Y.Porat
Apr7-04, 09:08 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resize=yes,status=no,wi dth=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote in message news:<c421da\\$sh5\\$1@pcls4.std.com>...\n> mrnett1974@gmx.de (mrnett1974@gmx.de) writes:\n>\n> >I wonder why pure small neutral nuclei (e.g. only 4 neutrons instead\n> >of 2 protons and 2 neutrons like in He) seemed not to exist. I know\n> >that giant stars can transform in so called "neutron stars", that\n> >consist only of neutrons.\n>\n> I\'ve read somewhere that the dilambda is expected to be a bound state\n> but has never been observed (lambda - a baryon with one each up, down\n> & strange quarks). Same source also stated that the lambda-proton and\n> lambda-neutron states were not expected to be bound but I don\'t remember\n> the reason for this. Heavier nuclei containing lambdas have been observed\n> such as He-6(lambda lambda) (two protons, two neutrons and two lambdas)\n>\n> I\'ve also read that the dineutron is _just barely_ not bound. But even\n> if it was bound, unless it had an unusually large binding energy, it\n> would beta decay into a deuteron.\n>\n> A neutron star (which isn\'t pure neutrons BTW) is gravitationally bound\n> and thus a different beast.\n---------------------------\ngeneralt speaking i agree with your definition that a neutron star\nid a diffeerent \'beast\'\nyet i woulf try to add some explanation:\nthe difference between a neuteron and a proton is just at the outer\nvolume of them the their basic inner volume is thr same\neven if we accept the quark story- it is as well at their\n\'edge orbitals \' (see my chain of prbitals)\nthe mass of a \'quark\' if you dont mind is just a few percent od the nucleid\nand it is rather those periferial orbitals that are active and\ndoeng the differences beteen the nucleids.\nnow in a neutron star the enourmous gravitation is collapsing those\nperifferial orbilals and leavs it \'rasored up\' onl;y with the nasic\nstructue\nnow i agree with your assertion that a neitron star is not only\nneutrons\nyet i dare to guess that all those that are not neutrons\nsay protons are *at the periffery* of the star\nie not those that are locked ans compressed inside from all directions\nbut rather those that has \'free edges\' at the periffery\nall the best\nY.Porat\n------------------------\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote in message news:<c421da$sh5$1@pcls4.std.com>...
> mrnett1974@gmx.de (mrnett1974@gmx.de) writes:
>
> >I wonder why pure small neutral nuclei (e.g. only 4 neutrons instead
> >of 2 protons and 2 neutrons like in He) seemed not to exist. I know
> >that giant stars can transform in so called "neutron stars", that
> >consist only of neutrons.
>
> I've read somewhere that the dilambda is expected to be a bound state
> but has never been observed (\lambda - a baryon with one each up, down
> & strange quarks). Same source also stated that the \lambda-proton and
> \lambda-neutron states were not expected to be bound but I don't remember
> the reason for this. Heavier nuclei containing lambdas have been observed
> such as He-6(\lambda \lambda) (two protons, two neutrons and two lambdas)
>
> I've also read that the dineutron is _just barely_ not bound. But even
> if it was bound, unless it had an unusually large binding energy, it
> would \beta decay into a deuteron.
>
> A neutron star (which isn't pure neutrons BTW) is gravitationally bound
> and thus a different beast.
---------------------------
generalt speaking i agree with your definition that a neutron star
id a diffeerent 'beast'
yet i woulf try to add some explanation:
the difference between a neuteron and a proton is just at the outer
volume of them the their basic inner volume is thr same
even if we accept the quark story- it is as well at their
'edge orbitals ' (see my chain of prbitals)
the mass of a 'quark' if you dont mind is just a few percent od the nucleid
and it is rather those periferial orbitals that are active and
doeng the differences beteen the nucleids.
now in a neutron star the enourmous gravitation is collapsing those
perifferial orbilals and leavs it 'rasored up' onl;y with the nasic
structue
now i agree with your assertion that a neitron star is not only
neutrons
yet i dare to guess that all those that are not neutrons
say protons are *at the periffery* of the star
ie not those that are locked ans compressed inside from all directions
but rather those that has 'free edges' at the periffery
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------------
> mrnett1974@gmx.de (mrnett1974@gmx.de) writes:
>
> >I wonder why pure small neutral nuclei (e.g. only 4 neutrons instead
> >of 2 protons and 2 neutrons like in He) seemed not to exist. I know
> >that giant stars can transform in so called "neutron stars", that
> >consist only of neutrons.
>
> I've read somewhere that the dilambda is expected to be a bound state
> but has never been observed (\lambda - a baryon with one each up, down
> & strange quarks). Same source also stated that the \lambda-proton and
> \lambda-neutron states were not expected to be bound but I don't remember
> the reason for this. Heavier nuclei containing lambdas have been observed
> such as He-6(\lambda \lambda) (two protons, two neutrons and two lambdas)
>
> I've also read that the dineutron is _just barely_ not bound. But even
> if it was bound, unless it had an unusually large binding energy, it
> would \beta decay into a deuteron.
>
> A neutron star (which isn't pure neutrons BTW) is gravitationally bound
> and thus a different beast.
---------------------------
generalt speaking i agree with your definition that a neutron star
id a diffeerent 'beast'
yet i woulf try to add some explanation:
the difference between a neuteron and a proton is just at the outer
volume of them the their basic inner volume is thr same
even if we accept the quark story- it is as well at their
'edge orbitals ' (see my chain of prbitals)
the mass of a 'quark' if you dont mind is just a few percent od the nucleid
and it is rather those periferial orbitals that are active and
doeng the differences beteen the nucleids.
now in a neutron star the enourmous gravitation is collapsing those
perifferial orbilals and leavs it 'rasored up' onl;y with the nasic
structue
now i agree with your assertion that a neitron star is not only
neutrons
yet i dare to guess that all those that are not neutrons
say protons are *at the periffery* of the star
ie not those that are locked ans compressed inside from all directions
but rather those that has 'free edges' at the periffery
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------------