- #1
- 11,308
- 8,739
In How A Supernova Explodes, Scientific American, by Bethe and Brown, there is this passage.
Wow 10% of the mass equivalent of the neutron star. What an amazing number. But as I see it, the number of neutrinos should equal the number of protons in the pre collapse core material (which should be roughly the same as the number of electrons and the number of neutrons). So an electron and a proton combine, yielding a neutron and a neutrino. In addition those parent particles have lots of kinetic energy at 100 billion degrees.
But the neutrino is exceedingly light. 10% of the neutron star's mass equivalent seems like far more energy than these neutrinos can carry away. I must be missing an important factor, either in number of neutrinos or in the energy per neutrino.
Bethe and Brown said:Even if the compact remnant ultimately degrades into a black hole, it begins as a hot neutron star. The central temperature immediately after the explosion is roughly 100 billion degrees Kelvin, which generates enough thermal pressure to support the star even if it is larger than 1.8 solar masses. The hot nuclear matter cools by emission of neutrinos. The energy they carry off is more than 100 times more than the energy emitted in the explosion itself; some 3*10[itex]^{53}[/itex] ergs. It is 10% of the mass equivalent of the neutron star.
Wow 10% of the mass equivalent of the neutron star. What an amazing number. But as I see it, the number of neutrinos should equal the number of protons in the pre collapse core material (which should be roughly the same as the number of electrons and the number of neutrons). So an electron and a proton combine, yielding a neutron and a neutrino. In addition those parent particles have lots of kinetic energy at 100 billion degrees.
But the neutrino is exceedingly light. 10% of the neutron star's mass equivalent seems like far more energy than these neutrinos can carry away. I must be missing an important factor, either in number of neutrinos or in the energy per neutrino.