[HN Gopher] Neutron stars may be bigger than expected, measureme... ___________________________________________________________________ Neutron stars may be bigger than expected, measurement of lead nucleus suggests Author : furcyd Score : 110 points Date : 2021-04-27 15:35 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sciencemag.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencemag.org) | jvanderbot wrote: | Obligatory: Bigger in size, but not mass, meaning less dense | overall, based on results showing the thickness of the atomic | nuclei of lead isotopes. (which includes the radius of the thick | shell of neutrons around the nucleus, which was wider than | expected). | cletus wrote: | Let me add some perspective here. This only became apparent to me | fairly recently and it blows my mind. It's something I hadn't | thought of before. | | Black holes are relatively "simple". I mean that you can | completely define a black hole with 3 properties, one of which | isn't really relevant. | | The two most relevant properties are spin and mass. The last is | electric charge. The reason this is somewhat irrelevant is | because electric repulsion is about 60 orders of magnitude more | than gravitational attraction so it's not expected black holes | have a significant charge. | | Neutron stars OTOH are arguably the most complex objects in the | Universe. Why? Because you're dealing with gravity, electric | charges, nuclear forces and QCD such that there's no equation of | state for describing dense nuclear matter. | | Probably my favourite variant of neutron stars is the extremely | rare magnetar [1], the most powerful we've found has a magnetic | field 100 trillion times that of Earth's [2]. This field is so | strong it would flatten atoms and rip electrons from your body. | | So as much difficulty as we have of describing the nucleus of an | atom (as referenced in this post), imagine a whole star of that | stuff. | | [1]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar#:~:text=A%20magnetar%.... | | [2]: https://www.space.com/magnetar-eruptions-sculptor- | galaxy#:~:.... | ohazi wrote: | Neutron stars seem like what you _would_ see in a black hole if | the interesting parts weren 't shrouded by an event horizon. | Although I suppose the event horizon does give you jets. | | But yeah, city-sized objects with the density of an atomic | nucleus. Pretty mind-bending! (literally, I guess?) | CuriouslyC wrote: | Imagine if black holes were just neutron stars made of second | or third generation quark "neutrons." | ramraj07 wrote: | The "how to build a black hole" video from PBS space time | says that's how you do it - you start with a neutron star and | keep adding more mass to it, which paradoxically makes it | smaller until it becomes smaller than its swarzchild radius, | becoming a black hole. Blew my mind and anyone else's when I | share the video with them! | | https://youtu.be/xx4562gesw0 | cletus wrote: | That depends on what size of black hole you want to make. | It works for large black holes (you need sufficient mass | for the gravitational forces to be sufficient) but those | black holes aren't that useful. | | Smaller black holes are harder to construct but way more | useful. | willis936 wrote: | It's simple, just deflate spacetime! | elseweather wrote: | I'm curious what useful applications we have for black | holes of any size | jakeogh wrote: | It's assumed that little ones are the most efficient mass | to energy converters, via Hawking radiation. | cletus wrote: | There are actually a lot of theoretical applications. | | Black holes are likely the most efficient form of power | generation that we currently know of. | | Black hole propulsion may well be the best form of | interstellar starship propulsion. | | Black holes may also be the ultimate computer. | | If the universe continues based on it current | understanding then eventually all the stars will be dead | and the universe will be a dark place. The Black hole era | will last trillions of time as long but may well be the | golden age of civilization. | | Each of these topics is a rabbit hole. | firebaze wrote: | Really don't want to be dismissive, but this guy appears to | me as having one gesture (both hands towards the viewer, to | underscore the graveness of his words), a good haircut and | that's about it. | | If find it hard to take a presentation like this serious. | Most of the mentioned facts are right as far as i can judge | it without having a major in physics, but to me this is so | very much worse than a link to backreaction (Sabine | Hossenfelder), startswithabang (Ethan Siegel) or almost any | other serious physics blog out there as anything else. | | I suppose this will get downvoted, and I'm fine with that, | but please explain to me why a self-promoting video guy | with probably 5% understanding of the matter compared to a | serious pop-sci blog is so relevant to you. | | Heck, even wikipedia has more information than this clip. | And it doesn't cost 13 