- #1
rhody
Gold Member
- 681
- 3
Some black holes may actually be "Quark Stars"
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/scienc...ies+(Tech+-+Science+and+Space+-+Top+Stories)": excerpts below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung" means braking radiation, produced by the acceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle. It was discovered over 100 years ago by Nikola Tesla.
So far, no "quark stars" have been confirmed, but:
Finally:
To summarize: Dark Stars should:
PFer's are a pretty tough crowd, is there anything the article missed ?
Could quark stars cores contain the elusive: quark-gluon plasma created/detected at RHIC ?
Rhody...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/scienc...ies+(Tech+-+Science+and+Space+-+Top+Stories)": excerpts below:
So how is a "quark star" detected ?"Stellar" black holes, ones only a few times heavier than the sun, may actually be something even weirder called a quark star, or "strange" star.
A physics team led by Zoltan Kovacs of the University of Hong Kong sizes up the issue in the current Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Quark stars are only theoretical right now, but "the observational identification of quarks stars would represent a major scientific achievement," Kovacs says.
First suggested in 1970, a strange star is a collapsed star that doesn't quite crumple enough to turn into a full-fledged black hole and yet is too heavy to become a so-called neutron star (at least 1.4 times heavier than the sun.)\
In a quark star, gravity would be so strong that it squeezes the subatomic particles called quarks right out of the protons and neutron building blocks of the original star's atoms. That would leave behind a solid mass of quark stuff called strange matter, hence the name "strange star."
Earlier in the decade, astronomers suggested that a neutron star called RX J1856, about 400 light-years away (one light-year is about 5.9 trillion miles) was about one-third too small and might be a quark star. But a 2004 Nuclear Physics B journal report showed the star's intense magnetic field explained its size, so it really was a neutron star.
So, if size alone won't reveal a quark star, what will? In the new study, Kovacs and his colleagues, Cheng Kwong-sang and Tiberiu Harko, analyze the disks of dust and gas circling supposed black holes. Whipped to high speeds by the intense gravity of a black hole, these disks are thought to heat to high temperatures and emit powerful radiation. For a quark star, the radiation would be about 10% less than predicted around a black hole, they find. And a quark star would give off a dim light (called bremsstrahlung emission), unlike a black hole, emitted by a thin layer of electrons on its surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung" means braking radiation, produced by the acceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle. It was discovered over 100 years ago by Nikola Tesla.
So far, no "quark stars" have been confirmed, but:
The find would confirm a "strange-matter hypothesis," suggesting that normal matter will decay into strange matter if it comes into contact with some of the stuff. "It would be a great surprise to most physicists, and most people I think, to discover that matter as we know it is not stable, and it all really 'wants' to turn into strange matter," Alford adds. So, in theory, like "Ice-9" in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle, strange matter could eat up the universe.
But Manjari Bagchi of India's Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics in Pune says studying pulsar pairs will reveal whether quark stars exist sooner, based purely on their orbits, not on the brightness or dimness of the stars. Or finding a neutron star that weighs less than the sun would mean that it has to be a quark star, he says, because neutron stars wouldn't have enough gravity to hold their neutrons together at that size.
If strange matter exists, though, Alford suggests it might be the culprit for the dark matter observed only by its gravitational effects. Although dark matter can't be seen (it's literally dark to telescopes), it outweighs normal matter by about six times, judged by its gravitational effects throughout the universe. Some dark matter might just be "strangelets" roaming the cosmos, blasted free from quark stars.
Finally:
But Manjari Bagchi of India's Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics in Pune says studying pulsar pairs will reveal whether quark stars exist sooner, based purely on their orbits, not on the brightness or dimness of the stars. Or finding a neutron star that weighs less than the sun would mean that it has to be a quark star, he says, because neutron stars wouldn't have enough gravity to hold their neutrons together at that size.
If strange matter exists, though, Alford suggests it might be the culprit for the dark matter observed only by its gravitational effects. Although dark matter can't be seen (it's literally dark to telescopes), it outweighs normal matter by about six times, judged by its gravitational effects throughout the universe. Some dark matter might just be "strangelets" roaming the cosmos, blasted free from quark stars.
To summarize: Dark Stars should:
Emit (dim light) Bremsstrahlung radiation
Have mass more than 1.4 times our sun
Have 10% less mass than predicted around a (minimal?) black hole
If dark stars are in fact, dark matter, they should weigh about 6 times that of normal matter
PFer's are a pretty tough crowd, is there anything the article missed ?
Could quark stars cores contain the elusive: quark-gluon plasma created/detected at RHIC ?
Rhody...
Last edited by a moderator: