Star exploded, survived, and exploded again:

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by paddoboy, Nov 9, 2017.

  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    Increase in mass of a NS, will reduce its size and stabilize. If this reduction is such that R(p) is encountered then the energy will release and again stabilize (after reduction in mass) till no longer R(p) is challenged.

    Yes, the innermost core of a Neutron Star can have exotic matter (quarks etc).

    The mass of a Neutron is 940 MeV and the total rest mass of three constituent quarks is 12 Mev. Hope now you can parse it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    549
    Ah, so they stop being neutrons at the core, thanks for the answer!

    Yes, I can, thanks!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    The innermost core of a NS may contain exotic matter like quarks.
    The outer part will still be Neutrons.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    549
    Yes, I understood that. Thanks!
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Reference?
    ttps://www.quora.com/If-the-tidal-force-of-a-black-hole-is-strong-enough-to-rip-atoms-apart-does-that-mean-that-it-creates-an-infinite-amount-of-matter-from-the-glueonic-field-by-following-e-mc²-or-does-it-only-rip-the-protons-from-the-neutrons

    https://www.quora.com/Can-a-black-hole-rip-apart-a-neutron-star-if-it-gets-too-close

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possibl...ile-forces-strong-enough-to-rip-protons-apart


    Again as our current knowledge of BH's tells us, as one approaches the singularity, extremely high temperatures would be experienced. Protons and Neutrons would cease to exist and you would get a quark-gluon soup/plasma.
    But you are off topic in this thread and probably also in the wrong section. Please consider starting a new thread in speculative ideas.
     
  9. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,470

    You have given three references.

    Ref1 : Talks of "rip the protons from Neutrons". I do not know what it means. It seems you are talking about effect of extreme curvature of a BH singularity on infalling matter. I am talking about process of collapse of an object due to gravity. Both are two different things.

    Ref2 : Again you are talking about effect of a Black Hole Gravity on a Neutron Star. Two objects.

    Ref3 : The answer to this question is in negative. For a large mass BH, the tidal forces near the Event Horizon may be insignificant, so nothing unusual like ripping apart of protons may happen.

    Your 'quarks rip asunder' is either incorrect or you are mixing up. Rip asunder I understand as taking them apart, when the gravity compresses the innermost neutrons of the object, the constituent quarks come closer, they are not taken apart.

    And no off topic, this is quite relevant to multiple explosion of an object as in OP. What we are discussing is what could happen at the core to cause double explosion. I am trying to associate the explosion with established Nobel winning theory (Asymptotic Freedom). You are most welcome to highlight if there is any problem in this application of AF theory.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    deleted
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    You havn't given any.

    As you were told over at Cosmoquest in your two against the mainstream threads, you failed at times to answer questions, you did plenty of hand waving, and all your points were invalidated, and debunked.
    Four points here that make your hypothesis invalid..(1) the strong force as well as anything else do not get out once the Schwarzchild radius is reached...(2) The strong nuclear force only has a very short range and (3) just as temperatures were such a short instant after the BB, that quarks were able to exist freely, so to as temeratures increase as the quantum/Planck level is approached, so to do quarks come asunder. and (4) as over Cosmoquest to somehow expect people to accept some crazy notion that when a Schwarzchild radius is reached, somehow mysteriously, all that mass may not be inside the Schwarzchild radius is well, crazy.


    In summing,
    ref 1: Spaghettification taken to extreme as singularity is approached.
    ref 2: Example of tidal gravity effects.
    ref 3: I did not mention the EH...I said approaching the singularity.


    A reputable publishing company and reputable peer review is what you need to gain any status and that you failed at over at Cosmoquest.
    Again you are off topic and simply using this thread as an excuse once again to raise your pet hypothesis.
    And finally it doesn't really matter how many forums you continue to beg for your hypothesis to somehow be recognised, it (science) does not work that way.
     
  12. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    Paddoboy

    I will ignore your insult/abuse at the end of your post. It does not matter now, as you have already exposed yourself as a foul mouthed man. I would suggest stay away from abuse/insult exchange.


    You have cross referred something which you have passingly gathered from cosmoquest, I will respond to all such points.

    I do not know what you mean by this. No one is claiming that any force can come out of anywhere. You have misread something.

    Well yes, to use your words a very unfathomably small range. Who is denying that? Not me at least.


    I am very sure none here would understand this gibberish. Restate pl.

