Question: Can you help with this new question could a man made neutron star be made to then collapse it into a black hole, but I am not sure if it is answerable. A neutron generator can generate to 108 neutrons per second. A 1 microampere ion beam accelerated at 200 kV to a titanium-tritium target can generate up to 108 neutrons per second. The neutron yield is mostly determined by the accelerating voltage and the ion current level. If you were going to attempt to create a man made neutron star using a neutron generator in space, because this is the only place where you could do this experiment. First using the neutron generator which can make 108 neutrons per second, you would start by putting all the neutrons into one place. As you generate, and put all the neutrons into one place you would probably have a microscopic sphere of neutron matter after a while. So here is the problem, I do not know the exact point in spherical mass where neutrons become stable in a neutron star, because its the pressure from gravity that is compacting them, and stopping them from decaying back to protons. If you knew the exact point in spherical mass where neutrons become stable with gravity, you could calculate the number of neutron generators you would need, with the time that the neutrons would decay back into protons. The other thing I do not know is does the exact point in spherical mass in a neutron star where neutrons are stable, would that exact point in a spherical mass of neutrons have the same strength gravity as a medium sized star to crush the neutrons into place, and keep the neutrons stable, as you were putting them together with the neutron generator. Making a sphere the size of a mile may not be enough because you would have to compact the neutrons together closely in the same way a medium sized star does to keep the neutrons stable from decaying. So does a mile, or more of a sphere of non-compacted neutrons be enough to create a gravitational field as strong as a medium sized star, or does the sphere of neutrons need to be compacted together more to create stronger gravity to hold the neutrons into place. So to put it as simple as possible is putting neutrons together in a sphere a mile or more in spherical mass going to create enough gravity to compact the neutrons into place to keep the neutrons stable from decaying into protons. Getting more material to complete this man neutron star to collapse it into a black hole would not really be a problem if you parked it next to a giant star, because the gravity would draw in the material from the giant star and add it to its own mass to make it larger, and I read somewhere the neutron star would not burn so close to a giants star, to absorb its material, and add it to its own mass. Can you help with any of the questions. – Nicholas
Answer: I think that your question is whether a neutron star can become a black hole. Neutron stars are thought to have masses between the Chandreskhar limit of 1.39 solar masses to about 3 solar masses. If a neutron star gathers more mass and gets to the point where its mass reaches about 10 solar masses, its mass will overcome the neutron degeneracy pressure that supports it against gravity and collapse to become a neutron star.
Question: On what date and time to the nearest second (in the past) has earths prime meridian directly lined up and faced the
“celestial meridian” and I am talking about using the “equatorial coordinate system”
Definition for “Celestial Meridian” which I am using from Dictionary.com below:
“In the equatorial coordinate system, a great circle on the celestial sphere passing through the celestial poles and the vernal equinox. It represents the zero point for the horizontal coordinate in this system, having a right ascension of 0 hours.”
I might have thought it was vernal equinox but that happens once every year but the earth doesnt rotate exactly 360 degrees per year so the prime meridian on earth would not always line up. So thats not my answer so I cant just look up Vernal equinox dates on the web.
Its might happen every 4 vernal equinox but not sure. That still would not give me a date which I am looking for.
Prefer UT time or Julian date but anything would help.
Does the date time I am looking for even have a unique name for it?
Answer: The Earth’s “prime meridian” is the great circle which passes through the Earth’s poles and represents the start of the longitude coordinate system, or zero-degrees longitude. Comparing that to the definition you have given above for the celestial meridian, I would say that these two meridians line up once each day. The exact time in a day that the prime meridian aligns with the celestial meridian is determined by the difference between a solar and sidereal day, or about 4 minutes.
Question: Do black holes spin? What makes galaxies stay semi organised while precessing around it? I don’t know how else to word that. Physics is hard. – Nathan
Answer: Yes, it is believed that black holes do spin. The stars in galaxies stay organized over long periods of time while the galaxy rotates due to the mutual gravitational attraction of the stars, gas, and dust in galaxies. That gravitational force balances any forces that might pull a galaxy apart, making the galaxy maintain a stable configuration over many millions of years.
Question: How do radio astronomers isolate radio emissions from space that are at frequencies of the commercial radio channels? – Mathav
Answer: In fact, we try not to make measurements at frequencies that correspond to those used be commercial services. At other frequencies, though, we isolate the position of a radio emission source in the same way that an optical telescope would for a source of optical emission. By pointing our radio telescope in the direction of an astronomical radio signal and isolating the exact position of the signal by moving the position of the radio telescope beam slightly to “peak-up” the signal on the sky we can accurately isolate its position. This is essentially the same technique used with optical telescopes.
Question: Someone asked “How many planets a stellar-planetary system can accommodate safely into a stable orbit around that star? What are the factors it depends on?” What I’m asking is what is the largest number of planets have been observed orbiting a star? I understand it’s in principal a nearly infinite number “could” orbit a star. What is the solar system with the most known planets? Thank you. – Michael
Answer: Looking at the NASA Exoplanet Database, it appears to me that the current confirmed extrasolar planetary system with the most planets orbiting a single star is KOI-351 with seven planets. Of course, our solar system is the champ with 8 planets and a host of dwarf planets if you want to count all stars with planets.