minutes + ads, just 5 minutes to | read. | | It's not a paradox a neutron star gets smaller the more | mass you add to it. This is also true for Jupiter-sized | objects; it is a function of density, matter and gravity, | and not related (in this case) to special relativity. | LASR wrote: | Lots of assumptions in your comment. They happen to be | very wrong. | | Maybe as a default position, you should assume less about | someone's credentials based on hand gestures and | haircuts. | nynx wrote: | Matt O'Dowd is a well-known physicist. I'm not sure why | you feel that you can judge him so quickly. | ramraj07 wrote: | I have no idea what you're talking about? It's a pbs | YouTube channel, the host is a professor in astrophysics | and has generally made sure he doesn't oversimplify | anything. I like Sabine's videos sometimes when she's not | bonkers kookoo but this guys not trying to be | controversial. | gizmo686 wrote: | That self-promoting video guy is an astrophysicist, with | a significant amount of papers published about black | holes. | | You are free to not like his mass-market material, but | from a technical level, he is quite qualified to talk | about the subject. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_O%27Dowd_(astrophysici | st) | | https://www.mattodowd.space/ | | https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/p_=0&q=author%3A%22O | 'Do... | hinkley wrote: | I've seen a couple astrophysics videos over the last few | years that put forward the theory that many black holes are | the result of a neutron star forming in a binary or trinary | star system. The initial explosion and the ejecta creating | a situation where the neutron star begins to siphon | material off of its partner. | ravi-delia wrote: | I was under the possibly incorrect impression that black | holes result when the gravitational force is so great that it | even overcomes Pauli's exclusion principle, collapsing the | neutrons into an overlapping mass of staggering density. Now | that I write that out, I'm a little more doubtful. | jfengel wrote: | Not exactly. | | A black hole doesn't have to be very dense. The larger it | is, the less dense it needs to be to prevent light from | escaping. The supermassive black hole at the center of our | galaxy may be less dense than water[1]. | | For black holes closer to a single solar mass, then yes, | they will be super dense, and the degeneracy pressure helps | keep it from becoming a black hole. You have to add enough | mass to overcome the degeneracy pressure for it to develop | the event horizon that makes it a black hole. | | But not all black holes do that. Others can simply keep | acquiring mass without that violent sudden event. They just | gradually cross the point where no light can escape, but | you might not even notice looking at it. The light just | keeps gradually shifting redder and redder until the | wavelength becomes infinite. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* | hinkley wrote: | Last update I heard on black holes was that the space | inside of them increases at the speed of light. That's a | hell of a lot of space inside of an event horizon. | | I'm still fond of the theory that our universe is in fact | inside of a black hole, and that the big bang is 'just' | the moment we went supercritical. | | One thing I don't understand about naked singularities - | if you were inside of one, the lack of an accretion disk | would allow you to see out of it, right? Could you detect | that you are looking out across an event horizon? | btilly wrote: | Close. | | Giant blue stars burn all of the way up to the most stable | element of all, which is iron. And then collects an iron | core. As the core grows, the star shrinks and the pressure | in the middle grows. Once the pressure in the middle is | high enough, it overcomes the Pauli exclusion principle and | electrons merge with protons to become neutrons with a | release of energy, which mostly comes out as neutrinos. | | Once a bit of that core disappears, the stuff around falls | into the new gap, hits it, goes under way more pressure and | the same thing happens. This starts a chain reaction that | causes a supernova. The core collapses into a neutron star | while the release of energy blows the outer shell out to | eventually become a nebulae. | | If the initial star was big enough, the newly created | neutron star is big enough to transform into a black hole. | Otherwise it is left as a neutron star. | | If it forms a neutron star, the spin speeds up thanks to | the collapse. Typical time to rotate can be anywhere from | milliseconds to seconds. We can tell that because its | magnetic field also gets trapped and forms a strong beam | along the north and south magnetic poles. Since magnetic | poles do not generally line up with the rotational poles, | that beam becomes like a searchlight. If we're in the path | of that beam, we see a pulsar, and the frequency of the | pulsar is the rotational speed of the neutron star. | | This