Neutron Star

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Apr 7, 2015.

  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,420
    It is my opinion that success at peer review is the first process of bringing an idea into open for public scrutiny, for scrutiny by people who can understand the subject....furthermore success at peer review is not the guarantee about the certainty of the idea as we are all human beings, and rejection under peer review is also not the guarantee that the idea is not worthy of pursuing.

    My next idea is on a very recent argument in which Paddoboy and James R were also included....that is Energy-Mass-Energy-continuum...this will have to wait as the same is under peer review.

    My only request with the forum members is that we should stick to the topic, all kind of technical criticism is welcome........the motivation behind this paper is mainly absence of any realistic theory inside Event Horizon....the un comfort level of people with singularities....the possible impossibility of real existence of any singularity....

    http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/adsabsadsabs/abs/2015IJAA....5...11R/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,494
    Firstly, your whole premise proceeds under a couple of false assumptions.
    Firstly the EH is where the escape velocity equals "c"
    Secondly GR tells us that once the EH is reached, further collapse is compulsory....
    That alone eliminates any speculative BNS or whatever name you have coined to call it.
    As collapse approaches the Planck/Quantum level, GR itself is not applicable.
    This fact plus the properties of infinite spacetime curvature and density in line with the classical point Singularity, sees most cosmologists accepting the probable scenario, of the mass actually residing between the infinite point singularity and the beginnings of the quantum/Planck realm.

    From your paper:
    >>>>>>>
    3. Conclusion It is proposed that an invisible Neutron Star may exist wherein Rs Rp ( ) > ( ), this will enable us to look for physical presence of a star beyond Event Horizon, which so far being treated as singularity thus out of bounds of physical understanding. An upper limit is also evaluated for the mass of the visible Neutron star and the lower mass limit for the naturally occurring gravitationally collapsed Black hole is also computed. These parameters are Neutron radius dependent.
    >>>>>>


    Reiterating again, according to GR, once the Schwarzchild radius is reached then further collapse is compulsory, at least until the quantum/Planck level where GR breaks down.

    That tells us in no uncertain terms, that nothing exists between the EH and the center of the BH/mass/Singularity.
    Otherwise you appear to be invalidating GR and in line for this years Nobel.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,494
    Scientific peer review is not perfect, but it is the best we have, and along with the scientific methodolgy, is self correcting. sorting the wheat from the chaff.
    Without it you have nothing.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,494
    Another couple of points that indicate the unlikely scenario proposed is the fact that a normal Neutron star is around the same density of an atomic nucleus or about 3×1017 kg/m3.
    So an atomic nucleus should collpase to a BNS?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    That plus the fact that even though it has been hypothesised about Quark stars, and/or other more exotic remnants beyond that of a normal Neutron star, all remain hypothetical due to the fact that the equations of state of matter at such high densities are not precisely known because of the inherent theoretical difficulties.

    I must though congratulate you on finally accepting reputable links and references.
    Although obviously not accepting the conclusions and other normally mundane concepts.
    I hope that will be the last opposition to links and references when anyone chooses to use them....A process that all use without exception.

    References [1] Chandrasekhar, S. (1935) The Highly Collapsed Configurations of a Stellar Mass. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 95, 207-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/95.3.207 [2] Bombaci, I. (1996) The Maximum Mass of a Neutron Star. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 305, 871-877. [3] Carroll, B.W. and Ostlie, D.A. (2006) §16.3. The Physics of Degenerate Matter. In: An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, 2nd Edition, Addison-Wesley, Boston. [4] Oppenheimer, J.R. and Volkoff, G.M. (1939) On Massive Neutron Cores. Physical Review Letters, 55, 374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.55.374 [5] Sloane, N.J.A. (1998) The Sphere-Packing Problem. Documenta Mathematika, 3, 387-396. [6] Hales, T.C. (1998) The Kepler Conjecture. http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.MG/9811078
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
  8. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,420
    The point which we must understand is .....why the star core must collapse once inside the Schwarzschilds radius...

    1. Is it because that the escape velocity is c at Event Horizon (r = Rs), as you are suggesting ?
    2. Or is it because Gravitational pull inward is too huge to handle (Newtonian Mechanics) ?
    2. Or is it because spacetime inside EH has only one direction...inwards which itself is moving at the speed of c ?
    4. Or is it because by that time NDP is overcome and there is no known process to create a Hydrostatic Counter Balance ?

    In fact Pt#3 is pure GR, but I have focussed on pt#4, in fact that is one of things which we expect from QGT, that it will let us know about some Quantum Mechanics Pressure which may counter the Gravity....

    Now coming to the premises of the paper : For a one million mass Black hole the Event Horizon point (Rs) is around 3 million Kms while the Neutron Packing Radius is just 650 Kms or so.........that means there is enough space for Neutrons to move around and as per Heisenberg Uncertainty principle they have not become completely relativistic, so as the collapse continues their momentum increases, then certainly the counter pressure also increases before 650 Kms is actually overcome...thus creating at least a transient stable object inside EH.....I have termed that as Black Neutron Star.

    Now coming to the aspect 0f Quark Star (or preon star), I have tried to propose that a visible Quark star may not exist beyond 3.24 Solar Mass (Very restricted range of 2.65 to 3.24 Solar Mass for Quark Star).....

    Yes I would agree we really have to fully understand about the Physics of matter inside EH (or even of NS)...but this paper does not talk about that as such.
     
