What is needed to creat Proton?

[OceanBreeze]

On 4/8/2024 at 5:08 PM, Dandav said:

So do we agree that neutron star can create particle/antiparticle pairs including photons and exotic particles by its mighty MAGNETOSPHERE?

 

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

If so, could it be that our current particles list/table is not fully updated?

From what I can gather from reading various sources, researchers have used gravitational wave signals, along with new theoretical and particle physics, to produce new calculations which indicate the cores of the most massive neutron stars are so dense, atomic nuclei cease to exist, condensing into quark matter.

The researchers conclude that the cores of the most massive neutron stars are made up of an exotic 'soup' of subatomic particles called quarks, and various bound states of quarks.

This is a deuteron, where a neutron and proton are bound together. In a neutron star, many neutrons bound together produce an array of “udd” bound states of quarks:

Image credit: CERN / European Organization for Nuclear Research,  http://www.physik.uzh.ch/

 

But based on my limited understanding, I will attempt to answer the question you posed earlier:

Quote: “So do we agree that neutron star can create particle/antiparticle pairs including photons and exotic particles by its mighty MAGNETOSPHERE?” Unquote

 

No, I don’t agree it is the Neutron Star’s Magnetosphere that is responsible for the creation of particles. Instead,  it is the extremely high-pressure conditions inside the neutron star that causes the neutrons to fuse together, making the neutron star essentially one big nucleus, with a density over 100 trillion times that of water, just at the base of the crust.

But density is expected to increase the deeper you go, and the new research, using gravitational waves, indicates under high-enough heat and density, neutrons break down even further into their constituent quarks, creating a sort of quark soup.

As Victor correctly pointed out in his post, Quote: I don't think a magnetic field's energy can be directly converted into photons or Higgs Bosons. It is the proton collision that converts the energy into these particles at CERN. The Magnetic Field just accelerates the charged Protons to near the speed of light and it is not a direct conversion of energy at CERN from magnetic to massive particles. Unquote

Particle creation then, either requires high-speed collisions or extremely high pressure and density to cause neutrons to fuse together and then break down into an exotic soup of quark constuents.

What role the powerful X-ray and optical emissions from the nebula play in the formation of particles is not clear. There is no doubt that charged particles are accelerating to extreme energies to produce the jets and rings glowing in X-rays. But without collisions, can there be particle production?

Wait, how about when two Neutron stars collide? As neutron stars merge, a hot ring with some quarks forms around the center. Then a very hot region forms in the center with lots of quarks.

In this case, it does seem that all requirements are met regarding collisions plus the magnetic jets can play a significant role in accelerating particle collisions to produce exotic particles.

 

In fact some physicists think colliding neutron stars may hint at new physics that could explain dark matter, which may answer your other perceptive question: quote: If so, could it be that our current particles list/table is not fully updated? unquote

That may indeed be the case, much more research is required.

 

 

 

[Vmedvil]

18 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

However, I wonder what kind of particles creation they see that are called exotic particles.

Does it mean unknown Bosons/quarks...?

If so, could it be that our current particles list/table is not fully updated?

Here are some examples of exotic particles which are called pentaquarks, Link = Physicists discover long-sought 'pentaquark' particle | NSF - National Science Foundation

"A pentaquark is a human-made subatomic particle, consisting of four quarks and one antiquark bound together; they are not known to occur naturally, or exist outside of experiments specifically carried out to create them."

They are still constructed of the same standard quarks, but they are not in a standard meson or baryon configuration which mesons are a quark and anti-quark along with Baryons are three quarks or three anti-quarks.

"Any of a family of subatomic particles that are composed of a quark and an antiquark. Their masses are generally intermediate between leptons and baryons, and they can have positive, negative, or neutral charge. Mesons form a subclass of hadrons and include the kaon, pion and J/psi particles."

Link = Meson - Wikipedia

"hadron, any member of a class of subatomic particles that are built from quarks and thus react through the agency of the strong force. The hadrons embrace mesons, baryons (e.g., protons, neutrons, and sigma particles), and their many resonances."

Link = Hadron | Particle, Interactions, Quarks | Britannica

 

Basically, the exotic particles are still composed of quarks however are not in those configurations described above which makes them exotic particles.