is probably way more than you wanted to know. :-) | | I probably also am going to get corrected on some details | in 3, 2, 1... | robocat wrote: | Your comment did inspire me to go looking for the | distribution of elements within the iron core: "carbon, | neon, oxygen, and silicon burning leave a core composed | of iron, cobalt, nickel, and neighboring species, | referred to as the iron-peak nuclei". | | For anyone else interested in a readable article on a | slightly more detailed look at supernova than wikipedia, | and a discussion on the difficulties of modelling | supernova, I liked this article: | https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4870009 | hinkley wrote: | I was shocked to learn how long it takes a photon | produced at the center of the sun by a fusion event to | reach earth. The layers upon layers of subatomic | particles that are all interacting in these tight | quarters is simply astounding. | | I've heard this same theory on supernovas from a number | of people in or around physics, but I always wonder how | handwavy it is, whether we _actually_ understand how that | works yet, and how different (confusing) the real process | is from the given one. | chasd00 wrote: | seems like i was under the _likely_ incorrect impression | black holes have mass but no volume (singularity and all..) | and so infinite density. But, then again, what happens | beyond the event horizon is meaningless anyway. | throwawayboise wrote: | The description I have heard is that a black hole | contains no matter at all, it is all energy expressed as | infinitely(?) warped space and time. | hinkley wrote: | I remember the infinities of black holes being a challenge to | explain to my artsy friends after reading _A Brief History of | Time_. | | Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the curvature of space | around - and within - a neutron star substantial enough that | euclidean geometry doesn't really hold anymore? The volume of | a basketball is the surface area x R/3, but is that true of a | neutron star? I was under the impression that the difference | between Euclid and actual was statistically significant, to | the point that you get the wrong behavior if you don't | account for it. | Groxx wrote: | > _In 2020, a fast radio burst (FRB) was detected from a | magnetar.[7][8][9][10][11][12][xss ns]_ | | Wikipedian humor at its finest. Because _of course_ "excessive | citations" looks like a citation. | yongjik wrote: | > This field is so strong it would flatten atoms and rip | electrons from your body. | | ...which is underselling it a bit. :) | | (As quoted in Wikipedia) the field is so strong that pure | vacuum itself has ~10,000 times the density of lead, due to the | energy contained in the field. Imagine that. | jayd16 wrote: | >The reason this is somewhat irrelevant is because electric | repulsion is about 60 orders of magnitude more than | gravitational attraction so it's not expected black holes have | a significant charge. | | I hadn't thought about it but I guess that means protons or | electrons have a maximum resting density. A group of those will | never collapse from gravity? | Tagbert wrote: | If that were true, you would not get a neutron star where the | electrons and protons are collapsed into neutrons. Not sure | how that stands to the overall strength question, though. | throwaway2568 wrote: | Protons and electrons are both Fermions, which means they can | not have identical quantum numbers (have to obey the Pauli | exclusion principle as mentioned elsewhere in the thread). In | the case of a very dense system, like the sun, this can lead | to an effect known as degeneracy pressure (which acts against | gravity). Essentially you have filled all the lower quantum | numbers and then adding an extra proton/electron to the | system requires a certain amount of energy. It's quite | handwavy but the degeneracy pressure of electrons is mostly | what keeps a white dwarf from contracting, whereas in the | case of a neutron star it is the degeneracy pressure of | neutrons (plus repulsive strong force and other effects as | indicated in the OP). This kind of high level discussion is | often covered in first year astronomy courses auditing a MOOC | like the following may be of interest | (https://www.edx.org/course/astrophysics-the-violent- | universe) | detritus wrote: | > Neutron stars OTOH are arguably the most complex objects in | the Universe. | | In OUR universe, at least. | | If a black hole ends in a white hole, Gosh only knows how | complex things will end up at the other end. Witness, for | example, our entire reality. | btilly wrote: | _Black holes are relatively "simple". I mean that you can | completely define a black hole with 3 properties, one of which | isn't really relevant._ | | Classically, yes. But more recently we've discovered not. | | One of the major conundrums about black holes is how | information gets lost in their creation. There is a lot more | information in the stuff that creates a black