Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theoretical question - what would happen?

  1. Apr 7, 2008 #1
    [SOLVED] Theoretical question - what would happen?

    What would happen to a cubic foot of neutrons if, say, you scooped them up off of a neutron star and kept them confined until you got away from it's grav field and then released them? Would they stay neutral? Would they give off any energy? would they separate from each other, expand? (If initial temp is an issue, presume the star had cooled to zero Celsius.)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 7, 2008 #2

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This last criteria breaks it. Can't happen.

    The neutron star is under incredibly high pressure, and thus incredibly hot.

    To even get your ample, you'd have to have fabulously tough materials. And from there you can deduce what your cube of neutorns will want to do...
     
  4. Apr 7, 2008 #3
    Couldn't it radiate the initial heat away after billions of years?
     
  5. Apr 7, 2008 #4

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't think neutronium is stable in that sense. I think they'll decay rapidly into protons and electons (in about 15 minutes, according to wiki) if not under the heat and pressure. But I'm a bit out of my depth here.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2008
  6. Apr 9, 2008 #5
    I believe I read somewhere that you would have a fairly massive explosion on your hands if the gravitational pull that was keeping the matter that dense were suddenly removed. Assuming you could teleport the neutronium somewhere else, that is.
     
  7. Apr 9, 2008 #6
    That's kind of what I figured. My question arises from pondering the difference between the big bang singularity and a black hole singularity. If one is emissive and the other compressive I was trying to figure out, just from a partial stage of the latter (neutron star, or perhaps more interestingly, the theoretical quark star) if you simply relieved such material from gravitational constraint, how similar to early big bang environs would it be? Specifically, would such gravitationally unencumbered nutronium form any hydrogen?
     
  8. Apr 10, 2008 #7

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The temperature after the BB was too hot even for matter to form; it had to cool significantly first before matter could even condense from energy.
     
  9. Apr 10, 2008 #8
    Hi
    Very good question, indeed, but watch out with easy analogies. I am not sure what you mean by "emissive" and "compressive" in particular, and anything from there gets fuzzy.

    Maybe you are aware of the concept of "white hole", which should be the time-reversal of a black hole. It so happens however that due to quantum effects, black hole emit radiation at a temperature inversly proportional to the surface gravity. I do not claim to understand anything in those matters, therefore I quote Hawking whose opinion is that, for an extrenal observer, white holes and black holes are indistinguishable.
     
  10. Apr 10, 2008 #9
    Since a neutron star would constitute an extremely (infinitely?) remote circumstance in terms of density/temp to the Big Bang singularity, modeling unencumbered neutronium occurs to me only as an extreme latter stage model. What I really want to know is whether or not local gravitational compression of matter in the current state of the universe is at all analogous to the state of matter at an equivalent stage of the Big Bang. That is, will gravitationally compressed contemporary matter decompress similarly to how Big Bang matter expanded in stages of similar density?

    Your attention to heat in the above responses now occurs to me to be the essential variable. So I would now wonder if it is possible to achieve anywhere near the same temperature at a given density as was present at the same density in the Big Bang starting with contemporary matter and using only gravitational compression. Something tells me that it is not possible. But I would still be curious given sufficient heat, if post-Bang conditions are reversible to earlier-Bang condition from gravitational compression alone.
     
  11. Apr 10, 2008 #10
    This could happen in reality - or something near to it. To see what happens when neutron-star material is liberated from a neutron star, observe a neutron-star coalescence, as in one type of gamma-ray burster. Most of the matter would end up in a black hole, but not all of it.

    In your own case, presuming it could be done, you'd blow youself to Kingdom Come together with everyone within 1,000 miles.
     
  12. Apr 10, 2008 #11

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I know you weren't being rigorous about it but - considering a cubic foot of neutronium is the equivalent of a cube of normal matter between 10 and 100 kilometers on a side - and that it may reexpand rather ... enthusiastically ... I'd say a 1000 mile damage radius might be a hair on the conservative side.
     
  13. Apr 17, 2008 #12
    What do you guys know about perpetual motion generators someone told me it was already patented but I cant find it in a patent search
     
  14. Apr 17, 2008 #13
    does anybody know how i calculate foot pound force of water pushed through X diameter given x PSI
     
  15. Apr 17, 2008 #14

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Perpetual Motion. Forget it.
     
  16. Apr 18, 2008 #15
    Black Hole Thermodynamics and Lorentz Symmetry
    Sorry, I read the two things in like two minutes interval :smile:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Theoretical question - what would happen?
  1. Whatever happened to ? (Replies: 5)

  2. How does this happen? (Replies: 3)

  3. Would this work? (Replies: 0)

Loading...