 

 

 

Edited April 10 by Vmedvil

[Dandav]

 

On 4/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, OceanBreeze said:

In fact some physicists think colliding neutron stars may hint at new physics that could explain dark matter, which may answer your other perceptive question: quote: If so, could it be that our current particles list/table is not fully updated? unquote

That may indeed be the case, much more research is required.

On 4/10/2024 at 2:04 PM, Vmedvil said:

Basically, the exotic particles are still composed of quarks however are not in those configurations described above which makes them exotic particles.

Thanks for your answers

On 4/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, OceanBreeze said:

Wait, how about when two Neutron stars collide? As neutron stars merge, a hot ring with some quarks forms around the center. Then a very hot region forms in the center with lots of quarks.

What could be the outcome of this kind of collision?

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-astronomy/chapter/pulsars-and-the-discovery-of-neutron-stars/

"Einstein predicted that something special happens when two bodies—such as planets or stars—orbit each other. He believed that this kind of movement could cause ripples in space. These ripples would spread out like the ripples in a pond when a stone is tossed in. Scientists call these ripples of space gravitational waves.

Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). These waves squeeze and stretch anything in their path as they pass by."

In the following article it is stated that a typical lifetime of a pulsar is about 10 million years.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-astronomy/chapter/pulsars-and-the-discovery-of-neutron-stars/

"Calculations suggest that the typical lifetime of a pulsar is about 10 million years; after that, the neutron star no longer rotates fast enough to produce significant beams of particles and energy, and is no longer observable. "

Those two nearby pulsars are very energetic.

Therefore, it is expected that they are very young. (1MY, 2My?)

A pulsar at a distance of 1,000LY from us should have a similar orbital radius as the solar system and similar orbital velocity around the galactic center.

Our sun sets one full orbital cycle is 240MY.

Therefore, 1MY  ago (and even 10My ago), this pulsar should still be very close to us.

If 10MY ago the core of this pulsar had been created by the merging process of two Neutron stars, then the outcome must be severe gravitational waves.

Therefore, don't you agree that Gravitational waves from a distance of only 1,000 LY traveling at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), should squeeze and stretch the solar system?

Even if the neutron star of this pulsar has been created by supernova, the Earth might not support life any more.

So, how can we explain the existence of so energetic and young pulsars next to our face?

Edited April 13 by Dandav

[Dandav]

On 4/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, OceanBreeze said:

From what I can gather from reading various sources, researchers have used gravitational wave signals, along with new theoretical and particle physics, to produce new calculations which indicate the cores of the most massive neutron stars are so dense, atomic nuclei cease to exist, condensing into quark matter.

The researchers conclude that the cores of the most massive neutron stars are made up of an exotic 'soup' of subatomic particles called quarks, and various bound states of quarks.

 

On 4/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, OceanBreeze said:

density is expected to increase the deeper you go, and the new research, using gravitational waves, indicates under high-enough heat and density, neutrons break down even further into their constituent quarks, creating a sort of quark soup.

I fully agree that the idea of quarks soup instead of neutrons is much more realistic, as quarks have electric charge while neutrons are netural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

The neutron is a subatomic particle, , which has a neutral (not positive or negative) charge.

How a star which is made out of netural subatomic particles could create any sort of electric current flow and establish strong electromagnetic fields?

 Therefore, why do we prefer to call it neutron star?

Can we really observe the neutrons in that star?

Why after a supernova or collision/merge and due to gravitational waves, under high-enough heat and density, the atoms in the star don't break down directly into their constituent quarks, creating a sort of quark soup?

If so, why don't we call it Quark star instead of Neutron star?

Edited April 13 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

On 4/12/2024 at 1:40 PM, Dandav said:

 

I fully agree that the idea of quarks soup instead of neutrons is much more realistic, as quarks have electric charge while neutrons are netural.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

The neutron is a subatomic particle, , which has a neutral (not positive or negative) charge.

How a star which is made out of netural subatomic particles could create any sort of electric current flow and establish strong electromagnetic fields?

 Therefore, why do we prefer to call it neutron star?

Can we really observe the neutrons in that star?

