It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neutron star found inside a Red supergiant.

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
It was in 1975 that astronomers named Kip Thorne and Anna Zytkow proposed the existence of very strange stars, which now bear their name : Thorne- Zytkow objects . These stars are supposed to be giant stars dying , but containing in their heart a neutron star. From the theoretical invention of these objects forty years ago, many astronomers and astrophysicists thought to have found specimens of these hybrid stars . But none was finally proved to be a true Thorne- Zytkow object.

But it has been done! Recently held in Washington DC, at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society, a study was presented by a young astrophysicist from the University of Colorado , Emily Levesque, showing a candidate for a Thorne- Zytkow.

It is a red supergiant located in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a neighboring galaxy to ours . The big clue that this star would be a hybrid of Thorne- Zytkow is that it contains too much lithium , rubidium and molybdenum . These are the elements that seem to have betrayed the hiding neutron star ...

Indeed , these elements can appear in large quantities as is the case here by means of specific nuclear reactions (fast interrupted neutron captures) phenomenon described in 1975 by Kip Thorne and Anna Zytkow, .

Theorists astrophysicists have proposed several scenarios to explain such a hybrid star, that most likely involves a giant star literally swallowing a neutron star initially in its orbit. The arrival of the neutron star inside the giant star has the effect of slowing down the thermonuclear reactions that take place in normal times , hence the abundance of elements that would normally be consumed.




posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Golantrevize
 


I'd always felt that Black Holes were in the center of Stars since they collapse in on themselves and turn into Black Holes. Light is still there, it's just inside the black hole and we can't see it. Are Neutron Stars similiar to Black Holes? Are they the same thing? I forget.

I know that in reality Stars are born in Stellar Nurseries. However, someone stated on an earlier thread that babies were developed in the womb inside out. So, maybe there is something to my idea.
edit on 25-1-2014 by lostbook because: changed to make more sense



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

lostbook
reply to post by Golantrevize
 


I'd always felt that Black Holes were in the center of Stars since they collapse in on themselves and turn into Black Holes. Light is still there, it's just inside the black hole and we can't see it. Are Neutron Stars similiar to Black Holes? Are they the same thing? I forget.

I know that in reality Stars are born in Stellar Nurseries. However, someone stated on an earlier thread that babies were developed in the womb inside out. So, maybe there is something to my idea.
edit on 25-1-2014 by lostbook because: changed to make more sense


Neutron stars are other option when giant star is dying. Usually massive stars turn into black hole, but if star doesn't have mass for Neutron degeneracy pressure, it turns into Neutron star. Neutron stars are tiniest and most dense objects in space. They are normally around 10 km wide, but mass is several times the mass of our Sun.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Golantrevize
 

Did you intend to include a source? It's customary here to do so.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I am pretty sure this is the source

New discovery could be a Thorne-Zytkow object

or this

nature



The pics look cool but each article depicts something different.



[/url]




A Thorne-Zytkow object, Kip Throne and Anna Zytkow theorized back in 1975, could come to exist when a dying red giant star swallows an orbiting neutron star. The result would be, the researchers suggested, a star with another smaller star embedded in its core and which would overall resemble other known types of stars but would emit a different and unique chemical signature. Since that time, many space scientists have scoured the heavens looking for such an object—many candidates have been found, but thus far none have been confirmed. In this latest effort, the found object appears to closely resemble what Thorne and Zytkow predicted.

Read more at: phys.org...

