Where did superdense materials go?
robocon@xxxxxx
(07 May 2014 01:53 UTC)
|
RE: [TML] Where did superdense materials go?
Anthony Jackson
(07 May 2014 16:16 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Rob O'Connor
(08 May 2014 06:09 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Kelly St. Clair
(08 May 2014 07:03 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Ian Whitchurch
(08 May 2014 08:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
William Ewing
(08 May 2014 16:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Tim
(09 May 2014 04:12 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where didsuperdensematerialsgo?
Rob O'Connor
(10 May 2014 08:45 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where didsuperdensematerialsgo?
Tim
(10 May 2014 13:21 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where didsuperdensematerialsgo?
Richard Aiken
(11 May 2014 06:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Wheredidsuperdensematerialsgo?
Rob O'Connor
(12 May 2014 08:48 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Wheredidsuperdensematerialsgo? Tim (12 May 2014 10:08 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Bruce Johnson
(08 May 2014 17:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Jeffrey Schwartz
(08 May 2014 17:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Greg Nokes
(08 May 2014 18:10 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
William Ewing
(08 May 2014 18:26 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Postmark
(08 May 2014 18:35 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
David Shaw
(08 May 2014 18:37 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Timothy Collinson
(08 May 2014 19:30 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Where did superdensematerialsgo?
Richard Aiken
(09 May 2014 04:19 UTC)
|
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:11:07PM +1000, Rob O'Connor wrote: > OK. I thought there was some suggestion from astrophysics that > nuclear matter could be converted in an intense gravitational field > e.g. inside neutron stars. Ah right, I get what you mean now. Yes, one theory is that if strange matter is stable, then all neutron stars should be composed of it. The extra fermion type would allow denser packing under their intense degeneracy pressure. I note that a lot of material talking about strange matter includes only two strengths of hypothesis: 1) that strange matter can exist, but only at enormous pressure, or 2) that strange matter is more stable (i.e. lower energy) than nuclear matter. I think there's a lot of room for an option 3): that strange matter is stable within some range of nucleon numbers, but not of lower energy than ordinary nuclear matter. This seems the most likely to me. Strangelets should still be positively charged and bound primarily by the strong force, and should have both lower and upper bounds to the size of nuclei in which they could be stable. In this third case, neutron stars would have a crust of atom matter, a mantle of some thickness of neutronium, perhaps an outer core of strange matter, and maybe a quark-gluon plasma inner core. - Tim