Why Neutron star isn't called Proton star

[Dandav]

Neutron star - Wikipedia

“A neutron star is the collapsed core of a massive supergiant star,

"Neutron stars have a radius on the order of 10 kilometers (6 mi) and a mass of about 1.4 solar masses.”

Hence in a Neutron star all the protons & Neutrons that were collapsed into some sort one mega atom.

As most of the matter in a star (as the sun) is all about protons (Hydrogen - 91% in the sun), we could assume that a Neutron star is actually a proton star.

However, our scientists assume that when a star is collapsed into neutron star its protons are changed to Neutrons by the following process:

Electron capture - Wikipedia

Electron capture (K-electron capture, also K-capture, or L-electron capture, L-capture) is a process in which the proton-rich nucleus of an electrically neutral atom absorbs an inner atomic electron, usually from the K or L electron shells. This process thereby changes a nuclear proton to a neutron and simultaneously causes the emission of an electron neutrino.

p+e → n +νe

However, we all know that Proton and Neutron has a different Quarks.

Proton:

Quarks - Up/Up/Down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#/media/File:Quark_structure_proton.svg

Neutron:

Quarks - Up/Down/Down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron#/media/File:Quark_structure_neutron.svg

Up Mass = 2.2 MeV/c^2

Down Mass = 4.7 MeV/c^2

Electron mass = 0.510 MeV/c^2

Hence, how electron with only 0.510 MeV/c^2 can increase the quark up mass (of a proton) by 2.5 MeV/c^2 (4.7 – 2.2) change its structure from up to down (to Neutron) while it is locked in the proton and even claim that there is a decay energy?

“Since this single emitted neutrino carries the entire decay energy, it has this single characteristic energy.”

Don’t you agree that it is a pure imagination to assume that it is possible to increase the total mass in this process?

As the gravity is so strong why it can’t just force all the protons to stay next to each other and overcome the positive electric charge/force of the proton?

Why is it so important for us to change a proton to Neutron while it is forced to collapse into Neutron star or BH?

Why not - Proton star instead of Neutron star?

Edited November 4, 2022 by Dandav

[Halc]

11 hours ago, Dandav said:

As most of the matter in a star (as the sun) is all about protons (Hydrogen - 91% in the sun), we could assume that a Neutron star is actually a proton star.

Well, as you say subsequently, the ratio of protons to neutrons is far lower in a neutron star due to most of them converting to neutrons. The protons tend to sink to the middle and the electrons at the surface, just like the big atom you describe. The two oppositely charged masses are so far apart that the process must cease shortly after collapse.

11 hours ago, Dandav said:

Hence, how electron with only 0.510 MeV/c^2 can increase the quark up mass (of a proton) by 2.5 MeV/c^2 (4.7 – 2.2) change its structure from up to down (to Neutron) while it is locked in the proton and even claim that there is a decay energy?

You seem to be assuming classical physics where the mass of lego blocks stuck together is the sum of the masses of the individual blocks. A proton for instance masses about 938 MeV, far more than the sum of those three quarks. Most of the mass of something like a proton is binding energy.

11 hours ago, Dandav said:

Don’t you agree that it is a pure imagination to assume that it is possible to increase the total mass in this process?

As a general rule of thumb, if you ask me to agree with something, it must be wrong. This one is no exception. I've never seen you ask us to agree with something that's actually correct.

11 hours ago, Dandav said:

As the gravity is so strong why it can’t just force all the protons to stay next to each other and overcome the positive electric charge/force of the proton?

EM force is 37 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, so no amount of gravity is going to get protons to overcome their repulsive charge. It's pressure (weight of material piled on top) that pushes them together in the core, not gravity. And yes, they do stay next to each other. The strong force helps as well, which is why protons can be so close inside an atom without gravity helping at all.

11 hours ago, Dandav said:

Why is it so important for us to change a proton to Neutron while it is forced to collapse into Neutron star or BH?

We don't change anything. It does it by itself. I suppose it is important to us since we're made of an awful lot of neutrons, most of which were produced in star combustion. We'd not exist without that process.

