Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Cosmic threesome: Giant galaxy forms after trio of star systems SMASH into each other

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    611
    Nitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really nice

    Default Cosmic threesome: Giant galaxy forms after trio of star systems SMASH into each other

    5ddc10e485f540509124b30b.jpg
    A Hubble image of NGC 6240 © NASA, ESA, the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration and A. Evans (University of Virginia, Charlottesville/NRAO/Stony Brook University)

    Astronomers studying one of the most peculiarly-shaped galaxies ever discovered say they have found one more supermassive black hole at its core than previously known, indicating that three star systems collided.

    The discovery is being hailed as a world-first.

    Galaxy NGC 6240 is described by the European Space Agency as “butterfly- or lobster-shaped” and sits relatively close to our Milky Way (cosmically speaking) at a distance of about 400 million lightyears.

    According to a new study by an international team of astronomers, the galaxy was thought to house two supermassive black holes but in fact is home to three of the dense matter giants. Neighboring black holes can seriously affect the shape of a galaxy given their intense gravitational pulls.

    These supermassive black holes will eventually one day merge into a humongous single black hole, but that could take hundreds of millions of years to happen. According to the new research, each of these black holes has about 90 million times the mass of the Sun.

    “Up until now, such a concentration of three supermassive black holes had never been discovered in the universe,” said Dr Peter Weilbacher of the Leibniz Institute for Astrophysics Potsdam (AIP).

    The team say their research could be crucial in furthering understanding of how the universe developed, and continues to change. The new discovery implies that some of the largest known galaxies formed after a number of smaller galaxies smashed into each other, with their black holes merging more quickly than was the case with other, smaller, systems.

    Cosmic threesome: Giant galaxy forms after trio of star systems SMASH into each other
    Likes temmuz, songsiren, pinkflower, SatAnanda liked this post
    We can fool the world but never ourselves

  2. #2
    Each with 90 million times the mass of the Sun...

    Sun being of more or less an average sized star, each of these black holes must either be a product of smaller black-holes merged (millions of them) or, more probably, a huge black hole acting as nucleus and swallowing all the nearby systems.
    Likes songsiren, Nitsuga, pinkflower liked this post

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    722
    jakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to beholdjakemoe is a splendid one to behold

    Maybe the three, once they merge into one, will swallow the entire universe and lights out.
    Likes temmuz, Nitsuga, pinkflower liked this post
    F**k the DEA

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    611
    Nitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really nice

    Quote Originally Posted by temmuz View Post
    Each with 90 million times the mass of the Sun...

    Sun being of more or less an average sized star, each of these black holes must either be a product of smaller black-holes merged (millions of them) or, more probably, a huge black hole acting as nucleus and swallowing all the nearby systems.
    There are stars billion times the mass of our Sun out there.

    The more massive stars, live a shorter life, while smaller star's lives are measured in billions or trillions of years, the super massive star's lives are measured in mere 10s or 100s of million years.

    I think it is possible that three super massive star systems collided, unlike our Sun, most stars have one or more companions, if they hadn't, the first one that would have gone super nova becoming a Neutron star or a black hole, would have swallowed the rest up!



    Quote Originally Posted by jakemoe View Post
    Maybe the three, once they merge into one, will swallow the entire universe and lights out.
    I like your way of thinking and think what you say is valid. I also think that it would take a LONG time, all these black holes eventually becoming one HUGE black hole.

    While black holes are star's end of life, black holes end of life could be explosion due to it's growing size causing yet another Big Bang!
    A never ending cycle.
    Likes temmuz, pinkflower, jakemoe, pmpl liked this post
    We can fool the world but never ourselves

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    611
    Nitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really nice

    @temmuz,

    I remember only one video per post, this was meant o follow the other.

    Likes temmuz, pinkflower liked this post
    We can fool the world but never ourselves

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitsuga View Post
    @temmuz,

    I remember only one video per post, this was meant o follow the other.
    While this video is prepared in magazine tone, it is very interesting to see the numbers and ratios illustrated in graphical terms. It helps me to grasp how small and unimportant I am.

    But it portrays black holes as cause, whereas they are merely results of a *one way* journey.

    A journey of a cascaded nuclear fussion ladder, basically caused by gravitational attraction, starting from hydrogen, and if the star's mass (core pressure) permits, going up to and ending in iron, and again depending on the mass of the star, collapsing of atoms (electrons) to their cores, multiplying already extremely high density of an iron-star trillions fold, resulting in a super dense mass with such a G force that it wouldn't even allow EM waves to radiate away - forming an "invisible" neutron mass, aka a black hole.