hole than in the | black hole itself. Which violates the third law of | thermodynamics. This is called the Black Hole Information | Paradox. | | But as https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/have- | we-so... explains, the real state of a black hole includes all | of the stuff that you can see in the process of falling in. (We | never actually see anything hit the event horizon. And in | theory something on its way there can still be retrieved a | million years after it started falling.) When you track things | carefully, a real black hole is a very complex thing indeed. | With no information loss. | colechristensen wrote: | This brings up a question I have had for a while: what is the | life story of a photon shot at a black hole? | | From an outside observer, presumably you shoot a laser at a | black hole and if your photons don't hit anything on the way | to the horizon, they never hit it either but just approach | asymptotically as time goes to infinity. | | As, a photon though, you don't "notice" crossing the horizon | and in a measurable amount of time you go from being emitted | to hitting the singularity. | | Black holes don't last until infinity though, they evaporate | in a large but measurable time. (let's say 10^100 years, it | depends on time and how the universe dies and how big the | black hole is, but whatever, presuming it happens it is some | extraordinarily large number of years) | | So... as something falling into a black hole an outside | observer will watch you infinitely slowly approaching a | growing horizon until at some point the growth goes negative | and you watch the horizon falling away from your friend the | photon until at last the horizon disappears entirely and | releases the photon to go about its merry way to hit | something sometime around the heat death of the universe. | | In other words, if you are a conscious very resilient little | particle doomed to fall into a black hole... do you really | appear from the outside to be falling in until the black hole | evaporates? Do you experience going through the event horizon | like it's nothing and hit the singularity in a few hours by | your own watch... | | Or is a black hole sort of a time machine to the end of the | universe where in the short process of falling in you get to | watch the whole history of existence pass you by and you come | out at the end having never crossed the horizon in what was | for you a very short ride. | | Or is there some third option where from the outside it takes | an infinite amount of time for you to fall in, but that | infinity "for math reasons" actually takes place and passes | in a Zeno's paradox kind of way at some distinct point in | your timeline and you meanwhile pass the horizon and hit the | singularity in short order and are no more? | | I don't really know anything but these are questions and | vague thoughts I have had. The central question is | reconciling the outside apparent infinite time to watch | something cross an event horizon with the finite lifespan of | evaporating black holes. | bpodgursky wrote: | Well, the other wrinkle here is that the "singularity" is a | mathematical approximation. There's no such thing as | hitting it -- from the outside, you just move | asymptotically slower as you approach it. | btilly wrote: | Not so fast. Black holes have a singularity in the | middle, and an event horizon around them. There is no | singularity at the event horizon, and that is all that we | can see.. | juloo wrote: | There might be naked singularities in case of a rapidly | rotating black hole. The singularity would have a donut | shape and might be outside of the event horizon. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_singularity | | Of course, this is very theoretical and we don't actually | expect that to exist. | btilly wrote: | Huh, I thought that naked singularities were thought to | not exist. But apparently in 2018 someone found a case | where they could. | | Thanks! | juloo wrote: | You move asymptotically slower from the point of view of | the particle falling in the black hole. From outside the | black hole, the falling particle should fall into the | black hole at a speed close to the speed of light. (but | we can't observe that from the outside) | | The image an outsider would see "printed" on the black | hole has nothing to do with where the falling particle | is. | btilly wrote: | That's officially above my pay grade. :-) | | Seriously my course in general relativity was about 30 | years ago. And work on the information paradox work is | about exactly what you're talking about. | | I honestly don't fully know what happens when you're | approaching a growing black hole. Do you cross the horizon | then? | juloo wrote: | As a particle, you continuously accelerate even after the | event horizon (which you don't realize). Immediately after | you passed the horizon, any photon you can send won't ever | leave the black hole. | | What outside observers will see "frozen" is