Re: [math-fun] math-fun Digest, Vol 136, Issue 64
As has been mentioned in this thread, at the pressures in a neutron star a neutron is stable relative to a proton + electron. Electrostatic force pulls e + p => n together long before they can separate gravitationally. --R
--I quote from "earlier in thread" post by E.Salamin: So the electron density is 4% of the neutron density, and by electrical neutrality the same holds for the proton density. Note that the electron density scales as the square of the neutron density, as long as the neutrons remain non-relativistic. So if we assume instead a neutron density of 10^44 m-3, the electron density will be 0.4% of the neutron density... WDS: If Salamin is anywhere near correct there will be plenty of free protons & electrons; and they presumably will be distributed in a near min-energy manner, which means separated with the protons nearer the bottom. The distribution will be such that the gravitational forces are exactly balanced by the coulombic forces. This will cause an electric field. If you deny the existence of free protons in the mix, then I guess I'd have to ask: why are you even talking about superconductivity at all? Wouldn't you then deny its existence too?
WDS: If Salamin is anywhere near correct there will be plenty of free protons & electrons; and they presumably will be distributed in a near min-energy manner, which means separated with the protons nearer the bottom. The distribution will be such that the gravitational forces are exactly balanced by the coulombic forces. This will cause an electric field.
If you deny the existence of free protons in the mix, then I guess I'd have to ask: why are you even talking about superconductivity at all? Wouldn't you then deny its existence too? --to elaborate: either all protons are present in a form bound to electrons (e.g. "hydrogen atoms"), or not. If the former, then the question of superconductivity is moot. If the latter, then separation is possible. More precise wording than "separation" would be: all I need is for the radial distributions of protons & electrons to differ. If so we can and will get a built in electric dipole moment density in the substance (much like an "electret" material) causing an electric field. In an electret material the protons actually stay close to matching electrons, but predominantly lie on one side of their mate, not other. A related effect is the "polarization of the vacuum" in QED caused by virtual electron-positron pairs. The existence of this electric field is well confirmed by "precision QED." -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
participants (1)
-
Warren D Smith