In the documentary series 'How The Universe Works' Neutron star episode (available on youtube) they have a great way of describing the weird interior of Neutron stars. They use different types of pasta to explain, with one area being like Penne, one like Spaghetti and one like lasagne sheets. The core being a fluid state that's still up for debate.
Wow, that limit has gotten smaller- I remember in an Astro Biology course (7-8 years ago) the mass amount that was thought to determine if a star became a black hole or neutron star was thought to be 5 sol masses. Thanks for the videos!
Great info on Neutron Stars. I knew a lot but you always seem to teach me more! Plus using Space Engine and Universe Sandbox as a visual tool really keeps me engaged.
What, Isaac personally sent you a letter? And in that letter he recommended that book?? That is some crazy stuff. I hope you're not lying or kidding around because I'm impressed! I'm going to visit my library tomorrow and find that book! L
Since we do not know the equation of state inside a neutron star these beasts have been observed up around 2.45 solar mass. As these objects get more massive they do not grow in size but seem to get even more dense and in their cores the pressure is so great even neutrons and protons become unbound since they have already changed shape and then quarks are freed and the end is near. It has been observed that these beasts above 2.16 solar mass have a higher spin which seems to counteract the collapse. Spin angular momentum only serves the outer 1/3 of the star because inboard of that the speed becomes less and less. These objects are both super conductive and super fluidic. Richard Feynman said his most thorny mental simulation was to observe these two states with a bucket swung around what would be the result. He observed that magnetic flux pin lines extended through the object and other radical effects were to be observed.
A neutron star has a mass of about 1.4 times the mass of the sun, but is not much bigger than a small city, about 15 km in radius about the same size as the island of Manhattan This means that a neutron star is so dense that on Earth, one teaspoonful would weigh a billion tons! The gravitational field is intense; the escape velocity is about 0.4 times the speed of light Hope this helps Francis Joseph Underwood
When neutron stars collide, there is a concept that I didn't know existed, called "neutronium decompressing". Unlike in science fiction, neutronium cannot exist outside of the high-gravity environment of a neutron star, so when two of them collide, the neutronium decompresses into heavy elements like gold and uranium. That is likely where earth got its heavy elements.
If gravity at the quantum mechanical level is an exchange of subatomic particles, how do those exchange particles escape the event horizon to interact with the matter surrounding the black hole?
I'm not entirely sure about the possibility of a neutron star becoming a black hole if it slowly accretes material over a long time. Because you see, when it is near that limit, the energy released when matter falls onto it gets closer and closer to the mass of the matter times the speed of light squared. Which means that if it has time to radiate that impact energy as heat, the impactor will barely increase the mass of the neutron star. Near the end, you drop 10 kilograms of mass onto the neutron star, and it increases its mass by 1 gram, in other words. But that heat energy itself has mass, so if you pile new matter onto it in a hurry so it has no time to radiate off the impact energy, it will be pushed beyond the limit, in other words the 9999 grams of mass that were converted into heat on impact, they will still be part of the neutron star. But if you add the mass slowly enough, there shouldn't be a limit to how much you could add to it. In other words, you've got to add mass at a certain rate as well or else it will never get there. At least that is what I would expect.
It depends on how massive, how big (volume), how much centrifugal force and how much force does it lose over time. And you probably can calculate how long does it take to reach the limit dense to become black hole. You can assume black hole is same as neutron star but it is just little bit dense and massive that it happen to trap light inside. Neutron star's core is probably what black hole is made of.
@@MGZetta I don't think that's accurate. A neutron star is way over the radius of a black hole of the same mass IIRC. Once it gets too far beyond the limit, the insides of the star can't hold back the gravity anomore, and it starts collapsing further untill the escape veloctiy on the surface reaches the speed of light. We don't know what happens after, as this would most likely require a theory of quantum gravity to explain (since GR just spits out infinities, and QM doesn't play nice when there's no absolute frame of referance).
Zetta once a star fails to become a black hole due to its small mass, it will probably eventually cool and becomes a true dead star. It doesn’t have to energy to even collapse onto itself to squeeze itself into a black hole. The core of a black hole would more like be made up of a new material because of its atom crashing gravity. Gases like helium and hydrogen are what star cores are made out of so it’s impossible to be what black hole are made up of. Neutron stars are more like black holes than anything else. They’re basically the same but literally black and white opposites. One is powerful enough to capture light, the other is too weak to even crush atoms.
Alfonso Solorzano ok so you’ve explained in more detail what a neutron star is. Either way a black hole is the more extreme version of a mass and a neutron star is a failed black hole.