Why after a supernova or collision/merge and due to gravitational waves, under high-enough heat and density, the atoms in the star don't break down directly into their constituent quarks, creating a sort of quark soup?

If so, why don't we call it Quark star instead of Neutron star?

A Neutron star is so called, because it has under gone gravitational collapse, where protons and electrons, are forced together, into a dense stellar remnant, that has exceeded electron degeneracy pressure, but still this side of neutron degeneracy pressure.  In short, the maths support them, as does observational data. Quark stars, are still theoretical at this time, but is probably thought to exist at the core of Neutron stars, where pressures are at the very top end of EDP and just shy of NDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter        

A quark star is a hypothetical type of compact, exotic star, where extremely high core temperature and pressure have forced nuclear particles to form quark matter, a continuous state of matter consisting of free quarks.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star

Edited April 14 by oldpaddoboy

[Dandav]

On 4/14/2024 at 12:40 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

A Neutron star is so called, because it has under gone gravitational collapse, where protons and electrons, are forced together, into a dense stellar remnant, that has exceeded electron degeneracy pressure, but still this side of neutron degeneracy pressure.  In short, the maths support them, as does observational data.

Observation -

Do we really observe the surface of the Neutron star and see that it is made out of Neutrons?

How can we distinguish between neutrons, protons or quarks from a distance of at least 1,000LY?

Maths- 

The Math supports the idea of pair production by quark star with strong magnetic fields: 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/502675/pdf

ELECTRON-POSITRON PAIR PRODUCTION IN THE ELECTROSPHERE OF QUARK STARS

The electron-positron pair creation in the electrosphere takes place very close to the surface of the quark star, which represents the boundary of the system. Therefore, electron-positron pair creation is localized to the half-space z  0, and the pair creation takes place in electric field localized to a bounded region in the space. Boundary effects in electron-positron pair creation by electric fields confined in a finite region of space have been previously investigated, with the general result that finite-size effects induce large deviations of the production rate from what one deduces from the Schwinger formula (Wang & Wong 1988; Martin & Vautherin 1988, 1989).

 

The presence of a surface magnetic field H can also enhance the pair production rate (Nikishov 1970). The magnetic field increases the pair production rate by a factor of H ¼ H /E cothð Þ H /E . If H 3E, there will be a significant increase in the pair production rate. The electric field of the electrosphere could be as high as E ¼ 40Ecr 120 MeV2 . On the other hand, the estimated magnetic fields at the surface of the quark stars could be of the order of H 1015 1017 G 20 2000 MeV2 (1 G ¼ 1:953 ; 1014 MeV2 ). Magnetic fields with such high values may be present in very young quark stars. Assuming equipartition of energy, the energy of the differential rotation can be converted into magnetic energy, so that I2ð Þ / ð Þ 4/3 R3 H2 ð Þ /8 , where I is the moment of inertia of the star, R is its radius, and and  are the angular velocity and the variation of the angular velocity, respectively. Therefore, the magnetic field of a young quark star can be approximated as H 104ð Þ / 1=2 MeV2 . By assuming that / 0:03, we can obtain values of the magnetic field as high as H 2000 MeV2 . Of course magnetic fields of such strength are not stable because they will be pushed to and through the surface by buoyant forces and then reconnect (Kluzniak & Ruderman 1998). For a magnetic field of the order of H 2000 MeV2 we have H 53. Therefore, strong magnetic fields can significantly increase the electron-positron pair production rate and, consequently, the luminosity of the electrosphere of quark stars.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.15830.pdf

Schwinger Pair Production and Vacuum Birefringence around High Magnetized Neutron Stars

SCHWINGER PAIR PRODUCTION The Schwinger pair production and vacuum decay originates from the poles of HES action (4). The pair production rate per unit Compton four-volume is R(r, θn; B0/Bc) = a˜ ˜bm4 8π 2 coth π a˜ ˜b e −π/˜b ,

 

Are we willing to accept the math and the understanding that pair production is feasible by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields?

If no, would you kindly offer the math that contradicts the above calculation/understanding?

Edited April 20 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

1 hour ago, Dandav said:

Are we willing to accept the math and the understanding that pair production is feasible by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields?

If no, would you kindly offer the math that contradicts the above calculation/understanding?