    I tried to summarize the "Nebula to Blackhole" journey as short as I can, but every phase of it is very intriguing and awesome. This is a one way journey. Fussion cannot go backwards (by itself). I am afraid there can be no second Big-Bang without intervention of an external force. It is against physics, against entropy.

    Starting with the bing bang, entropy of the universe is continuously increasing towards infinity (total randomness). Also energy levels are continuously going towards equilibrium.

    How the big-bang can be possible at all and how the pre-bigbang era was like, are very interesting questions with no answers.

    The life of the universe (as it is a burning candle destined to exhaustion) is so interesting and so philosophically inspiring. That the Bing Bang physically necessiates intervention of an "External Hand" (external to universe) to bring the entropy back to its initial zero level, and flip the energy levels to their initial starting levels.

    Well, here is some food for thought.
    Last edited by temmuz; 1 Week Ago at 10:50 AM. Reason: typos
    Likes Nitsuga, pinkflower liked this post

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    611
    Nitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really nice

    Quote Originally Posted by temmuz View Post
    While this video is prepared in magazine tone, it is very interesting to see the numbers and ratios illustrated in graphical terms. It helps me to grasp how small and unimportant I am.

    But it portrays black holes as cause, whereas they are merely results of a *one way* journey.

    A journey of a cascaded nuclear fussion ladder, basically caused by gravitational attraction, starting from hydrogen, and if the star's mass (core pressure) permits, going up to and ending in iron, and again depending on the mass of the star, collapsing of atoms (electrons) to their cores, multiplying already extremely high density of an iron-star trillions fold, resulting in a super dense mass with such a G force that it wouldn't even allow EM waves to radiate away - forming an "invisible" neutron mass, aka a black hole.

    I tried to summarize the "Nebula to Blackhole" journey as short as I can, but every phase of it is very intriguing and awesome. This is a one way journey. Fussion cannot go backwards (by itself). I am afraid there can be no second Big-Bang without intervention of an external force. It is against physics, against entropy.

    Starting with the bing bang, entropy of the universe is continuously increasing towards infinity (total randomness). Also energy levels are continuously going towards equilibrium.

    How the big-bang can be possible at all and how the pre-bigbang era was like, are very interesting questions with no answers.

    The life of the universe (as it is a burning candle destined to exhaustion) is so interesting and so philosophically inspiring. That the Bing Bang physically necessiates intervention of an "External Hand" (external to universe) to bring the entropy back to its initial zero level, and flip the energy levels to their initial starting levels.

    Well, here is some food for thought.
    Couple questions,

    After the star has "used up all it's fuel" building a core of iron, it can no longer effectively fight the gravity trying to crush it, then the force keeping the star from crushing more is the Electron degeneracy pressure, if/ when this pressure is overwhelmed, the electrons and protons combine then we have a Neutron star, and if the "beams" of a Neutron star is facing Earth's general direction, that object is called a Pulsar.

    Black hole supposed to be the next stage after the Neutron star.

    I don't quite get the first statement I highlighted.

    You say "destined to exhaustion" to some that is the "Big Crunch" what would/ could be after the Big Crunch if we were to assume it will occur at one point in time?
    That brings this "pulsating Universe" which to us it is in billions or trillions of years where it could possibly in it's own place and "dimension" be like what a flashing light is to us.

    Another link from an older "The Universe Series", some of the numbers are changed/ updated in the newer "How the Universe Works Series" S01E02 Extreme Stars!

    Likes pinkflower, temmuz liked this post
    We can fool the world but never ourselves

  8. #8
    @Nitsuga, both good questions.

    As for your first question, yes a star needs to exceed a certain mass threshold to cause enough pressure in its core to overwhelm the electron degeneracy pressure, leading to a neutron star. So far as I know, a pulsar and a black hole are essentially the same thing (a neutron star), pulsar being the first stage, with such a high G as to disallow general radiation to escape into the space, except its EM axis where the radiation is so intense that it still escapes. So we can't detect a pulsar except its periodical EM pulses in sync with its rotation. As for the black hole formation step, I am not clear whether this is due to a pulsar bleeding its energy by the escaped radiation and thus losing its radiation power enough to be not detected, or it is due to higher mass not allowing any radiation (even EM axis) to begin with. I need to chek this out.

