All Activity

I also add the following for your perusal... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.07106 Magnetic Fields of Neutron Stars: Abstract. "This article briefly reviews our current understanding of the evolution of magnetic fields in neutron stars, which basically defines the evolutionary pathways between different observational classes of neutron stars. The emphasis here is on the evolution in binary systems and the newly emergent classes of millisecond pulsars. Discussions: The evolutionary pathways, linking different observational classes of neutron stars, has been summarised in Fig.10. It is evident that on the fiftieth year of the discovery of the first radio pulsar, we have unearthed more classes than we have been able to link. Much of the pathways, in particular between the isolated variety, is quite uncertain and is still being explored. It is expected that the number of new neutron stars discovered will increase by a large factor in the near future with the advent of multi-messenger astronomy and future telescopes with better sensitivity and wider frequency coverage. Such increase will definitely improve our understanding of some of today’s ‘uncertain’ pathways but almost certainly will throw up newer challenges." Hope that helps.

Like you, I am not a scientist, or a physicist. Perhaps you need to rehash all the links so far I have given, and all knowledge that we do possess as far as Neutron stars go. Let me help you in that regard. The important point you seem to have missed, is that while we know and accept that the greater bulk of a Neutron star are Neutrons, we also believe that the whole ball consists of layers of exotic matter under various pressures...much like the layers of an Onion, and our own main sequence star the Sun. Plus of course you have forgotten that its just not one single Neutron involved, and also that Neutrons themselves are not fundamental particles. Anyway, the following explains it far better then I.....https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-are-neutron-stars-magnetic/ "It’s not like having one single, neutral entity at all! And don’t forget that neutrons themselves are not fundamental, neutral particles, they themselves are made up of charged particles that have different charges and masses from one another! The neutrons themselves have intrinsic magnetic moments (since they’re made up of these charged quarks), and the incredibly high energies inside the neutron star can not only create particle/antiparticle pairs, but can create exotic particles as well. The charged particles that exist inside the neutron star are highly conductive, plus there are still gravitational, density, temperature and conductivity gradients inside of the neutron star. And at approximately 10 km in radius — with all the angular momentum of a typical Sun-like star — these things rotate at speeds of between 10-and-70% the speed of light! In short, that’s a recipe for a magnetic field on the order of 100 million Tesla, or about a trillion times what we find at the Earth’s surface. No wonder that’s exactly what we see! Even without being absolutely certain as to what’s happening in the innermost core of a neutron star — whether we have high-energy quarks, muons and taus, or any other types of particles rarely found in nature — conservative, conventional physics in these extreme environments makes an ultra-strong magnetic field all but inevitable." And again, Our inability to not be able to observe the surface directly, in no way infers that the core is composed of quarks. And certainly is not "proof" of such. While the likleyhood of the core being composed of quark/gluon matter is attractive and I personally see no objection to this reasoning. It is of course the magnetic fields that infer the soup of fundamental particles at and near the core. Again, I would like to make the observation, that you seem to be supporting a long debunked Plasma/Electric universe hypothetical, despite your denial of such. At any rate, you seem to doing your best to be arguing against the mainstream model. I invite you then, (going on your insistence and confidence) to write up a scientific paper for proper peer review. Because at this stage, we seem to be going round in circles.

Any idea how this neutron star can create such incredible electromagnetic fields while we all agree that neutrons have no electric charge? In other words, if we spin that neutron star at ultra speed, why it should generate any electromagnetic fields?

If two space craft were approaching each other at 99.999% of the speed of light, what would the speed of each appear to be to the other since the speeds would not add up like two trains traveling at 100 mph toward each other.

Absolutely, community solar is a fantastic idea for LA! Areas like the rooftops of large public buildings or unused land in places like the San Fernando Valley, which has plenty of open space, could be ideal. These spots are not only spacious but also receive a lot of sunlight, perfect for solar panels. What about you? Is there any specific support from the city for such projects in terms of permits or financial incentives in your region?

