What is needed to creat Proton?

[Vmedvil]

On 4/27/2024 at 4:07 PM, Dandav said:

 

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?

You can calculate based on mass and radius if it is a black hole or not, the core of a neutron star using the Schwarzschild radius equation.

 

Why don't you plug in the numbers for a neutron star's core and see if it is a black hole or not? I think you will find that the mass is too light for a neutron star to be a black hole even at its small radius. This can all be calculated using simple equations that are based on General Relativity. If the R number in the equation is greater than radius of the neutron star where R schwarzchild radius > R neutron star core then it is actually a black hole otherwise if R neutron star core > R schwarzschild Radius then it is not a black hole, but you will need to know the mass of the neutron star's core which will be the M number in the equation.

"Schwarzschild radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. This phenomenon is thought to be the final fate of the more massive stars"

Edited April 29 by Vmedvil

[oldpaddoboy]

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

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?

Because the maths tells us it has not yet exceeded NDP and therefore is simply a Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetar

[oldpaddoboy]

7 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

You can calculate based on mass and radius if it is a black hole or not, the core of a neutron star using the Schwarzschild radius equation.

 

Why don't you plug in the numbers for a neutron star's core and see if it is a black hole or not? I think you will find that the mass is too light for a neutron star to be a black hole even at its small radius. This can all be calculated using simple equations that are based on General Relativity. If the R number in the equation is greater than radius of the neutron star where R schwarzchild radius > R neutron star core then it is actually a black hole otherwise if R neutron star core > R schwarzschild Radius then it is not a black hole, but you will need to know the mass of the neutron star's core which will be the M number in the equation.

"Schwarzschild radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. This phenomenon is thought to be the final fate of the more massive stars"

Well said. While I admit to being mathematically ignorant of the maths involved, I  see no reason why we should ignore the maths and the language of physics. The aspects of EDP and NDP, are each balancing points explaining the stability of white dwarfs and Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetars, and ( as you say) until the Schwarzchild limit is reached, will remain so. Once that is reached, as you say, further collapse is compulsory, at least up to the point we describe as the singularity, and where our laws of physics and GR become obsolete. 

[Dandav]

21 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Because the maths tells us it has not yet exceeded NDP and therefore is simply a Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetar

In the following article it is stated:

https://nathaliedegenaar.com/2011/06/14/peeking-into-the-crust-of-a-neutron-star/

It is the first time that cooling of an accretion-heated neutron star crust has been observed for a neutron star with a “normal” accretion phase of a few weeks.

By comparing the observed change in temperature with theoretical calculations, we found evidence for the presence of (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust. It remains a puzzle what should produce heat at such shallow layers.

Hence, those scientists are puzzled as they have found contradiction between the observation to their theoretical calculations.

So, why are we so sure that there is no error in the math ?

How can we trust the theoretical calculations of those puzzled scientists?

 

On 4/29/2024 at 2:42 PM, Vmedvil said:

Why don't you plug in the numbers for a neutron star's core and see if it is a black hole or not?

Let's look again on a neutron star:

It is stated that it is a layered star.

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

Scientists think neutron stars are layered.

1. Atmosphere - Hydrogen, Helium & Carbons

2. Outer Crust - IONS & Electrons.

3. Inner Crust  -  IONS & superfluid Neutrons

4. Outer Core - supercunducting Protoms

5. Inner Core - Unknown

There is no information about the size of each layer and no explanation why those specific layers had been selected.

The most interesting layer is the inner core which is unkown.

It is stated:

But what form does matter take in the inner core? Is it neutrons all the way down, or do the neutrons break into their own constituent parts, called quarks?

If this layer is made by neutrons, then we should accept the theoretical calculations of those scientists.

However, if it is made by quarks then the theoretical calculations are useless.

How do we know if it is quark layer or neutron layer?