Question: There is a lot of acceptance that when the gases of the universe began to join and spin because of the impact of those collisions. That would mean that all particles hit in the same direction, like using your hand to spin a basketball on your finger. When one questions this I just get blank stares as if I’m suggesting some sort of heresy. But, apart from the difficulty I have with the Big Bang being possible on it’s own (Quantum Physics suggests you need an outside force) the answers I read about the formation of planets and gravity seems absurd yet I can’t find anyone to explain it without theory and conjecture. Can someone help me. Just to make it clear what I’m asking, please help me understand how gas particles flying in every possible direction as can form into a rotating ball that turns into rock because physics itself suggests that is impossible. I use the theory that is used for the formation of planets as….
“…there was a massive cloud of hydrogen gas left over from the Big Bang. Some event, like a nearby supernova explosion triggered a gravitational collapse of the cloud, causing the hydrogen atoms to attach to one another through mutual gravity. Each individual hydrogen atom had its own momentum, and so when the atoms collected together into larger and larger clumps of gas, the conservation of momentum across all the particles set these clumps of gas spinning.”
Now that is a lot of conjecture – considering collisions from every possible direction…let alone how those hydrogen gas particles, once collected together formed everything we have on and in the planet.
Answer: I think that the slight misunderstanding in your logic is the equate “sticking” with the gravitational attraction between particles such as atoms, molecules, and dust particles, which ultimately results in the formation of more massive objects like asteroids, comets, planets, and stars. It is not necessary for objects to collide and “stick” to each other immediately. A stable cloud of massive particles that is affected by a nearby event that “pushes” on it, such as a nearby supernova, will potentially be pushed in such a way that gravity causes objects to slowly move closer to each other and ultimately coalesce. This slow collapse of massive objects toward other massive objects ultimately builds on itself, collecting larger and larger massive objects. This ultimately is a mechanism for forming objects like planets, stars, and galaxies.
Question: Regarding galaxy rotation. Although the supermassive black hole at the center of a Galaxy probably isn’t strong enough to speed up the rotation of its more distant stars so as to make the velocity curve level, nevertheless the time-dilation effect of such a black hole will make the orbital rotation speeds of the inner stars appear slower than it actually is as seen from the point of view of an observer outside the galaxy in question. Couldn’t this be a more reasonable explanation rather than hypothesizing ‘dark matter’? – Tom
Answer: I don’t think that time dilation will affect the observed speed of stars near a black hole as observed from a point far from the black hole. Time dilation affects what local observers measure, which means that the time measured by an observer at a star near a black hole will see time running slower than the time measured by the far-away observer.
Question: I was at the NRAO two days ago. Magnificent! But in walking by the 140′ scope (by “Neptune”) it looked as though there was a mistake in the labeling on the informational sign. On the diagram that explains how an equatorial mount works it purports to point to be pointing with a red arrow to the telescope axis parallel to the Earth’s axis. But the arrow is actually pointing to an earth radius at the base of the telescope (vertical axis to the center of the Earth). Was my understanding of the sign wrong or is the sign itself wrong. Sorry I could not take a digital photo of the sign in question to send (-; By the way, I also found it unusual for scientists to be mixing their Imperial measurements up with the Metric, with a 140 foot telescope being located so close to a 30 meter one, for instance. Wasn’t a space probe or space telescope destroyed by such confusion in its manufacture? – Richard
Answer: I believe that your interpretation of the 140 foot telescope mount is correct, and that the diagram showing the arrow indicating the axis of the antenna pointing to an earth radius at the base of the telescope axis parallel to the Earth’s axis is not exactly correct. It is the actual axis of the moving part of the antenna (the “polar axis”) that is parallel to the Earth’s axis. Regarding the name of this telescope and its use of an Imperial unit, this is simply history and a desire not to rename. We do work exclusively in a metric-based system, with few exceptions. The one famous exception that you refer to, where a misunderstanding as to whether a calculation was done in metric or imperial units in a critical piece of software, caused the Mars Climate Orbiter to dip too deeply into the atmosphere of Mars and burn-up in 1999.
Question: What would a neutron star look like to the human eye from, say, 10 light years? – Lee
Answer: Neutron stars emit most of their thermal radiation at x-ray wavelengths, and emit very little radiation (i.e. “light”) at optical wavelengths. Therefore, at optical wavelengths, a neutron star even just 10 light years away would be very faint, and would be too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.
Question: I know the NRAO is located in a “radio quiet zone.” Is there a time during the 24 hour day that is “quietest” for you there? A time you would choose to listen for your weakest signals? If there is, can you tell me that time? – Robert
Answer: I am not aware of any times of the day when the general radio transmission environment is “quieter” than it is at other times. There are radio transmitters that are time and position variable (such as radar devices attached to cars). For information, the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ) web page has some additional information about this area.