What we can be sure of, Neutron stars are observable, unlike black holes which are only inferred. Their crushing gravity and the universe’s strongest magnetic fields, and the extremes of physics, are the norm for Neutron stars. But again, unlike black holes, these exotic objects are observable. “It’s hard to study black holes,” And while there is much to learn about them, including the inner structure and possibility of quark/gluon matter, they are supported by the NDP, and nuclear repulsion equations and maths.

Answering your last question first, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics "Most mathematical activity involves the discovery of properties of abstract objects and the use of pure reason to prove them. These objects consist of either abstractions from nature or—in modern mathematics—entities that are stipulated to have certain properties, called axioms. A proof consists of a succession of applications of deductive rules to already established results. These results include previously proved theorems, axioms, and—in case of abstraction from nature—some basic properties that are considered true starting points of the theory under consideration.[4] Mathematics is essential in the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, finance, computer science, and the social sciences. Although mathematics is extensively used for modeling phenomena, the fundamental truths of mathematics are independent from any scientific experimentation. Some areas of mathematics, such as statistics and game theory, are developed in close correlation with their applications and are often grouped under applied mathematics. Other areas are developed independently from any application (and are therefore called pure mathematics), but often later find practical applications." Again, Neutron stars are so called because it aligns with the proven concept of the maths involved, and EDP and NDP. And of course to repeat myself, there is still much to learn and know about these exotic forms of matter that we label Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetars, particularly with regards to the deeper inner parts. While Neutron stars are essentially made up of neutrons according to the maths, much of the exact nature remains hypothetical, as has already been pointed out to you. Again, Wiki gives a pretty good description according to our incomplete knowledge.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star Important extracts from the above link... " Once formed, neutron stars no longer actively generate heat and cool over time, but they may still evolve further through collisions or accretion. Most of the basic models for these objects imply that they are composed almost entirely of neutrons, as the extreme pressure causes the electrons and protons present in normal matter to combine producing neutrons. These stars are partially supported against further collapse by neutron degeneracy pressure, just as white dwarfs are supported against collapse by electron degeneracy pressure. However, this is not by itself sufficient to hold up an object beyond 0.7 M☉[4][5] and repulsive nuclear forces play a larger role in supporting more massive neutron stars.[6][7] If the remnant star has a mass exceeding the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, which ranges from 2.2–2.9 M☉, the combination of degeneracy pressure and nuclear forces is insufficient to support the neutron star, causing it to collapse and form a black hole. The most massive neutron star detected so far, PSR J0952–0607, is estimated to be 2.35±0.17 M☉.[" "A neutron star has some of the properties of an atomic nucleus, including density (within an order of magnitude) and being composed of nucleons. In popular scientific writing, neutron stars are therefore sometimes described as "giant nuclei". However, in other respects, neutron stars and atomic nuclei are quite different. A nucleus is held together by the strong interaction, whereas a neutron star is held together by gravity. The density of a nucleus is uniform, while neutron stars are predicted to consist of multiple layers with varying compositions and densities" And the following important information " "Current understanding of the structure of neutron stars is defined by existing mathematical models, but it might be possible to infer some details through studies of neutron-star oscillations. Asteroseismology, a study applied to ordinary stars, can reveal the inner structure of neutron stars by analyzing observed spectra of stellar oscillations.[21] Current models indicate that matter at the surface of a neutron star is composed of ordinary atomic nuclei crushed into a solid lattice with a sea of electrons flowing through the gaps between them. It is possible that the nuclei at the surface are iron, due to iron's high binding energy per nucleon.[51] It is also possible that heavy elements, such as iron, simply sink beneath the surface, leaving only light nuclei like helium and hydrogen.[51] If the surface temperature exceeds 106 kelvins (as in the case of a young pulsar), the surface should be fluid instead of the solid phase that might exist in cooler neutron stars (temperature <106 kelvins).[51] The "atmosphere" of a neutron star is hypothesized to be at most several micrometers thick, and its dynamics are fully controlled by the neutron star's magnetic field. Below the atmosphere one encounters a solid "crust". This crust is extremely hard and very smooth (with maximum surface irregularities on the order of millimeters or less), due to the extreme gravitational field.[52][53] Proceeding inward, one encounters nuclei with ever-increasing numbers of neutrons; such nuclei would decay quickly on Earth, but are kept stable by tremendous pressures. As this process continues at increasing depths, the neutron drip becomes overwhelming, and the concentration of free neutrons increases rapidly. In that region, there are nuclei, free electrons, and free neutrons. The nuclei become increasingly small (gravity and pressure overwhelming the strong force) until the core is reached, by definition the point where mostly neutrons exist. The expected hierarchy of phases of nuclear matter in the inner crust has been characterized as "nuclear pasta", with fewer voids and larger structures towards higher pressures.[54] The composition of the superdense matter in the core remains uncertain. One model describes the core as superfluid neutron-degenerate matter (mostly neutrons, with some protons and electrons). More exotic forms of matter are possible, including degenerate strange matter (containing strange quarks in addition to up and down quarks), matter containing high-energy pions and kaons in addition to neutrons,[21] or ultra-dense quark-degenerate matter" Again enforcing the mathematically known structure of a Neutron star being of course Neutrons, and the possibility of quark/gluon matter deep within its interior. I have no objection to any of that. Bingo!!!! No, we accept exactly what the maths tells us. That the greater part of neutron stars are made up of what the name infers...NEUTRONS.! On (1) We do have a good idea, considering the "atmosphere" is only millimeters thick, and of course the NDP equation. On (2) The same way we trust the mathematics of any scientific model, with regards to astronomical distances and such. Far better then unevidenced hypotheticals and guesses. On (3) You are making many incorrect assumptions. A scientific theory, like any scientific theory, is never "PROVEN" It is only our best estimation according to the evidence available. Proof only applies to mathematics, which as it happens, supports the present scientific model of Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetars. Our inability to not be able to observe the surface directly, in no way infers that the core is composed of quarks. And certainly is not "proof" of such. While the likleyhood of the core being composed of quark/gluon matter is attractive and I personally see no objection to this reasoning.