the instant | just before you cross the horizon. A bit like if your image | 1ms before you cross the horizon will be seen by the | observers years after, your image 1us before will be seen | millions of years after, etc... | colechristensen wrote: | But... let's watch that image or at least keep a model of | our friends falling into the black hole for 10^100 years. | Forever is a long time. | | If we keep watching that image the black hole eventually | stops growing, the "image" never crosses the event | horizon and when the universe cools down enough the event | horizon starts getting smaller and hotter until we watch | our friends getting roasted outside the evaporating black | hole which eventually is gone and just normal matter. | | The timeline of the "image" would seem to reconnect with | the real article having never crossed the event horizon. | | In other words it would seem if we waited long enough the | image of our friends outside the event horizon would | outlive the black hole and we could go say hello after it | evaporated. | | In other, other words, how do we see the universe outside | aging as we fall into a black hole? Do we not get to | watch the heat death of the universe as we approach and | consequently the black hole very quickly evaporating in | front of us as we fall towards it? | cletus wrote: | Wasn't the issue of black hole information loss the subject | of the Hawking-Thorne bet that Hawking eventually conceded | (that black holes didn't destroy information)? [1] | | (This may be a separate issue; I'm genuinely curious). | | [1]: https://physicsworld.com/a/hawking-loses-black-hole- | bet/#:~:.... | gus_massa wrote: | All the stuff around a black hole and in a black hole is | under a lot of tidal forces and will be crushed and crumbled. | | Imagine a blender. According to quantum mechanics, using a | blender for an hour is an unitary transformation, so it will | not destroy the information, and it's an invertible | operation, you can reconstruct the original items. [And even | a classic blender is invertible at the molecular level. It's | only not invertible if you consider the friction and other | average macroscopically properties.] Anyway, after an hour of | blending, you will get a horrible homogeneous mix. | | But (if the current models are correct) a Neutron star is | very different in the crust that is a few km near the | surface. It has many levels with different properties that | are called "nuclear pasta" | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pasta and one with | graphics that explain the names | https://astrobites.org/2017/10/05/nuclear-pasta-in- | neutron-s... | | Going again to the blender example, it's like a bad blended | mix, that has foam at the surface, a liquid in the middle and | solids at the bottom. | btilly wrote: | It depends on the size of the black hole. One with the mass | of the Sun would rip your head from our feet under a tidal | force of thousands of gravities. One the size of the | monster at the heart of our galaxy has tidal forces so | gentle that you wouldn't even notice them until after you | were inside the event horizon. | | If this seems non-intuitive, remember that the | Schwarzschild radius varies linearly with mass, and tidal | forces scale like mass / radius^3. So tidal forces at the | event horizon scale like 1/mass^2. A black hole that is 100 | million times heavier will have tidal forces that are 10 | quadrillion times smaller at its event horizon. | jihadjihad wrote: | > Which violates the third law of thermodynamics | | Wouldn't this be a violation of the second law rather than | the third? | willis936 wrote: | It's not quite Maxwell's demon because the event horizon is | a one-way causal ticket. The information might not be | destroyed but it is totally inaccessible on this side of | the horizon. | btilly wrote: | I just looked it up, and it is a violation of the fact that | the laws of physics should be reversible. So from the wave | function at any point of time you should be able to | reconstruct the wave at any other. | | My bad for having stuck thermodynamics in there at all. :-( | carabiner wrote: | A spoonful weighs a ton. | ThePhysicist wrote: | As a physicist I still find it fascinating that you can study | some of the smallest things in the universe and learn something | about some of the largest things in it. | srl wrote: | Relatedly, NICER (an X-Ray telescope) launched in 2017, and has | been observing pulsars to get radius measurements since then. See | for instance https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05705. (I think there's a | more recent measurement but I can't find it on arXiv.) | | I don't have a good understanding of the relationships between | all the different methods, but I do know that NICER's | measurements have systematically given larger radii (albeit with | huge error bars) than other methods do. | dsp_person wrote: | Really enjoyed Dragon's Egg about life on a neutron star. | | > The adults of the star's most