euquila
- 67
- 3
- TL;DR Summary
- We explain neutron star collapse with continuous concepts: GR's curvature & QM's pressure. Yet the trigger is discrete: the single (N+1)th fermion. Is the language of "mass contribution" missing the point of this fundamental counting event?
Hello everyone,
I've been thinking about the standard physical picture of a neutron star reaching the TOV limit, and I've run into a conceptual question that I can't quite shake. I'd appreciate your perspective on it.
The textbook explanation is a beautiful balance of our two great theories. On one side, General Relativity describes gravity as an inward pull, a consequence of the smooth curvature of spacetime sourced by a continuous mass-density. On the other side, Quantum Mechanics provides the stabilizing outward force of degeneracy pressure, which arises from the Pauli exclusion principle applied to continuous fermion wavefunctions. The "collapse" occurs when the former overwhelms the latter.
But if we zoom in on the idealized, final moment, the trigger for this event is profoundly discrete. A star with N fermions is stable. The entire catastrophic process is initiated by the arrival of just one more particle, the (N+1)-th fermion.
This is the dissonance I'm grappling with. We explain the process using the language of continuous fields, pressures, and curvatures. But the deciding factor that settles the "battle of forces" isn't a gradual increase in pressure - it's a discrete, integer event.
Describing this pivotal moment in terms of the "mass contribution" of that single, final neutron feels like we're using the wrong language. It seems to miss the significance of the event being fundamentally about a number.
Does anyone else feel a tension between the continuous nature of our physical explanation and the discrete nature of the physical trigger? I'm finding it hard to reconcile the two descriptions in a satisfying way.
I've been thinking about the standard physical picture of a neutron star reaching the TOV limit, and I've run into a conceptual question that I can't quite shake. I'd appreciate your perspective on it.
The textbook explanation is a beautiful balance of our two great theories. On one side, General Relativity describes gravity as an inward pull, a consequence of the smooth curvature of spacetime sourced by a continuous mass-density. On the other side, Quantum Mechanics provides the stabilizing outward force of degeneracy pressure, which arises from the Pauli exclusion principle applied to continuous fermion wavefunctions. The "collapse" occurs when the former overwhelms the latter.
But if we zoom in on the idealized, final moment, the trigger for this event is profoundly discrete. A star with N fermions is stable. The entire catastrophic process is initiated by the arrival of just one more particle, the (N+1)-th fermion.
This is the dissonance I'm grappling with. We explain the process using the language of continuous fields, pressures, and curvatures. But the deciding factor that settles the "battle of forces" isn't a gradual increase in pressure - it's a discrete, integer event.
Describing this pivotal moment in terms of the "mass contribution" of that single, final neutron feels like we're using the wrong language. It seems to miss the significance of the event being fundamentally about a number.
Does anyone else feel a tension between the continuous nature of our physical explanation and the discrete nature of the physical trigger? I'm finding it hard to reconcile the two descriptions in a satisfying way.