In the following article it is stated: https://nathaliedegenaar.com/2011/06/14/peeking-into-the-crust-of-a-neutron-star/ It is the first time that cooling of an accretion-heated neutron star crust has been observed for a neutron star with a “normal” accretion phase of a few weeks. By comparing the observed change in temperature with theoretical calculations, we found evidence for the presence of (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust. It remains a puzzle what should produce heat at such shallow layers. Hence, those scientists are puzzled as they have found contradiction between the observation to their theoretical calculations. So, why are we so sure that there is no error in the math ? How can we trust the theoretical calculations of those puzzled scientists? Let's look again on a neutron star: It is stated that it is a layered star. https://www.nasa.gov/universe/nasas-nicer-probes-the-squeezability-of-neutron-stars/ Scientists think neutron stars are layered. 1. Atmosphere - Hydrogen, Helium & Carbons 2. Outer Crust - IONS & Electrons. 3. Inner Crust - IONS & superfluid Neutrons 4. Outer Core - supercunducting Protoms 5. Inner Core - Unknown There is no information about the size of each layer and no explanation why those specific layers had been selected. The most interesting layer is the inner core which is unkown. It is stated: But what form does matter take in the inner core? Is it neutrons all the way down, or do the neutrons break into their own constituent parts, called quarks? If this layer is made by neutrons, then we should accept the theoretical calculations of those scientists. However, if it is made by quarks then the theoretical calculations are useless. How do we know if it is quark layer or neutron layer? It is stated that Astronomers need precise measurements of both the sizes and masses: Physicists have been asking this question since Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky proposed the existence of neutron stars in 1934. To answer it, astronomers need precise measurements of both the sizes and masses of these objects. This allows them to calculate the relationship between pressure and density in the star’s inner core and evaluate matter’s ultimate squeezability. Surprisingly, Astronomers don't see/observe the neutron outer crust and therefore, they can't find the precise measurements for the size of the neutron star. So, how can we trust the theoretical calculations of those puzzled scientists while they don't see the crust? Actually, as they don't see the cust of the neutron star, then it proves that the inner core is made by quarks. Therefore, why do we insist to keep on with the idea of neutron inner core and use wrong theoretical calculations while the observation contradicts their assumption? How can they set any valid calculation while they don't have clear understanding about the matter in each layer and its size? The proton layer is also very interesting. In the core of an atom, you can't fit two protons without two nearby Neutrons in order to overcome the repulsive force that acts between two similar charges of protons. So, would you kindly direct me to the confirmed theoretical calculations of the unknown matter (in the core - Neutrons or quarks?) in an unknown size (of each layer) and overcome the repulsive forces of trillions over trillions protons (in the proton layer)?