It is stated that Astronomers need precise measurements of both the sizes and masses:

Physicists have been asking this question since Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky proposed the existence of neutron stars in 1934. To answer it, astronomers need precise measurements of both the sizes and masses of these objects. This allows them to calculate the relationship between pressure and density in the star’s inner core and evaluate matter’s ultimate squeezability.

Surprisingly, Astronomers don't see/observe the neutron outer crust and therefore, they can't find the precise measurements for the size of the neutron star.

So, how can we trust the theoretical calculations of those puzzled scientists while they don't see the crust?

Actually, as they don't see the cust of the neutron star, then it proves that the inner core is made by quarks.

Therefore, why do we insist to keep on with the idea of neutron inner core and use  wrong theoretical calculations while the observation contradicts their assumption?

How can they set any valid calculation while they don't have clear understanding about the matter in each layer and its size?

The proton layer is also very interesting.

In the core of an atom, you can't fit two protons without  two nearby Neutrons in order to overcome the repulsive force that acts between two similar charges of protons.

So, would you kindly direct me to the confirmed theoretical calculations of the unknown matter (in the core - Neutrons or quarks?) in an unknown size (of each layer) and overcome the repulsive forces of trillions over trillions protons (in the proton layer)?

 

Edited April 30 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

10 hours ago, Dandav said:

In the following article it is stated:

https://nathaliedegenaar.com/2011/06/14/peeking-into-the-crust-of-a-neutron-star/

It is the first time that cooling of an accretion-heated neutron star crust has been observed for a neutron star with a “normal” accretion phase of a few weeks.

By comparing the observed change in temperature with theoretical calculations, we found evidence for the presence of (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust. It remains a puzzle what should produce heat at such shallow layers.

Hence, those scientists are puzzled as they have found contradiction between the observation to their theoretical calculations.

So, why are we so sure that there is no error in the math ?

How can we trust the theoretical calculations of those puzzled scientists?

Answering your last question first,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

"Most mathematical activity involves the discovery of properties of abstract objects and the use of pure reason to prove them. These objects consist of either abstractions from nature or—in modern mathematics—entities that are stipulated to have certain properties, called axioms. A proof consists of a succession of applications of deductive rules to already established results. These results include previously proved theorems, axioms, and—in case of abstraction from nature—some basic properties that are considered true starting points of the theory under consideration.^[4]

Mathematics is essential in the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, finance, computer science, and the social sciences. Although mathematics is extensively used for modeling phenomena, the fundamental truths of mathematics are independent from any scientific experimentation. Some areas of mathematics, such as statistics and game theory, are developed in close correlation with their applications and are often grouped under applied mathematics. Other areas are developed independently from any application (and are therefore called pure mathematics), but often later find practical applications."

Again, Neutron stars are so called because it aligns with the proven concept of the maths involved, and EDP and NDP.

And of course to repeat myself, there is still much to learn and know about these exotic forms of matter that we label Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetars, particularly with regards to the deeper inner parts. While Neutron stars are essentially made up of neutrons according to the maths, much of the exact nature remains hypothetical, as has already been pointed out to you.

10 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

Scientists think neutron stars are layered.

1. Atmosphere - Hydrogen, Helium & Carbons

2. Outer Crust - IONS & Electrons.

3. Inner Crust  -  IONS & superfluid Neutrons

4. Outer Core - supercunducting Protoms

5. Inner Core - Unknown

Again, Wiki gives a pretty good description according to our incomplete knowledge....  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

Important extracts from the above link...

