markcreekwater

I WRITE ESSAYs

CHAPTER 5: REGARDING “NEUTRON STARs” AS A WAY TO TEST THE THEORETICAL WORK OF STERNGLASS AND SIMHONY

CHAPTER 5:  REGARDING “NEUTRON STARS” AS A WAY TO TEST THE THEORETICAL WORK OF STERNGLASS AND SIMHONY

by Mark Creek-water Dorazio, amateur physics enthusiast, Chandler, Arizona, USA, 4 July 2017;      email:  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

“Accepting the universe as rational … we should reject such irrational concepts as singularities with infinite temperatures and densities in discussing it.  If we can avoid such unphysical concepts rationally, we should do so even if we must depart from current dogma and the presently accepted models” —Dr. Lloyd Motz (1909-2004), astronomer + astrophysicist, Columbia University [p.6, Ref.#29c].

 

INTRODUCTION

“Neutron stars” are very small, only approximately 10 km radius, maximum.  This means that, even with the most powerful telescopes, they are too small for astronomers to see them directly.  But it’s possible to calculate their approximate mass, because some of them are paired with an ordinary star, and the two objects orbit around each other, so astronomers can see the ordinary star moving side-to-side.  By observing how long it takes this so called “binary” system to do one orbit, and the approximate size of the orbit, they can calculate the approximate masses of both objects.

In this essay I argue that, based on the theoretical work of Dr. Ernest Sternglass [Refs. #1, 1a] and Dr. Menahem Simhony [Refs. #2, 2a], one can say that the radius of the average “neutron star” is significantly less than the radius which most textbooks give.  Most textbooks give 10 km as the radius of an average “neutron star”.  In this essay I argue that the true radius might be significantly less, i.e., only approx. 6 km.  Please note that this argument is a way to test the correctness of the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony:  if the true radius of the average “neutron star” turns out to be significantly less than 10 km, then this indicates that Sternglass’s and Simhony’s work might actually have some merit, despite the fact that they are almost unknown to the physics community.

NOTE: IN THIS ESSAY, THE WORD “NEUTRON STAR” APPEARS IN QUOTATION MARKS, DUE TO THE AUTHOR’s SINCERE BELIEF THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME SIGNIFICANT ERRORS INVOLVED IN SOME OF THE COMMON IDEAS + ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING THESE OBJECTS.  Specifically, I argue here that “neutron stars” might be composed of objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons.

 

Part 1:  HISTORY OF THE DISCOVERY OF “NEUTRON STARS”

       In 1933, soon after the discovery of neutrons, Zwicky and Baade predicted the existence of stars composed mostly of neutrons [Ref.#14].  Such a star would be very dense, more than 100 tons in a teaspoon !!  The physicist Kip Thorne [Ref.#13] calls this paper “one of the most prescient” of 20th century physics, because it predicted the existence of very dense and rapidly rotating objects which were not discovered until almost 35 years later.  Since then astronomers have discovered hundreds more “neutron stars”.

Zwicky and Baade assumed that the “neutron stars” which they predicted to exist would be composed, naturally enough, of neutrons.  So that the density of “neutron stars” would be approximately the density of neutrons.  This is a natural assumption, but true only if the objects are composed of neutrons.  In this essay, based on the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony, I argue that “neutron stars” might be composed of tiny objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons, which means that the density of the “neutron star” would be greater, so that its true size would be smaller than the 10-km radius which most textbooks give.

       In other words, this argument is a testable hypothesis:  if it turns out to be true, then it supports the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony.

 

Part 2:  WHY DO MOST ASTRONOMERS AGREE ON THE RADIUS OF THE “NEUTRON STAR” ??

       This agreement is based on a combination of factors.  It depends on how far away from us the objects are, plus on how dense they are.  If either of these factors is incorrect, then the calculation will give an incorrect result for the radius (i.e., the size) of the “neutron star”.

Regarding the distance between us and a neutron star:  astronomers do not agree on the distance to any of the stars or galaxies which they observe, except for the very nearest stars, which are only approximately 4 or 5 light-years away.  Astronomers constantly argue about the distances to far-away objects in space, and there is no agreement on whether an object is, for example, 500 light-years away, or twice that distance.  Any scientist who says otherwise is not being honest, or else illustrating his or her ignorance.

       Please note that the nearest known “neutron star” is at a distance of at least 250 light-years away from us, according to information which I just now “googled”, though I used a different search engine.  One reckons that the Google search engine would give a similar result.

Regarding how dense an average “neutron star” is:  it seems that, ever since Zwicky and Baade in 1933 made the assumption that the “neutron stars” which they predicted are composed of neutrons and therefore of approximately the same density as neutrons, scientists have assumed, with no proof, that this assumption is correct.  If it’s not correct, then the calculated radius of the “neutron star” is also not correct.

Based on the work of Sternglass and Simhony, one can predict that the density of the average “neutron star” might be significantly greater than the density which most textbooks assume.  {Details are in Part 3 of this chapter}  Though the 2 gentlemen (ages 91 and 92 in 2014) never worked together, and though each was probably not aware of the work of the other, the two models which they developed support and affirm each other.  Sternglass gives a believable scenario for what might have happened before the so called “Big Bang” —– and before the formation (one wants to say “creation”) of protons + neutrons, which evidently did not exist until then.  Simhony gives a believable explanation for how gravity works.  Hint: gravity doesn’t pull: it pushes.  Though he wrote three books to explain his model, one can find much of the same information at his several internet-sites [Ref.#2].

       A so-called “neutron star” results from the collapse (usually followed by a powerful so-called “supernova explosion”) of a normal star.  Based on the work of Sternglass and Simhony, one can propose that there might be in our universe a maximum density for a collapsed star, and for objects in general, which might prevent any object from collapsing down to a zero-volume infinite-density “singularity” which would produce a so called “black hole”.  Please note that “black holes” are presently theoretical objects which scientists have never DIRECTLY observed.

In many books one can read that there is supposed to be a massive or “supermassive” “black hole” at the center of almost every galaxy.  Similarly, Sternglass’s model predicts that one can expect to find a very massive object at the center of a galaxy, but that this object is more like a “white hole” than a “black hole” —– because nothing gets sucked in, and large amounts of stuff come out.  A full reading of Sternglass’s book [Ref.#1] explains this idea in detail.

       When a large star has used most of its fuel, it usually collapses down to a density which is so great that the star then explodes.  This supernova explosion blows away most of the large star’s mass.  What remains is a very dense and rapidly rotating “neutron star”.  When a star whose mass is approximately equal to that of our sun has used most of its fuel, it does collapse, but only to the density of a so-called “white dwarf” star,  which is much much less than the density of a “neutron star”.  So there is no explosion.  Given these two facts, common sense tells us that there must therefore be some stars whose mass is just the right amount, (somewhere between that of our sun and that of a large star), so that when it has used most of its fuel, it might collapse down to the density of a “neutron star”, but then not explode.

During the past 50 years, researchers have determined that most “neutron stars” are of a mass between 1.4 and 1.9 times that of our sun [Ref.#13];  i.e., they’re very dense, but not very massive, given that many stars are more than 100 times the mass of our sun.  If one knows the approximate mass of a “neutron star”, and also its density, then one can calculate the size of its radius by simple geometry.

The main argument in this essay is based on the idea that there might be in our universe a maximum density for objects in space, such as “neutron stars”, because there might be a natural, inherent, “minimum approach distance” [Sternglass’s words, p.203, Ref.#1] for the bits of matter in the object.  If this is true, then it means that one can reckon that standard textbook descriptions of “black holes” might be incorrect, because they’re based on a collapse to a “singularity” of infinite density and zero radius.  Here is what one of Sternglass’s colleagues said about this:  “Accepting the universe as rational … we should reject such irrational concepts as singularities with infinite temperatures and densities in discussing it.  If we can avoid such unphysical concepts rationally, we should do so even if we must depart from current dogma and the presently accepted models” —Dr. Lloyd Motz (1909-2004), astronomer + astrophysicist, Columbia University [p.6, Ref.#29c].

       In other words, one can reckon that, long before an object shrinks down to a “singularity”, there might be a natural, inherent, minimum approach distance for the tiny bits of matter which compose the object, meaning that they can get no nearer to each other than some particular (pun intended) tiny distance.  If so, then this means that there is for our universe a maximum mass density for all the objects in it.  If this is true, then there is in fact no such thing as the kind of “black hole” which many textbooks describe.  As already mentioned, above, “black holes” are theoretical objects which have never been observed.

 

Part 3:  WHY DOES THE WORK OF STERNGLASS AND SIMHONY PREDICT A GREATER DENSITY ??

Sternglass says that “black holes” do exist in his model of our universe, but only up to a density comparable to that of ordinary protons + neutrons;  i.e., approx. 3 x 10^14 grams/cc [p.206, Ref.#1].  Alternatively, based on his theoretical work, and that of Simhony, one can propose a maximum density of approximately 17 times that, i.e., approx. 5 x 10^15 grams/cc.        Note:  a “cc” is a cubic centimeter.

In his “Table 1” [p.234, Ref.#1] Sternglass lists “Masses, Sizes, and Rotational Periods of Cosmological Systems Predicted by the Electron[-Positron] Pair Model of Matter”.  All the familiar kinds of physical objects are there, from galaxies + stars + planets, down to sub-atomic entities.