John Wlliamson at an emotional memorial after the death of Steve Irwin at the Australia Zoo, which Steve created and is still doing great with his kids and and Mrs taking up the reigns

An Aussie rocker from the sixties accompanied by his Son. Warren Williams and Warren Williams junior

A shame we won't get to see it from Australia and the Southern hemisphere!

Ahh memories!!! The Daddy of rock n roll!!!

The following interesting article promotes awe and wonder at the power of science and the mathematics involved. A shame that such news and education isn't published in our every day newspapers and broadcasted on TV and radio. https://phys.org/news/2024-04-qa-glimpse-star-night-sky.html Q&A: How to catch a glimpse of a new star about to appear in the night sky: by Daniel Strain, University of Colorado at Boulder "If you peer up at the constellation Corona Borealis—the Northern Crown—over the next several months, you may catch a glimpse: Astronomers predict that sometime this year, a new star will appear in the night sky, growing as bright as the North Star, then vanishing in a matter of days. The source of that pinprick of light is a stellar system roughly 3,000 light-years from Earth called T Coronae Borealis, or T CrB. There, two stars circle each other, interacting in ways that—like clockwork—produce a powerful eruption of energy about once every 80 years—an event called a recurrent nova. T CrB became visible briefly in 1946, and scientists suspect that it's on the verge again. David Wilson is an astrophysicist and research associate at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at CU Boulder who studies the ultraviolet light that stars emit. While astronomers wait for T CrB to burst, Wilson gives his take on what causes this impressive event—and how curious stargazers can catch a glimpse." More at link.............................. Supplementary article.... https://phys.org/news/2024-04-huge-star-explosion-sky-lifetime.html

An Interesting article and paper, that may explain PBH's that were theoretically formed at the big bang. https://phys.org/news/2024-04-neutron-stars-capturing-primordial-black.html Neutron stars could be capturing primordial black holes: "The Milky Way has a missing pulsar problem in its core. Astronomers have tried to explain this for years. One of the more interesting ideas comes from a team of astronomers in Europe and invokes dark matter, neutron stars, and primordial black holes (PBHs). Astronomer Roberto Caiozzo, of the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, led a group examining the missing pulsar problem. "We do not observe pulsars of any kind in this inner region (except for the magnetar PSR J1745-2900)," he wrote in an email. "This was thought to be due to technical limitations, but the observation of the magnetar seems to suggest otherwise." That magnetar orbits Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the core of the Milky Way. The team examined other possible reasons why pulsars don't appear in the core and looked closely at magnetar formation as well as disruptions of neutron stars. One intriguing idea they examined was the cannibalization of primordial black holes by neutron stars." more at link. Interesting extract from above article follows... "Dark matter makes up about 27% of the universe, but beyond suggesting that PBH could be part of the dark matter content, astronomers still don't know exactly what it is. There does seem to be a large amount of it in the core of our galaxy. However, it hasn't been directly observed, so its presence is inferred. Is it bound up in those midrange PBHs? No one knows. The third player in this missing pulsar mystery is neutron stars. They're huge, quivering balls of neutrons left over after the death of a supergiant star of between 10 and 25 solar masses. Neutron stars start out very hot (in the range of 10 million K) and cool down over time." "The process works like this: a millisecond pulsar interacts in some way with a primordial black hole that has less than one stellar mass. Eventually, the neutron star (which has a strong enough gravitational pull to attract the PBH) captures the black hole. Once that happens, the PBH sinks to the core of the neutron star. Inside the core, the black hole begins to accrete matter from the neutron star. Eventually, all that's left is a black hole with about the same mass as the original neutron star. If this occurs, that could help explain the lack of pulsars in the inner parsecs of the Milky Way." The paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.08057 Revisiting Primordial Black Hole Capture by Neutron Stars: Abstract: "A sub-solar mass primordial black hole (PBH) passing through a neutron star, can lose enough energy through interactions with the dense stellar medium to become gravitationally bound to the star. Once captured, the PBH would sink to the core of the neutron star, and completely consume it from the inside. In this paper, we improve previous energy-loss calculations by considering a realistic solution for the neutron star interior, and refine the treatment of the interaction dynamics and collapse likelihood. We then consider the effect of a sub-solar PBH population on neutron stars near the Galactic center. We find that it is not possible to explain the lack of observed pulsars near the galactic center through dynamical capture of PBHs, as the velocity dispersion is too high. We then show that future observations of old neutron stars close to Sgr A* could set stringent constraints on the PBHs abundance. These cannot however be extended in the currently unconstrained asteroid-mass range, since PBHs of smaller mass would lose less energy in their interaction with the neutron star and end up in orbits that are too loosely bound and likely to be disrupted by other stars in the Galactic center"