Perhaps we should rethink our search for life in the universe. We talk about dying stars, about life of stars, but rarely we talk about stars being actually alive. How could a dead object support all the life on our planet? Well, it simply couldn't...then if so, the universe is full of life and alive as hell
we have observed masses from 2.2 to around 2.7 solar masses. It all depends on the equation of state and spin angular momentum. As it gains mass, it spins up. It can only spin so fast so the limit seems be reached around 2.7 to 2.8 solar masses depending on spin. I would assume this is also time limited. The decay rate of spin depends critically on magnetic field particle acceleration thus over time as it slows its spin it will come to a point of tollman-oppenhiemer equation of state collapse. It can momentarily become a quark star, as normal neutron stars have this in their core already. These are unknown realms because we have no way of modeling this much pressure and component heisenburg uncertainty and quark interaction force. The neutron itself becomes deformed in shape thus the star size is not presently know at the upper limit. Imagine the atmosphere being only 1" deep at 3 million gravities of gradiation pressure. And even 2 or three inches deep in the crust means it is mostly iron at the surface and incredibly rigid going immediately to heavier elements that in a few feet becoming way way more neutron rich per element.
Anton to make the life easier for you, I studied a lot in radioactive decay and the type of decay you are talking about in the third type of neutron star “death” is called negative beta decay, which involves a neutron becoming a proton through the release of an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. Positive beta decay is also interesting as it involves positrons so you might want to check it out.
Has anyone else been dazed and all of a sudden you thought you figured out something huge about life, and you try to remember, but you can't remember what you were just thinking about? Think our brains are programmed not to figure something out?
And neutrinos might in response to the change in induction rate in the vacuum change into more electron/quark like particles, the black holes created by stars and large masses would essentially radiate their energy away very fast, creating conditions similar to the big bang, but at a diffrent spacial scale. these things are very speculative, but I personally belive such things will happen, by coinsidence this is a variation of penroses eons pictures, but with very diffrent arguments concretely.
They don't do it through direct measuring, it is done through extrapolation, You can tell what a star is made of just by the light it emits, Just hold a prism up to sunlight, and that rainbow of colors you see is all the frequencies from the chemical make up of the star, It is technology that has been around for literally centuries. Just imagine what they can do with the advanced telescopes and computers they have now!
First of all, he's wrong, he doesn't know what he's talking about, it's not nearly that much. The thickness is microscopic. They don't measure it. They calculate it based on physical principles. Obviously. It is easy to calculate the constant of exponentiation of the differential equation defining the density of the atmosphere as a function of height, it is determined by the gas law, the temperature, the atomic weight of the gas and the gravity. With gravity at 100 billion times Earth's, while going up 3 miles may decrease the density of the air by a factor of 2 here on Earth, the atmosphere getting half the density only requires 1/100 billionth as much rise in altitude, or 1/500000 inch or 50 nanometers, at the same temperature. This means if you go up 50 nanometers in altitude, the thickness of the atmosphere must decrease by a factor of 2. How thick do you think the atmosphere can even be, with this property in effect? Or it would be, if it was the same temperature. It's of course going to be much hotter than the atmosphere here on Earth, so that makes the constant more like 10 micrometers instead of 50 nanometers, or it would, if it was obeying the ideal gas law, which it doesn't of course. But bottom line, it is calculated, not observed.
I doubt neutron star re-expansion gives much of a supernova. The lower limits on neutron star stability and their imverse relationship of size and mass mean that's probably not important.
I think the last mechanism you gave is reversible (beta decay of neutrons that get moved near the surface). n - > p + e- + electron antineutrino Protons can also get transported toward the core and combine back with the electrons p + e- - > n + electron neutrino So the matter is recycled but the neutrinos escape. This kind of neutrino cooling is much more prevalent in young neutron stars that are still extremely hot.
Really nice video. From the numbers you are throwing out as being the presumed total lifetime of the universe: I think you'd be absolutely thrilled with a book named "The Five Ages of the Universe".
Also if said wierd quantum effects occur and neutrons manage to escape into the outer atmosphere and decay, this would by necessity involve more or less "evaporative cooling" of the star.
What keeps the plasma hot on the neutron star's outer shell? If the shell is in a plasma state, then the star is still giving off energy. Maybe in the form of gamma Ray's. Or maybe energy from the magnetic fueld.
The plasma stays hot because the heat is radiated away very slowly. No conduction or convection only radiation. It would take trillions (probably hundreds of) of years for a white dwarf to cool off, neutron stars are probably rather similar. However, this doesn't mean that the initial cooling is that slow as the amount of energy radiated goes up with the fourth power of the temperature in Kelvin.
@@boring7823 they are so dense that the gamma rays take 12 millions years to reach the surface and escape, so it keeps all the heat until the gamma ray escapes
@@morocco622 Initial cooling, for the first thousand years or so is from temperatures of the order of 10^10 C. This happens a lot faster because the energies are high enough to create neutrinos which don't get blocked (much). After that the rather slow transfer of energy within the body you mention is plenty fast enough to keep the surface temperature in the hundreds of thousands to millions of degrees because the heat transfer away from the surface into space is so much slower. It's unclear how long the surface temperature would stay above, say, 10000K but it's probably many billions or trillions of years.
