A 20 solar mass neutron star is discovered!
Yousuf Khan
claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20
Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from
collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
Other than that, the article is okay, describes a newly formed neutron
star that still has an atmosphere of carbon on it. The carbon was
created from left over fusion reactions in an atmosphere of hydrogen and
helium on the surface of the neutron star even after it had gone supernova.
CBC News - Technology & Science - Canadian physicist IDs young neutron star
"Craig Heinke and his colleague Wynn Ho at the University of
Southampton, U.K., say that the remnant of the supernova Cassiopeia A is
a very young neutron star, 20 times heavier than the sun, but only 20
kilometres wide."
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/11/04/tech-space-alberta-neutron-star.html
Yousuf Khan
Sam Wormley
There have never been any neutron star masses greater than or even 3 solar
masses. Methinks the science writer has no clue about the subject matter!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091104132808.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091104/full/news.2009.1063.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33626890/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Sam Wormley
More: Carbon swaddles baby neutron star
Nascent surface too hot for hydrogen
http://physicsworld.com/cws/m/1539/17632/article/news/40873
eric gisse
> Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is
> claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20
> Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from
> collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
It is horseshit, that's why. There is no possible way it is 20 solar masses.
Yousuf Khan
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> Sometimes you gotta just laugh at science journalists. This genius is
>> claiming that Cassiopeia A's supernova remnant is a neutron star of 20
>> Solar masses! You gotta wonder how it's able prevent itself from
>> collapsing into a black hole without nuclear fusion?
>
> It is horseshit, that's why. There is no possible way it is 20 solar masses.
I think he just got confused with the mass of the progenitor star.
Yousuf Khan
Uncle Al
One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass
pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star
under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Knecht
>
> One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass
> pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star
> under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
>
Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit
for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the
former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar
masses.
Nature and empirical evidence trumps theoretical assumptions.
Every time.
Uncle Al
>
> On Nov 6, 2:49 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > One of the most massive observed neutron stars is 1.74 solar-mass
> > pulsar PSR J1903+0327. 20 solar masses attributed to any neutron star
> > under any circumstances isn't even wrong.
> >
>
> Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit
> for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the
> former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar
> masses.
idiot
eric gisse
Now we wait for the furious backpedal once the misreporting error is
revealed.
Knecht
>
> idiot
>
Not a very scientific response, and certainly not a scientific
argument.
Knecht
>> Knecht wrote:
> > Within the context of Discrete Scale Relativity, the upper limit
> > for Stellar Scale black holes or neutron stars [which are the
> > former in low to very highly excited states] is roughly 30 solar
> > masses.
>
> > Nature and empirical evidence trumps theoretical assumptions.
> > Every time.
>
>
> Now we wait for the furious backpedal once the misreporting error is
> revealed.- Hide quoted text -
>
NOTE: A crucial characteristic of definitive predictions is that they
cannot be "adjusted".
If DSR is right, then 20 solar mass neutron stars must exist. If the
latter do not exist, then DSR is wrong.
ALSO NOTE: The highest mass black hole so far observed has a mass of
about 30 solar masses.
This is called doing real science, as opposed to untestable post-
modern landscaping.
Are we clear on that point, Mr. Gisse?
RO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Uncle Al
I am intolerant of stupidity and those who are proud of it.
Ignorance is not a form of knowing things.
Knecht
>
Speaking of intolerance, ignorance and wetware,
I can't understanding why he is still running
Reptillian 1.0 when most enlightened people
have switched to Humanbean 3.0 .
----------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTION!
And a 1,000 pardons. The initial news report on
the Ho and Heinke paper gave a mass of 20 solar
masses, instead of the correct 2.0 solar masses.
The mistake was reported verbatim on the internet.
Ho and Heinke actually estimate the mass of Cas A
at 1.5 - 2.4 solar masses, which they expressly note
"is significantly higher than the canonical" neutron star
mass of 1.4 solar masses.
So it looks like I will have to setle for a single
instead of a Grand-Slam homerun, for now.
Not that long ago conventional physics said that
the masses of neutron stars could only be in the
range of about 1.3 - 1.5 solar masses. Neuton
stars outside this range were considered "impossible".
Ruled out on theoretical grounds.
In the last decade: (1) at least 3 neutron stars have
had mass estimates below 1.0 solar mass, and
(2) now we have clearly breached the "upper mass limit".
Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts that
Kerr-Newman ultracompacts [the dark matter] range
in mass from roughly 0.6 - 34 solar masses, and that
neutron stars are members of this same class of objects,
but are in very highly excited states. Black holes have
had empirical mass estimates from at least 1 - 30 solar
masses. DSR predicts the same mass range for neutron
stars. It is to be expected that the high mass ones are
relatively rare.
Note also that in the Ho and Heinke paper one model
gives a blackbody solution with R = 2 km. Another
model with a H atmosphere yelds R = 0.4 km! These
smaller than expected R values are very much in keeping
with DSR's definitive predictions for neutron star radii.
T-1 and holding, impatiently,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Yousuf Khan
> CORRECTION!
>
> And a 1,000 pardons. The initial news report on
> the Ho and Heinke paper gave a mass of 20 solar
> masses, instead of the correct 2.0 solar masses.
> The mistake was reported verbatim on the internet.
>
> Ho and Heinke actually estimate the mass of Cas A
> at 1.5 - 2.4 solar masses, which they expressly note
> "is significantly higher than the canonical" neutron star
> mass of 1.4 solar masses.
Well, a mass of 2.4 solar masses is still significantly higher than the
2.1 solar masses previously thought to be the upper limit of neutron stars.
> In the last decade: (1) at least 3 neutron stars have
> had mass estimates below 1.0 solar mass, and
> (2) now we have clearly breached the "upper mass limit".
Which neutron stars are below 1.0 solar masses? Don't they have to be at
least above 1.4 solar masses to be above the Chandrasekhar Limit?
Yousuf Khan
Knecht
>
> Which neutron stars are below 1.0 solar masses? Don't they have to be at
> least above 1.4 solar masses to be above the Chandrasekhar Limit?
>
They are: RXJ1856.5-3754; Aquila X-1; and KS1731-260.
See: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0206/0206470v1.pdf
Search: Low-Mass Neutron Stars for more recent work.
You might also try a High-Mass NS search.
No charge,
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Knecht
Speaking of intolerance, ignorance and wetware,
Knecht
> On Nov 8, 8:24 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Don't they have to be at
> least above 1.4 solar masses to be above the Chandrasekhar Limit?
>
ADDENDUM
For Chrissake the "Ch... Limit" is a Platonic theoretical construct.
You've got to start questioning the UNTESTED theory.
The TESTED science is the most precious thing humans have,
but the untested stuff is PSEUDO-SCIENCE until it is
empirically tested. Speculation is a more polite word for it.
The whole "world" of untestable post-modern landscaping,
i.e., "multiverses", "anthropic reasoning", "wimps", "string theory"
and "Boltzmann Brains" is pseudo-science. Handle with
thick gloves and keep a clothes pin on your nose.
Untested assumptions and untestable theories should
not be used in scientific reasoning.
The true mass range for neutron stars will be determined
empirically, NOT THEORETICALLY!!!
Reject Pseudo-science!
Demand TESTABLE SCIENCE!
Call editors and writers out when they sycophantically
repeat pseudo-scientific crap in their publishing and
reporting!
SHOW THE FALSE PROPHETS THE DOOR!