>>16847786
It's not a normal liquid, it's a sea of neutrons. There's nothing like it on earth

>>16847790
so just a giant atom then?

>>16847786
Stop questioning the soience goy

>>16847786
They are 100% real and proven to exist and are not purely theoretical but also we can't create the kind of matter they're made of on earth to prove they can exist.

>>16847786
nature is far more creative than people
irl eldritch horror

>>16847786
Yeah. You derive neutron degeneracy pressure for fermi gas in undergrad thermodynamics, anon. It’s basic shit.

>>16847899
npc response

>>16847799
Yes, in a sense
It's supported by the nuclear force

>>16847905
no, it's supported by degeneracy pressure, a purely quantum effect, against gravity

>>16847909
no, it's supported by lies

>>16847902
Midwit response. Git gud. Btw quantum statistical mechanics filters most phd students; only condensed matter fags are insane enough to do it for a living.

>>16847909
Degeneracy pressure a bookkeeping tool, not a real force

>>16847918
Pressure isn't force, retard. And if you weren't dumbfuck retarded you would know that thermodynamic pressure =/= mechanical pressure.

>>16847899
>You derive neutron degeneracy pressure for fermi gas in undergrad thermodynamics
>>16847909
>it's supported by degeneracy pressure, a purely quantum effect
>>16847918
>Degeneracy pressure a bookkeeping tool, not a real force
>>16847923
>Pressure isn't force
It's fucking incoherent. I don't understand. From what I read, degeneracy pressure results from Pauli's exclusion principle. At the same time they say exclusion principle it not a force. How can it cause pressure if it doesn't exert force? Is the quantum state in question described with reference to electromagnetic, weak, strong interaction? Would a sufficiently massive cloud of neutral particles like neutrinos or Higgses experience degeneracy pressure? These are the great mysteries of the universe.

>>16847786
the interior becomes bosonic or something

>>16847947
>It's fucking incoherent. I don't understand.
Filtered by high-school dimensional analysis lel.

>>16847909
If it's due to a mathematical exclusion principle, how can it be overcome with enough force (collapse to a black hole)?

>>16847979
With enough pressure you can force anything into anything else
You can't divide 5 by 3 into integers. But with enough pressure, you can.

>>16847947
>It's fucking incoherent. I don't understand.
Just shut up and calculate.

what quantity describes neutron degeneration???

electron degeneration makes sense because positive fields offset the negative ones, but neutrons are neutral particles, its not like they have any interactions let alone field effects other than gravity... and yet that's specifically the field holding a neutron star together

>>16847987
Pauli exclusion principle. Two fermions cannot occupy the same energy state. You can derive the spin-statistics theorem from special relativity; Whitehead’s axioms in QFT do it in a completely rigorous way. So there’s no physical force at play, just relativistic mechanics.

>>16847993
*Wightman axioms

>>16847993
>Two fermions cannot occupy the same energy state.
Evidently they can be forced to, because black holes exist

>>16847786
This is what every planet is like, just different compositions. As above, so below...

The neutron star sustains itself against its immense gravity because the neutrons look up the Pauli exclusion principle on Wikipedia and realise they can't legally get any closer, so they stop

>>16848000
Akshyally, fermions induce non-vanishing torsion, so whether or not they collapse into a black hole is an open problem. The notion of a black hole is purely theoretic. That's why the Nobel prize stated "for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the centre of our galaxy" to avoid spergs like me going "askhyally".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan_theory
>Torsion allows fermions to be spatially extended instead of "pointlike", which helps to avoid the formation of singularities such as black holes, removes the ultraviolet divergence in quantum field theory, and leads to the toroidal ring model of electrons.[22]

>>16848008
Torsion relativity should be looked into more

Can we terraform a neutron star?

>>16848030
If you can make the mathematics work then you can do anything regardless of if it's actually possible

>>16848030
Only to the extent that it complies with the Pauli Exclusion Principle

Nobody even cares that the "solid" crust is actually a fully pressure ionized plasma with coupling constant large enough to form a Coulomb crystal closer to the interior.

File: troll-trollface.gif (12 KB, 640x246)

12 KB GIF

space is fake and gay

>>16848104
You're fake and gay

>>16847993
>So there’s no physical force at play, just relativistic mechanics.
that just sounds like a way to say you dont know

I bet its the higgs field interaction

>>16848000
Also Fermionic Condensate
>>16848008
What about black hole analogues like sonic black holes that radiate phonons akin to Hawking radiation?

What is keeping it so small? It can't be just gravity because gravity never compresses objects that small.

>>16848298
It's gravity

375 trillionth of the size of the sun but still more massive than sun. All this space stuff never ceases to blow your mind.

Is the sun alive dreaming or dead?

>>16848310
The Sun is asleep and dreaming. Pray It does not wake up.

>>16848305
I wonder what they'll think of next

>>16848245
Once again
thermodynamic pressure =/= mechanical pressure
idiots learn that mechanical pressure is force divided by area and then try to apply it to thermodynamic pressure. Ideal gas has no interactions and there’s still thermodynamic pressure. It’s the derivative of entropy with respect to volume, nothing to do with force. It just happens to have the same units as mechanical pressurez

wouldn't this just form a nuclear fission chain reaction if it's mostly neutrons in close proximity to each other?

Normally the charges between atoms keeps them pretty far spaced apart like how u cant push magnets together, i guess in this thing they overcome that so all the nuclei are one giant blob

>>16848387
for nuclear reasons i havent looked up all the nucleaons have to be neutrons when it goes into blob mode, my guess is that it has something to do with the weak force that also causes radioactive beta decay but i dont feel like fact checking myself

>>16848380
statistics do not equal physics

>>16848412
Once again
statistical mechanics = statistics
do basic googling before you post

>>16848431
*=/=
You need physical data for the most basic shit like canonical ensembles.

>>16848380
>thermodynamic pressure =/= mechanical pressure
They are equal by math and by nature.

>Ideal gas has no interactions
wut?

>idiots
Yes, don't forget to call everyone idiots, it will explain your point and everyone will respect you.

>>16848388
At high enough densities, the electron Fermi energy is large enough that it becomes energetically favorable for the weak interaction to combine it with a proton instead of remaining free
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.11876

>>16848457
>equal by math
No, two entirely different definitions. Mechanical pressure isn’t even a thing in quantum or relativistic mechanics since defining a force in either is useless; you use potentials. When GR people say pressure, they mean exactly thermodynamic pressure since they’re working with dust solutions to the EFEs
>by nature
thermodynamic pressure arises as a macroscopic quantity in many-particle phenomena. Mechanical pressure just needs two extended bodies interacting.

>>16847889
>proven to exist
>closest person to it ever was a quadrillion billion miles away
This is /sci/

>>16848534
>if i can't see it with the naked eye it doesn't exist! durpy durr!
this is retardation

>>16848484
>Mechanical pressure isn’t even a thing in quantum or relativistic mechanics since defining a force in either is useless; you use potentials.
I'm not a specialist at anything of those but from mechanics I know that mechanical pressure is energy density. Can they use energy?

>macroscopic quantity in many-particle phenomena
>two extended bodies interacting
It just two scales of the same phenomena.

>>16848542
Mechanical pressure is literally just force divided by area the force is applied to.
>two scales of the same phenomena
My god, you’re beyond help. If you yourself say you don’t know much about this stuff, then why do you insist on saying ignorant stuff? The Sackur-Tetrode formula for the ideal gas never uses any notion of force, in fact there’s not even a force there classically since one assumes ideal gas particles don’t interact. And yet you still get thermodynamic pressure out of it, because thermodynamic pressure is just the derivative of entropy with respect to volume; zero mention of force.

>>16848538
The fact that you believe what you see is bad enough. Don't go further please lest you inevitably humiliate yourself.

>>16848567
>zero reading comprehension
i was mocking you for having that sentiment to begin with, retard. if you think having evidence to something is invalid unless every person on the planet simultaneously saw and accounted for it, you are unfamiliar with the concept of repeatable experiments and should larp elsewhere.

>>16848552
>Mechanical pressure is literally just force divided by area the force is applied to.
And force is a work divided by path. Multiply path by area and you get energy per volume.

>If you yourself say you don’t know much about this stuff, then why do you insist on saying ignorant stuff?
Because I know my scope and stay within it. More specifically I'm not good about relativistic and quantum shit. I want to fix bad understanding of mechanics from your side.

>Sackur-Tetrode formula
You know such a smartass formula, but not understand basic things. For example you learned that in ideal gas particles do not interact. But you somehow ignorant to the assumption of ideal gas, that they do not interact specifically with >each-other<. If you take ideal gas law the pressure is real there, it will inflate a balloon, lift a piston and so on. I've no idea why are you arguing. Are you a math guy trying to talk about physics?

I just checked you initial argument, guys. It seems valid at first, when You state that pressure there is should be described statistically due to
>Pauli exclusion principle
And it seems right. But then the whole talk derails to "gas pressure is not mechanical pressure". This statement is unnecessary and incorrect.

Even let's take this statement:
>it's supported by degeneracy pressure, a purely quantum effect, against gravity
If degeneracy pressure (high on this board) supports that mass against gravity, and gravity is a force, then that degeneracy pressure is also a force. Could we find the common ground here?

>>16848747
>And force is a work divided by path. Multiply path by area and you get energy per volume.
Congratulations, you're doing kiddy dimensional analysis, not actual physics. And guess what, the units do match up hence the name "pressure" for both. Kinetic energy and potential energy also have the same units of energy; doesn't mean they're the same concepts.
>that they do not interact specifically with each-other
No, the Hamiltonian is completely interactionless. It doesn't have ANY information about the gas interacting with the container in any way. And yet you still get thermodynamic pressure out of it.
>This statement is unnecessary and incorrect.
Refer to above to see how your kindergarten arguments don't work. I can instantly tell that you've never done any actual calculations because these basic details elude you.
>degeneracy pressure is also a force
It cannot be by the simple fact that they don't even have matching units. How you can say this in the same post that uses dimensional analysis to supposedly tell me I'm wrong is beyond me.

tl;dr do some actual physics, read books, do exercises, then maybe you'll get it. Wishy-washy arguments don't work in physics for a reason. I see that you're struggling with basic stuff so I recommend you start with Classical Mechanics by Taylor and then move on to Thermal Physics by Schroeder. The latter contains calculations for both the ideal gas and Fermi gas. Please refrain from posting until you thoroughly go through both books. And say thank you for me spoonfeeding you this undergrad shit.

File: 1756347665733787.png (1.42 MB, 1659x1250)

1.42 MB PNG

The electron is the distance away from the nucleus, in proportion the equivalent of 13+ football fields, the apdistance between individual atoms is large, there is a lot of empty space to squeeze parts together

>>16849030
>The electron is the distance away from the nucleus, in proportion the equivalent of 13+ football fields
At what scale?
1 e.d. = 13+ a.f.f. is My T uninformative.

>>16849038
If a proton was the size of a ping pong ball

>>16849043
Sweet.
So electron like a pinhead or sumthin?

>>16847786
Particles

File: 42055.jpg (286 KB, 1500x1500)

286 KB JPG

>>16849044
The proton is 1,836 times more massive than the electron
The photon is unknown in size, so no ratio comparison can be made, just thought to be extremly small in comparison to the electron

>>16849051
Nice.
So at this scale, like a chigger on a blade of grass gets tugged by magnetic and gravitational tides equally? Plank scale stuff, right?
Or is that shit like even smaller? 10^(-35) level shit, right? What's that on our 13+ plane?

File: 375px-Dipole_polarization.jpg (25 KB, 375x320)

25 KB JPG

>>16849060
Strangely enough humans are closer in scale to atoms, than atoms are to the smallest estimated plank size.

>>16849066
Fuck.
Thanks bro. Stoned af and appreciate your time.

>>16847918
Degeneracy pressure is when your bros are really into futa and you don't want to look vanilla

>>16848464
cool, thx

>>16847790
so just a giant uranus then?

File: last.jpg (11 KB, 370x324)

11 KB JPG

>>16848998
You are building your proof on what's being put into formula without any attempt to understand that formula:
>Hamiltonian is completely interactionless. It doesn't have ANY information about the gas interacting with the container
And then, while being increasingly angry you redirect me to some books. Why can't you just explain your point on your own? I think that's because you actually a dumblet pretending to be "irritated genius". I bet you never read any of the books you mention.

Quickly grade your other statements:
>kiddy dimensional analysis, not actual physics
It actually have physical meaning: if you compress a spring you'll increase it's potential energy, same here. F for mechanics.

>Kinetic energy and potential energy also have the same units of energy; doesn't mean they're the same concepts.
They are not the same but both called energy and can be transformed into each other why? Conceptually they have many similarities, both are scalars, both are invariant. Very weak argument you brought. E for philosophy.

>It cannot be by the simple fact that they don't even have matching units.
- First told that dimensional analysis is "kiddy" then do it on your own.
- First told that somehow that forces compensate each-other and then you contradict with your initial argument.
F for rhetoric.