I think, there is a black hole like activity within the core. In my oppinion red giants, white dwarfs, and black holes are all connected together in a successive manner.
If two neutron stars collide and in the process throw off part of their degenerate matter in a 'spew', would that degenerate matter, now freed of the intense gravitational field of the original neutron stars, now be able to 'snap-back' to conventional matter, where electrons orbit nuclii again?
I wondered what would happen at the end of a neutron star that died from old age. I know it is only theory, but have astronomers/theoretical astro physicists looked into that, or is it difficult to know as it is dealing with neutron stars, and not a lot is known about them? Could a black hole simply be a neutron star whose mass is massive enough to stop light from escaping its gravity? As you said, the center of neutron stars are not understood. Could the center be basically the same as a black hole, but the forces acting against gravity let it keep its form. Similar to how you said a black hole could form if it slowed down.
Yes, that's essentially true. A black hole would result from a neutron star that acquires enough mass to collapse to less than a critical radius. The other way this could happen is if a neutron already having sufficient mass collapses to less than the critical radius as it cools (and therefore can no longer sustain its own gravitational pull). The key here is that any body that has enough mass to cause it to eventually collapse to less than the critical radius will become a black hole. As for the center of a neutron star being a black hole. I seriously doubt it. If the center was a black hole there would be no outward pressure maintaining the spherical structure of the neutron star. It would simply collapse into the black hole core. But maybe the black hole forms in the core of a neutron star first as the star is dynamically collapsing on its last leg of life. That would be a very short transition period though.
What happens to nukleons in the future depends on the exact dunamics of the vacuum that is related to this effect, the strong interaction might change drasticly, they might turn into more macro black hole like masses or they might do somthing else, my guess is that when this happens this phase transition, stars and neutronstrars will collapse into black holes
Can no star say just run out of fuel and turn into a big huge black ball of what? Carbon? Or what would it be? Something super dense? Guess it's gravity would be so strong no spaceship could ever land on it? Or does that even happen?
Crystal Boy Get a life dude and stop the disrespect and harassment. Leave the girl alone. Respect yourself and make worth meaning what you have between your legs.
The death of neuron stars might actually be stranger than we thought. If we discover neutron stars and why not add a strange new theoretical type of star called a proton star, an unstable variant of a neutron star, And the proton star will be the end result for the neutron star’s life cycle, As the neutron star ages with out being fed for trillions of years, The neutron star will emit beta particles, as the neutrons get converted into protons, First the outer layers and then the inner core will become converted into protons. And over time the neutron star will be converted into a proton star, And what we know from radioactive atoms, they are unstable. And the protons star will ether evaporate protons, or the proton star will explode in a supernova like event and leave only rogue protons behind. This is a baryon star theory that will determine how neutron stars will die out in the future. And this process will happen earlier than the black hole evaporation stage.
YES!!!! MY FAVORITE EVER!!!!!!!!!! This will blow your mind more than anything else will. Neutron stars are like unfathomably amazing! No better person on this planet to explain it. Double thaank you@!
Can I charge my iPhone off a Neutron Star, and if so, how many charges can the star provide? I want a big battery bank, tired of always running out of power and being unable to charge up.
The reason this happens is because the schwartzchild radius exceeds the diameter of the star, therefore, it gets an event horizon, therefore, it must be a blackhole.
And I got a very good question, And it’s about neutron stars, And if we know neutron stars exists, Why isn’t there a star that is made of protons, And I think that’s because a star made of protons would be unstable and possibly explodes, And this is what I call neutron stars hadron(or baryon) stars, stars that are made of non fundamental particles, such as protons and neutrons, And which both particles are mainly made up of three quark(such as the two known types, such as up and down quarks), And I think that proton stars are probably a black dwarf version of a neutron star, and when neutron stars do become proton stars, And they will last for a much longer time (due to their powerful gravity and magnetism) of about trillions, until they lose(or gain)mass and energy and until They will finally explode or/And possibly become a black hole or turn back into a neutron star, Or they will just explode and leave nothing behind except for heavy elements(or and rather become cosmic rays). And so far non of these stars existed(just yet) but I could be wrong again, but this question might prove that the universe is much stranger than we thought?! And so far I (RyanVD) think that proton stars will not exist?! But these stars could help scientists(mainly astronomers), the life cycle of these weird objects?! And that’s it for now?!
in the 3rd case: would the material ejected from the neutron star going supernova at the end of the universe be enough to create another few new stars... and if so... would that be the last "batch" of stars way past all the galaxies die... and if so... would there be planets and maybe just maybe life... in the empty universe... at the end of time...