The process you quote seems inappropriate. It mentions atoms, but there are few atoms (hydrogen atoms say) in the regions of stars where such neutron production takes place. It's almost all plasma, not atoms.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Halc

[Dandav]

41 minutes ago, Halc said:

A proton for instance masses about 938 MeV, far more than the sum of those three quarks. Most of the mass of something like a proton is binding energy.

Thanks Halc

You are fully correct.

More than 99% of the proton comes from the gluons while less than 1% is due to the three quarks (2.2 + 2.2 + 4.7 =9.1 Mev).

Do you agree that we could consider the glouns as some sort of EM energy?

Therefore, can we consider a proton/neutron as some sort of EM cell?

 

41 minutes ago, Halc said:

Well, as you say subsequently, the ratio of protons to neutrons is far lower in a neutron star due to most of them converting to neutrons. The protons tend to sink to the middle and the electrons at the surface, just like the big atom you describe. The two oppositely charged masses are so far apart that the process must cease shortly after collapse.

Sorry, it seems that you have missed the key idea in my question, so please answer the following:

1. Do you confirm that in order to convert a proton to neutron we need to change one of the Up quarks to Down?

2. Do you agree that the mass of the Up quark is only 2.2 MeV while the mass of the down quark is 4.7 Mev ?

3. So how a falling electron with a mass of only 0.5 Mev could increase the up quark mass by 2.5 (4.7 - 2.2) MeV, in order to convert it to down quark while it is already locked in the proton cell?

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Dandav

[Dandav]

45 minutes ago, Halc said:

I suppose it is important to us since we're made of an awful lot of neutrons, most of which were produced in star combustion. We'd not exist without that process.

The process you quote seems inappropriate. It mentions atoms, but there are few atoms (hydrogen atoms say) in the regions of stars where such neutron production takes place. It's almost all plasma, not atoms.

How do you know that Neutron star is all about neutrons?

Can we observe & measure its core?

Do you claim that neutrons can ONLY be created in a Neutron stars?

Therefore, do you confirm that Helium and all the other atoms could only be created after Neutron star is ejected its neutron to space?

How long it could take for Neutron star to eject outwards its Neutrons?

Did we ever observe a Neutron star as it ejects neutrons?

Can you please elaborate about the plasma? Your message is not fully clear to me.

[Halc]

On 11/4/2022 at 3:03 PM, Halc said:

As a general rule of thumb, if you ask me to agree with something, it must be wrong.

Case in point:

On 11/4/2022 at 3:33 PM, Dandav said:

Do you agree that we could consider the glouns as some sort of EM energy?

No, that's silly. Why are you trying to drag EM into something totally something else.

On 11/4/2022 at 3:33 PM, Dandav said:

1. Do you confirm that in order to convert a proton to neutron we need to change one of the Up quarks to Down?

2. Do you agree that the mass of the Up quark is only 2.2 MeV while the mass of the down quark is 4.7 Mev ?

1. No, a quark cannot change from up to down. That would violate the law of conservation of baryon number.

2. The values I google are 2.0 MeV and 4.8 MeV respectively, +/- about a sixth of a MeV each

 

The reactions I'm most familiar with in the production of neutrons is the proton-proton reaction and the CNO cycle, neither of which requires the immediate presence of an electron. I don't think neutron star collapses work that way since it involves mostly heavier nuclei.

 

On 11/4/2022 at 4:05 PM, Dandav said:

How do you know that Neutron star is all about neutrons?

I didn't say that. I don't even know what it would mean for a star to be 'all about' something.

 

On 11/4/2022 at 4:05 PM, Dandav said:

Do you claim that neutrons can ONLY be created in a Neutron stars?

Of course not. The neutrons in you were not created in a neutron star. Most of them get generated in ordinary stars like our sun.

On 11/4/2022 at 4:05 PM, Dandav said:

Therefore, do you confirm that Helium and all the other atoms could only be created after Neutron star is ejected its neutron to space?

Neutron stars don't eject any significant quantity of neutrons into space. For the most part they lack the energy to do so.

Helium is produced in normal stars. Our sun generates about 600 tons of the stuff per second.

On 11/4/2022 at 4:05 PM, Dandav said:

Can you please elaborate about the plasma?

I said that nuclear fusion takes place at temperatures where matter is in plasma state, not in any kind of atomic state like hot gas. There are very few hydrogen atoms in the vicinity of where the neutron production is going on.

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Halc