Astronomers Predict New Class of "Electroweak" Star
Before they become black holes, dying stars of a certain mass should form an entirely new class of stellar object called an electroweak star.
kfc 12/10/2009
- 10 Comments
When small stars die, they collapse to form neutron stars in which the Pauli exclusion principle prevents further collapse. Anything more massive eventually becomes a black hole (with the cut off at about 2.1 solar masses).
In recent years, however, astrophysicists have calculated that a star's evolution into a black hole is more complex than originally thought. That's because after the Pauli exclusion effect is breached, star stuff undergoes other nuclear phase transitions that release enough energy to delay collapse, albeit for a relatively short time.
For example, astrophysicists recently discovered a state between a neutron star and a black hole in which the star's mass is supported by the energy released as nuclear matter is compressed into quark matter. So-called quark stars are thought to look very much like neutron stars so finding them will be tricky.
Today, De-Chang Dai at the State University of New York in Buffalo and a few buddies propose an entirely new type of star that forms after a quark star but before a black hole. Dai and colleagues point out that after the quark transition, there is one other phase transition predicted by the standard model of particle physicists.
This occurs when the quarks are squeezed so hard that they turn into a type of elementary particle called a lepton. Since leptons experience the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force but not the strong nuclear force, the team call this process electroweak burning.
Dai and co calculate that electroweak burning should generate enough energy to delay collapse for some 10 million years. That means there should be plenty of electroweak stars out there to see, if astronomers can find them.
Just what electroweak stars should look like, isn't yet clear. Dai and co say that this will depend not on the star's core where the electroweak burning takes place, but on the structure of its outer layer where the photons are produced that we're likely to pick up on Earth. "Assessing the visibility of these fascinating new objects requires a careful modeling of their outer structure to determine the photon luminosity and spectrum," says the team.
Calculating how this layer will behave is a difficult task but one the team say they're working on for future publications. But here's a tip, we won't know for sure until Dai and co finish their number crunching but the smart money is betting that electroweak stars will be more or less indistinguishable from neutron stars. Shame!
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0912.0520: Electroweak Stars: How Nature May Capitalize on the Standard Model's Ultimate Fuel
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
ZephirAWT
299 Comments
Neutrino star
It's not so difficult to predict neutrino stars, in fact most of common black holes should be formed by these particles.
Reply
flared0ne
395 Comments
Re: Neutrino star -- umm, sorry??
Although now that you mention it, a "neutrino" star would be fairly "interesting" -- although the cumulative sequence of hypothetical processes necessary to result in one is a bit boggling... Because they have no charge, have infinitesimal mass AND tend to move at close to the speed of light, neutrinos have no "nesting instinct" and don't tend to congregate in cohesive flocks. Given the quoted figure of 50 million (or was it billion) solar neutrinos passing through our bodies every second (and nobody notices), maybe neutrino stars are more common than we think, eh? Who could tell? And blink, and you missed it.
Reply
ZephirAWT
299 Comments
Re: neutrinos have no "nesting instinct"
Hi, flaredOne,
you're completely right - and this is a reason, why black hole can be formed only gravitational collapse of massive stars, but not gradual fall of smaller objects into black hole. During this process many neutrino could escape in form of accretion radiation, so that gradual process of black hole formation is quite ineffective and black hole couldn't be even formed from lightweight objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova
This could serve as an indicia of primordial character of giant black holes at the center of galaxies, because such giant holes couldn't form by gradual falling of matter.
We can consider, classical black holes (i.e. those with closed event horizon, i.e. without jets) are losing most of their energy not through Hawking radiation, but in form of neutrinos in analogous way, like common stars are losing most of their mass not via radiation, but through spewing of solar wind in form of charged particles (neutrinos are charged, too - or they would collapse into singularity).
http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/blackhole/blackhole.gif
During fall of massive bodies most of matter will radiate, so that only most dense particles, like neutrinos can reach the surface of black hole. It means, there is dynamic equilibrium between neutrino flux at the surface of black hole, like at the surface of common stars formed by protons.
http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/blackhole/blackhole_fall.gif
Reply
flared0ne
395 Comments
I'm sorry, Zephir, but you aren't making any sense...