    As for the exhaustion vs big crunch, I meant matter (nuclear) exhaustion, while the Big Crunch is about physical dimensions of the universe. Both are true, but Big Crunch may not include the whole (especially the outer layer) of the universe. It depends on the "orbital break-free speed" (don't know English word for it) kinetic energy of the ever expanding matter. While the universe is expanding by its initial thrust from Big Bang, its expansion is ever slowing merely due to gravitational attraction. But the more it expands, the lesser the gravitational attraction becomes. It's essentially a basic orbiting problem. If the matter's kinetic energy is above a certain threshold, it will break free and never return back. Otherwise it will succumb to gravitation and the universe will shrink back to one. I think, without supporting data, that outer layers of the universe might break free, while the inner parts reunite.

    But reunite as what? As a massive amalgamation of black holes - a single giant heap of neutrons. The end.
    Likes Nitsuga liked this post

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    611
    Nitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really nice

    @temmuz, I have to disagree and would like to discuss further.

    What you are referring to, would be called an Active galactic nucleus in most cases.

    Radio Galaxies, Quasars and Blazars are all but the same depending on the angle they are facing "us".

    All these have a black hole in their center. A pulsating Neutron star is still a star.

    Also the Electron Degeneracy Pressure is "viewed" as an outwards pressure fighting the gravity and be like to the stars "benefit" if you will.

    Many stars such as our Sun, be in this stage for a long time till their quiet deaths.

    More massive stars or a White Dwarf with a companion, would turn in to a Neutron star and the Neutron star's ultimate death is either a black hole or nothing as in the case of a thermonuclear runaway of a dying star.

    "The accelerating expansion of the universe is the observation that the expansion of the universe is such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer is continuously increasing with time"
    Likes temmuz liked this post
    We can fool the world but never ourselves

  10. #10
    @Nitsuga, I can't see a disagreement except acceleration/deceleration of the expansion velocity of the universe (wich is most interesting BTW).

    Of course many galaxies have a black hole at their centers (and elsewhere) but this doesn't prove/refute anything I or you have said so far. With regard to a pulsar being still called a star while a black hole not, this is merely a naming convention as far as I know. We don't call "star" something we cannot detect directly. Put another way, a black hole is a non-pulsating, invisible, undetectable neutron star. Am I wrong?

    As for the internal pressure of a star, I think we both agree that it is caused by gravitational attraction of the matter that form the star. And the more massive a star is, the more pressure applied to its core. Yes, this is an "external" pressure from the perspective of matter going through fussion or degeneracy. This I don't disagree either.

    But... "accelerating expansion speed of the universe"... frankly it is new to me. I have read (some time ago) the opposite, i.e. deceleration of speed, which seemed and still seems most sensible to me.

    An ever accelerating thrust caused by the big bang... I need to digest it somehow.

    Maybe it's affected by relativity of observation? Can't say anything at the moment, but this appears to be against physics.

    Seriously I need to study this further.
    Likes Nitsuga liked this post

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by temmuz View Post
    An ever accelerating thrust caused by the big bang... I need to digest it somehow.

    Maybe it's affected by relativity of observation? Can't say anything at the moment, but this appears to be against physics.

    Seriously I need to study this further.
    This is by no means a scientific explanation - perhaps an educated guess. I still need to study this phenomenon, but here it goes.

    If we, Milkyway, being closer to the center of the universe than the outer edge, are decelerating more aggressively than the outer edge of the universe, which is only normal and expected, then the outer edge will be observed (perceived) by us as accelerating.

    In other words, if I am decelerating by 5 m/s2 and you are decelerating by 3 m/s2 at the same direction, then I will perceive you as accelerating (relative to me) by 2 m/s2.

    This difference in deceleration rate is to be expected, as mass gravity force is in reverse proportion to the square of distance between the masses. So, expansion velocity of inner parts of the universe must be slowing down more aggressively than the outer part.
    Likes Nitsuga liked this post

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    611
    Nitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really nice

    @temmuz, Perhaps it is how you are wording it. I read what you write about degeneracy and fusion the other way around and after a Neutron star dies, there is no Neutron star any more!

    To me, a black hole has nothing to do with a Neutron star per say other than the fact that a Neutron star's death caused the black hole, at that point, the Neutron star ceases to be one.

    A pulsar emits beams of electromagnetic radiation out of its magnetic poles due to it's rotational speed and a very strong magnetic filed.
    With a black hole, it is due to accretion processes as in matter in an accretion disc falling into a black hole, releasing energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

    Both of these are seen as "light" to us. The energy released by a black hole is far greater than that of a pulsar.

    And again to me, gravity makes stars and at the same time it is trying to squish the star, Electron Degeneracy Pressure is due to the star being collapsed further because of the gravity, pushing the negatively charged electrons together and the fact that electrons don't like and repel one another. The star is not trying to overcome this pressure but the gravity is.