" Once formed, neutron stars no longer actively generate heat and cool over time, but they may still evolve further through collisions or accretion. Most of the basic models for these objects imply that they are composed almost entirely of neutrons, as the extreme pressure causes the electrons and protons present in normal matter to combine producing neutrons. These stars are partially supported against further collapse by neutron degeneracy pressure, just as white dwarfs are supported against collapse by electron degeneracy pressure. However, this is not by itself sufficient to hold up an object beyond 0.7 M_☉^[4][5] and repulsive nuclear forces play a larger role in supporting more massive neutron stars.^[6][7] If the remnant star has a mass exceeding the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, which ranges from 2.2–2.9 M_☉, the combination of degeneracy pressure and nuclear forces is insufficient to support the neutron star, causing it to collapse and form a black hole. The most massive neutron star detected so far, PSR J0952–0607, is estimated to be 2.35±0.17 M_☉.^["

^"A neutron star has some of the properties of an atomic nucleus, including density (within an order of magnitude) and being composed of nucleons. In popular scientific writing, neutron stars are therefore sometimes described as "giant nuclei". However, in other respects, neutron stars and atomic nuclei are quite different. A nucleus is held together by the strong interaction, whereas a neutron star is held together by gravity. The density of a nucleus is uniform, while neutron stars are predicted to consist of multiple layers with varying compositions and densities"

And the following important information

"

"Current understanding of the structure of neutron stars is defined by existing mathematical models, but it might be possible to infer some details through studies of neutron-star oscillations. Asteroseismology, a study applied to ordinary stars, can reveal the inner structure of neutron stars by analyzing observed spectra of stellar oscillations.^[21]

Current models indicate that matter at the surface of a neutron star is composed of ordinary atomic nuclei crushed into a solid lattice with a sea of electrons flowing through the gaps between them. It is possible that the nuclei at the surface are iron, due to iron's high binding energy per nucleon.^[51] It is also possible that heavy elements, such as iron, simply sink beneath the surface, leaving only light nuclei like helium and hydrogen.^[51] If the surface temperature exceeds 10⁶ kelvins (as in the case of a young pulsar), the surface should be fluid instead of the solid phase that might exist in cooler neutron stars (temperature <10⁶ kelvins).^[51]

The "atmosphere" of a neutron star is hypothesized to be at most several micrometers thick, and its dynamics are fully controlled by the neutron star's magnetic field. Below the atmosphere one encounters a solid "crust". This crust is extremely hard and very smooth (with maximum surface irregularities on the order of millimeters or less), due to the extreme gravitational field.^[52][53]

Proceeding inward, one encounters nuclei with ever-increasing numbers of neutrons; such nuclei would decay quickly on Earth, but are kept stable by tremendous pressures. As this process continues at increasing depths, the neutron drip becomes overwhelming, and the concentration of free neutrons increases rapidly. In that region, there are nuclei, free electrons, and free neutrons. The nuclei become increasingly small (gravity and pressure overwhelming the strong force) until the core is reached, by definition the point where mostly neutrons exist. The expected hierarchy of phases of nuclear matter in the inner crust has been characterized as "nuclear pasta", with fewer voids and larger structures towards higher pressures.^[54] The composition of the superdense matter in the core remains uncertain. One model describes the core as superfluid neutron-degenerate matter (mostly neutrons, with some protons and electrons). More exotic forms of matter are possible, including degenerate strange matter (containing strange quarks in addition to up and down quarks), matter containing high-energy pions and kaons in addition to neutrons,^[21] or ultra-dense quark-degenerate matter"

Again enforcing the mathematically known structure of a Neutron star being of course Neutrons, and the possibility of quark/gluon matter deep within its interior. I have no objection to any of that. 

10 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

The most interesting layer is the inner core which is unkown.

Bingo!!!!

10 hours ago, Dandav said:

If this layer is made by neutrons, then we should accept the theoretical calculations of those scientists.

 

No, we accept exactly what the maths tells us. That the greater part of neutron stars are made up of what the name infers...NEUTRONS.!

10 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

Surprisingly, Astronomers don't see/observe the neutron outer crust and therefore, they can't find the precise measurements for the size of the neutron star.

So, how can we trust the theoretical calculations of those puzzled scientists while they don't see the crust?

Actually, as they don't see the cust of the neutron star, then it proves that the inner core is made by quarks.

On (1) We do have a good idea, considering the "atmosphere" is only millimeters thick, and of course the NDP equation.

