Neutron Stars: Quantum or Classical Objects?

[Raghnar]

Dear all,
I'm starting to study neutron star accretion and a lot of physical phoenomena coming from different scales come along and a consistent picture is frankly hard to grasp.

But for now, a real mind boggling question can't exit my mind.

Are Neutron stars, as a whole Quantum, or classical objects?

Being made of so many components their coherence should be more or less destroyed, and to testify this is being described by classical hydrodinamical models, at most making use of general relativity, but the trajectories of the accretion material are described by classical forces.

But yet they seems to undergo textbook example of a quantum manybody system, such as superfluidity and related vortexes and quantal phase transitions.

There are some semiclassical pictures but they seems to me a weird way to avoid the question...
Do you have some insight or reference that sort out the question?

Thanks,
A.

 

[ImaLooser]

Dear all,
I'm starting to study neutron star accretion and a lot of physical phoenomena coming from different scales come along and a consistent picture is frankly hard to grasp.

But for now, a real mind boggling question can't exit my mind.

Are Neutron stars, as a whole Quantum, or classical objects?

Being made of so many components their coherence should be more or less destroyed, and to testify this is being described by classical hydrodinamical models, at most making use of general relativity, but the trajectories of the accretion material are described by classical forces.

But yet they seems to undergo textbook example of a quantum manybody system, such as superfluidity and related vortexes and quantal phase transitions.

There are some semiclassical pictures but they seems to me a weird way to avoid the question...
Do you have some insight or reference that sort out the question?

Thanks,
A.

Not really. The classical/quantum dichotomy has no meaning for me. Classical electromagnetic theory is essential, as is quantum superconductor and superfluid theory. There might be some general relativity in there as well. So I don't understand the question.

 

[Raghnar]

Not really. The classical/quantum dichotomy has no meaning for me. Classical electromagnetic theory is essential, as is quantum superconductor and superfluid theory. There might be some general relativity in there as well. So I don't understand the question.

In a quantum environment classical e-m is an insufficient description, like e.g. in atomic spectrum you need QED to describe hyperfine splitting.

If an object is a quantum object, it display general coherence of properties and quantum properties. It all behaves following a global wavefunction. And it is very different from a classical object where, even if made by quantum component, is a big entangling of quantum wavefunctions that destroys the completely coherent picture.

In other words in a quantum picture neutron stars are superconducturs as a whole, or regions of it spanning the whole star in a quantized-symmetric fashion. in a classical picture neutron stars have superconductive regions in a stocastical fashion.