    The next stage depending on the star would be same, as in the star being squish yet further resulting in the birth of a Neutron star.

    In our Sun's core, every second, 600 million tons of Hydrogen is fused in to 595 million tons of Helium, the resulting mass is smaller than the 2 X Hydrogen atom, the 5 million tons of "left overs" are released in the form of energy every second stopping the gravity from crushing the star further.
    Our Sun will not become a Neutron Star, it will turn in to a White Dwarf and slowly vanish.

    At the moment of the big bang, in a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth second (10 to the power of -24 second or a yoctosecond), the Universe grew from an infinite small size to a size of a Baseball.
    This in itself defies the speed of light's limit, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, not the objects in the universe at that early stage but the space in between the objects expanded faster than the speed of light!

    I have no problems believing the universe is expanding faster but definitely not as fast as it started expanding.

    They use Planck time and Planck unit to study the first second of the Big Bang, that is if we were to accept the current understanding of EVERYTHING.

    To understand how small a Planck time is, thinker about this:

    The are more Planck time in a second than all the seconds from the Big Bang until this very moment!

    Forgot to ad,
    All galaxies have a black hole in their center but not all these black hole are active nuclei, if somehow a "food source" gets close enough, the black hole becomes an active galactic nuclei (AGN), say hello to the Quasar
    Likes temmuz liked this post
    We can fool the world but never ourselves

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    611
    Nitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really nice

    Quote Originally Posted by temmuz View Post
    This is by no means a scientific explanation - perhaps an educated guess. I still need to study this phenomenon, but here it goes.

    If we, Milkyway, being closer to the center of the universe than the outer edge, are decelerating more aggressively than the outer edge of the universe, which is only normal and expected, then the outer edge will be observed (perceived) by us as accelerating.

    In other words, if I am decelerating by 5 m/s2 and you are decelerating by 3 m/s2 at the same direction, then I will perceive you as accelerating (relative to me) by 2 m/s2.

    This difference in deceleration rate is to be expected, as mass gravity force is in reverse proportion to the square of distance between the masses. So, expansion velocity of inner parts of the universe must be slowing down more aggressively than the outer part.
    I have to consider this and give it some thought.

    It is said that the Big Bang started every where and the lack of the center of the Universe sort of speak. But I understand the center of the Universe.

    If we are to believe the current understanding and discoveries to hold water and be true, we are not looking and cannot look in to the "future" as much as we can look in to the past.

    If the Universe is like 13.8 billion years old and we have "looked back" at say, 12 billion years, we have far more data from the past to study, understand and decipher.

    If the Universe is that old and we can see that far back, how far "ahead" are we able to see, my vote be not even a Planck unit's length!
    If that is true, what does it say for the "center of the universe" which direction are we looking in to the past and the beginning?

    Are everything same distance apart from one another (expanding and whatever speed) making one think there is no center but in fact many centers?!
    Likes temmuz liked this post
    We can fool the world but never ourselves

  14. #14
    @Nitsuga, I agree that we use different wording.

    When I say a black hole is a non-pulsating neutron star, I refer to its actual physical state. When you say a neutron star is no more after its death, you refer (I think) to its classification and naming. Same goes for the role of gravity of mass in stars. While both are true, I prefer to define things by their actual explanations, rather than naming them by labels (which can be prone to misunderstandings).

    So let me put this in a bit more plain terms.

    When a star is massive enough to produce a core pressure high enough to fussion all its way from hydrogen to iron, it becomes an iron star with extremely high density and extremely high core pressure. Depending on the mass of the star, the core pressure can get so high as to crush the atoms onto themselves. This creates the neutron star.

    We may possibly visualize an atom as a football stadium, the core as a billiard ball at the center, and the electrons as house flies orbiting it at the outer periphery of the stadium. When such an atom collapses to its core and the same old mass is now represented in a billiard ball, then we can visualize the enormous increase in density of the matter.

    As density increases, the same mass gets contained in smaller radius. As gravity is proportional to mass and reverse proportional to square of distance, smaller radius of the same mass means squarely more gravity at the surface. This gravity, again depending on the mass of the neutron star, hinders electro-magnetic (EM) radiation (internally generated or reflected) leaving the star. When it swallows back all the EM radiation *except* the most intense polar one, that star is said to be raidating some EM in a single axis, like a beam. As this star rotates (which also gets faster as its radius shrinks) we detect this EM beam sweeping us as periodic pulses like a heartbeat, hence the term "pulsar".

