Neutron star

As we know quite a small amount about the cosmos, I’m not going to worry about it too much until we’re vaporized by a stellar event or something.

I appreciate you.

only if you discount the simulation hypothesis.

New theories sprout up all the time. Have a link?

The Simulation Hypothesis

1 Like

Don’t forget the forest Gump definition for existence. Just meant as a pun, not in relation to link.

Earlier I stated that in 99% of random neutron star collisions, the outcome is a black hole. In that back-of-the-envelope calculation, I presumed that the newly-formed remnant contained all the mass of both the contributing remnants.

This ignores the fact that significant fractions of the colliding masses are lost in radiation, both EM and gravitational; additionally, another significant fraction of mass might be ejected (in jets or otherwise flung away) as well.

Additionally, it isn’t because the Chandrasekhar limit is 1.38 solar masses, that all neutron stars are at least this heavy. For example, the neutron stars whose collision was observed earlier this week are estimated to mass 1.6 and 1.1 solar masses. Even if all their mass remained in the combined remnant (which, as stated above, is unlikely), the result might still stabilize as a neutron star, without further collapsing into a black hole.

TL;DR: the statement that 99% of neutron star collisions result in a black hole was based on oversimplified assumptions; the odds remain in favour of the resulting remnant collapsing into a black hole (as some observations of the earlier-mentioned collision in NGC 4883 seem to confirm), but it isn’t unlikely that the end result is of the collision is just another neutron star.

I believe fundamental physics may vary by region of space. Elements we are not aware of …different conditions. Perhaps Iron occurring in a liquid state at room temperature, how would that effect things? (just a whacked example)

I don’t think that is likely. The pressure would turn that iron into a plasma like we have in Earth’s core (and our fellow dumb mankind still need to burn things to make electricity hahahahahahahaha).

I’m talking about under a different state of physics and science as we know it. In different areas of the cosmos.

That’s pretty unlikely. It violates one of our fundamental presuppositions of science, and contradicts almost everything. That being said, until we have a grand unified theory it is faintly possible as an alternative to inflation and the big bang. Such ideas should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. But given how incomplete our understanding of the universe is I don’t think we can complete discount anything, no matter how improbable.

It was an example of our limited knowledge of the universe and science itself.
The intent was to show we know extremely little, and all popular theories today maybe disproven tomorrow.
The Earth was flat once apparently.

Actually that’s as misconception. Even the ancients knew the earth wasn’t flat. They simply thought it was the center of the universe. Thankfully we’ve recently discovered the earth is hollow and filled with dinosaurs, but the government has been covering it up.

thanks.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.