- #1
- 6,724
- 431
"Electroweak stars: how nature may capitalize on the standard model's ultimate fuel," De-Chang Dai, Arthur Lue, Glenn Starkman, Dejan Stojkovic, http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0520
Pretty far out, and I'm not sure I believe it. One thing that surprises me is that they claim the standard model has a loophole allowing nonconservation of baryon number and lepton number. Some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly How well accepted is this, and if it's correct, why can't it be detected in laboratory experiments?
Quark stars and strange stars are already pretty hard to make definite predictions about, and have not been clearly confirmed empirically. Seems like going one step beyond that means building on an already-shaky foundation.
Pretty far out, and I'm not sure I believe it. One thing that surprises me is that they claim the standard model has a loophole allowing nonconservation of baryon number and lepton number. Some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly How well accepted is this, and if it's correct, why can't it be detected in laboratory experiments?
Quark stars and strange stars are already pretty hard to make definite predictions about, and have not been clearly confirmed empirically. Seems like going one step beyond that means building on an already-shaky foundation.