Collapsars vrs. QM degeneracy pressure

AI Thread Summary
Quantum mechanical (QM) degeneracy pressure resists gravitational collapse in stars, but the immense mass of a star can ultimately overcome this pressure. The Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) remains valid, preventing electrons from losing heat and reaching a ground state. However, if gravity generates sufficient energy to make electrons relativistic, they can occupy a ground state without a defined radius, allowing for significant contraction. This process can be exacerbated by neutronization, which reduces kinetic energy through neutrino escape. Ultimately, gravity can collapse a star's core without violating the PEP, highlighting the complex interplay between these forces.
Helios
Messages
267
Reaction score
63
The QM degeneracy pressure puts up a fight but the immensity of the star wins out. Why is this? Is the Pauli Exclusion Principle really a principle? Why does it surrender in this case?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
From white dwarf to neutron star, the electrons are forced to combine with protons to form neutrons. Neutron stars collapsing to black holes is unknown - could be quark gluon soup.
 
Or if strings have anything to do with it, quark gluon soup with noodles.
 
You can read the book of Pranab Gosh, "Rotation and Accretion Powered Pulsars", ch. 2 about this. But this phenomena is something like this: there is a range for every interaction all over the universe. For instance, almost all of the celestial objects are dipole dominated magnets but we don't see that they're pushing each other away (this is not exactly the same case but just an example). So, the Pauli exclusion principle is really a principle but in that kind of circumstances, I mean under such a huge degeneracy pressure and in such a tiny volume, it can not work as usual. All of the particles are lined up in the Fermi surface. In the so-called "well potential" examples as we know that the principle is valid, the mean range is always taken about the atomic range, 10^{-15} meters. For further info, you should read the chapter that I've mentioned above.
 
  • Like
Likes Brandon Carlson
Helios said:
The QM degeneracy pressure puts up a fight but the immensity of the star wins out. Why is this? Is the Pauli Exclusion Principle really a principle? Why does it surrender in this case?
The Pauli exclusion principle never surrenders, all the principle says is that the electrons reach a ground state where they cannot lose any more heat. Losing heat is normally how a star gradually succumbs to gravity, but the PEP prevents that from proceeding to its ultimate conclusion. However, there is still a way that gravity can win out-- by releasing enough energy to make the electrons go relativistic before the whole system reaches its ground state. Relativistic electrons have a different relationship between momentum and kinetic energy, which makes them able to be in their ground state without uniquely specifying a radius-- any radius will do. This makes them susceptible to drastic contraction, especially if processes are going on (like neutronization) that remove kinetic energy via the escape of neutrinos. So we should not say the PEP surrenders, we should say that gravity finds a way to collapse the core without violating the PEP.
 
  • Like
Likes Helios
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top