Neutrons Become Cubes Inside Neutron Stars

On 12/08/2011 7:15 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 12/08/2011 4:35 AM, Frisbieinstein wrote:
I'm not sure, but this seems wrong to me. Neutrons in the star are
superfluid and rotate in vorticies. This means they exist as wave
forms, like electrons orbiting a nucleus, orbiting the center of the
vortex, which is empty. I don't see how could be could be considered
a cube or any other shape since the neutrons have no individuality,
though perhaps there is some way it is possible.

Well, they aren't talking about all neutron stars, but just the very
most massive neutron stars that are nearly at the edge of the neutron
star/blackhole border which is about 2 solar masses.

It would be interesting to see if such a massive neutron star actually
looks like a cube up close, or if it's just spherical like all other
neutron stars.

I don't think being arranged in flattened patterns would affect their
superfluidity.

There's a better write up about it, in the following article. The writer
says that the neutrons may become crystallized rather than fluidic at
these pressures.

"It’s theorized, however, that these extremely high pressures and
densities could result in any of a number of exotic phases for the
neutrons, such as a superconducting or superfluid state, various meson
or quarkyonic condensates … or, if the neutron star has high enough
mass, neutron crystals."
Can Neutrons Become Cubes? « astrobites
http://astrobites.com/2011/08/12/can...-become-cubes/

Yousuf Khan

On 12/08/2011 10:20 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Even now it is hard to tell because definitive measurements of the radius
(and then moments of inertia) for a neutron star are a bitch to measure.

Well, they ARE tiny little blighters.

Is this really a claim that the neutrons *themselves* become cubes? I'd
expect the shapes of the confinement volumes, if they are confined like
in a solid in this phase rather than mobile like in a liquid, would be
rhombic dodecahedra rather than cubes, at least at low temperatures
where face-centered cubic packing is the logical choice for maximum
density. But that assumes the neutrons themselves are spheres, or have
spherically symmetrical wavefunctions anyway.

Now, less symmetrical wavefunctions certainly aren't out of the
question, and ones with the symmetries of a cube are already known (e.g.
the P orbital valence electrons in garden-variety carbon atoms -- though
when they form bonds, they end up with the weaker tetrahedral symmetry
that you get if you two-color the vertices of that cube; all of organic
chemistry's varied stiff-rubber-Tinkertoy geometries stem from
polyhedral symmetric wavefunctions, ultimately, and with it, the
functioning of all those little enzymes you need to breathe and
metabolize and think and stuff).

Still, "cubical neutrons" sounds at first blush like the same sort of
stuff that comes out of the guys that tell us all about the brilliant
new theory whereby centrifugal force is really due to "circlon rays" and
how "time is a cube" and so forth -- you get the distinct feeling that
mentions of 2012 and ancient astronauts can't be far behind, or else a
brilliant new "patent pending" perpetual motion machine, or something.

On Aug 13, 4:18*am, Greg Sandoval wrote:
On 12/08/2011 10:20 AM, eric gisse wrote:

Even now it is hard to tell because definitive measurements of the radius
(and then moments of inertia) for a neutron star are a bitch to measure..

Well, they ARE tiny little blighters.

Is this really a claim that the neutrons *themselves* become cubes?
-----------------------
nasty pig idiot!!!

it is not that Neutrons become cubs

THOSE NEUTRONS ARE COMBINED TO A QUARTET THAT FORMS A CUB!!

even Protons are able (and do )to combine as a **Quartets of
protons**

that is one of the secrets of the Mendeleev
periodic table

GOT IT IDIOT

see again my abstract

and dont dare to open your pigs moron
parrot mouth before even starting to understand it
(though a pig like you do not deserve even looking at it
you will have to eat a few ships loaded with potato
before even starting to understand it
i was working on it more than 5 years
day and night work !!!)
and as time goes on
it is been confirmed again and again and
and more and more widely known!!

though pigs like you
that will be left behind to the garbage of history of science


Y.Porat
---------------------

On a sunny day (Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:15:19 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

It would be interesting to see if such a massive neutron star actually
looks like a cube up close, or if it's just spherical like all other
neutron stars.

Seems unlikely to be not round, as when you put cubes together randomly,
then those do not align.
Try with sugar cubes.

In article ca3dba1f-b7f0-476a-9dc7-0982aeeda4a0
@y39g2000prd.googlegroups.com, says...


Space is cubic; energy is point round in time.

It depends on coordinate system.

If you use Cartesian system x, y, z, it seems cubic indeed.
IF you use cylindrical system r,"fi",z, it seems to be cylindrical.
If you use spherical system r, "fi", "theta", it seems to be spherical.


--
Poutnik

Greg Sandoval wrote in
:

On 12/08/2011 10:20 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Even now it is hard to tell because definitive measurements of the
radius (and then moments of inertia) for a neutron star are a bitch
to measure.

Well, they ARE tiny little blighters.

Is this really a claim that the neutrons *themselves* become cubes?

Seems more like a statement of how they are packed. Which isn't something I
have an abundance of knowldge about.

[...]

On Aug 13, 12:08*pm, eric gisse wrote:
Greg Sandoval wrote :

On 12/08/2011 10:20 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Even now it is hard to tell because definitive measurements of the
radius (and then moments of inertia) for a neutron star are a bitch
to measure.

Well, they ARE tiny little blighters.

Is this really a claim that the neutrons *themselves* become cubes?