"neutrinos" are one of the intrinsically lightest, least massive particles around -- and their interactions with other particles approach significantly close to zero due to their miniscule (approaching, if not reaching, zero) charge, etc.
As far as anyone knows, there is nothing which repulses neutrinos, nothing which attracts them -- there is nothing which can force them to accumulate into a single region, and nothing which could KEEP them there if they DID achieve a statistically unlikely grouping. So the phrase "neutrino star" has no particular meaning.
Currently understood pathways for neutrino production do not (as far as I recall reading) particularly lend themselves to quantum-foam particle/anti-particle pair production, which is hypothesized to be a feasible pathway for energy to escape from a black-hole event-horizon "surface".
Granted, the concept of checking to see whether neutrinos are meaningfully affected by point-source gravitational traps sounds interesting, but that capability lies at the far end of a long long list of precursor technological development. And working simply from mass values, the most likely answer is "not much", anyway.
The most interesting projection I recall hearing for the possible productive use of neutrinos comes from Niven's Ringworld universe, where neutrinos are the radiation used as a planetary-body-penetrating 'radar' in searching for stasis-shielded equipment caches. In classical 'x-ray' terminology, nothing else has a high enough 'density' to yield meaningful contrast.
As to the accretion over time of matter into galactic core black holes, give it up. That IS the mechanism underlying most of the visible "signposts" which are flagging quasar-epoch activity out there in our corner of the universe. I understand you have some alternative hypotheses for where DOES all the core star material go after spiralling in toward the central black holes involved, hopefully pairing up with alternative mechanisms for where DOES all that energy visibly being released come from.
But no, don't put it here -- put it on your website. Thanks. We applaud your persistence.
Reply
ZephirAWT
299 Comments
Re: there is nothing which repulses neutrinos, nothing which attracts them
As far as anyone knows, neutrino has nonzero rest mass (i.e. attractive gravity) and leptonic charge (i.e. repulsive force). Are you learning physics first year?
Reply
flared0ne
395 Comments
Do you understand WHY it is so difficult to detect neutrinos??
Statistically, their interaction rate with ANYthing approaches zero. AND they don't stick around for efforts to FORCE them to interact with anything, either. Unfortunately the fonts available on these pages don't support the equations necessary to explain exactly what you seem to be misunderstanding. AND at this point I'm past SEEING any point in attempting to explain it, either.
Google "neutrino rest-mass" (add your favorite topping) for a not-so-brief survey of "common knowledge", current understanding of neutrino characteristics, and current research attempting to refine our understanding of those characteristics. Look for the stuff geared toward high-school students and follow along. Avoid the stuff which shows any dependence upon "aether" for "pseudo-scientific explanations". The stuff for Ph.Ds requires a foundation which you visibly don't have. Sorry to be acerbic, I know it irks you, but it IS obvious. And I'm done here.
Reply
Auxon
1 Comment
Re: Do you understand WHY it is so difficult to detect neutrinos??
Neutrinos have 0 charge, and they interact, but only via the electroweak force. In the case of an electroweak star, when the leptons first start forming, some of which become neutrinos, then perhaps they will interact, if the density of neutrinos and rate of production and gravity are all high (I add gravity because if then neutrinos interact with other particles that have mass, still only via electroweek forces). (Ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/forces/funfor.html#c5)
Reply
ZephirAWT
299 Comments
Re: Do you understand WHY it is so difficult to detect neutrinos??
If u have look at the picture in this article, you would see, neutrinos are forming substantial portion of electroweak stars. So I don't see nothing strange on idea of black holes, formed by neutrinos. Indeed, there will be always gradient of particle density: the interior of black holes will be formed by axions, the outside surface some quarks in analogous way, like at the case of so called quark stars, which aren't formed by quarks only. I predicted this concept a long time ago, because it's logical phenomenologically
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22black+holes+are+neutrino+stars%22
Reply