Neutrons Become Cubes Inside Neutron Stars

On Aug 13, 8:07*pm, "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
----------------------------

actually a little corction:

there migh tbe soemthing like
3 sub particles
i found it independently in my model
yet
THE PROTON OT NEUTRON
ARE NOT BUILT** ONLY *
ON THOSE 3 SUB PARTICLES
THEY ARE ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE WHOLE PROTON OR NEUTRON
ie
it is far away from a real solution
of it
btw
can you build a spher from 3 sub particles ?? (:-)
iow

the P or N
are LONGISH SHAPES
THE SUB PARTICLES ARE CONNECTED LINEARLY
TO A LONGISH SHAPE !!

in short
the current 'standard model'
is a big mess B S

far away from being deserved to be called
'the standard model ''

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

On 13/08/2011 6:08 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Greg 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.

Simple cubic packing body-centered cubic face-centered cubic. Did
they really mean the former? We tend to see simple and body-centered in
crystals mainly with ionic solids (salt crystals), because the adjacency
graphs can be two-colored thus keeping like charges farther apart than
with the FCC packing.

Simple cubic packing is so inefficient that the only metal known to use
it is polonium.

Neutron packing could be expected to behave more similarly to ion
packing in metal than to ion packing in salts. So I'd expect simple
cubic to be avoided in preference to face-centered cubic, especially at
higher pressures, unless the neutron's internal quark structure began to
become important in some way.

I'm no QCD expert, but assuming QCD's three "colors" exhibit "like
repels, unlike attracts" then if the quarks become important they should
like to line up on hexagons, alternating the three colors around the
rings of a lattice like chicken-wire (or graphene). Funnily enough,
stacking these three-dimensionally in such a way as to three-color (wow,
a pun in all of this) the adjacency graph gives us ... face-centered
cubic packing *of the quarks*.

At that point the neutrons lack identity, since any of several
overlapping decompositions into disjoint adjacency triangles could be
equivalently regarded as specifying the "neutrons". So this pressure
level would probably correspond to a quark star and not a neutron star.

(The preceding analysis ignores the unlike electric charges on the
quarks, where two from each neutron are like in sign and the third is
unlike those and of double the magnitude. I'm assuming the strong force
overwhelms the electromagnetic in this situation, since the energy scale
is still going to be far less than grand unification, even inside a
quark star.)

On 13/08/2011 2:58 PM, Greg Sandoval wrote:
I'm no QCD expert, but assuming QCD's three "colors" exhibit "like
repels, unlike attracts" then if the quarks become important they should
like to line up on hexagons, alternating the three colors around the
rings of a lattice like chicken-wire (or graphene). Funnily enough,
stacking these three-dimensionally in such a way as to three-color (wow,
a pun in all of this) the adjacency graph gives us ... face-centered
cubic packing *of the quarks*.

Actually, thinking about this a bit more, in the 2D case the compact
three-colored graph would look like:

R G B R G B

B R G B R

R G B R G B

B R G B R

so, a triangular close packing, the best possible even for uncharged
spheres.

In the 3D case, stacking these presents a problem with all three charges
close to the "holes" of the triangular lattice one level down. But:

R G R G

R G R

R G R G

R G R

and then

R B R B

B R B

R B R B

B R B

and then

B G B G

G B G B

B G B G

G B G B

and then repeat.

Tilt that, and you have lattice points on the centers of the edges of a
cube, with cell

R ... G G ... R

B B ... ... B B

R ... G G ... R

which smells to me like face-centered cubic in disguise, but with two
points (in the centers of two opposite faces) missing.

On 13/08/2011 5:10 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 12 Aug 2011 19:15:19 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote :

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.

Plus, the neutrons would most likely be granular cubes, rather than an
entire star made of one cube.

Yousuf Khan

On 13/08/2011 6:08 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Greg 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.

They talk about one particular wavefunction for neutrons based on a
particular interpretation of quantum chromodynamics, that gives them a
cubic shape.

