• ns1@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    4 days ago

    After reading I realised that this proposal isn’t a single new element for all neutron stars, but a separate new entry on the table for every individual neutron star in existence, unless there are two that happen to have the exact same number of protons which is unlikely. Sounds good to me

      • ns1@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        4 days ago

        we have assumed that Rex is comprised of a uniform nucleon fluid, with protons, neutrons and electrons in an idealised 1:8:1 ratio

        This is how the author is estimating it, they are assuming 1/9th of the mass is protons. No idea how good that assumption is though, there is a source which doesn’t look the most convincing

        • bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          4 days ago

          Whoopsie. I used to assume neutron stars are made of neutrons. It turns out Big Astronomy lied to me.

          • Revan343@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            ·
            4 days ago

            Neutron stars are made of neutrons in the same way that tapwater is made of water molecules: primarily, but not entirely

          • Natanael@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Neutron stars have so high pressure that MOST but not all protons decay into neutrons plus electrons positrons (plus neutrinos)

            Edit: (see quote below)

            • erin@piefed.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I’m not exactly well-read on particle physics, but to my understanding neutrons and neutrinos are neutrally charged and electrons are negatively charged. Why does a proton break down into net-negatively charged particles? I assume some weird quark shenanigans.

              • Natanael@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                https://abc.lbl.gov/wallchart/chapters/03/2.html

                I got stuff mixed

                In beta minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino: n Æ p + e - +. In beta plus decay, a proton decays into a neutron, a positron, and a neutrino: p Æ n + e+ +n. Both reactions occur because in different regions of the Chart of the Nuclides, one or the other will move the product closer to the region of stability. These particular reactions take place because conservation laws are obeyed. Electric charge conservation requires that if an electrically neutral neutron becomes a positively charged proton, an electrically negative particle (in this case, an electron) must also be produced. Similarly, conservation of lepton number requires that if a neutron (lepton number = 0) decays into a proton (lepton number = 0) and an electron (lepton number = 1), a particle with a lepton number of -1 (in this case an antineutrino) must also be produced. The leptons emitted in beta decay did not exist in the nucleus before the decay–they are created at the instant of the decay.