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    How did you come up with the diameter of a neutron?

    The diameter that you are using seems to be about 3X too small, which has a profound impact on the point of your paper.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,519
    RajeshTrivedi:

    Are you assuming, then, that the general relativistic description of the spacetime inside the event horizon will be wrong in the case of your Black Neutron Star? On what basis?
     
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    This (the SCIRP’s International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics) appears to be a relatively new open access journal. The peer review seems suspect. I am not sure it has yet or perhaps ever will rise to the level of a respected peer reviewed journal...

    A short Google search returned..,

    A quote from the following blog post on the journal and its parent publisher titled, Scam Publisher Fools Swedish Cranks, @ http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2012/04/12/scam-publisher-fools-swedish-c/
    This suggests that anybody can publish anything in SCIRP’s International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics as long as they pay the fee. Its Head Editor tells me by e-mail that he is “concerned about the refereeing process and should investigate”.
    And the following...
    (SCIRP has a few other lines of business too. One is apparently scam conferences. Beware of the International Conference on Internet Technology and Applications.)

    I normally don't follow bogs.., really none, other than as referenced by some other source. Based on Rajesh's past posts here, I followed the link he provided (we did ask what journal!) and then since I had not heard of the journal, I decided to check it out. I mean the link did end with harvard.edu!

    So is this a credible journal? Or just a scam designed to imply credibility? Not implying that Rajesh is complicit in a scam. He could very well be a victim. And no that does not mean I find his ideas any more credible than in earlier threads.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,519
    Their editorial standards aren't high. No idea what their peer review is like, if there is any.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,494
    It's not what I'm suggesting...It's what GR tells us...and yes
    Yes.
    Actually in excess of "c" and yes again.
    NDP was certainly overcome just before the EH I imagine.

    You have failed to address my reasons why what you propose will not happen.

    At this stage, through ignorance, I have not addressed the credibility of this orginisation and the publishing of scientific papers., simply because I was not sure.
    Thanks to OnlyMe, and James, that has now been revealed.
     
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Technically what holds neutroniam from further gravitational collapse is the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Where the force of the gravitational collapse is locally weaker than the strong nuclear force. By locally I mean in a quantum sense. When the force of the gravitational collapse exceeds Pauli's exclusion, exceeds the strong nuclear force, the gravitational collapse continues.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,494
    Nice work brucep, but I have said that in many threads with plenty of fanatical opposition!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    His idea is juvenile bullpuckey. He's saying that after the neutron degeneracy pressure breaks down there's a place where the 'little round neutron balls' are squeezed so tight they forstall further collapse. LOL. What I found interesting was the papers we read based on quantum gravity. One where the calculation was for a spherical shell forming just out side of r=2M and the other at r=M. Based on the requirement that spacetime curvature is finite at r=0. The quantum gravity approach.
     
  17. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,420
    James R,

    You are the Mod, do you think what you have questioned has any relevance with the paper ?? I am open for all kind of fair criticism on the technical aspect...
     
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,420

    Thats the point, all these calculations are dependent on the radius of Neutron.....and I have clearly stated that at couple of prominent places in the paper.....generally the radius of neutron has a range of 0.3 to 1.2 fm, depending on core, cloud etc...
     
  19. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,420

    No, but we have to understand what we are expecting inside EH....that is, what we expect from QGT...

    My understanding is that once NDP is overcome, then there is no known mechanism to counter the gravity and possibly QGT can throw some mechanism as and when it is established.....that means no one believes that there is Singularity at the center of the BH, there got to be something which is able to sustain the Gravity and create the observed effect......nothing seems to have been violated in this paper...
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,494
    Except for GR.
    But GR fails us at the quantum/Planck level where the mass is, so isn't it logical that any surface of sorts would exist between the classical point Singularity and the Planck/quantum volume.
     
  21. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,420
    This is not the theory, please re visit the formation of Neutron Star, it does not talk about nuclear force in the sense you are implying.........and Pauli's exclusion does not provide any force, the calculations are quite complex and involves concepts of Pauli's exclusion, Heisenberg uncertainty and fermi enrgy levels and thus the counter pressure is calculated.


    Second important point..........In Nuclear force one of the major participant is proton also...and there are no protons when we talk Neutron Star and beyond...
     
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,420
    This is the crux.......and for which you have to refer to the table provided.......as per present theory full manifestation of NDP in a collapsing core takes place when all the Fermi levels (for Neutrons) are filled up as per Pauli's Exclusion and also Neutrons have gained momentum due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle......now just imagine that for a 1 million solar mass core, the EH is at around 3000000 kms and all the neutrons can be spherically packed at only 650 Kms.........so it cannot be stated that for a bigger core NDP is overcome before EH........I have given 3 ranges, 1.4 to 2.65 (NDP cannot be overcome so a Neutron Star forms), 2.65 to 3.24 Soalr Mass, NDP is overcome and possibly a visible Quark Star may form, and 3.24 Solar mass and larger......NDP is not overcome outside EH for this.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,494
    GR tells us different, despite your figures and calcs, which have already been questioned.
    EH is simply where the escape velocity equals "c"
    Inside the EH, spacetime falls at greater than "c"
    http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html
    Neutron stars exist beyond an EH. They cannot exist within the EH as far as GR is concerned.
     

Share This Page