What happens in the time during the transition from a neutron star to a black hole? (I mean there has to be a very small amount of time during the transition, what's happening during that time?) What about the mass makes it do that? Also, when we talk about black holes, some of them are millions of the mass of the sun... what did they look like as stars? How big were they?
the supermassive ones almost certainly did not form from a single star .... they likely grew over time. although the early stars are theorized to have been massive so they would have formed very large black holes upon their deaths.
They are all very magnetic, but the super magnetic ones are called Magnetars, and Pulsars have the jets coming out the poles and then you get a 'normal' Neutron star.
Does anyone know if neutron stars ever stop spinning? Do they even slow down during the course of their life? Even when they decay and eventually explode, are they still spinning? Does that decay slow down their spin? Does anything slow down their spin? I've sent this question to numerous astrophysicists now and haven't gotten an answer so it might be one of those things that nobody knows for sure.
a neutron pulse so intense it would sterilize anything for tens or hundreds of miles around and create a miniature nuclear explosion that lasts 5-10 minutes.
I don't buy the black hole evaporation mechanism. If one member of an electron-positron pair formed (presumably due to normal vacuum fluctuations) on the periphery of a black hole escaped (constituting radiation), there is still the other half that falls into the black hole (or maybe it escapes too). Hence, while you could say that radiation from the black hole occurred (actually it wouldn't even be that since it is originating from outside the event horizon), you would also have to say that the mass of the black hole increases as a result of the other member of the pair falling in. So how is this evaporation of the black hole? Have I missed something here? The only thing I can reckon that would make it work is that the formation of the pair results directly from a quantum mechanical interaction between the space outside of the black hole and the material inside in which sufficient energy is transferred to generate the pair (outside the event horizon) in the first place. What is the nature of such an interaction? Also, I can't see how radiation of one member of an electron-positron pair outside the event horizon constitutes radiation from the black hole itself. Under that logic you would have to claim that the high intensity x-rays from the excited gas/plasma swirling into the black hole is also radiation from he black hole itself. But it isn't. Both types of radiation are originating from outside the black hole and outside the event horizon. In the case of the gas and plasma, the radiation energy comes from them losing gravitational potential energy as the fall into the black hole (and as the atoms collide with each other). In the case of the electron-positron pair, it comes from the energy of formation. The only other source of energy available that I could see is transfer of rotational energy via gravity from a spinning black hole to the plasma, gases, and particle pairs surrounding it. But that wouldn't cause evaporation either. It would just cause the black hole to slow down in its spin over time. If somebody has a better explanation, or if I have missed something here, please let me know. Maybe you could claim tunneling, but the the probability would be absurdly low. And that wouldn't be the proposed mechanism of Hawking radiation.
What would the transition from the star to the black hole look like? It obviously wouldn't just instantly happen. Would even more energy be released at the second of the transformation, or would it just be smooth and relatively uneventful?
Makes me wonder what kind of exotic minerals could exist on the surface of a neutron star. Perhaps some sort of solid carbon and oxygen mineral, or diamomd like matrix with any manner of heavy metal contamination.
Marik Zilberman I'm curious because I've come across some hypotheses that suggest some atomic nuclei may remain intact along the surface. I won't pretend to know whether or not that either is true or how, but even if I can't remember where, I do distinctly remember some reports where they said it outer crust contained stable heavy elements.
@@nunyabisnass1141 Well, you might be happy to know that some geologists speculate that there are gigantic diamond deposits in the upper mantle right here on earth large enough to cause noticeable effects on seismic waves traveling through the planet.
If a free neutron will day in about 15 minutes will a neutron in a group of neutrons (a neutron star) decay ? If it does decay, will the proton, electron and neutrino be rapidly crushed into a neutron ? Is it conceivable that the (almost massless) neutrino could escape the neutron star ? cheers (from an obviously non physicist)
Damn, I thought I would hear about, it looses energy and leave a molten iron or material core, and then making a planet like Earth. Black Holes are cooler tho.
If the collision event is not in the sim at the first of the video where we just see a supernova then I would say this is telling us it happens more like an accretion disk idea, just my common sense analyzing a sim, really REALLY great video!!!!!!!! Sub for life!!!!!! I love all your videos, just positive feedback!!!!!!!
It's upsetting that all the matter is being turned into energy (eventually our own system of Sol). Like being shredded up by a black hole. Is there nothing reversing this trend? Is there anything binding energy into mass again?
A Pulsar is another name for a Neutron Star Scientifically speaking Anton Petrov I'm a Dr of Theoretical Physics And Cosmology so if you have any questions please feel free to ask and I will be more than happy to answer them Anton Petrov
theoretical...yeah. i have a question. why are all these theories scientists and such come up with presented as truth for 10-15 years until proven bullshit. and no im not trying to be an ass lol. im actually serious, being that you seem to be a person that may have some insight on the subject