Yousuf Khan

In sci.astro message , Fri, 12 Aug
2011 14:45:36, Martin Brown posted:


You have to wonder what happens to the extra gravitational energy
released when they pack as cubes at 100% instead of 74% - does it all
go into deforming the shape of neutrons or do these heavier stars run
hotter and spin up as they very gradually shrink?

Angular momentum will be conserved.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike 6.05 WinXP.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links.
Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free,
DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm.

On Aug 13, 11:23*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:07*pm, "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
----------------------------

actually a little corction:

there migh tbe soemthing like
3 sub *particles
i found it independently in my model
yet
THE PROTON OT NEUTRON
ARE NOT BUILT** ONLY *
ON THOSE 3 SUB PARTICLES
THEY ARE ONLY A SMALL * PERCENTAGE OF THE WHOLE PROTON OR NEUTRON
ie
it is far away from a real solution
of it
btw
can you build * a spher from 3 sub particles ?? *(:-)
iow

the P or N
are LONGISH SHAPES
THE * SUB * PARTICLES ARE CONNECTED LINEARLY
TO A LONGISH SHAPE !!

in short
the * *current *'standard model'
is a big mess B S

far away from being deserved to be called
'the standard model ''

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

- Show quoted text -

There is a proton family. We observe this in a burst of hadron decay.

On Aug 13, 10:03*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 13/08/2011 5:10 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

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

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.

Plus, the neutrons would most likely be granular cubes, rather than an
entire star made of one cube.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

--------------------
your head is a granular cube!!

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

On Aug 13, 9:41*pm, Greg Sandoval wrote:
On 13/08/2011 2:58 PM, Greg Sandoval wrote:

I'm no QCD expert, but assuming QCD's three "colors" exhibit "like
repels, unlike attracts" then if the quarks become important they should
like to line up on hexagons, alternating the three colors around the
rings of a lattice like chicken-wire (or graphene). Funnily enough,
stacking these three-dimensionally in such a way as to three-color (wow,
a pun in all of this) the adjacency graph gives us ... face-centered
cubic packing *of the quarks*.

Actually, thinking about this a bit more, in the 2D case the compact
three-colored graph would look like:

R * G * B * R * G * B

* *B * R * G * B * R

R * G * B * R * G * B

* *B * R * G * B * R

so, a triangular close packing, the best possible even for uncharged
spheres.

In the 3D case, stacking these presents a problem with all three charges
close to the "holes" of the triangular lattice one level down. But:

R * G * * * R * G

* * * *R * G * * * R

R * G * * * R * G

* * * *R * G * * * R

and then

* * *R * B * * * R * B

* *B * * * R * B

* * *R * B * * * R * B

* *B * * * R * B

and then

B * * * G * B * * * G

* *G * B * * * G * B

B * * * G * B * * * G

* *G * B * * * G * B

and then repeat.

Tilt that, and you have lattice points on the centers of the edges of a
cube, with cell

* * *R * * * *... * *G * * * G * *... * * * *R

B * * * B * *... * * * * * * * * ... * *B * * * B

* * *R * * * *... * *G * * * G * *... * * * *R

which smells to me like face-centered cubic in disguise, but with two
points (in the centers of two opposite faces) missing.

--------------
so ??
make up your guessing mind
triangles or cubes?? (:-)

btw
it is non of them !
the more accurate shape is
Octahedron s done by **Alpha particles** !!!
(the Alpha particles is may be
the strongest most stable particle)

see

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

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

On 13/08/2011 22:13, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.astro , Fri, 12 Aug
2011 14:45:36, Martin posted:


You have to wonder what happens to the extra gravitational energy
released when they pack as cubes at 100% instead of 74% - does it all
go into deforming the shape of neutrons or do these heavier stars run
hotter and spin up as they very gradually shrink?

Angular momentum will be conserved.

Exactly. So there is a chance that if you can find a fairly young
2Msolar pulsar instead of its spin slowing down with drag forces it will
actually be speeding up at first as the centre crystallises to the
higher density phase from the core outwards and it shrinks.

Regards,
Martin Brown