What is Digg?78 Comments
- Haidoken, on 06/28/2008, -1/+28we need a new Star Trek to explore all these new astronomical bodies
- Andyl194, on 06/29/2008, -4/+22I thought Quarks were what made up atoms??? AHHH ***** i DONT KNOW
- owenadam, on 06/29/2008, -1/+19I'm keeping my eye on you, Quark
- dha07030, on 06/29/2008, -1/+18"A typical neutron star is some 16 miles across, yet has a mass one and a half times the mass of our Sun." Holy *****!
- 30thElement, on 06/29/2008, -0/+17One teaspoon would weigh 5 thousand billion kilograms (5x10^12 kg)
EDIT: I tried to sound smart, and then realized that would be 5 trillion kilograms - Scynet, on 06/29/2008, -1/+17Well, quarks make up pretty much everything, so that's not entirely incorrect :)
- mickstephenson, on 06/29/2008, -0/+15Vibrating strings, apparently.
- pastasauce, on 06/29/2008, -0/+14What makes up the strings? Universes, and then we start all over, man.
- Borgcube636, on 06/29/2008, -1/+14http://wwwai.wu-wien.ac.at/~franz/Startrek/gifs/Pe ...
- richbradshaw, on 06/29/2008, -0/+12And the link between guitars and physics is complete.
- cotaskmemalloc, on 06/29/2008, -2/+13Title fail.
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -1/+12Wow, there are a lot of inquisitive idiots in this thread.
I remember a time on digg where we could chat about quantum mechanics... but it has clearly boiled down to "I can haz quarkburger?" - kirakun, on 06/29/2008, -0/+11What then makes up of strings? Now, your head can explode.
- richbradshaw, on 06/29/2008, -0/+10HAHAHAHAHA I can haz quarkburger? THat's like as awesome as a cross between Ubutnu and Apple!"!!1
(Disclaimer: I am a physics teacher, and also wish we could have the old Digg back...) - Albumen, on 06/29/2008, -0/+10Strings man strings. Now you head can explode
- maz2331, on 06/29/2008, -0/+9Standing waves of energy.
- bcarl314, on 06/29/2008, -2/+10Digg me up or digg me down, I find this strange object quite charming. I doubt it will make it to the top of cnn, probably will be buried at the bottom of their page.
- byrc, on 06/29/2008, -0/+6I learned about your mom in my astrophysics class last fall.
- Totz83, on 06/29/2008, -0/+6Life must be a depressing reality for you then
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 06/29/2008, -0/+6"Neutron stars are formed when a massive star undergoes a supernova explosion at the end of its life. The question is, is a neutron star indeed the most dense object that exists?"
So what happened to singularities? - chrisduser, on 06/29/2008, -0/+6What makes up things that make up things?
- DarkDx, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5And what makes quarks? *head explodes*
- AstroSnail, on 06/29/2008, -1/+6Strange is a flavor of quark
- BlueSkyfish, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5Digg has abandoned science. Now everything is just politics.
- Fordi, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Quark types:
Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top, Bottom + 6 antiquarks
Also, leptons:
Electron, Muon, Tau + 3 antileptons
Quark composition of normal matter:
Proton: u+u+d
Neutron: u+d+d
So, yeah. Atoms are made up of quarks, via basic nuclear particles. - MasterThief117, on 06/29/2008, -4/+8I find it Strange they did not find this before.
- carpespasm, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3There's a collapsing point. Massive star's weight < gravitational collapse point = neutron star. Massive star's weight > gravitational collapse point = Black hole
- apphappy, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4DABO!
- drkroman9, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Well, a neutron star is the most dense object that we have thus theorized without regarding the singularity of a black hole, now if the mass of the star was at the teetering point of being just short of massive enough to collapse into a black hole and more massive than keeping the definition of physical boundaries such as a star in the neutron star state.
Then you'd be left with a star that is on the verge of collapsing into a singularity, and order to get smaller than the size of all the neutrons packed together, they would have to collapse into their quarks to physically reduce in size. hence a quark star. A star being even more dense, so much so that it is able to physically (but partially) collapse space/volume itself.
- nicolasavru, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Odo: I plan to investigate the Klingons, the Romulans, Quark, the visiting Tarellians...
Sisko: You think Quark had anything to do with it?
Odo: I always investigate Quark! - AdmiralAcbar, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4A million diggs to you, sir.
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3The strings are made from energy, which is made from magic pixi dust.
- Zaphrod, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3I think he meant Black Holes are more dense than neutron stars but that the article states Neutron stars are the densest objects known and wanted to know the reason for the omission.
