What would happen if we teleport 1mm^3 of neutron star core outside?

[jms4]

TL;DR

hypothetical experiment, how would neutron core behave in such a circumstance such as, if we teleport 1mm^3 of neutron star core from it outside.

Summary: hypothetical experiment, how would neutron core behave in such a circumstance such as, if we teleport 1mm^3 of neutron star core from it outside.

how would the 1mm^3 neutrons behave?
1. Would it be stable/no change
2. Would it decay into cosmic radiation
3. would it decay into hydrogen as neutrons decay into hydrogen?
4. Turn back into iron?

 

[hilbert2]

If it were possible to "teleport" that amount of neutron star matter here on Earth, it would most likely expand explosively, releasing the same amount of energy that it would take to compress an equivalent mass of ordinary matter to that density. I'm not sure how much of the energy would be released as pressure waves, how much as light, x-rays or gamma radiation, but it would almost certainly go off with quite a bang anyway. It's the large total mass of the neutron star (and the resulting gravity) that allows it to remain compressed in the form of neutron matter.

 

[Gigaz]

Hard to estimate. This stuff would mostly be neutrons in high momentum quantum states, so it would immediately blow apart. In space, it would just remain neutrons that will later decay into protons and electrons. In air or even water, the interaction of the neutrons with the medium would heat it up, and you get a very radioactive fireball.

 

[jms4]

If it were possible to "teleport" that amount of neutron star matter here on Earth, it would most likely expand explosively, releasing the same amount of energy that it would take to compress an equivalent mass of ordinary matter to that density. I'm not sure how much of the energy would be released as pressure waves, how much as light, x-rays or gamma radiation, but it would almost certainly go off with quite a bang anyway. It's the large total mass of the neutron star (and the resulting gravity) that allows it to remain compressed in the form of neutron matter.

Thanks a lot, but I'm asking what would be the end product, or product after the explosion.

 

[hilbert2]

A free neutron decays to a proton, an electron and an electron antineutrino in about 15 min, but it could be that the high pressure and acceleration in the case of an explosively expanding piece of neutron star could produce some other massive particle species too. If there's surrounding matter present, the nuclei of it can capture neutrons and produce heavier nuclei.

 

[jim mcnamara]

The average density of material in a neutron star of radius 10 km is 1.1×10¹² kg/cm³
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

It would release massive amounts of energy. You would have to "teleport" your sample far from Earth to avoid the vaporization of a large chunk of Earth's crust and mantle. A planet killer.

Most 'what if' questions like this one have dozens of answers with a google search. This one does. Please consider google, PF is not a search engine. Thanks.

 

[jms4]

The average density of material in a neutron star of radius 10 km is 1.1×10¹² kg/cm³
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

It would release massive amounts of energy. You would have to "teleport" your sample far from Earth to avoid the vaporization of a large chunk of Earth's crust and mantle. A planet killer.

Most 'what if' questions like this one have dozens of answers with a google search. This one does. Please consider google, PF is not a search engine. Thanks.

I tried, changed the text, couldn't get any answers that I need, so I thought it is better to ask here, after all I was seeking what was the end product, or to see if neutrons are naturally stable in large quantities.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I tried, changed the text, couldn't get any answers that I need,

There is a certain 'knack' in getting the best out of a Google search. I searched using "Neutron Star material" and the third hit was this. Something like your question, I think.

 

[member 656954]

couldn't get any answers that I need, so I thought it is better to ask here

This thread in Stack Exchange neatly answers your question (and honestly, took me seconds to find from Google) which is "expect a big explosion":

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...of-neutron-star-material-if-released-on-earth

 

[hilbert2]

So, anyone know how's the mass of a neutron star compared to the same amount of free neutrons?

There should be some mass excess like in atomic nuclei, but I couldn't find anything about it with Google search.

 

[jms4]

This thread in Stack Exchange neatly answers your question (and honestly, took me seconds to find from Google) which is "expect a big explosion":

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...of-neutron-star-material-if-released-on-earth

I searched for, 1mm^3, 1cm^3, 1m^3, of neutron star mass teleported, moved, taken outside, yes that question is similar to what I want, but it's not a proper question, and I was asking it in standard metric system based measurements as teaspoon is not a measure used by cooks, not physicists.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I was asking it in standard metric

Can you not convert in your head? This is strictly a ballpark discussion and we could use any quaint units for the quantities involved to start with.
Cooks are not bad persons, you know. (I am just about to serve up a roast Beef Rump Joint and the mass was 650g.)

 

[DrGreg]

I searched for, 1mm^3, 1cm^3, 1m^3, of neutron star mass teleported, moved, taken outside, yes that question is similar to what I want, but it's not a proper question, and I was asking it in standard metric system based measurements as teaspoon is not a measure used by cooks, not physicists.

A teaspoon is usually assumed to be 5 ml = 5 cm³,

 

[jms4]

Can you not convert in your head? This is strictly a ballpark discussion and we could use any quaint units for the quantities involved to start with.
Cooks are not bad persons, you know. (I am just about to serve up a roast Beef Rump Joint and the mass was 650g.)

I was saying that teaspoon not a measurement used by physicists, I googled by using standard measures, nothing comes!, from where you get to think that I think that cooks are bad people, no there are really good cooks, they make foods incredible, try reading a recipe book, and they measure in teaspoon, tablespoon, cups, not something like add 1cm^3 of sugar, or the density of sugar in coffee should be 2g/cm^3..!