I see know reason why we shouldn't accept the maths and the observational evidence of neutron stars. That is the overwhelmingly supported mainstream opinion and stance. If one "thinks" he has evidence invalidating the mainstream concept, then one should write up a scientific paper for peer review.  

No, I cannot offer the maths contradicting your so called calculation/understanding, I'm not a physicist, but I'm sure if the calculations are valid, and you include them in your scientific paper, with any other so called evidence you have, then it certainly would be considered...Remembering of course that most new theories need to run the gauntlet to be accepted. 

A reminder again though, that any Plasma/Electric universe model was debunked decades ago. best of luck anyway.

[Dandav]

2 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

I see know reason why we shouldn't accept the maths and the observational evidence of neutron stars.

Thanks

The math proves that pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields is feasible.

I have offered two valid sources for that calculation/math

 

2 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

If one "thinks" he has evidence invalidating the mainstream concept, then one should write up a scientific paper for peer review.  

 

It isn't my personal believe or wish.

Those scientific papers fully support that understanding.

We can find several more at the web.

 

2 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

I'm sure if the calculations are valid, and you include them in your scientific paper, with any other so called evidence you have, then it certainly would be considered...Remembering of course that most new theories need to run the gauntlet to be accepted. 

The calculation which were presented in the articles is valid.

2 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

No, I cannot offer the maths contradicting your so called calculation/understanding, I'm not a physicist,

 

Thanks

Hence, we all should accept the Math that pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields is feasible.

2 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

A reminder again though, that any Plasma/Electric universe model was debunked decades ago

I have never heard about Plasma/Electric universe theory.

What is it?

2 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

That is the overwhelmingly supported mainstream opinion and stance.

Please be aware that the pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields doesn't contradict the current mainstream that most of the pairs had been created by the Big Bang.

2 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

best of luck anyway.

Thanks

Again, the pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields is not my personal wish.

It is real as it had been proved by math. 

Edited April 20 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

5 hours ago, Dandav said:

I have never heard about Plasma/Electric universe theory.

What is it?

You asked me that earlier on page 1. I gave a brief explanation, but I also find it hard to accept that someone as seemingly knowledgeable as yourself has not heard of the Electric/Plasma universe hypothesis.  There was also a book out pushing the same stuff entitled "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology    

 

5 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

Please be aware that the pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields doesn't contradict the current mainstream that most of the pairs had been created by the Big Bang.

 

Then you have my apologies for suggesting anything else from your questions and posts. But others here, far more knowledgeable than my scant knowledge, have answered you and given links. Yet you continue to appear less then satisfied with those answers, which are oi course all mainstream answers. If I haven't yet made my position clear, (for what it is worth) I support the existing overwhelmingly supported mainstream model of cosmology, and the fact that gravity and gravitational collapse is responsible in the main, for the universe we see today, and all it contains. Perhaps to clear my befuddled brain, you can now either agree or disagree with that proposition. Please though note, that I am not saying that is all there is and that the current model will never change. The JWST is currently making many observations that seem to at least be putting a dint in the time frames of the universe and the way it is, including the when of the formation of our first stars and galaxies. There is much yet that we do not know. 

5 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

Again, the pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields is not my personal wish.

It is real as it had been proved by math. 

And using your own words, that does not stray from the current mainstream model and observations. So again, perhaps I have not yet realized what it is you are trying to claim. 

[oldpaddoboy]

Another point to consider....

7 hours ago, Dandav said:

Please be aware that the pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields doesn't contradict the current mainstream that most of the pairs had been created by the Big Bang.

Thanks

Again, the pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields is not my personal wish.. 

You seem rather attracted to quark stars? As mentioned previously, they are still hypothetical and have not as yet been observed. "IF" they did exist, they would obviously be a balancing point between Neutron stars and black holes. Being on such a balancing point, it would be fair to assume, that just a little push would send them to oblivion, and black hole status. So the question must then be asked, how long could such a strange/quark star even exist?  

 

[Dandav]

17 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

You seem rather attracted to quark stars? As mentioned previously, they are still hypothetical and have not as yet been observed. "IF" they did exist, they would obviously be a balancing point between Neutron stars and black holes. Being on such a balancing point, it would be fair to assume, that just a little push would send them to oblivion, and black hole status. So the question must then be asked, how long could such a strange/quark star even exist?  