If one extends this “Table 1” , a bit farther than Sternglass did in the book, “down” into the section which he would call “stage 28”, then one sees that there is room for a tiny “system”, whose mass is that of an electron, and whose radius is approx. 4.1 x 10^(-15) cm;  i.e., approx. 4.1 x 10^(-17) meter.  Such a tiny but very dense system, whose mass is that of an electron, also figures prominently in Simhony’s model.

        Note: if you actually do this calculation, remember to divide by 137.036, (the “inverse of the fine-structure constant”), to account for the “relativistic shrinkage” which (according to Sternglass) affects the small, sub-atomic sized, cosmological systems.

THE DENSITY OF SUCH A TINY SYSTEM, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT IT IS OF A TORUS-[DONUT]-SHAPE, WOULD BE APPROX. 5 x 10^(15) grams / cc —– INSPIRING ME TO PROPOSE THIS NUMERIC VALUE AS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY POSSIBLE FOR ANY OBJECT IN OUR UNIVERSE.

       If there is a maximum density for a collapsed star of approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams / cc, and if the average “neutron star” is approximately of this density, then, given that the mass of the average “neutron star” is approx. 1.4 times the mass of our sun [p. 192, Ref.#13], one can calculate that its radius is approx. 5.6 km.

The math is easy:  VOLUME = MASS / DENSITY = (2.8 x 10^(33) grams) / (5 x 10^(15) grams/cc) = (5.6 x 10^(17) cc).  Note:  2.8 x 10^(33) grams is approx. 1.4 times the mass of our sun.  If the volume is approx. 5.6 x 10^(17) cc, then simple geometry gives the radius as approx. 5.1 km.

Allowing for a little bit of “wiggle room” between the tiny objects which compose the “neutron star” means that its density would be slightly less than that of the tiny objects which compose it, and that its volume would be slightly larger, and also that its radius would be slightly larger.  Perhaps 5.6 km.

 

Part 4:  MORE DETAILS

       Recently, [Ref.#15] some astronomers published results of their observations of a “neutron star” [J1614-2230] whose mass they determined to be approx. two times that of our sun, evidently one of the largest masses ever observed for a “neutron star”.  Quote from Ref.#15:  “We measure a … mass of (1.97 +/- 0.04) solar-masses, which is by far the highest precisely measured neutron star mass determined to date”.  Please note that this result supports the proposal for a maximum density of approx. 5 x 10^15 gm/cc for “neutron stars”.

       If the ideas which I present in this essay are correct, then one can reckon that this “neutron star”, whose measured mass is approximately 2 times that of our sun, was produced by an ordinary star which collapsed to “neutron star” density but did not explode.  So, ironically, because an explosion would blow away some of the mass, one can expect a less massive star to produce a more massive “neutron star”.

       Because more massive stars “burn” their fuel more quickly, one expects that most supernova explosions are produced by more massive stars, many with masses greater than 100 times that of our sun.  This is why almost every known “neutron star” has a measured mass of only approximately 1.4 times the mass of our sun [p.192, Ref. #13],  while a few have larger measured masses, with the largest being approximately 2 times that of our sun [Ref. #15].

As already mentioned, most textbooks give 10 km as the approximate radius of an average “neutron star”.  So most PhD-holders believe this, without questioning it.  Because it’s in most of the textbooks which they studied while in the process of earning a PhD.  Please note the following, from p.238 of Ref.#16, and written by Dr. Fulvio Melia, a researcher at the University of Arizona in Tucson:  “Interestingly, [assuming] that the emitting surface is spherical, one derives a photospheric radius of only ~6.4 +/- 1.4 km … small for a neutron star”.

       On the contrary, according to the ideas and the numbers presented in Part 3  of this essay, that numeric value for the radius of a “neutron star” seems to be just about right.  Evidently this researcher has found some evidence to support the idea that the radius of a neutron star which he studied might be smaller than the 10 km size which most textbooks give.

{ Please note that a recent conversation which I pursued on a popular physics internet-site produced no compelling evidence that astronomers have ever made any accurate DIRECT measurement of the radius of a “neutron star” }

 

Part 5:  PHYSICAL EXPLANATION ??

       QUESTION:  How might one offer a physical explanation for the proposal that there is a maximum density for objects in our universe ??  In other words:  what physical mechanism might prevent total collapse, and therefore prevent the formation of any kinds of objects of zero radius and infinite density, such as so called “black holes” are supposed to be ??

THE SHORT ANSWER:  Neutrinos trapped inside the collapsing star.

THE LONG ANSWER:  In Sternglass’s model, neutrons and protons are NOT composed of “quarks” — which have never been observed in a physics lab [Ref.#17, pp.322-324].  Instead, the Sternglass proton is composed of speedy electrons + speedy positrons — which are definitely known to exist.  If one wants a fancy word for “speedy”, then one can use the word “relativistic”.

