Re: [math-fun] Neutron stars as atoms
What insight would be gained from such a definition? Neutron stars are presumably held together by gravity, not by quantum forces, so nuclear "chemistry" isn't implicated. Neither is normal chemistry implicated, as I see no possibility of multiple neutron stars getting together as molecules. You raise an interesting possibility of a substantial net charge on such an object, but wouldn't such a charge allow a huge amount of energy to bleed off in the form of moving charges generating electromagnetic waves ? Neutron stars appear to be a totally different kind of matter, with the possibility of all kinds of bizarre behaviors. At 08:46 AM 6/25/2014, Whitfield Diffie wrote:
I recall reading the intreaguing observation that stable neutron structures run up to around atomic wieght 300 and then their is a long gap before you get to the neutron stars with atomic weights around 10^50. Perhaps we should regard the neutron stars as isotopes of very heavy elements. The atomic numbers would be miniscule by comparison with the atomic weights but a mildely positively charged neutron star doesn't seem impossible: would adding a billion protons make a difference?
Whit
What insight would be gained from such a definition?
It isn't a definition; it was an attempt at unification. Clearly there is less similarity than I had expected. It is clear from the postings that: The neutron stars are never stable in the sense in which a nucleus is stable. They are constantly changing atomic number and atomic weight by amounts that are tiny fractions of the number of baryons in the start but could easily be greater than Avagadro's number. Even at the same nuber, their internal states keep wiggling around. The structure is far from uniform; I had not known about the iron crust.* Even my capacity for whimsey quailed at the notion of neutron-star chemistry. Even if you found a pair of neutron stars in close orbit and sharing a cloud of electrons, calling that a molicule would be a stratch. Whit * Whereas the Earth has an iron core. Hmm.
The neutrons in a neutron star are packed together with the same density, about 10^15 g/cm^3, as in a nucleus. This is the sense in which a neutron star can be regarded as a giant nucleus. One shouldn't attribute any more significance to this "giant nucleus". -- Gene
________________________________ From: Whitfield Diffie <whitfield.diffie@gmail.com> To: Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> Cc: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Neutron stars as atoms
What insight would be gained from such a definition?
It isn't a definition; it was an attempt at unification.
Clearly there is less similarity than I had expected. It is clear from the postings that:
The neutron stars are never stable in the sense in which a nucleus is stable. They are constantly changing atomic number and atomic weight by amounts that are tiny fractions of the number of baryons in the start but could easily be greater than Avagadro's number. Even at the same nuber, their internal states keep wiggling around.
The structure is far from uniform; I had not known about the iron crust.*
Even my capacity for whimsey quailed at the notion of neutron-star chemistry. Even if you found a pair of neutron stars in close orbit and sharing a cloud of electrons, calling that a molicule would be a stratch.
Whit
* Whereas the Earth has an iron core. Hmm.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (3)
-
Eugene Salamin -
Henry Baker -
Whitfield Diffie