 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> (BTW, wasn't that *Great* A-Tuin?)
> There's only one.
Well, unless you believe in the Big Bang theory, at least.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I wouldn't want such an object anywhere near me... :P
"Dragon's Egg" by Robert Forward. Very cool book.
Always neat to read sci-fi set in exotic locations (like in orbit around a
neutron star) written by someone who actually understands the physics of it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Try it this way: take a pole and push it into the black hole until it comes
> out the other side. How much pole do you have to push in before it comes out
> the other side? :-)
Sure, but if you push *two* poles in, from opposing sides - how much pole do you
have to push in before they meet?
I think it's a tricky one.
> > (BTW, wasn't that *Great* A-Tuin?)
>
> There's only one.
In one of the stories there were little baby ones. (Or was it just one baby?
Don't recall.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Yes, Neutron Stars are the other freak little brother of blackholes. If the
> immense gravity and pressure isn't enough to impress someone, nor are the small
> size and humongous rotation periods, then perhaps the fact that it's not
> constituted of any chemical element in existance, but mostly neutrons alone,
> should do the trick.
Not only does the core of a neutron star consist (most probably) of
mostly neutrons, but the neutrons are in fact so packed together that
there's no empty space between them (like there is between atoms). The
whole core consists entirely and thoroughly of neutron matter, with no
empty space at all, so the density of the core is the same as the density
of one single neutron, which is *humongous*.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Sure, but if you push *two* poles in, from opposing sides - how much pole do you
> have to push in before they meet?
How do you know if they meet?
> I think it's a tricky one.
Indeed.
> In one of the stories there were little baby ones. (Or was it just one baby?
> Don't recall.)
No, all the planets hatched.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I wouldn't want such an object anywhere near me... :P
> "Dragon's Egg" by Robert Forward. Very cool book.
> Always neat to read sci-fi set in exotic locations (like in orbit around a
> neutron star) written by someone who actually understands the physics of it.
Assuming a neutron star of something like 2 times the mass of the Sun,
with no accretion disc and radio-quiet (ie. it's not a pulsar), would it
be considerably different from orbiting a regular star?
Of course another question is whether such a "peaceful" neutron star
can form in practice...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> whole core consists entirely and thoroughly of neutron matter, with no
> empty space at all, so the density of the core is the same as the density
> of one single neutron, which is *humongous*.
I'm really curious what QM says about this. As I understand it, "density"
doesn't really work that way for elementary particles. Like, in a
"Bose-Einstein Condensate", the "density" of a single particle could be such
that it fills an entire room.
Not that I'm disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm just saying it's one
of those areas where the QM and the GR come together to do something
curious. It's not a big bowl of neurons - it's more a neuron soup. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Assuming a neutron star of something like 2 times the mass of the Sun,
> with no accretion disc and radio-quiet (ie. it's not a pulsar), would it
> be considerably different from orbiting a regular star?
Yes, because you'd be orbiting it several times a second, and the tides
would rip you apart as you try to get into orbit.
That's not the point of the book. It's just cool to read the aside about how
they make it work and such, and how they need another set of masses orbiting
at right angles to their own orbit to counteract the tides and such. The
description of dealing with the neutron star's gravity takes up about as
much as the explanations of the technology on Star Trek do, but it's cool
when it's written by someone who has (for example) actually invented
technology for measuring gravity waves, so you can have a decent idea it
really is how things work.
It would be like reading a cyberpunk book by Alan Turing.
> Of course another question is whether such a "peaceful" neutron star
> can form in practice...
That too. The book, being Sci-Fi, of course, goes far past that simple
postulate. :-) I won't spoil it, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Assuming a neutron star of something like 2 times the mass of the Sun,
> > with no accretion disc and radio-quiet (ie. it's not a pulsar), would it
> > be considerably different from orbiting a regular star?
> Yes, because you'd be orbiting it several times a second, and the tides
> would rip you apart as you try to get into orbit.
Why would you do that? The density of the star doesn't change its mass,
and consequently doesn't change the orbits around it.
The only thing I can think of that would make orbiting a neutron star
not very viable is that neutron stars emit humongous amounts of X rays.
Those are not very healthy.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Why would you do that?
If I recall the story, they were looking for a synchronous orbit. Fiction,
remember? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