Seems more like a statement of how they are packed

-----------------
at least Gisse understood it
it took him more than 8 years!!
at such a tome he could do twice his Bsc (:-)

mymodel is marching on
itis crystal cleaver and sunstanciated
for cleaver but not least HONEST PEOPLE !!
and a repeat here what i remarked jus t a tiny substanciation
those 'rectangular pipes'' are one of the secrets of
the periodic table of Mendeleev !!
those rectangular pipes '
(actually octahedral pipes )
start only from
Fluorine and above!!
(samller than fluorine elements are not rectangular pipes but as i
describe them there )

it is not as Eric say that there is no much information about it --
by book is loaded with such

UNPRECEDENTED information !!
but it needs understanding it
while
seems that you cant do it without my help

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

.. Which isn't something I
have an abundance of knowldge about.

[...]

On Aug 13, 7:51*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Aug 13, 12:08*pm, eric gisse wrote:

Greg Sandoval wrote :

On 12/08/2011 10:20 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Even now it is hard to tell because definitive measurements of the
radius (and then moments of inertia) for a neutron star are a bitch
to measure.

Well, they ARE tiny little blighters.

Is this really a claim that the neutrons *themselves* become cubes?

Seems more like a statement of how they are packed

-----------------
at least Gisse understood it
*it took him more than 8 years!!
at such a tome he could do twice his Bsc * (:-)

mymodel is marching on
itis crystal cleaver and sunstanciated
for cleaver but not least HONEST PEOPLE !!
and a repeat here what i remarked jus t a tiny substanciation
those 'rectangular pipes'' are one of the secrets of
the periodic table of Mendeleev !!
those rectangular * pipes *'
(actually octahedral pipes )
start only from
Fluorine and above!!
(samller than fluorine elements *are not rectangular * pipes *but as i
describe them there )

it is not as Eric say that there is no much * information about it --
by book is loaded with *such

UNPRECEDENTED *information !!
but it needs *understanding it
while
seems that *you cant do it without my help

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

. Which isn't something I

have an abundance of knowldge about.

[...]

Would like to know more about "quark stars' They are in mass density
right between a neutron star and black hole. I wonder if there are
free gluon particles(Higgs) I think of neutrons as the eggs that came
out of the BB. TreBert

On Aug 13, 4:35*pm, bert wrote:
On Aug 13, 7:51*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:









On Aug 13, 12:08*pm, eric gisse wrote:

Greg Sandoval wrote :

On 12/08/2011 10:20 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Even now it is hard to tell because definitive measurements of the
radius (and then moments of inertia) for a neutron star are a bitch
to measure.

Well, they ARE tiny little blighters.

Is this really a claim that the neutrons *themselves* become cubes?

Seems more like a statement of how they are packed

-----------------
at least Gisse understood it
*it took him more than 8 years!!
at such a tome he could do twice his Bsc * (:-)

mymodel is marching on
itis crystal cleaver and sunstanciated
for cleaver but not least HONEST PEOPLE !!
and a repeat here what i remarked jus t a tiny substanciation
those 'rectangular pipes'' are one of the secrets of
the periodic table of Mendeleev !!
those rectangular * pipes *'
(actually octahedral pipes )
start only from
Fluorine and above!!
(samller than fluorine elements *are not rectangular * pipes *but as i
describe them there )

it is not as Eric say that there is no much * information about it --
by book is loaded with *such

UNPRECEDENTED *information !!
but it needs *understanding it
while
seems that *you cant do it without my help

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

. Which isn't something I

have an abundance of knowldge about.

[...]

Would like to know more about "quark stars' *They are in mass density
right between a neutron star and black hole. I wonder if there are
free gluon particles(Higgs) I think of neutrons as the *eggs that came
out of the BB. TreBert

--------------------
no glueons and no schluons
and no quars and no schmarks

it is all a big one bull****
a disaster to the advance of physics !!

NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS -
NO REAL PHYSICS !!

Y.Porat
----------------------------

On Aug 13, 11:07*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:35*pm, bert wrote:





On Aug 13, 7:51*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Aug 13, 12:08*pm, eric gisse wrote:

Greg Sandoval wrote :

On 12/08/2011 10:20 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Even now it is hard to tell because definitive measurements of the
radius (and then moments of inertia) for a neutron star are a bitch
to measure.

Well, they ARE tiny little blighters.

Is this really a claim that the neutrons *themselves* become cubes?

Seems more like a statement of how they are packed

-----------------
at least Gisse understood it
*it took him more than 8 years!!
at such a tome he could do twice his Bsc * (:-)

mymodel is marching on
itis crystal cleaver and sunstanciated
for cleaver but not least HONEST PEOPLE !!
and a repeat here what i remarked jus t a tiny substanciation
those 'rectangular pipes'' are one of the secrets of
the periodic table of Mendeleev !!
those rectangular * pipes *'
(actually octahedral pipes )
start only from
Fluorine and above!!
(samller than fluorine elements *are not rectangular * pipes *but as i
describe them there )

it is not as Eric say that there is no much * information about it --
by book is loaded with *such

UNPRECEDENTED *information !!
but it needs *understanding it
while
seems that *you cant do it without my help

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------

. Which isn't something I

have an abundance of knowldge about.

[...]

Would like to know more about "quark stars' *They are in mass density
right between a neutron star and black hole. I wonder if there are
free gluon particles(Higgs) I think of neutrons as the *eggs that came
out of the BB. TreBert

--------------------
no glueons *and * no schluons
and * no * quars and no schmarks

it is all a big one bull****
a disaster to *the advance of * physics !!

NO MASS - THE * ONLY MASS -
NO REAL PHYSICS !!

Y.Porat
----------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mass can't be everywhere. It would snowball for anything moving
through it. Mass is a solid.