 

[jms4]

A teaspoon is usually assumed to be 5 ml = 5 cm³,

I know that, but google doesn't convert 1mm^3 or 5ml or what other measurements to teaspoon unless you search by the measurement of teaspoon.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I know that, but google doesn't convert 1mm^3 or 5ml or what other measurements to teaspoon unless you search by the measurement of teaspoon.

Why does the unit that used have anything to do with the principles involved?

 

[sophiecentaur]

from where you get to think that I think that cooks are bad people

It's from a quote from a film with Rod Steiger (No way to treat a lady) but he's not even a cook. Not as well known as "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" (Jack Nicholson, iirc)
I'm afraid you'll just have to let it pass but you were implying that the units that cooks use are somehow inferior. I don't expect they have anything about bushels, grains or pennyweights of neutrons, either but Google will yield the information if you ask it in the right way. Google "bushel and neutron" next week and it may throw up this thread.

 

[member 656954]

@jms4, searching is an imprecise activity, you typically need to work through multiple iterations using linked but not exact terms for something 'off beat' like your query. Expecting an exact result for an exact SI unit to what is an uncommon question is impractically rigid, as you found when you looked.

 

[jms4]

Why does the unit that used have anything to do with the principles involved?

because the unit you put in google gives the searched result, and teaspoon is not a measure used by physicists.

 

[jms4]

@jms4, searching is an imprecise activity, you typically need to work through multiple iterations using linked but not exact terms for something 'off beat' like your query. Expecting an exact result for an exact SI unit to what is an uncommon question is impractically rigid, as you found when you looked.

you are right, I am also aware of search impracatility, I know that my question is unusual, so my end result was to ask it here after trying different searches.

 

[jms4]

It's from a quote from a film with Rod Steiger (No way to treat a lady) but he's not even a cook. Not as well known as "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!" (Jack Nicholson, iirc)
I'm afraid you'll just have to let it pass but you were implying that the units that cooks use are somehow inferior. I don't expect they have anything about bushels, grains or pennyweights of neutrons, either but Google will yield the information if you ask it in the right way. Google "bushel and neutron" next week and it may throw up this thread.

In physics even a small difference in measure can give a big error, like a few degree seconds in accuracy can put a satellite millions of miles from it's destination, while in cooking, a few extra grams of salt doesn't cause billions of dollars of losses, so teaspoon is not a standard measure of volume, could be a bit more/less, no problem.

 

[sophiecentaur]

In physics even a small difference in measure can give a big error, like a few degree seconds in accuracy can put a satellite millions of miles from it's destination, while in cooking, a few extra grams of salt doesn't cause billions of dollars of losses, so teaspoon is not a standard measure of volume, could be a bit more/less, no problem.

I'm really not sure where you are going with this. Scientists on the planet Zog would be capable of working out an answer to that question without ever having come across the gramme, which is a totally arbitrary choice of mass.
If you were just after an exact answer to your original question then I have to question your reasoning. A 'spot' result is of very little interest in Science; we are much more interested in the overall model except when we are actually planning to build something. If you are reluctant to ask an arm waving question then you are ignoring the arm waving that is often involved in Cosmological models. The present model of a Neutron Star has not (afaik) been totally confirmed but that's the way Science goes.

 

[member 656954]

because the unit you put in google gives the searched result, and teaspoon is not a measure used by physicists.

Not sure if you're replying to me, @jms4 but my search did not include 'teaspoon'. I didn't include any measurement, and found results immediately which then allowed me to drill into some that could be used to infer what you were asking. The point was that your search criteria was for some reason too restrictive if you weren't quickly finding appropriate results, but I do appreciate that everyone's results will vary depending on the day.

 

[jms4]

Not sure if you're replying to me, @jms4 but my search did not include 'teaspoon'. I didn't include any measurement, and found results immediately which then allowed me to drill into some that could be used to infer what you were asking. The point was that your search criteria was for some reason too restrictive if you weren't quickly finding appropriate results, but I do appreciate that everyone's results will vary depending on the day.

guess your search was what if neutron star material was on earth, didn't think of that!

 

[sophiecentaur]

guess your search was what if neutron star material was on earth, didn't think of that!

Not so many years ago, there were only books available and they may not even have had good indexes so you had to read most of it and hope to bumping what you needed. We are lazy these days and resent the idea of disciplined reading - the only books I use are old uni textbooks in which I know my way around.
One thing you always have to remember when using the 'free' Internet and that is you get what you pay for and you have to stick to their terms. If you used a paid human 'agent' to do your searching for you then you could expect them to interact with you and find out what it is that you are really after. Google is very good but it doesn't know you so you have to learn to use it effectively. (People often complain when they cannot search properly!)
If you use a specific term then it may exclude a lot of useful stuff from the first couple of pages from Google. Keep it wide to start with and look at the content (skim) of the first few hits. That can give you an idea of what terms could help you progress.

 

[Nugatory]

In physics even a small difference in measure can give a big error

Sometimes this is true, but much more often it is not. One of the more important things you learn going through a bachelor's level undergraduate physics curriculum is how to recognize which small differences can be safely ignored in any given problem and which cannot. Without this skill you will never be able to calculate anything useful.

Google for "Fermi Problem".

 

[jms4]

Sometimes this is true, but much more often it is not. One of the more important things you learn going through a bachelor's level undergraduate physics curriculum is how to recognize which small differences can be safely ignored in any given problem and which cannot. Without this skill you will never be able to calculate anything useful.

Google for "Fermi Problem".

Right