Do you have an idea what is a Neutron star?

Let me help:

https://www.nasa.gov/universe/nasas-nicer-probes-the-squeezability-of-neutron-stars/

 

It is stated:

"Scientists think neutron stars are layered. At the surface, a thin atmosphere of hydrogen or helium atoms rests on a solid crust of heavier atoms. In the crust, the rapid increase in pressure strips electrons from atomic nuclei. Deeper down, in the outer core, the nuclei split into neutrons and protons. The immense pressure crushes together protons and electrons to form a sea of mostly neutrons that are eventually packed together at up to twice the density of an atomic nucleus."

 

So, what do we really see/observe?

Do you agree that at the best case we can only observe its Atmosphere and maybe its outer crust?

If so, we only see - Hydrogen, Helium, carbon, Ions and electrons.

Not even a single word about Neutrons or protons that we can see.

Therefore, let's agree that we can't observe neutrons in Neutron star.

The scientists think that the outer core is made out of protons while the inner crust is made out of ions and Neutrons.

They have no idea about the structure of the deep core.

The layered idea is a wishful thinking about this compact object.

Some scientists call it - Neutron star, some other Quark star.

If you wish you can call it layered star or even Abra Cadabra star.

Therefore, Neutron star is just a name for an object that is layered.

I personally prefer to join those scientists that call it quark star.

Any objection?

 

 

Edited April 21 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

4 hours ago, Dandav said:

Do you have an idea what is a Neutron star?  

 

Sure I do! As I described in a previous post, thus....

 

On 4/14/2024 at 7:40 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

A Neutron star is so called, because it has under gone gravitational collapse, where protons and electrons, are forced together, into a dense stellar remnant, that has exceeded electron degeneracy pressure, but still this side of neutron degeneracy pressure.  In short, the maths support them, as does observational data. Quark stars, are still theoretical at this time, but is probably thought to exist at the core of Neutron stars, where pressures are at the very top end of EDP and just shy of NDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter        

A quark star is a hypothetical type of compact, exotic star, where extremely high core temperature and pressure have forced nuclear particles to form quark matter, a continuous state of matter consisting of free quarks.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star

In other words, while quark matter may exist at the cores of Neutron stars, the greater bulk of matter is neutrons, as even your own link suggests .... "

"In traditional models of a typical neutron star, one with about 1.4 times the Sun’s mass, physicists expect the inner core to be mostly filled with neutrons. The lower density ensures that neutrons remain far enough apart to stay intact, and this inner stiffness results in a larger star.

In more massive neutron stars like J0740, the inner core’s density is much higher, crushing the neutrons closer together. It’s unclear whether neutrons can remain intact under these conditions or if they instead break down into quarks. Theorists suspect they shatter under the pressure, but many questions about the details remain."

4 hours ago, Dandav said:

 The immense pressure crushes together protons and electrons to form a sea of mostly neutrons that are eventually packed together at up to twice the density of an atomic nucleus."

 

4 hours ago, Dandav said:

Therefore, let's agree that we can't observe neutrons in Neutron star.

I would rather agree that we have followed what the Newtonian laws of physics and general relativity have indicated, as supported by the maths and NDP, (Neutron Degeneracy Pressure)  NOTE: Likewise we are pretty confident that stars in the main sequence, are a product of nuclear fusion, as our laws of physics and GR tell us. 

4 hours ago, Dandav said:

Some scientists call it - Neutron star, some other Quark star.

In my experiences, and even according to your own link, scientists all call it a Neutron star or Pulsar. 

4 hours ago, Dandav said:

Therefore, Neutron star is just a name for an object that is layered.

And who's greater bulk are neutrons, as the laws of physics and GR tell us...hence the name Neutron star. 

4 hours ago, Dandav said:

I personally prefer to join those scientists that call it quark star.

Any objection?

Me? I'll stick to convention and the mainstream knowledge supported by scientific theory.

Edited April 21 by oldpaddoboy

[oldpaddoboy]

On 4/21/2024 at 12:15 AM, Dandav said:

Please be aware that the pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields doesn't contradict the current mainstream that most of the pairs had been created by the Big Bang.

