The consequences of a nearby neutron star collision...

Discussion in 'General Science' started by cmartinez, Nov 1, 2017.

  1. cmartinez

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    4,436
    5,081
    And by "near" the earth... it's understood about 6 light years away or less...
     
  2. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,097
    2,800
  3. Glenn Holland

    Active Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    503
    202
    A free neutron (one that has been detached from an atom) will decay after about 5 minutes in the ordinary gravitational environment on earth. The products of the decay are an electron, proton, and an antineutrino.

    However a neutron star (an enormous "neutron singularity") can be stable for 100s of millions of years and I believe the intense gravity of a neutron star somehow inhibits the decay process.

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...neutrons-against-beta-decay-in-a-neutron-star

    But according to "Glenn's (Wrong Most Of The Time) Theory" if the gravitational field is somehow weakened or neutralized by the presence of another neutron star, that might allow beta decay to occur.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  4. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,097
    2,800
    It is not a Singularity, that would be a black hole. I don't know the answer, but intense gravitational fields do slow the flow of time. Last I'v heard the flow of time inside the event horizon may be negative. One of several reasons It is said the laws of physics break down inside an event horizon.
     
  5. cmartinez

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    4,436
    5,081
    Actually, they don't... they break down at the sigularity...
     
  6. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    21,097
    2,800
    Which the event horizon Defines the edges of the singularities domain. The Evennt Horizon (EH) isolates the singularity from the rest of our universe,inside the EH is outside our universe, It is the point of no escape for photons or any particle with mass Everything at that point goes to the singularity.. Tachyons may be exempt but they are theoretical. Some math predicts time and space flip places within the EH The rule of physics are truly different there.
     
  7. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    3,868
    4,040
    We theorize that 'space' between the ergosphere and the Event Horizon of a BH is moving at FTL speeds Matter can't move that fast so it warps the normal spacetime interface we see.

     
    cmartinez likes this.
  8. Glenn Holland

    Active Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    503
    202
    The so called "Spacetime" model is rather obscure and the "Wave/Particle Duality" provides a better explanation of the behavior of matter moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light and also what happens when light or matter approach a black hole.

    Light is an energy wave with zero rest mass, but it carries momentum like an object with rest mass. Gravity can also exert a force on light and according to some theories, light may also exert a gravitational force.

    I believe the mathematical calculations for the WP Duality also lead to the same results as the spacetime version.
     
  9. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    3,868
    4,040
    Good points but totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Spacetime and Wave/Particle Duality are theories about different aspects of the universe as a whole. The WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY is a property of SPACETIME. Spacetime isn't made up of particles. It is filled with it. Exactly how they are related in a unified theory is the question.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  10. BR-549

    Distinguished Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    3,202
    780
    If we look at a basketball with a black and white camera, the ball will look grey.
    If we use a color camera the ball looks brown. But we don't say the ball is grey and brown at the same time, do we?

    Of course not, and neither should one with particles. It's just the way you look at/measure things.
    If anyone thinks that that unified theory will prove a link between space-time and particle duality......your wasting your time. A particle has a field, not a wave. But modern science does not realize that there is a difference. So there is no duality. And of course.....time is not a property of, or related to, space.

    The unified theory is suppose to explain the commonality or common cause of the gravitational force with the electromagnetic force. You may ignore the weak and strong nuclear forces.......they don't exist.
    The unified theory is suppose to unify the forces.

    Which I have done for you.
     
  11. Glenn Holland

    Active Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    503
    202
    There are a lot of errors in the "semantics" about how some people explain how the wave-particle duality works.

    I've seen statements from supposedly competent people saying that "Particles 'sometimes' have properties like waves and waves 'sometimes' have properties like particles".

    However, a more correct statement would be that "Most particles 'always' have properties like waves and most waves 'always' have properties like particles", but the significant effects of those properties depends on the mass and size of the particles."
     
  12. cmartinez

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 17, 2007
    4,436
    5,081
    And wether they're being observed or not...
     
  13. Glenn Holland

    Active Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    503
    202
    I just recently took up the subject of particle/waves and quantum mechanics and I've learned it's something that requires very careful attention to written communication skills.

    I called humorously call myself a "Physics Attorney" because choosing the exact wording to describe a particular phenomenon is a meticulous process in its self.
     
  14. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    3,868
    4,040
    Now you understand why scientist/engineers tend to use mathematics to describe state variables, constraints and structured equations as interactions. It's not perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than simple easily misinterpreted qualitative explanations of complex subjects.
     
    xox and cmartinez like this.
  15. bogosort

    Member

    Sep 24, 2011
    29
    11
    The modern view (for the last 50 years or so) is that there is no particle-wave duality, because there are no particles, only fields. While it is sometimes convenient to talk about, e.g., an electron as if it were a point-like particle, they're really just standing waves in the electron field. From this perspective, the wave-particle paradox disappears, and the uncertainty principle makes obvious sense.
     
  16. Glenn Holland

    Active Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    503
    202
    An electron that is setting perfectly still relative to its point of observation does have the appearance of a particle -IE- its diameter is twice the "Classical Electron Radius". However, a moving electron propagates with a wavelength ( = Planck's Constant / Momentum) which is longer than the classical radius.

    Furthermore, anything with rest mass can be considered as a particle (or a large group of particles like a bowling ball) and these particles can also move as a wave propagation. That's the essence of the term "Wave particle Duality". If the particle has very small dimensions (such as electrons, atoms, molecules, etc.) the effect of the duality is quite significant on the behavior of the particle.

    However, the wave propagation of common objects (like a bowling ball) does have a not significant effect on the behavior of the ball.
     
  17. bogosort

    Member

    Sep 24, 2011
    29
    11
    That was the early 20th century view, classical quantum mechanics. But that view is insufficient as a physical theory; for example, in quantum mechanics you can't explain photon emission/absorption by electrons. Nor can you explain nuclear decay, or any other particle-antiparticle interaction. For these (and many more physical processes) you need quantized field theories, in which there are no particles -- all the stuff in the universe, including "empty" space, is made up of fields -- and there are no forces, just interactions between fields.

    The king daddy of quantum field theories is the standard model. This is by far the most successful (in terms of measurement accuracy and scope) physical theory we've ever had. You're of course free to continue thinking of electrons as little balls orbiting around atoms, but that view is less realistic than the old geocentric model of the solar system.
     
  18. Glenn Holland

    Active Member

    Dec 26, 2014
    503
    202
    I previously said the effect of the wavelength of matter was not significant when dealing with large objects, but the wavelength is significant when dealing with extremely small objects such as electrons, protons, atoms, and molecules.

    I'm also quite familiar with the effect of the wave propagation of the electron (and its role in quantum mechanics) and the obsolete Bohr model of the atom which was based on electrons as being balls orbiting the nucleus.
     
  19. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    3,868
    4,040
    I guess it's impolite to call total BS on this personal theory as being totally unscientific and out of touch with all experimental data.
     
    cmartinez likes this.
  20. BR-549

    Distinguished Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    3,202
    780
    "I guess it's impolite to call total BS on this personal theory as being totally unscientific and out of touch with all experimental data."

    My explanations are not MY personal theories. It is based on the experiments of Ampere, Weber and Parsons......and many others. I do have some ideas working off the fundamentals.....but everyone can do that.

    This model explains your data physically and more accurately. It explains the quantum steps perfectly. And predicts better than your QM.

    Structure is the cause of functionality. Not energy equations.

    Think about how two perpendicular rotations can explain an orbit, much better than an elliptic.

    The simplicity, beauty and elegance alone, are worth the study.
     
Loading...