Glueball with a mass of a neutron star

[kodama]

new scientist July 15, 2017 current issue has article on boson stars, objects with the size and mass of stars, but composed of bosons. boson stars could mimic black holes.

that got me thinking.

if you had glueballs gravitational bound and the size and mass of a neutron star - or even larger - would it be stable as neutron stars are stable?

what would a star composed solely of gluons theoretical properties be?

could a boson star composed solely of gluons mimic a black hole?

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is nonsense, I'm afraid. It's like asking about an "electron with a mass of a neutron star".

 

[kodama]

This is nonsense, I'm afraid. It's like asking about an "electron with a mass of a neutron star".

boson stars is a professionally researched theoretical concept

new scientist latest issue describes physicists attempts to locate boson stars
boson stars may be black holes

what are the properties of a boson star composed solely of gluons

 

[Vanadium 50]

And my cat's name is Mittens. None of what you wrote in message 3 follows what you wrote in message 1.

 

[kodama]

i was alluding this article on new scientist

Feature

12 July 2017

When is a black hole not a black hole? When it’s a boson star
Astronomers are confident they know what the mysterious massive object at the Milky Way’s heart is – but our first direct view this year could bring a shock

By Stuart Clark

FASCINATING, bamboozling, vaguely terrifying: black holes are the love-to-hate monsters of the universe. These insatiable cosmic cannibals are concrete predictions of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have. Even so, theorists long debated whether they could exist – until astronomers saw the first signs of them. Now we see black hole paw prints all over: in huge stars collapsing in on themselves, in distant collisions of massive objects that set the universe quivering, and in the dark hearts of galaxies including our own.
This year, we should have the clincher: the first direct image of the supermassive black hole at the Milky Way’s centre. But as we gear up for that shadowy mugshot, some physicists are entertaining a maverick thought: what if it isn’t there?

The new word is that our obsession with black holes might have blinded us to the existence of something even stranger – a basic phenomenon of particle physics whose significance we have failed to grasp. After all, there’s good reason to want whatever is at our galaxy’s heart not to be a black hole. For a start, black holes make a nonsense of quantum mechanics, the best theory of everything-besides-gravity that we have.

It is a speculative idea as yet, to be sure, but there are sound reasons to contemplate it. “We scientists tend to be completely arrogant about what we think we know,” says theorist Luciano Rezzolla of the Frankfurt Institute

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531340-600-when-is-a-black-hole-not-a-black-hole/

a boson star, as in a star made of gluons

 

[Vanadium 50]

The word "gluon" appears nowhere in your excerpt. Neither does the word "glueball".

To form a question, you need to do more than assemble scientific-sounding words in some order. Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

 

[rootone]

We have no idea what happens to matter that falls into a black hole, other than that it unlikely to stay together as atoms.

 

[mitchell porter]

If you somehow had a "gluestar" made of nothing but gluons, the gluons should immediately form quark-antiquark pairs that recombine as mesons (pions, etc) - this is how ordinary glueballs are predicted to decay - and then the meson gas should produce baryons and antibaryons too, which will proceed to annihilate into photons. So your gluestar should rapidly become a boiling matter-antimatter mix in which almost all its mass-energy is eventually radiated away as photons. Unless I've missed something important...

 

[kodama]

If you somehow had a "gluestar" made of nothing but gluons, the gluons should immediately form quark-antiquark pairs that recombine as mesons (pions, etc) - this is how ordinary glueballs are predicted to decay - and then the meson gas should produce baryons and antibaryons too, which will proceed to annihilate into photons. So your gluestar should rapidly become a boiling matter-antimatter mix in which almost all its mass-energy is eventually radiated away as photons. Unless I've missed something important...

could a very strong gravitational field prevent this?

 

[mitchell porter]

could a very strong gravitational field prevent this?

Photons from quark-antiquark annihilation will get away unless it's a black hole.

Anyway, there's no opportunity for a pure gluon star to form in the first place, only a "quark-and-gluon star", and that would become a neutron star or black hole.

 

[kodama]

Photons from quark-antiquark annihilation will get away unless it's a black hole.

Anyway, there's no opportunity for a pure gluon star to form in the first place, only a "quark-and-gluon star", and that would become a neutron star or black hole.

one interpretation of black holes offered by physicists in the new scientist article is that black holes are boson stars. a bose-einstein condensate of bosons. gluons are one example of bosons. the article suggests that the center of the milky way is a super massive boson star, and there are some predictions as to what will be observed

 

[fresh_42]

As the entire thread is based on pop science, I will close it here.