Slashdot Mirror
Exotic "Electroweak" Star Predicted
astroengine writes "A new type (or phase) of star has been characterized by Case Western Reserve University scientists in a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters. The 'electroweak' star is a stellar corpse too massive to be a quark star, yet too light to collapse into a black hole. It crushes and burns the quarks inside, generating an outward radiation pressure that acts against gravity. Interestingly, the interior is predicted to be a 'Big Bang factory,' forcing the electromagnetic and weak forces to collapse as one (hence 'electroweak') — a condition that hasn't been seen elsewhere in our universe since moments after the Big Bang." The article notes that the first calculations on electroweak stars pegged them as an intermediate stage on the way to a black-hole collapse, lasting at most a second. The new calculations suggest that electroweak stars could persist for millions of years.
I like exotic stars, fucking HOT!!!
As always with physics, you have a pretty huge margin of error...
So they predict something that they think hasn't existed in the visible universe for 10 billion years (the universe is only 13.75b years old), and even if it did, we wouldn't be able to detect it.
Sounds pretty lame to me.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
What's a few orders of magnitude between friends...
For a second there I thought this article was about Lady Gaga. You can't imagine how thankful I am that this is not the case.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
From TFA:
If you're going to pretend to quote the article at least try to get it right. It says nowhere that the stars themselves can't exist now. It says that the cores of these stars, if they do exist, have conditions that haven't been seen for perhaps 10 billion+ years.
I strongly recommend loading that website with some sort of adblocker enabled.
Then refreshing it a few hundred times. All of you.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Here is the scientific paper.
As a physicist, I feel that this is a little far out. It assumes violation of the conservation laws for baryon number and lepton number. They claim that this nonconservation is actually predicted by a loophole in the standard model, which may be true, but it's never actually been observed -- if anyone observed such a violation experimentally, they'd definitely get the Nobel prize.
It's also built on a particular model of quark-quark interactions. (The strong nuclear force is not an interaction for which we have an exact formula. All we have is various models of it.) All the predictions are therefore going to be dependent on this model, as well as on the other approximations they have to make. People have predicted other weird objects, such as quark stars, using similar models, and the predictions have turned out to be very hard to pin down in any model-independent way. Some theorists use different methods, and come out with completely different predictions. Nor has any really compelling experimental evidence turned up for quark stars, although there are a couple of candidate objects that seem too dense to be ordinary neutron stars. If there's no solid evidence for quark stars, it seems like quite a stretch to go beyond that and predict things about even more exotic objects. The landscape is littered with predictions of exotic objects along these lines: quark stars, strange stars, black stars, gravastars, fuzzballs, boson stars, q-balls, ...
They recently revised their estimate of the lifetime of these objects, making it ~10^7 years rather than a fraction of a second (only 14 orders of magnitude different). Even though 10^7 years is fairly long, it's really not very long on cosmic timescales, so we would expect these to be fairly rare and hard to find, even if they did exist.
Find free books.
nothing weak at all about that system. it's all in the manuals.
as good a time as any to consult with/trust in your creators, in case you're not killed 'mistakenly', or even if you are.
Hopefully now that they know what to look for, we can turn the prediction into observation.
...a very small fraction of the energy will be emitted as electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light), making these objects very hard to detect.
oh...
Well then, for the time being I'm more inclined to side with the other guy in the article:
"It highly implausible that such an electroweak star would exist," said Paolo Gondolo of the University of Utah.
I wonder how this is different than a neutron star? More or less massive?
bla! See my posting is as insightful as yours!
Then refreshing it a few hundred times. All of you.
Done.
It's more fun if you script something to repeatedly spider the site at the maximum rate the server can put out, and let that run for a few days.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
I'm listed as a Troll? Are you kidding me? Yes, they observed a new star, but the entire explanation behind this "electroweak" star is fiction...you can't prove any of the explanations, you can't re-create it in the lab, it is absolutely a bunch of fiction. That story resorts to purely ad-hoc requirements to explain this new "electroweak" star. And your comments on quarks... really? There's nothing that shows any of this exists in normal matter. If you have to spend enormous energy to blast a proton to unlock a hypothetical quark then how do you know the energy itself doesn't manifest as particles that don't even play a role in ordinary matter? It is pretty easy guys to sum it up.....throw up the x-rays and you'll see the flat disk and axial jet...what we have here is a star with galactic discharge...it is electric baby and you just can't prove it wrong.
If you have to spend enormous energy to blast a proton to unlock a hypothetical quark then how do you know the energy itself doesn't manifest as particles that don't even play a role in ordinary matter?
You don't have to blast a proton with enormous energy to see quarks. All it takes are some simple electrons. If you use electrons with small enough wavelength (i.e. high enough energy) to get good resolution, and you look at a proton, lo and behold, you see these three little thingies whizzing around in there.
When this was first done, it caused a bit of consternation among one Dr. Gell-Mann and one Dr. Zweig, who had initially proposed quarks merely as mathematical mechanisms for aiding certain types of calculations -- nobody actually thought the quarks were real. But then some assholes at SLAC decided to probe the proton with high speed electrons, and God forbid it, they saw the damned things. Still, a few dumb people such as Dick Feynman weren't convinced the quarks were actually real. It wasn't until numerous further experiments were performed that physicists grudgingly accepted that the quarks were actual particles, not mathematical oddities.
In short, why don't you go fuck a goat?/p?
with step 5's two question marks, parent post was trying to say "if step 5 is null, then replace it with something"
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173224.aspx
fixed that for you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it