On (2) The same way we trust the mathematics of any scientific model, with regards to astronomical distances and such. Far better then unevidenced hypotheticals and guesses.

On (3) You are making many incorrect assumptions. A scientific theory, like any scientific theory, is never "PROVEN" It is only our best estimation according to the evidence available. Proof only applies to mathematics, which as it happens, supports the present scientific model of Neutron/Pulsar/Magnetars. Our inability to not be able to observe the surface directly, in no way infers that the core is composed of quarks. And certainly is not "proof" of such. While the likleyhood of the core being composed of quark/gluon matter is attractive and I personally see no objection to this reasoning.

Edited May 1 by oldpaddoboy

[oldpaddoboy]

What we can be sure of, Neutron stars are observable, unlike black holes which are only inferred. Their crushing gravity and the universe’s strongest magnetic fields, and the extremes of physics, are the norm for Neutron stars. But again, unlike black holes, these exotic objects are observable. “It’s hard to study black holes,” 

And while there is much to learn about them, including the inner structure and possibility of quark/gluon matter, they are supported by the NDP, and nuclear repulsion equations and maths.  

[Dandav]

On 4/30/2024 at 10:39 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

No, we accept exactly what the maths tells us. That the greater part of neutron stars are made up of what the name infers...NEUTRONS

Any idea how this neutron star can create such incredible electromagnetic fields while we all agree that neutrons have no electric charge?

In other words, if we spin that neutron star at ultra speed, why it should generate any electromagnetic fields?

 

 

[oldpaddoboy]

17 minutes ago, Dandav said:

Any idea how this neutron star can create such incredible electromagnetic fields while we all agree that neutrons have no electric charge?

In other words, if we spin that neutron star at ultra speed, why it should generate any electromagnetic fields?

Like you, I am not a scientist, or a physicist. Perhaps you need to rehash all the links so far I have given, and all knowledge that we do possess as far as Neutron stars go. Let me help you in that regard. The important point you seem to have missed, is that while we know and accept that the greater bulk of a Neutron star are Neutrons, we also believe that the whole ball consists of layers of exotic matter under various pressures...much like the layers of an Onion, and our own main sequence star the Sun. Plus of course you have forgotten that its just not one single Neutron involved, and also that Neutrons themselves are not fundamental particles. 

 Anyway, the following explains it far better then I.....https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-are-neutron-stars-magnetic/

"It’s not like having one single, neutral entity at all! And don’t forget that neutrons themselves are not fundamental, neutral particles, they themselves are made up of charged particles that have different charges and masses from one another!

The neutrons themselves have intrinsic magnetic moments (since they’re made up of these charged quarks), and the incredibly high energies inside the neutron star can not only create particle/antiparticle pairs, but can create exotic particles as well. The charged particles that exist inside the neutron star are highly conductive, plus there are still gravitational, density, temperature and conductivity gradients inside of the neutron star.

And at approximately 10 km in radius — with all the angular momentum of a typical Sun-like star — these things rotate at speeds of between 10-and-70% the speed of light!

 

In short, that’s a recipe for a magnetic field on the order of 100 million Tesla, or about a trillion times what we find at the Earth’s surface.

No wonder that’s exactly what we see! Even without being absolutely certain as to what’s happening in the innermost core of a neutron star — whether we have high-energy quarks, muons and taus, or any other types of particles rarely found in nature — conservative, conventional physics in these extreme environments makes an ultra-strong magnetic field all but inevitable."

On 5/1/2024 at 6:39 AM, oldpaddoboy said:

.Still we need to remember that the greater part of neutron stars are made up of what the name infers...NEUTRONS.!

And again, Our inability to not be able to observe the surface directly, in no way infers that the core is composed of quarks. And certainly is not "proof" of such. While the likleyhood of the core being composed of quark/gluon matter is attractive and I personally see no objection to this reasoning. It is of course the magnetic fields that infer the soup of fundamental particles at and near the core. 