- dha07030, on 06/29/2008, -3/+6Thats funny I didn't take your Astrophysics class, smartass.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2I thought the explanation for something too massive for a Neutron Star during a supernova was a black hole.
.. either the theory behind black holes is wrong, or this quantum star is wrong.
There is a black hole just discovered that has a mass of something approaching an average size galaxy, with another black hole orbiting it that is merely the mass of something like 400,000 stars. I wonder if THAT were to collide, if that wouldn't have what it takes to create a quantum star.
Anyway, I'm kind of doubting that this exists. My own theory is that there is a "steady state" for physics -- all physics throughout our Universe is the same at the same time. When we passed the primordial state of the Universe, when it was too hot for protons and electrons to form -- and even light, we past the time when a quantum star can exist. We no longer have structures that keep particles in quantum states. They would quickly cool to form atoms of some type, without massive injections of energy-- and that would look like an explosion. At some point, the universe will cool and physics will take on new properties -- and it will happen everywhere all at once. So at that point, we might not have Stars anymore -- all at once. The Universe would be too diffuse.
But matter and energy are not dense enough for this to occur. Electrons and protons, even in solid objects, are a million times more diffuse. There is as much empty space in an atom between an electron and proton as there is between the sun and Jupiter. A neutron star, by weight, shows you the limits of density. A black hole is more dense -- but it's not fully existing in this dimension -- it stands between both.
So, a quantum star would be so dense as to fold space/time back over itself -- essentially, folding itself into a new pocket Universe -- which is possible, but we wouldn't see an explosion -- just something becoming "not there." Like trying to float a lead pellet in the clouds -- unless there is a tornado, pushing up directly on that lead pellet -- it is going to sink. A black hole "punches through" -- but I see it as more as "achieves escape velocity for the Universe" and reaches higher dimensions, with enough super-critical particles to "keep the door open." So, if this new structure it too powerful to be a quasar, or black hole collision -- I suspect it might be something pretty crazy like an anti-matter star. Something from the higher dimensions leaking through to this one. And I don't mean that like some esoteric alternate reality. The upper dimensions are PART of everything in this Universe -- it's just we only experience and relate to the lower 4. I believe anti-matter may be when the lower 4 swap states with the upper 4 dimensions of the same particle. Space-time would be flowing the other direction -- which leads to anti-gravity.
Of course, as far as I know, I'm the only person with this perspective, so take it for what its worth. So -- no chance of a Quantum Star, but an Anti-Matter Star is conceivable. I would look for strange orbits of nearby stars that look like they are getting pushed away.
But the article doesn't talk about any observed properties of the object to give any indications of anything. Just more energy than can be explained. A super-black hole collision with another black hole might do that. - EarlOfLade, on 06/29/2008, -2/+4quarks + leptons = atomic particles.
6 types of quarks and 6 types of leptons. - DirtPile, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3These astronomers have the lobes for supernovae.
- carpespasm, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2They'd found them. They just weren't able to come up with a model that works to explain them.
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3That ***** little Ferengi Ha'DIbah.
- Pittance, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Well, technically black holes arent "things", they are anomalies. But if you had a neutron star too dense to stay a neutron star, but not dense enough to form a singularity, you'd get a quark star. That is probably very rare to get that exact mixture, which is why they haven't been discovered (kinda) until now.
- solid12345, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3Indesign is superior to Quark
- Beakerboy1, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2This is, as stated at the end of the article, a hypothesis not a theory. They results either way will be interesting. Counter to some previous posts, If Quark Stars do exist it wouldn't be to the mutual exclusion of Black Holes. If a Quark Star Theory didn't include Black Holes, it certainly would be a disadvantage to that theory. Saying either Black Holes exist or Quark Stars is a false dichotomy.
- Foamator, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Well, *I* thought that was pretty funny.
No one else? Ah well. - letherial, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2no love for black holes!!! thats ok, a bunch of whores anyways.
- TheStrongForce, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Singularities are everywhere and are not exactly what you think they are. For example when water drips from a tap, thats a singularity. It gets pinched off from the tap at a certain time and the math required to figure it out is near impossible.
- Amnesia10, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1The reason that they would be hard to find is that they would be less than the 5-7 miles across that a neutron star is. An object that is around 5 miles across from distances of many light years would be hard to distinguish from a point source. That is why they are so hard to identify.
- cutright, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1dreams
- inactive, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1haha
- Fordi, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Yo momma's so diesel she gargles peanut butter.
Sorry, just heard that one at dinner with a friend last night. Had to use it at least once. - Pittance, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Except that all of that was made up. There is little evidence for any of that, this is just a new theory.
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 