Thanks

Again, the pair production by neutron/quark star with strong magnetic fields is not my personal wish.

It is real as it had been proved by math. 

Then in conclusion, we can both agree, that the existing overwhelmingly supported mainstream model of cosmology, and the fact that gravity and gravitational collapse is responsible in the main, for the universe we see today, and all it contains. Perhaps to clear my befuddled brain, you can now either agree or disagree with that proposition. Please though note, that I am not saying that is all there is and that the current model will never change. The JWST is currently making many observations that seem to at least be putting a dint in the time frames of the universe and the way it is, including the when of the formation of our first stars and galaxies. There is much yet that we do not know. 

 

Let's also agree, that other then quark matter "possibly" existing in the inner regions of verified Neutron stars, that any hypothetical "stand alone" quark star,  "IF" they did exist, they would obviously be a balancing point between Neutron stars and black holes. Being on such a balancing point, it would be fair to assume, that just a little push would send them to oblivion, and black hole status. So the question must then be asked, how long could such a strange/quark star even exist?  

Edited April 21 by oldpaddoboy

[Dandav]

On 4/21/2024 at 10:29 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

Let's also agree, that other then quark matter "possibly" existing in the inner regions of verified Neutron stars, that any hypothetical "stand alone" quark star,  "IF" they did exist, they would obviously be a balancing point between Neutron stars and black holes. Being on such a balancing point, it would be fair to assume, that just a little push would send them to oblivion, and black hole status. So the question must then be asked, how long could such a strange/quark star even exist?  

Excellent question!

In the following article it is stated:

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/measuring-neutron-stars-exactly/

"Neutron stars are extremely dense balls of almost pure neutrons, in which roughly 1.4 times the mass of the Sun resides in a sphere about 30 kilometers (20 miles) across. Their exact diameters should tell about possible exotic new states of matter inside them. But measuring their sizes reliably is tough.

Both groups examined spectral lines of X-ray emission from iron atoms in superhot gas that's orbiting at about 40% of light speed just above the neutron stars' surfaces.

We're seeing the gas whipping around just outside the neutron star's surface," said Edward Cackett (University of Michigan), in a press release. "And since the inner part of the disk obviously can't orbit any closer than the neutron star's surface, these measurements give us a maximum size of the neutron star's diameter. The neutron stars can be no larger than 18 to 20.5 miles across [29 to 33 kilometers], results that [confirm] other types of measurements."

So, we're seeing the gas whipping around just outside the neutron star's surface, orbiting at about 40% of light speed just above the neutron stars' surfaces.

Based on the observation, the inner part of the disk measurements is 18 to 20.5 miles across.

However, although the Neutron star sphere is expected to be at about 20 miles, we don't see it at all.

To make it even more complicated it is stated:

https://www3.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/probe_matter.html

"We've seen these asymmetric lines from many black holes, but this is the first confirmation that neutron stars can produce them as well. It shows that the way neutron stars accrete matter is not very different from that of black holes, and it gives us a new tool to probe Einstein’s theory," says Strohmayer.

Therefore, the observation proves:

1. We can clearly see the inner side of the gas disk at about 20.5 miles across,

2. Although it is expected that Neutron star would be in this size, we don't see it. Nothing is there to be observed.

3. This neutron star produces asymmetric lines as we see from many black holes.

Therefore, if we see someting that looks like an elephant, walks like an elephant, makes a noise of an elephant, smells like an elephant, massive as an elephant, then could it be that we see an elephant?

In other words, as we can't see any object below the inner side of the Neutron gas ring, while it produces asymmetric lines as we see from many black holes, then why do we refuse to accept the idea that the object at the Neutron star' core might be a Black hole?

 

Edited April 25 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

12 hours ago, Dandav said:

In other words, as we can't see any object below the inner side of the Neutron gas ring, while it produces asymmetric lines as we see from many black holes, then why do we refuse to accept the idea that the object at the Neutron star' core might be a Black hole?