Again, I would like to make the observation, that you seem to be supporting a long debunked Plasma/Electric universe hypothetical, despite your denial of such. At any rate, you seem to doing your best to  be arguing against the mainstream model. I invite you then, (going on your insistence and confidence) to write up a scientific paper for proper peer review. Because at this stage, we seem to be going round in circles. 

[oldpaddoboy]

53 minutes ago, Dandav said:

Any idea how this neutron star can create such incredible electromagnetic fields while we all agree that neutrons have no electric charge?

In other woMagnetic Fields of Neutron Starsrds, if we spin that neutron star at ultra speed, why it should generate any electromagnetic fields?

I also add the following for your perusal...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.07106

Magnetic Fields of Neutron Stars:

Abstract.

"This article briefly reviews our current understanding of the evolution of magnetic fields in neutron stars, which basically defines the evolutionary pathways between different observational classes of neutron stars. The emphasis here is on the evolution in binary systems and the newly emergent classes of millisecond pulsars.

Discussions:

The evolutionary pathways, linking different observational classes of neutron stars, has been summarised in Fig.10. It is evident that on the fiftieth year of the discovery of the first radio pulsar, we have unearthed more classes than we have been able to link. Much of the pathways, in particular between the isolated variety, is quite uncertain and is still being explored. It is expected that the number of new neutron stars discovered will increase by a large factor in the near future with the advent of multi-messenger astronomy and future telescopes with better sensitivity and wider frequency coverage. Such increase will definitely improve our understanding of some of today’s ‘uncertain’ pathways but almost certainly will throw up newer challenges."

Hope that helps.

[Dandav]

 

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Like you, I am not a scientist, or a physicist

I’m electronic Engineer with deep knowledge about electromagnetic activities.

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

don’t forget that neutrons themselves are not fundamental, neutral particles, they themselves are made up of charged particles that have different charges and masses from one another!

Correct!

However, if we wish to use the charged particles in the neutron, then by definition we must break the neutron. Once we break it, we get the exotic fundamentals charged quarks / gluon matter.

Therefore, neutron can’t contribute to the creation of electromagnetic energy.

we must break them inorder to use the exotic charged matter as quarks and gluons that are locked inside.

hence, the stronger electromagnetic it generates, the more exotic particles it has (and less neutrons).

 

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

While the likleyhood of the core being composed of quark/gluon matter is attractive and I personally see no objection to this reasoning.

Correct

We agree that the star core is composed by electric charged quark/gloun matter.

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

The neutrons themselves have intrinsic magnetic moments (since they’re made up of these charged quarks),

Again, that is correct if we break the neutron and we can use the exotic charged particles.

 

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

The charged particles that exist inside the neutron star are highly conductive, plus there are still gravitational, density, temperature and conductivity gradients inside of the neutron star.

correct.

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

we also believe that the whole ball consists of layers of exotic matter under various pressures...much like the layers of an Onion,

Yes, I fully accept the idea of different layers of exotic charged matter.

actually, we can compare it to some sort of generator.

in order to create electromagnetic, we need only two layers.  one is the rotor (core layer) and the other one is the stator around the rotor (outer layer)

If we have those two charged layers then we can generate electromagnetic as the rotor would star to rotate with reference to the stator.

The faster it spins, the higher electromagnetic energy it would generate

however, there must be an order in this motions of those layers

The core layer (rotor) must spin at high velocity with reference to the outer layer.

So, the high electromagnetic energy is created due to the motion between the two layers.

Technically, Any motion of quark could potentially generate some electric current / electromagnetic. However, a random motion of quarks inside the star could cancel the total internal currents / electromagnetic.

Please also be aware that if we just spin the whole star it wouldn’t generate any electromagnetic.

Hence, there must be an order between the motion of the core layer to the outer layer.