- Also if two values have different dimensions, you normally looking for a way to "bridge" them by converting to either energy or a force or some universal ground.
F for applied physics.

I'm not an IQ nazi and I don't require everyone to be smart. I believe that we can answer this threads question through reasoning. But to achieve that, you should stop insulting people just be cause their thoughts contradict with yours and try to build some valid grounded arguments ideally in "explain me as I was 7 years old" style, instead of poking that finger at books and formulas.

>>16849461
>Why can't you just explain your point on your own?
I just did. What part of “a completely interactionless system nonetheless yields thermodynamic pressure” do you not understand? I told you, I’m tired of spoonfeeding your petulant kindergarten ass. Reread my post again, reevaluate your life, maybe buy a rope.

>>16849467
What do you mean by "yields" here? And what about your "thermodynamic pressure is not a force" argument, did you discard it already?

Ideal fucking gas do not interact with itself, but if you put it under a piston it would press on it because particles bounce and give their impulse. Highschool shit. "No interaction" in terms of ideal gas means there's no springy force between those particles.

And if you have no jar in your holy Hamiltonian, this is because it's build for theoretical endless space continuously filled with gas.

>>16849484
I repeat, reread my post very carefully again. You seem to be extremely mentally stunted because you still can’t get that pressure and force don’t have matching units. What you’re saying is about as meaningful as
>What do you mean the speed of sound isn’t time?
Sit down, make yourself some coffee/tea, do some retrospection, squint your eyes a little bit, then maybe, just maybe, you’ll realize how humongously retarded you sound.

>>16849488
>muh units non matching
>it's not me angry, it's you
I guess our conversation ends here, you didn't demonstrate any effort to be constructive.

>>16849496
Indeed. Have fun drooling.

How do the neutrons know what the Pauli exclusion principle is
?

>>16850270
They don't need to. They are not physical objects, but mathematical abstractions defined in such a way that they cannot occupy the same space. Simple as that.

File: img-2025-11-16-19-39-47.png (143 KB, 500x604)

143 KB PNG

>>16847947
Degeneracy pressure is not a force in the traditional/classical sense, but an emergent, macroscopic pressure resulting from the quantum mechanical Pauli Exclusion Principle. The principle itself says that two identical fermions can't occupy the same quantum state. When matter is compressed immensely, electrons and neurons are forced into higher energy states, increasing kinetic energy and momentum, which creates the resistance to further compression. This resistance is what degeneracy pressure is.

Degeneracy pressure is simply because the particles are touching each other. The Pauli exclusion principle is just a formalization of this.
We're so used to all interactions being a (((force))) meditated by a (((field))) that we've forgotten the basic principle that two things can't be in the same place (usually)

File: 1745520465794287.png (49 KB, 500x500)

49 KB PNG

>>16847947
That's because you're a dumb faggot trying to "understand" physics with wordies. Go read a textbook and do some problems, or alternatively you can go and talk to ChatGPT and it will tell you that you're a smart boy :)

>>16850276
No, retard.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (101 KB, 1280x720)

101 KB JPG

>>16847786
What about a gravastar? A "gravitational vacuum star". The outer shell is a substance they call "galactic flubber" which is incredible strong and thin. Inside is vacuum but the vacuum inside the gravastar is 10^44 times denser than the outside. WTF? How can vacuum be that dense? Temperature is close to absolute zero. This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Some people think that all the black holes are actually gravastars and this would solve the problem they have with black hole singularities but how do they explain the observable stream of plasma that they observe from the black holes we know about? Do gravastars do that as well?

>>16848534
At this point why not question the existence of the sun.

>>16848104
the reason a lot of space shit sounds so ridiculous is because the true answer is
>we dont fucking know heres our best guess

>>16847786
Does anyone wonder what a neutron star would feel like to touch if we could touch it?
>>16847790
It's pretty fucking absurd.
>The mean density of a neutron star is approximately \(10^{15}\) grams per cubic centimeter (\(g/cm^{3}\)), a density similar to that of an atomic nucleus. This extreme density means a teaspoon of neutron star material would weigh about 6 billion tons.
>The mean density of the Earth is approximately \(5.51\) to \(5.52\) grams per cubic centimeter (\(g/cm^{3}\)).

>>16848089
I don’t know what that means.

What is a black hole made out of? What would it feel like to touch it?

>>16848066
lol