Simply put, because scientists, astronomers and cosmologists, put their trust in the mathematics and the equations of general relativity.  That includes of course the EDP equations and the NDP equations, plus the orbital speeds of stars and spacetime itself, orbiting such  exotic matter stars. We can also now add the relatively new science of gravitational waves as an indicator. We have no reason to doubt them as yet, and every reason to trust them. General relativity has a pretty good track record so far.  

The following describes it far better then I.......

https://astrobites.org/2018/11/19/what-does-a-neutron-star-actually-look-like/

 

Edited April 25 by oldpaddoboy

[Dandav]

On 4/25/2024 at 10:16 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

Simply put, because scientists, astronomers and cosmologists, put their trust in the mathematics and the equations of general relativity.  That includes of course the EDP equations and the NDP equations, plus the orbital speeds of stars and spacetime itself, orbiting such  exotic matter stars. We can also now add the relatively new science of gravitational waves as an indicator. We have no reason to doubt them as yet, and every reason to trust them.

What is more important?

Observation or theory?

Do you know that Before the 17^th century, people generally believed that Earth was at the center of the universe. 

On 7 January 1610 Galileo used his telescope, with optics superior to what had been available before. He described "three fixed stars, totally invisible by their smallness", all close to Jupiter, and lying on a straight line through it.

Galileo, was not afraid to challenge existing beliefs when he published his work in support of the Sun-centered, or heliocentric, Copernican theory.

So, for quite long time scientists, astronomers and cosmologists, put their trust in the mathematics and the equations that Earth is at the center of the universe. 

Galileo observation proved that this theory is incorrect.

In the same token, our scientists, astronomers and cosmologists believe that in the core of Magnetar & Pulsar there is a neutron star.

That might be correct. However, why do we insist that all Pulsars & magnetars are the same?

Don't you agree that there are diffrent kinds of galaxies and stars?

Why there can't be diffrent kinds of magnetars & pulsars?

If we observe a shperical crust in the center of the Magnetar & pulsar, then we can agree that this crust represents a neutron star.

However, if we don't see any crust or any object - just a black hole in the center, while it produces asymmetric lines as we see from many black holes, then why can't we agree that the black hole that we observe is a black hole?

Edited April 27 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

On 4/28/2024 at 6:07 AM, Dandav said:

What is more important?

Observation or theory?

Observation is part and parcel of the scientific methodology, as is mathematical consistency, or the language of physics.

On 4/28/2024 at 6:07 AM, Dandav said:

 

Do you know that Before the 17^th century, people generally believed that Earth was at the center of the universe. 

On 7 January 1610 Galileo used his telescope, with optics superior to what had been available before. He described "three fixed stars, totally invisible by their smallness", all close to Jupiter, and lying on a straight line through it.

Galileo, was not afraid to challenge existing beliefs when he published his work in support of the Sun-centered, or heliocentric, Copernican theory.

So, for quite long time scientists, astronomers and cosmologists, put their trust in the mathematics and the equations that Earth is at the center of the universe. 

Galileo observation proved that this theory is incorrect.

In the same token, our scientists, astronomers and cosmologists believe that in the core of Magnetar & Pulsar there is a neutron star.

That might be correct. However, why do we insist that all Pulsars & magnetars are the same?

 

Mostly wrong actually. The beliefs in those times was in the main, religiously inspired and ruled with an Iron fist, despite what observational and/or experimental data was telling them.  In other words, the scientific method was not applied or adhered to. That is common knowledge. Until Gallileo, Copernicus and Kepler came along, who did adhere to the mathematics involved and the observational data. 

And the most recent observational data, (gravitational waves) from astronomical collisions and mergers, have supplied data aligning with templates pointing to Neutron stars/Pulsars, as well as black holes. Each collision was defined by the devised template. https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/ligo-evol

And for your information, a magnetar is simply another version of a Neutron/Pulsar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar  

In the meantime, we align with the data available and the information gained from observational data, gravitational lensing, and gravitational waves. That is the scientific method. Not simply presuming or guessing what may or may not be. If we are wrong, in time that should be rectified by new and further data. And while we certainly, without question, will make new discoveries, and alter our view on some things, at this time, we can only go on what information we already have. Like I said, general relativity has a pretty good track record, and as an astronomer once told me, any future validated QGT, will most likely entail the big bang anyway.