intelligent species, called | cheela (no flexion for gender or number), have about the same | mass as an adult human. However, the extreme gravity of Dragon's | Egg compresses the cheela to the volume of a sesame seed,[2] but | with a flattened shape about 0.5 millimeters (0.020 inches) high | and about 5 millimeters (0.20 inches) in diameter. Their eyes are | 0.1 millimeters (0.0039 inches) wide. Such minute eyes can see | clearly only in ultraviolet and, in good light, the longest | wavelengths of the X-ray band | | > By humans' standards, a "day" on Dragon's Egg is about 0.2 | seconds | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Egg | klank wrote: | In a similar vein, I recommend Stephen Baxter's "Flux". It | takes place in a civilization that evolved inside of a neutron | star. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_(novel) | farrelle25 wrote: | Yes I thought "Dragons Egg" was a classic. I remember reading | it as a child and getting interested in Physics. | | I read it's an example of the "hard" science fiction genre - I | think the author Robert Forward was actually a physicist... | gizmo686 wrote: | Since I happen to have _Dragons Egg_ on my desk, from the | "About the Author" section: | | > Dr. Robert L. Forward is a senior scientist at the Hughes | Research Labs in Malibu, California. Dr. Forward is one of | the pioneers in the field of gravitational astronomy, | participating at Maryland University in the construction of | te first antenna for detection of gravitational radiation | from supernovas, black holes and neutron stars. (The antenna | now resides in the Smithsonian Museumm.) At Hughes, Dr. | Forward constructed the first laser gravity antenna and | invented the rotating gravitational mass sensor. ... | | Fun fact, the start of Dragons Egg (copyright 1980) is April | 2020 | Causality1 wrote: | A classic indeed. I seem to recall that jumping off a high | cliff or from a hovering vehicle was deadly to them because | without the crushing gravity their bodies exploded into a cloud | of "regular" matter. | gizmo686 wrote: | They even have an entire field dedicated to "expanded matter | physics". | excalibur wrote: | We're talking about stars here. The difference between 10 km and | 14 km is pretty negligible at this scale, these are both specks. | ben_w wrote: | If they neutron stars are bigger at any given mass, that | implies black holes have different minimum sizes, which has | implications for other things in cosmology. | at_a_remove wrote: | Ah, no. Neutron stars have some kind of average density. | That's ... not applicable to black holes in any real sense. | Their sizes would not change and are pre-determined by a | relatively simple formula in the case of non-rotating black | holes without any significant charge. | ben_w wrote: | I'm not suggesting otherwise. | | I'm saying that "neutron stars have lower density than | previously thought" means "neutron stars can be more | massive before reaching constraint of Schwarzschild radius | for given mass". | treeman79 wrote: | Well they gave a real density size and shape, it just | doesn't matter. | | Inside could be shaped like a dolphin a potted plant or a | whale. Outside of horizon we couldn't tell from outside. | DougMerritt wrote: | As cletus said above, black holes have only three externally- | observable properties: mass, angular momentum, and charge; | see for instance [1]. | | Note that radius/size is not one of those three. The radius | of a black hole derives from its mass under general | relativity, and no amount of change found in the density nor | size of neutron stars will change that. | | You're right that new understanding of neutron stars has | implications for other things in cosmology, though. | | [1] https://phys.org/news/2020-12-black-holes-gain-powers- | fast.h... | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | What this changes is how much mass a neutron star can have | before it collapses into a black hole. That limit is | defined by when the neutron star's mass fits within the | size of an equally massive black hole. | DougMerritt wrote: | Not exactly. Certainly it is a black hole once a neutron | star's mass fits within a certain radius, but since it is | then not a neutron star any longer, the question is how | that condition came about. | | Neutron stars have an effective outward pressure that is | caused by the Pauli exclusion principle [1]; two or more | fermions such as neutrons cannot be in the same state | (which includes location). A strong enough inward counter | force from internal gravity (or from an external force) | will cause a net motion inward, overcoming the outward | force, such that enough matter (more accurately, enough | mass-energy, not just matter) is within the critical | region. | | See for instance [2] | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle | | [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/06/ | 13/the-... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-27 23:00 UTC)