you can put up proving you ever knew it in the first place. You, like jonesy, think name calling rants are an equivalent substitute for what you don't know about nuclear physics or differential equations.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2018
Yeah, I know, next you're gonna next say you always knew that but the problem for proving it is you don't have a track record of links you can put up proving you ever knew it in the first place. You, like jonesy, think name calling rants are an equivalent substitute for what you don't know about nuclear physics or differential equations.


Benni, you're thick, just face it. Didn't you ever cover stellar evolution at school/ college? Well, some of us did. Stop trying to pretend that you are privy to things that are bleeding obvious to those that have studied it. Dunning-Kruger does not an expert make. Now, go away, there's a good chap, and try to find something that is at your level.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2018
Yeah, I know, next you're gonna next say you always knew that but the problem for proving it is you don't have a track record of links you can put up proving you ever knew it in the first place. You, like jonesy, think name calling rants are an equivalent substitute for what you don't know about nuclear physics or differential equations.


Benni, you're thick, just face it. Didn't you ever cover stellar evolution at school/ college? Well, some of us did. Stop trying to pretend that you are privy to things that are bleeding obvious to those that have studied it. Dunning-Kruger does not an expert make. Now, go away, there's a good chap, and try to find something that is at your level.


Yep, more of the usual name calling rants.

I guess you'll just have to to come to terms with the fact that you'll never have the the intellectual capacity to solve Differential Equations, you can't replace me in my job without knowing how.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2018
I know how to read the data that comes directly from the Hadron Collider facility, ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 10-15 minute decay rate, ***no exceptions***.


Wrong. Idiot. As I've already explained. I'll try again, for the hard of thinking: LOOK UP 'NEUTRON DEGENERACY PRESSURE'. Understand now? Nope, didn't think so. Like talking to a brick wall.

https://en.wikipe...generacy

http://hyperphysi...sar.html

http://hyperphysi....html#c1

http://www.astro....tars.pdf

Try to learn something Benni, and stop making a fool of yourself.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2018

I guess you'll just have to to come to terms with the fact that you'll never have the the intellectual capacity to solve Differential Equations, you can't replace me in my job without knowing how.


Jesus H. Christ! Where were you 'educated'? Differential equations were covered in 6th form maths in NZ decades ago. That is, for kids who were 16-17 years old! Well done for figuring it out in your 20s. Have a word with your local education authorities. Might be a bit behind the rest of us.
jonesdave
not rated yet Jan 23, 2018
.......you can't replace me in my job without knowing how.


https://www.wikih...-a-Floor
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2018
I know how to read the data that comes directly from the Hadron Collider facility, ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 10-15 minute decay rate, no exceptions


As I've already explained. I'll try again, for the hard of thinking: LOOK UP 'NEUTRON DEGENERACY PRESSURE'.
......your precious NDP is a term concocted by Cosmologists who don't know that a free neutron has a 10-15 minute decay rate under ANY CONDITIONS.

Where were you 'educated'? Differential equations were covered in 6th form maths in NZ decades ago. That is, for kids who were 16-17 years old! Well done for figuring it out in your 20s. Have a word with your local education authorities


Uh, yeh jonesy, follow your own advice & have a word with your local education authorities. The ONLY thing that is degenerate in all your Commentary is your obvious lack of math skills required for anyone to function proficiently in any field of science.

Differential Equations are for kids? Remember you said that.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2018
WhyGuy,
If you have 1//100th the training you claim, you would see that, too
, I know how to read the data that comes directly from the Hadron Collider facility, ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 10-15 minute decay rate, no exceptions.

And...the LHC has a gravity producer that can duplicate 2 SM environment?
A smart person would have said -
"ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 10-15 minute decay (to proton) rate, given our current observational capacity."

Benni
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2018
And...the LHC has a gravity producer that can duplicate 2 SM environment?
......you snuck in there in the middle of the night with your blowtorches & welded together a gravity producing machine? I think you should tell the Hadron guys they have a gravity producing machine in there they didn't know about.

Oh, by the way, maybe you could weld together an anti-gravity producing machine as well? I mean, anyone who knows how to produce gravity out of NOTHING must be someone so extraordinarily gifted that given a blowtorch anything is possble...... or, or, maybe it's the nitrous oxide laughing gas your suppliers unawares to you have been slipping into your leaky gas cylinders?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2018
Benni; let's be honest - you are a f***wit. Yes? You really struggle with some very easy stuff. Just accept that you are a f***wit, and move on. Retard.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2018
you snuck in there in the middle of the night with your blowtorches & welded together a gravity producing machine? I think you should tell the Hadron guys they have a gravity producing machine in there they didn't know about.


No, sh*t for brains; how about contacting these authors, and asking them why you seem to be terminally stupid? Because you are, you utter fraud. Good luck with the sweeping up tonight. Tough job that, I'm guessing. Retard.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2018
you snuck in there in the middle of the night with your blowtorches & welded together a gravity producing machine?


Christ, what a wan**r! Look up Chandrasekhar, you plank. You are so thick that it really is not worth arguing with you. Brainless doesn't describe it. Moron is closer. Bernie, you are a tosser. Let's have a vote; Is Barry a tosser or not? My vote is on Benji being a tosser. Just a guess, mind. Prat.

Benni
not rated yet Jan 23, 2018
Jonesy, if you ever find out what a Differential Equation is........let us know. I can tell you for sure that nobody learns them in an Algebra class like you claim you have, toodles.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.