    Although again poorly worded, but I get what you are saying. This is important because what I am proposing requires travel of radiation energy (Photon) from center of an object (already beneath its schwarzchild radius) towards its circumference in radial direction or so. As per GR there is only one direction for anything inside Schwarzschild radius that is towards r = 0. What I am saying appears contradictory to this assertion of GR, but actually it is not.

    Pl get ready for some simple algebraic maths, and also please let me know which of the following point is incorrect.

    1. Assume Mass of an object = 1 Million Solar.
    2. Its Schwarzschild Radius R(s) = 3 Million Kms.
    3. Assume that this object is just below its R(s), that is it is of 3 Million Kms radius.
    4. The density at this point for this object is : M/V.
    5. Assume that this object is of uniform density.

    Now the point:
    6. Assume the innermost spherical part of 3.24 Solar Mass.
    7. Its Schwarzschild Radius is = 10 Kms.
    8. But this 3.24 Solar Mass part sphere is of = 44300 Kms in size

    Means that inner 3.24 Solar Mass matter is not beneath it schwarzschild radius. So any photon produced at r = 0, can travel away from center. But any photon produced at 3 Million Kms point cannot travel away from the object.

    Which point from #1 to #8, you find crazy? Probably you are not able to visualize the inner part 3.24 Solar Mass?
     
  13. NotEinstein Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    549
    There's a typo in there, and a horribly convoluted grammatical structure, but I for one understand what paddoboy is saying.

    "just as temperatures were such a short instant after the BB, that quarks were able to exist freely,"
    In the same way that temperatures were, a short instance after the BB, such that quarks were able to exist freely,

    "so too as temperatures increase as the quantum/Planck level is approached, so to do quarks come asunder."
    the temperatures increase so much, as one approached the quantum/Planck level, that quarks fall apart.
     
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    Ok, I got it. But the Planck level is actually billions of trillion times lower than quark level. If we follow this line, then the quarks would have been decimated much before the Planck level. And moreover the concept of temperature at Planck level is dicey, the temperature of a BH is otherwise also very small, inversely proportional to its mass.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    You mean the following?
    Foul mouthed??Abuse??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or is it a simple fact that sometimes when people are confronted with the truth, they need to resort to such false and misleading nonsense. Again, you will most certainly change nothing on a science forum open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, and of course your two threads and your claims over at Cosmoquest were refuted and debunked...many times. And again, yes this is off topic, and simply an excuse you have found for raising your hypotheticals once again. Perhaps you need to apologise for making such false allegations?
    Well I'm certainly not Robinson Crusoe on that score...others also seem confused re the silly claim that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, not all of the mass is within that parameter.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Let me say it again, once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is complusory and nothing will ever get back out by crossing that EH. Even in Hawking Radiation, nothing actually crosses from inside the EH to outside, but that's another "off topic" matter.
    You mentioned re as distances between quarks are larger the force becomes stronger? Yet as you agree the effect of the strong force is very limited.

    Should I take that as an insult?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Let me try again anyway...Just after the BB, when our first fundamentals were created, [quarks electrons ] temperatures were such that quarks were not combined to form protons and neutrons...protons and neutrons did not exist at that stage. Likewise as matter approaches the singularity/quantum/Planck level, temperatures increase, such that the same stage would be reached...too hot for quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons..a quark/gluon soup most probably.


    It sure sounds contradictory to me, and obviously did to our comrades over at Cosmoquest. Again.....
    Rajish, your enthusiasm knows no bounds. But again just as your poinst were refuted by experts over at Cosmoquest, and just as you were accused of handwaving and not answering all questions, I'll refer you back to post 13 to answer those questions...all of them. Remember I don't need to go out of my way to support or validate the standard cosmological picture...it is supported and it is validated, including four incidents of BBH collisions/mergers.