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

and the incredibly high energies inside the neutron star can not only create particle/antiparticle pairs, but can create exotic particles as well.

so, what is the source of the spinning energy of the core layer with reference to the outer layer?

We agree that there are exotic charged particles as quarks / gluons in the star, but why they are so energetic and why there is an order in the motion of each layer?

On 4/30/2024 at 10:39 PM, oldpaddoboy said:

Below the atmosphere one encounters a solid "crust". This crust is extremely hard and very smooth (with maximum surface irregularities on the order of millimeters or less), due to the extreme gravitational field.^[52][53]

 

The extreme gravity should force the particles together so technically they shouldn’t move at all.

even if there is a motion of the particles, then this motion is random and it is useless for the creation of such ultra strong electromagnetic energy.

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

you seem to doing your best to  be arguing against the mainstream model

No.

I think that Neutron star is a fascinating object and I wish to get better understanding about its activity including the possibility to create particle/antiparticle pairs:

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

and the incredibly high energies inside the neutron star can not only create particle/antiparticle pairs,

I argue about the incorrect data / idea about the neutron star.

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

we know and accept that the greater bulk of a Neutron star are Neutrons

I think that the more exotic particles you have in the core (and less neutrons outward) then this star can generate more electromagnetic energy.

The science community should consider a possibility that if the core is made by sea of quarks then technically it could increase the internal gravity force and the outer neutrons layer should also be transformed into exotic particles.

On 4/29/2024 at 2:42 PM, Vmedvil said:

"Schwarzschild radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse."

In other words, once the neutrons in the core collapse to exotic particles, the outer neutrons layers should also collapse.

hence, I do not claim that the math is incorrect as it is fully correct for a neutron star full with neutrons.

I claim that as we agree that the core of the star is made from neutrinos which had been collapsed to exotic matter, than significant portion of the star should also collapse to exotic matter.

if the science community would set the math for this kind of star, they could find that its size is smaller than the event horizon and therefore we can’t see i.

Hence, we don’t see the crust of the neutron star not because of our inability, but as it is made by exotic particles, it is very compact and small and its radius is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius. Therefore we can’t see it any more.

However, it isn’t a classical black hole with singularity, as it has a volume, but this volume is smaller than our math for a pure neutron star (based on the size of each neutron).

Why can’t we agree on that?

 

9 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Hope that helps

Yes it is.

I highly appreciate your high effort investment.

Edited May 2 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

I’m electronic Engineer with deep knowledge about electromagnetic activities.

That's nice. I'm a retired maintenance fitter/machinist/welder, with a great interest in cosmology, and observant and knowledgable enough to understand that new models and theories do not start on and in science forums such as this or any other. 

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

I’m electronic Engineer with deep knowledge about electromagnetic activities.

Correct!

However, if we wish to use the charged particles in the neutron, then by definition we must break the neutron. Once we break it, we get the exotic fundamentals charged quarks / gluon matter.

Therefore, neutron can’t contribute to the creation of electromagnetic energy.

we must break them inorder to use the exotic charged matter as quarks and gluons that are locked inside.

hence, the stronger electromagnetic it generates, the more exotic particles it has (and less neutrons).

 

My statement still stands...Neutrons are the great bulk of Neutron stars. End of story.

 

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

I think that Neutron star is a fascinating object and I wish to get better understanding about its activity including the possibility to create particle/antiparticle pairs:

Then read some reputable material, including the reputable scientific paper I posted.

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

Please also be aware that if we just spin the whole star it wouldn’t generate any electromagnetic.

I'm aware of the content of the paper I posted, and other reputable material I posted.

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

We agree that there are exotic charged particles as quarks / gluons in the star, but why they are so energetic and why there is an order in the motion of each layer?

 I along with the reputable experts, agree that is a likely  possibility. I also agree that the greater bulk are Neutrons, as the name suggests.

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

The science community should consider a possibility that if the core is made by sea of quarks then technically it could increase the internal gravity force and the outer neutrons layer should also be transformed into exotic particles.

In other words, once the neutrons in the core collapse to exotic particles, the outer neutrons layers should also collapse.

hence, I do not claim that the math is incorrect as it is fully correct for a neutron star full with neutrons.

 

 

The science community is the mainstream. The mainstream is the mainstream for particular reasons that are obvious. If you have any evidence, mathematical calculations or data, deviating from the general model, then write up a scientific paper for peer review. 

6 hours ago, Dandav said:

Hence, we don’t see the crust of the neutron star not because of our inability, but as it is made by exotic particles, it is very compact and small and its radius is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius. Therefore we can’t see it any more.

However, it isn’t a classical black hole with singularity, as it has a volume, but this volume is smaller than our math for a pure neutron star (based on the size of each neutron).

Why can’t we agree on that?

 

No that is obviously wrong, and as I inferred earlier, you make many incorrect assumptions. If the Schwarzchild radius/limit is reached, we would obviously have a black hole. I suggest you research and study the templates of the many gravitational waves that have been now discovered, and note how they very from black hole/black hole mergers, Neutron star/Black hole collisions, Neutron star/Neutron star collisions. In fact from memory, there is also one particular gravitational wave discovery, in August 2017,  when the detectors received gravitational wave signals within 2 seconds of gamma ray satellites and optical telescopes seeing signals from the same direction. This confirmed that the speed of gravitational waves was the same as the speed of light. 

Again as I said earlier

14 hours ago, oldpaddoboy said:

Again, I would like to make the observation, that you seem to be supporting a long debunked Plasma/Electric universe hypothetical, despite your denial of such. At any rate, you seem to doing your best to  be arguing against the mainstream model. I invite you then, (going on your insistence and confidence) to write up a scientific paper for proper peer review. Because at this stage, we seem to be going round in circles.

 

Edited May 2 by oldpaddoboy

[oldpaddoboy]

14 hours ago, Dandav said:

:I argue about the incorrect data / idea about the neutron star.

My final point is that along with your many incorrect, unevidenced assumptions you are making, is the atmosphere surrounding a Neutron star is only millimeters thick, according to one of the articles I posted. Noting that anything within the photon sphere of a black hole will never escape or get away, if it was a black hole, all we should see is the effects of spacetime and of course the accretion disk. In other words, if it was a black hole, we wouldn't even be seeing the atmosphere. Or black holes trap all the surrounding light that crosses its vicinity (within 1.5 Schwarzchild radius) whilst Neutron stars do not.

Edited May 2 by oldpaddoboy

[Vmedvil]

22 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

I’m electronic Engineer with deep knowledge about electromagnetic activities.

I am a Biophysicist and for real a scientist.  I graduated in 2013 from college for this degree and have been working with viral nanotechnology for 8 years along with having been a chemical process operator for 1 year. I want to tell you, I happen to know from my training as one that neutron star's cores are not black holes, the math says otherwise that they cannot be black holes because of the Schwarzschild radius equation, now some of them maybe quark stars however the generally accepted theory is they are neutron degenerate matter. Though, as a Biophysicist this sort of thing is not my speciality which is the physics of living organisms and genetic engineering type technologies.

 

Now, I want you to accept this conclusion.

Edited May 3 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

22 hours ago, Dandav said:

 

Hence, we don’t see the crust of the neutron star not because of our inability, but as it is made by exotic particles, it is very compact and small and its radius is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius. Therefore we can’t see it any more.

 

 

 

The size of a neutron star's core is not smaller than the Schwarzschild radius actually calculate the equation for an actual neutron star. You will find it is not smaller than the Schwarzschild radius making it not a black hole. As for the idea it could be a quark star, that is not the generally accepted theory for this. The generally accepted theory is it is neutron degenerate matter. Some of the more massive neutron stars may actually be quark stars however that has never been proven and there is no evidence they exist.

