|May20-08, 01:01 AM||#1|
String stars instead of black holes?
My first post - found this forum filled with lots of smart minds. Maybe you can help me out here. I'm quite the novice, so bear with me, pls :)
Anyways, I read somewhere (scientific american i believe) that strings (if they exist) cannot be crushed, or shrunk anymore than what they are now.
So - when a star collapses heading for a neutron star, matter cracks up and becomes all neutrons. When gravity is strong enough, that might become an even denser quark star (wikipedia). But given more gravity we classically get the black hole. And the, for me, very strange thought of a singularity and infinity.
What if the quarks in the former star collapses to bare strings? And that the collapse stops when the strings are naked and all packed snuggly together?
What would that star look like? Very much like a black hole, i presume - really dense, small, and with a huge gravity for its size. But without the singularity.
Can anyone do the math for a typical size of this star? Given that a string is belived to be around 10 sq -35 m long (and if we assume that the string is a tiny sphere of that diameter and not a 2 dimensional string) and that there is about 10 sq 42 atoms in a star?
What do you say?
physics news on PhysOrg.com
>> Promising doped zirconia
>> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease
>> Bringing life into focus
|Similar Threads for: String stars instead of black holes?|
|Mini-Black Holes and Stars Winking Out||Cosmology||9|
|Strange Quarks, Quark Stars, & Black Holes||Astrophysics||8|
|Black holes in String theory||Cosmology||1|
|First Stars - How big - Now Black Holes?||General Astronomy||55|