    And again, I reiterate, you will not change the course of science or history by posting your hypotheticals on forums such as this or Cosmoquest...That is a fact of life my friend. So let me again refer you to that which you found so disagreeable with......
    "A reputable publishing company and reputable peer review is what you need to gain any status and that you failed at over at Cosmoquest.
    Again you are off topic and simply using this thread as an excuse once again to raise your pet hypothesis.
    And finally it doesn't really matter how many forums you continue to beg for your hypothesis to somehow be recognised, it (science) does not work that way."
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Yep, the quarks would have been ripped asunder and as governed by the mass of the BH...theoretically the ripping apart may even occur just at the EH and well before the quantum/Planck level. Tidal gravitational effects would play a major part.
    Agreed, the nature of BHs and particularly the singularity region is bereft of actual observational knowledge, but that most certainly does not take away from the amount of observational evidence outside the EH that points to what is more correctly described as a "Gravitationally Completely Collapsed Object" and as recently further validated by aLIGO and other detectors.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Thanks for your excellent interpretation!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    I saw your post#13, there are no questions there.
    You are repeatedly stating that my "points were refuted by experts over at Cosmoquest". Ok if that makes you happy but I see no such refutation. Like you, those posters also did not understand that the innermost part of a bigger object (just beneath its schwarzscjild radius), need not be inside that "innermost part" schwarzschild radius. I have given you an example that innermost 3.24 Solar Mass of a "one million Solar Mass object at its R(s)" will be spread over 44000 km Size much higher than its Schwarzschild radius of 10 Kms. You find it crazy, I don't.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    It doesn't make me happy one way or the other, they were all refuted in turn, and you were warned at least three times?? over the two threads, probably more, I'm really too lazy to check it out, a fault of mine I'm afraid.
    Yes, I find it crazy, but hey! I'm no one just like yourself, so again what you need to do is what you seem to find so "disgusting"as per the highlighted part at the end of post 32. I'll be the first to congratulate you and heap praise if it is peer reviewed and shown to be more predictable and more matching current observation that includes BHs then the current incumbent GR model.
    The questions by the way from post 13 were in the first sentence, "what do you you believe is left to exist, if we assume you are correct? It appears to me at least that if BHs did not exist, then something far more sinister and weird would be taking its place. Sometimes Rajish to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary, is not very productive". and again later in that post....thus..... "I'm just really interested in how you are still able to believe BHs do not exist after recent events."

    So rajish it appears we have another example of rash statement along with your claim I was insulting and abusing and foul mouth when nothing was further from the truth.
    Perhaps you need to apologise for both at this time?
     
  20. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    You survive or feed on putting others down? How is it relevant that they warned me or not? Just because you wander around various forums, does not mean that you will mix up discussions here and there. Stop it pl.


    Which part of that high school algebra you find crazy? Any high school kid will tell you that under the uniform density assumption when a 1 million solar mass is at 3 million kms radius then innermost 3.24 solar mass will occupy 44000 Kms as radius. What is crazy about this? Prove or back off.


    Have you forgotten how foul mouthed you were while talking about two moderators here? It was disgustingly foul mouthed. You should have unconditionally apologized with your first post here, before continuing any further. Mellow down man, cool down.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    You sit there claiming to have invalidated 21st century cosmology, and then you complain when others show your claims to be no better then other anti GR claims on forums such as this, for a variety of reasons and agendas? Like I said, and as you continue to ignore, you or no one else will rewrite cosmology on this or any other forum. There is a procedure which it appears you are afraid to use for fear of more rebuttal.


    I'm nether worried nor concerned re your algebra. I'm simply telling you that BHs exist as per GR, and that has been further verified and evidenced with recent discoveries, another aspect you appear to ignore.
    As have you and the god in the past. Obviously your posts reflect some emotional instability, particularly with my continued references to facts over at Cosmoquest, and of course past invalidation by Professor Bennett Link on similar attempts to rewrite 21st century cosmology, on this very forum.

    And yet you continue to ignore the questions I put to you...*ho hum*
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Let me add to what I have already said, your maths may be correct, I do not know, but irrespective, it does nothing to resolve anything about any BH, and the extensions you fabricate makes absolutely no sense, considering the evidence we have that you ignore.
    In fact your whole summary is no where near detailed enough and if you do decide to "do the right thing" I doubt very much if it will turn any heads.
    Does that make you happy rajish? I never raised Cosmoquest once!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,470
    Thanks for that conditional acceptance that 'my maths may be correct'.
    And I am not claiming or being so immodest that I will rewrite the 21st century cosmology with only one laptop and internet connection at my disposal.
    Its the question of interest and wandering of my mind. Both cannot be stopped by you or anyone else. So I suggest discuss, criticize the points, find fault with the point and in the process you will also learn.

    Take for example in another thread NotEinstein says that I must consider the geodesic (GR) for the photon produced at r = 0, whatever minute understanding of GR I have that tells me that a photon produced at r = 0, will stay put there only if I use GR, I am open but confused how I use geodesic for this photon? Hence I have used the classical Physics which tells me that this photon can move away from r = 0. If there are any GR experts here, let them point out the mistake and educate me.
     

Share This Page