Neutron Star Questions: Answers to Max/Min Mass & More

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around neutron stars, specifically addressing questions about their formation, mass limits, and the processes leading to supernovae. Participants explore theoretical aspects of stellar evolution, particularly the stages of nuclear fusion in massive stars and the conditions that lead to supernova explosions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire whether a star can stop at the silicon burning stage without progressing to iron burning.
  • There is a discussion about whether a supernova is inevitable once a star reaches the iron burning stage, with some arguing that the energy dynamics change significantly at this point.
  • One participant explains that once a star begins iron fusion, it loses energy, which leads to core collapse and potentially a supernova.
  • Another participant describes the mechanics of a supernova, likening it to a rebound effect where the core's contraction leads to an explosive release of energy.
  • Questions are raised about the maximum and minimum mass of neutron stars, with a participant stating an accepted mass range of 1.4 to 3.0 Solar masses.
  • There is a discussion about whether silicon burning can stop due to insufficient mass, with one participant asserting that gravity will cause the core to shrink and raise the temperature until fusion resumes.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the conditions under which fusion stops in different types of stars, particularly regarding the possibility of a silicon white dwarf.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the inevitability of supernovae following iron burning and the conditions under which fusion processes can halt. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of stellar evolution and the fate of stars at various stages of fusion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the dynamics of fusion and gravitational forces are complex, with various assumptions about mass and energy balance influencing the discussion. There are references to analogies used to explain the processes involved, but no consensus is reached on the finer details.

  • #31
newjerseyrunner said:
They aren't planets as per the definition, but yes, they are members of the solar system. Pluto is a TNO, and it's also a dwarf planet. What differentiates a planet from a dwarf planet is whether or not it's cleared it's orbit of all other large objects. All of the planets are alone in their orbits other than their moons and some trojan asteroids, dwarf planets orbit the sun at the same distance as many other objects. There are five dwarf planets in our solar system, and six more candidates. Ceres is in the asteroid belt, the rest are at the edges of the solar system.
So, Pluto and Neptune "share" their orbit at some points, but Pluto is a dwarf planet because it's smaller then Neptune, or Pluto is a dwarf planet because it's smaller then mercury? And Ganymede is not a planet because it doesn't orbit the sun directly.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Stephanus said:
So, Pluto and Neptune "share" their orbit at some points,
No, Neptune has it's own orbit, it's not on the same plane. Neptune has cleared out it's neighborhood. Pluto shares it's orbit with lots and lots of comets.

Stephanus said:
but Pluto is a dwarf planet because it's smaller then Neptune, or Pluto is a dwarf planet because it's smaller then mercury?
No, it's a dwarf solely because it hasn't removed all of the matter around it. If you were to replace Mars with Pluto, it would be considered a planet then.

Stephanus said:
And Ganymede is not a planet because it doesn't orbit the sun directly.
Yes, if you put it where Mars is, it would be considered a planet because it's round and there aren't asteroids in it's orbit.

Size has nothing to do with it, if you put the Earth (the biggest rocky planet) deep out in the Oorb cloud, it would be considered a dwarf planet. The size of the planet's impact on it becoming a planet or a dwarf planet is only related to whether or not that mass is sufficient to throw everything else out of orbit, or eat it itself. I'm not even sure Jupiter would be a planet if it were in the Oort cloud, I don't think enough time has passed for it to clear everything from an orbit that big.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Stephanus
  • #33
Pluto does not share an orbit with Neptune since it's orbit is about 17 degrees tilted out of the plane which all the other planets are in (with minor discrepancies).
Also it has a much more elongated eliptical orbit.
Although at it's closest to the Sun it is somewhat closer than Neptune is, it is not at an stage in a similar orbit.

I was going to add that the size is not a consideration in the revised classification, but njr has pointed that out already.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Stephanus
  • #34
There appears to be a meme arising here: As a PF discussion grows longer, the probability of a discussion of whether Pluto is or is not a planet approaches one.

Please keep this thread on topic.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AgentSmith

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K