In fact, a schematic diagram in Sternglass’s book [p.250, Ref.#1] clearly shows that there are, in Sternglass’s proton model, three [3] parts to each proton or neutron, (left side + center + right side), analogous to the three “quarks” which most physicists have been taught to believe compose each proton or neutron.  Sternglass has no problem with quark theory — and mentions it several times in his book:  he just simply shows that “quarks” are composed of smaller objects:  speedy electrons + speedy positrons.

One suspects that, when a massive star collapses, not only do most of its ordinary protons + electrons get crushed together, which forms neutrons, but that these neutrons then break apart, due to the immense density which the collapse produces, into electron-positron pairs —(also called “dipoles”), which are similar to the electron-positron pairs which are found in neutrons under ordinary conditions, according to Sternglass’s model [p.250, Ref.#1].

One can call this stuff “degenerated neutrons” and, as already mentioned, calculate that it is composed of objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons.  One can even propose to call a star composed of this kind of stuff a “quark star”, as some researchers have done [Ref.#28] and this would make sense, according to quark-theory, despite the fact that, as already mentioned, “quarks” have never been observed in a physics lab [pp.322-324, Ref. #17].

Meanwhile, as the star continues to collapse, there are lots of neutrinos trapped inside.  One suspects, (based on one’s reading), that it’s mainly these neutrinos — (at the immense mass-density of approx. 5 x 10^15 grams/cc)— which prevent further collapse, and, in most cases, cause the star to REBOUND ===>>{ !! BOING !! }<<=== creating a supernova explosion, which blows away most of the star’s mass.

After the explosion, there is a very dense and rapidly rotating “neutron star” —(also called a supernova remnant)— left behind.  One can visualize that equal numbers of speedy electrons + speedy positrons have emerged from the crushed and broken neutrons, and formed electron-positron pairs.  One can visualize these electron-positron pairs, many many tons of them, (each with the mass of a single electron and a radius of approx. 4.1 x 10^(-15) cm [4.1 x 10^(-17) meter], as described in Part 3 of this essay), as composing a so called “neutron star”.

As already mentioned, Sternglass’s “Table 1” [p.234, Ref.#1] predicts the existence of these objects, which are smaller and more dense than neutrons.  Given their size and mass, and assuming that they are of a torus-(donut)-shape, one can calculate that their mass density would be approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc, as already mentioned in Part 3, above.

 

Part 6:  CONCLUSION

       “Neutron stars” are too small, and too far away, for astronomers to measure their size DIRECTLY.  Based on the ideas presented in this essay, one can say that so-called “neutron stars” might be composed of tiny objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons.  A “neutron star” whose mass is 2 times that of our sun, if its mass density is approximately 4.5 x 10^(15) grams per cubic centimeter, would have a radius of only approx. 6 km.  One can use the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony to hypothesize the mass density given above.  

       If the radius of the average “neutron star” turns out to be only approx. 6 km, then this is evidence to support the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony.  Perhaps, what we have (until now) called “neutron stars” might (in fact) be composed of objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons.  Perhaps, for now, one might want to refer to “neutron stars” as just simply “supernova remnants” —– even though the most massive objects of this kind (approximately 2 times the mass of our sun) might have formed without an accompanying supernova explosion.

 

Part 7:  A TESTABLE PREDICTION  

       Based on the ideas and the numbers presented in this essay, one can predict that, when astronomers are able to make accurate DIRECT measurements of supernova remnants, then they will agree that the RADIUS of a typical supernova remnant is nearer to 6 km than to the current accepted value of approximately 10 km.

########### << END OF CHAPTER 5 >> ###########

Advertisements

10 comments on “CHAPTER 5: REGARDING “NEUTRON STARs” AS A WAY TO TEST THE THEORETICAL WORK OF STERNGLASS AND SIMHONY

  1. marktruthlover
    August 26, 2014

    EXCELLENT ESSAY !!

  2. Pingback: LATTICE-LENGTH OF THE EPOLA-CELL | markcreekwater

  3. Pingback: A NEW PROTON-MODEL | markcreekwater

  4. Pingback: A NEW PROTON-MODEL ?? | markcreekwater

  5. Pingback: REGARD-ING DR.STERNGLASS’s PROTON-MODEL | markcreekwater

  6. Pingback: INTRODUCTIONs | markcreekwater

  7. Pingback: BOOK-TITLE: HOW PROTONs WORK: ESSAYS RE THE WORK OF DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY | markcreekwater

  8. Pingback: essay: PRIMER-FIELDs; + some STERNGLASS-GOLD | markcreekwater

  9. Pingback: essay: A New Treatment for an Old Problem: What Holds an Atom’s Nucleus Together ?? | markcreekwater

  10. Pingback: THE ENTIRE BOOK — Essays re the Work of DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY | markcreekwater

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on April 22, 2014 by .
%d bloggers like this: