News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Neutron stars may be bigger than expected, measurement of... by btilly on Tuesday April 27, 2021 @03:21PM (#26960257)
Close.

Giant blue stars burn all of the way up to the most stable element of all, which is iron. And then collects an iron core. As the core grows, the star shrinks and the pressure in the middle grows. Once the pressure in the middle is high enough, it overcomes the Pauli exclusion principle and electrons merge with protons to become neutrons with a release of energy, which mostly comes out as neutrinos.

Once a bit of that core disappears, the stuff around falls into the new gap, hits it, goes under way more pressure and the same thing happens. This starts a chain reaction that causes a supernova. The core collapses into a neutron star while the release of energy blows the outer shell out to eventually become a nebulae.

If the initial star was big enough, the newly created neutron star is big enough to transform into a black hole. Otherwise it is left as a neutron star.

If it forms a neutron star, the spin speeds up thanks to the collapse. Typical time to rotate can be anywhere from milliseconds to seconds. We can tell that because its magnetic field also gets trapped and forms a strong beam along the north and south magnetic poles. Since magnetic poles do not generally line up with the rotational poles, that beam becomes like a searchlight. If we're in the path of that beam, we see a pulsar, and the frequency of the pulsar is the rotational speed of the neutron star.

This is probably way more than you wanted to know. :-)

I probably also am going to get corrected on some details in 3, 2, 1...

Re:Neutron stars may be bigger than expected, measurement of... by robocat on Tuesday April 27, 2021 @05:35PM (#26961944)
Your comment did inspire me to go looking for the distribution of elements within the iron core: "carbon, neon, oxygen, and silicon burning leave a core composed of iron, cobalt, nickel, and neighboring species, referred to as the iron-peak nuclei".

For anyone else interested in a readable article on a slightly more detailed look at supernova than wikipedia, and a discussion on the difficulties of modelling supernova, I liked this article: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4870009

Re:Neutron stars may be bigger than expected, measurement of... by hinkley on Tuesday April 27, 2021 @05:20PM (#26961722)
I was shocked to learn how long it takes a photon produced at the center of the sun by a fusion event to reach earth. The layers upon layers of subatomic particles that are all interacting in these tight quarters is simply astounding.

I've heard this same theory on supernovas from a number of people in or around physics, but I always wonder how handwavy it is, whether we actually understand how that works yet, and how different (confusing) the real process is from the given one.

Re:Neutron stars may be bigger than expected, measurement of... by btilly on Tuesday April 27, 2021 @08:32PM (#26963935)
We understand this one surprisingly well.

The seminal paper from 1957 is https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.... that figured out all of the reactions involved. Then used their predictions of the process to predict the distribution of observed isotopes of all of the elements. Those predictions were surprisingly accurate and have been refined more. See https://www.sciencealert.com/this-awesome-periodic-table-sho... for the outcome of that.

Incidentally the photon takes so long to escape because it gets absorbed and reemitted over and over again in a drunken walk. A supernova is fast because most neutrinos just escape, but with enough being stopped to rip the star to shreds.

Re:Neutron stars may be bigger than expected, measurement of... by CRConrad on Sunday May 02, 2021 @04:01AM (#27013215)
...0: A nebula. The -e is a plural marker.

Hey, you asked for it.