View Single Post
Old 12-12-2008, 05:00 AM   #19
vanir
Forumite
 
vanir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: south of Gundagai
Posts: 632
Quote:
Why shold we call them neutron stars? Neutron stars are composed of neutrons, their name actually makes sense.
Quote:
well, mostly neutrons anyway.
Like white dwarf stars, neutron stars are degenerate stellar material, whereupon the mass of the stellar remnant is such that its gravitational effect defies the ability of the electromagnetic force to stand up to it. Since there are no electron/proton pairings (which require the electromagnetic force by definition) all the interior matter becomes densely packed neutrons by default, although in superstring terms these retain information (ie. the immediate potential of other/former subatomic properties).

The Schwarzchild, Kerr and Reisner-Nordstr'm solutions exist both as a postulate of what should happen if the strong nuclear force is defied by gravity in the same way as the electromagnetic force postulated by Chandrasekhar (and confirmed by observation); and also as a map of properties for such an object should it exist.

Now this part is extremely confusing, therefore inherently controversial among some (I can provide link/references to a PhD theoretical physicist if need be or suggest using the Physicsforum student resource, the Hyperphysics website and so on...erm, I don't like wikipedia myself, it reminds me of a television show).

The Black Hole models do not describe an object. They describe the properties of an object which is as yet undefined. This would be because once you defy the strong force, there's nothing left to work with. I mean quarks and things is as far as our celebrated physics has gotten, though there are plenty of ideas...most of them amounting to alternatives rather than developments as such. In terms of Black Holes this would be the Superstring Theorists "fuzzy stars". There's not much else which addresses the glaring problem of having a bunch of quite workable properties, nevertheless which describe something so exotic the math experiences singularities (a scientific no-no). It means we effectively disappear the degenerate matter which still necessarily exists at the heart of a Black Hole because there's nothing after neutrons, it's our failure, not a mystical magical object. I strongly suggest one look up "mathematical singularities" for a description of what this "phenomenon" is actually describing (ie. nothing related to the physical universe).

Doesn't mean there are any errors so far though. This is important. Under any workable circumstances the existing solutions should and do work.

This brings us to the next glaring problem. The closest model to a physical Black Hole is the Kerr solution, and this inherently forms a naked singularity given appropriate and quite encounterable conditions. It's an impossible object. An effectively massless ring floating around in space, touch it and it stops time and catapults the speed of light to infinity. In real terms it is the equivalent of a gigantic mathematical equation in bright neon lettering, floating around space causing godlike effects.

Black Holes, whilst describable with our current physics by the working models, do not exist in the form of those models, not really. No scientist or astronomer I am aware of with some frequency at several leading forums, has confirmed empirically what the "physical Black Hole" really looks like or is. It is something, but still quite something of a mystery.

Quote:
Black holes really should be termed 'neutron stars' because it would clearly define that they are physical spheres of highly-compressed matter. Their gravity is so strong that the escape velocity is faster than the speed of light. That is why EMR's can't escape and nearby objects are pulled in by its colossal gravitational pull.

Many still think they are actual holes in space... how does that make sense?
This is closer to accurate than was given credit. Superstring theorists' fuzzy stars is essentially what it was alluding to, whether or not knowingly and the final point is utterly concise. Actual holes in space does not make sense in scientific terms. Not a single PhD physicist thinks so, and I'm lucky enough to be friends with a few.
vanir is offline   you may: quote & reply,