i read somewhere that we keep making bigger and bigger particals and the author fantasised that you could maybe even get particals as large as a star. Then he thought about it and said well hay a netron star has similar propertys to an atom. As a theory is there anything wrong with saying that a netron star is an atom? or is that compleatly bogus? the author was either Jack cohan or his friend Ian stuart (probably which ever of them is the mathimatican as the book was a joint work) if that makes any difference (dont want to be accused of posting crack theories)
it can be like an atom, but being made up of atoms it wolud be mass, you wolud have to actually have subatomic particles that big for itn be an atom
thats why i said a netron star. isnt the theory about those that they actually break down atoms so that they are all netrons (hence the name)?
Yeah the neutron star is not made up from atoms, but almost entirely from neutrons, and thats why it is so dense - as dense as an atomic nucleus. So as a theory it is wrong to say a neutron star is like an atom...a neutron star is more like the nucleus of an atom
I suppose a neutron star is like a giant atomic nucleus in its density, and because its structure is determined by the strong nuclear force (instead of the electromagnetic force, as with normal matter or degenerate matter). The main difference is that, in a neutron star, the strong force acts to resist the inward compression of mass by gravitation, keeping the constituent particles distinct from each other and thereby holding the neutron star up. In a nucleus, the strong force is all that binds the constituent particles together, preventing them from flying apart.