Well said. While I admit to being mathematically ignorant of the maths involved, I see no reason why we should ignore the maths and the language of physics. The aspects of EDP and NDP, are each balancing points explaining the stability of white dwarfs and Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetars, and ( as you say) until the Schwarzchild limit is reached, will remain so. Once that is reached, as you say, further collapse is compulsory, at least up to the point we describe as the singularity, and where our laws of physics and GR become obsolete.

Because the maths tells us it has not yet exceeded NDP and therefore is simply a Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetar

You can calculate based on mass and radius if it is a black hole or not, the core of a neutron star using the Schwarzschild radius equation. Why don't you plug in the numbers for a neutron star's core and see if it is a black hole or not? I think you will find that the mass is too light for a neutron star to be a black hole even at its small radius. This can all be calculated using simple equations that are based on General Relativity. If the R number in the equation is greater than radius of the neutron star where R schwarzchild radius > R neutron star core then it is actually a black hole otherwise if R neutron star core > R schwarzschild Radius then it is not a black hole, but you will need to know the mass of the neutron star's core which will be the M number in the equation. "Schwarzschild radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. This phenomenon is thought to be the final fate of the more massive stars"

It might not doom other biochemistries but it does indicate the the path to life is paved with carbon.

Vmedvil, you do realize Google is just a tool to look up stuff... right? Google is not a source.

Observation is part and parcel of the scientific methodology, as is mathematical consistency, or the language of physics. Mostly wrong actually. The beliefs in those times was in the main, religiously inspired and ruled with an Iron fist, despite what observational and/or experimental data was telling them. In other words, the scientific method was not applied or adhered to. That is common knowledge. Until Gallileo, Copernicus and Kepler came along, who did adhere to the mathematics involved and the observational data. And the most recent observational data, (gravitational waves) from astronomical collisions and mergers, have supplied data aligning with templates pointing to Neutron stars/Pulsars, as well as black holes. Each collision was defined by the devised template. https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-evol And for your information, a magnetar is simply another version of a Neutron/Pulsar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar In the meantime, we align with the data available and the information gained from observational data, gravitational lensing, and gravitational waves. That is the scientific method. Not simply presuming or guessing what may or may not be. If we are wrong, in time that should be rectified by new and further data. And while we certainly, without question, will make new discoveries, and alter our view on some things, at this time, we can only go on what information we already have. Like I said, general relativity has a pretty good track record, and as an astronomer once told me, any future validated QGT, will most likely entail the big bang anyway.

I am sure that some silicates and other materials can be formed in space that could be used by other biochemistries of life just as organic carbon compounds, Link = Frontiers | Formation of Interstellar Silicate Dust via Nanocluster Aggregation: Insights From Quantum Chemistry Simulations (frontiersin.org). I don't think it dooms other biochemistries of life this news.

Genomic data is not on google, Moontanman, however here is the genome of the organism from the government's NBCI website, Link = MAG TPA_asm: Candidatus Atelocyanobacterium thalassa isolate ERR594286 - Nucleotide - NCBI (nih.gov) Though, the genome for Candidatus Atelocyanobacterium thalassa or "UCYN-A" is missing annotations thus it is impossible to tell what section is the organelle in question.