"Some massive stars collapse to form neutron stars at the end of their life cycle, as has been both observed and explained theoretically. Under the extreme temperatures and pressures inside neutron stars, the neutrons are normally kept apart by a degeneracy pressure, stabilizing the star and hindering further gravitational collapse. However, it is hypothesized that under even more extreme temperature and pressure, the degeneracy pressure of the neutrons is overcome, and the neutrons are forced to merge and dissolve into their constituent quarks, creating an ultra-dense phase of quark matter based on densely packed quarks. In this state, a new equilibrium is supposed to emerge, as a new degeneracy pressure between the quarks, as well as repulsive electromagnetic forces, will occur and hinder total gravitational collapse.

If these ideas are correct, quark stars might occur, and be observable, somewhere in the universe. Such a scenario is seen as scientifically plausible, but it has been impossible to prove both observationally and experimentally, because the very extreme conditions needed for stabilizing quark matter cannot be created in any laboratory nor has it been observed directly in nature. The stability of quark matter, and hence the existence of quark stars, is for these reasons among the unsolved problems in physics."

[oldpaddoboy]

16 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

The size of a neutron star's core is not smaller than the Schwarzschild radius actually calculate the equation for an actual neutron star. You will find it is not smaller than the Schwarzschild radius making it not a black hole.

Bingo!

[Dandav]

Dear Vmedvil & Oldpaddoboy

Thanks for your great support and I fully appreciate your high efforts.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that you have missed some key points in my message.

Therefore, before we continue the discussion, would you kindly advise if we agree on the following Magnetar / Pulsar observation:

A. Ultra-strong Electromagnetic radiation - We observe / detect Ultra strong electromagnetic radiation

B. Gas Disk - We observe a Gas disc / ring full with Hydrogen and Helium orbiting around the star at 0.4 c. The scientists have measured the radius of the inwards ring and it is: 20 Km.

C. No observed star at the center - We have never ever observed the star that should be located at the center of the magnetar / pulsar

D. Presence of (strong) sources of heat - Puzzled scientists have observed evidence for the presence of (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust:

On 4/30/2024 at 5:47 PM, Dandav said:

https://nathaliedegenaar.com/2011/06/14/peeking-into-the-crust-of-a-neutron-star/

It is the first time that cooling of an accretion-heated neutron star crust has been observed for a neutron star with a “normal” accretion phase of a few weeks.

By comparing the observed change in temperature with theoretical calculations, we found evidence for the presence of (strong) sources of heat in the outer layers of the crust. It remains a puzzle what should produce heat at such shallow layers.

Hence, those scientists are puzzled as they have found contradiction between the observation to their theoretical calculations.

Please, at this phase do not try to explain why we don't see the star. Just tell if you confirm those observations.

If you don't agree with those observations and you think that we have different observation (for example - if we really see the star in the center of the pulsar / magnetar), then please offer the article to confirm any contradicted observation.

 

Edited May 4 by Dandav

[oldpaddoboy]

34 minutes ago, Dandav said:

Please, at this phase do not try to explain why we don't see the star. Just tell if you confirm those observations.

If you don't agree with those observations and you think that we have different observation (for example - if we really see the star in the center of the pulsar / magnetar), then please offer the article to confirm any contradicted observation.

There is in reality only one question that needs answering, and the onus is on you to answer it. Do you have any legitimate reason for wanting to ignore the equations and mathematics that is needed for gravitational collapse.  

If you have, then you need to follow the point I have raised at least twice now, and you have ignored...write up a scientific paper for peer review. You never know, we may see you in Stockholm in November!!!

NB:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star" "The "atmosphere" of a neutron star is hypothesized to be at most several micrometers thick, and its dynamics are fully controlled by the neutron star's magnetic field. Below the atmosphere one encounters a solid "crust". This crust is extremely hard and very smooth (with maximum surface irregularities on the order of millimeters or less), due to the extreme gravitational field" 

If you read that fairly comprehensive article, you may understand the error of some of the assumptions you have made.