    So, a pulsar is a pulsating neutron star. I hope we agree so far.

    This pulsar can cease pulsating due to several reasons. One is bleeding its energy through EM radiation and the EM pole intensity dulling out. Second is gaining even more mass (by devouring nearby space objects) to the point of swallowing up even the polar EM radiation. When a pulsating neutron star, aka a pulsar, stops pulsating anymore due to this or that reason, it is said to be died into a black hole and it is no more a neutron star.

    Well, this is both true (by naming) and false (by reality).

    When a pulsar dies (or turns) into a black hole, its content goes nowhere. The guy is still the same guy, the same neutrons - just not being able to radiate or reflect any EM anymore. So we can't detect its presence, hence the term "black hole".

    A black hole may or may not be named as a "neutron star" wrt scientific classification and naming. But it doesn't change the fact that it is simply a non-pulsating neutron star. I hope you agree with this too.

    I am not going to delve into other parts of your posts as this one has already turned into a tl;dr.
    Likes Nitsuga liked this post

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    611
    Nitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really nice

    @temmuz, it all makes sense but forgetting one main point.

    First off, a Pulsar is a Pulsating Neutron star, no doubt. All Neutron stars pulsate, some much weaker than others but we just see the ones that the jet happens to point at us and call them pulsars, we know that.

    Let's review how a star becomes a Neutron star:

    Catastrophic collapse of the core of a Super-giant star. What is left of the core becomes a Neutron star thanks to the neutron degeneracy.

    A Neutron star could go on cooling off never turning in to anything if left alone.

    If it collides with another "body" or if it sucked the life out of it's companion star, if any, it's core would become unstable and further collapse in to a black hole.

    What allowed the Neutron star to become a Neutron star and not collapse?

    The answer is neutron degeneracy.

    If a Neutron star losses it's fight against the gravity and collapses further in to a black hole, it means, NO MORE neutron degeneracy which was the main reason for the star becoming/ being called, a Neutron star.

    No neutron degeneracy = No Neutron star.

    Or else, it would have not collapsed in to a black hole.

    Just need to change your wording IMHO.

    Or you might be mistaking this with a Quark star But even that has a way out against the gravity ... cut from the quote bellow "a new degeneracy pressure between the quarks, as well as repulsive electromagnetic forces, will occur and hinder gravitational collapse"

    If gravity overcomes that "new degeneracy" and the Quark star collapses, you can not call it a Quark star any more simply because that "new degeneracy" is no more.

    It is well known, both theoretically and observationally, that some massive stars collapse to form neutron stars at the end of their life cycle. 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 analyzed 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 gravitational collapse.
    Last edited by Nitsuga; 1 Week Ago at 01:39 AM.
    Likes temmuz, artemis liked this post
    We can fool the world but never ourselves

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    611
    Nitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really niceNitsuga is just really nice

    @temmuz,

    I copied the video link at 42 min, watch to the 43 min, some thought on the Universe accelerating.

    hmmm, it skips to the beginning on the Forum.

    Manually start at 42 min watch for about a min.

    Likes temmuz, artemis liked this post
    We can fool the world but never ourselves

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitsuga View Post
    It is well known, both theoretically and observationally, that some massive stars collapse to form neutron stars at the end of their life cycle. 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 analyzed 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 gravitational collapse.
    So there is more to black holes than just a heap of neutrons. That its neutrons can also theoretically be crushed further into quarks - though I wonder how it can be observed in practice.

    Frankly I have never looked beyond a black hole, as it is not observable directly (a world of theories and hypotheses).

    Although a black hole starts its "life" as a dim heap of neutrons after a pulsar, I accept there is more to it. It has a potential future.

    Thank you for the discussion.
    Likes Nitsuga liked this post

  18.  
    Dear visitor, If you are looking for an online pharmacy please take a look at the following pharmacies in our Top Rated section. Each one has genuine, uncensored feedback from real users.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-02-2017, 10:38 AM
  2. no pain Relief After 90mg of morphine
    By litttlehead in forum Fighting pain, and all about pain-killing drugs (analgesics)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 07:50 AM
  3. 20mg Adderall will I feel this good after months of taking it
    By Eric C in forum Archive for unanswered posts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 02:14 PM
  4. if a gp after 5yrs of prescribing a medication suddenly stops prescribing-example: diazepam 10mg
    By Christine in forum Overcoming anxiety, and all about anti-anxiety drugs and sedatives
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 11:14 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2008, 12:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Protected by Copyscape CopySentry. Do not copy.