edit on 25-1-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


When a black hole forms it initially goes through being a supergiant which upon expending it's lighter elements goes on to consume heavier and heavier element's, all the while as it does this the star swells as the elements resultant from the fusions process require more space, hydroged become's helium and so on, on an on until the star is to exhausted it litteraly performs fusion on iron and heavier element's while it's hydrogen RATIO fall's to the point where the energy from the hydrogen fusion can no longer balance out the inward pressure of the gravity and the core become's compressed this usually has one finale supermassive explosion that throws the stars body of it's core, in a neutron star the compression stops when the matter has had almost all of it's electrons and protons compressed out leaving a substance we can call neutronium, now imagine the titanic on a tea spoon, well that is a rough analogy of the mass of neutronium to it's volume, usually the final explosion blow's off the mass from this now near inert star nucleus which is usually smaller than the earth in volume and we get a supernova, some energy can be trapped and the core can be slightly active even after the supernova and we get pulsar's and radio stars as the energy gets released periodically in great bursts but sometime the collapse goes far beyond forming neutronium and even the neutrons get crushed into a pseudo singe mass and we call that a black hole, in an ideal theory and in some very rare case we may get a true black hole but physics can not yet grasp that, Mr Steven hawking has accepted a notion that scientists have been skipping around for a while and that is one this sister thread, www.abovetopsecret.com...
Personally I believe he is not one hundred percent on all his theorys, but on this I concede there are indeed probably grey hole's as they have been called, a kind of intermediary between a neutron star and a black hole which doese not have a true even horizon but something close and light can escape or become trapped at it while it radiated away, Indeed I think the big bang theory has it in reverse and we are the result of a black hole forming in an EXTERNAL time space which would in almost every way obey the same basic laws of physics, my problem is with anti gravity which I believe requires anti time and would therefore be a non natural occurance within our univers and I also do not believe there is any were near enough dark matter, rather I believe a True Black hole formed, let me lead you through what I am proposing - now in the centre of a mass where is the gravity greatest, the centre may be under PRESSURE but the mass surrounds that point so it in essence must be all around that point creating a gravity vacuum (pulling outward on that point in an inverse sphere), I also believe gravity is a universal constant but mass is like a ripple - like wave on water that flows with the flow of the stream (time) and is not dissipated so where there is matter there is essentially more space material (superstring/field as even empty space is made of the same material - field or membrane universe theory, our universe may be the resultant of a collision between two membranes in superspace-the space around space - one may be the origin of gravity as it is vastly weaker than for instance electromagnetism which is why you can pick iron filings up with a magnet and the other may be the source of time while energy may be a result of our own membrane and the mixture of time and gravity assymetrically) and therefore as mass is a constant accross the universe were there is more string material in less volume it stands to reason that more gravity would also be present in that volume.
Now when the black hole collapsed inward that point of negative gravity at it's core it surrounded by more and more gravity in less and less volume pulling outward on a smaller and smaller point until it ruptures the universe material and pull's the opposite of gravity (time and energy) into that point inside a bubble surrounded by gravity, now that is the big bang in my opinion and the dark matter they are searching for to explain the accellerating expansion of the univers is merely the gravity around the univers pulling it apart, the very force that created it drawing it outward to where it will eventually reach the internal event horizon and be subject to a process called spaghetification by which it is anihilated, now how many if any TRUE black holes have yet formed in our universe and have any given rise to another child continuum, in the child continuum time relative to the parent continuumn would move much faster but at the end when the entire child continuum has expended itself and become inert through spaghetification then it would have nearly equalled the rate of relative time passage to the parent continuum.

Also the great gaps or hole in the universe star fields and mass energy displacements can also be simple explained by the assymetric nature of the black hole formation and it's native spin or rotation which as it collapsed actually increased in speed, if correct though we may never be able to measure it our universe would look look a flattened sphere and relative to an observer at it's centre the upper and lower distant galaxys and stars would probably be moveing away at a slightly slower rate than those at it's equator due to this factor, it may indeed be that our univers would look kind of like a doughnut ring.

The stella nursery or as we also call them nebulae are the expanded remains of early supergiant stars from the early universe that exploded and threw there outer shell of dust and gas off into space, new smaller stars form in them and it is neat to think every atom in your body exept hydrogen was formed in an ancient supernova.

edit on 25-1-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Told you where the idea was put forward. I am the source of what I write, may it be news or physics I simplify for ats members.
edit on 42014Saturdaypm131Sat, 25 Jan 2014 16:28:22 -0600America/Chicagov28 by Golantrevize because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
You know this something i had not known of before.

but since this is ATS what story would be complete without a fringe science tie in?

so this is a special type of binary star system. Bob Lazar has said the ET's source of his much ballyhooed stable isotope of element 115 is certain types of binary system. According to the article this type of binary star systems key signature is the over abundance of heavy elements like rubidium and so forth. it is at least somewhat possible that this would include stable isotopes of other super heavy elements given that the sheer mass of material available for fusion and transmutation means even rare nuclear chains should stack up to appreciable amounts of all sorts of matter.

so there you have it. a kook science tie in courtesy of yours truly. you may send flowers and money to meh care of the staff.



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I am pretty sure this is the source

New discovery could be a Thorne-Zytkow object


The pics look cool but each article depicts something different.
Thanks for the sources


Golantrevize
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Told you where the idea was put forward. I am the source of what I write, may it be news or physics I simplify for ats members.
Simplifying what you write for members is fine, but it is still nice to include a source, especially since another source in this case says additional research is needed to confirm it's really what they think it might be. You left that part out.


More work will have to be done before it will become known if the newly discovered specimen is truly a Thorne-Zytkow object.


What you said is:


none was finally proved to be a true Thorne- Zytkow object.

But it has been done!
It hasn't really been done because they still need to do more work to prove it, correct?



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


How is it possible for me to leave a part out of an article I have never read?



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Golantrevize
 


Could it be possible that we are seeing a transition from one star type to the next?

I mean science has classified star types and established what happens when a star goes from A to B to C. Have we ever actually observed / located a star that has been in transition?



posted on Jan, 25 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


No we are not seeing a transition, there is fundamental differences between a red supergiant and a neutron star. Think of it as our own Sun, eventually when it will be near its death it will grow in size and swallow mercury and venus. Same here, but instead of being a planet, we are talking about a neutron star that was in orbit around that star before it became a red supergiant.
edit on 62014Saturdaypm131Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:51:27 -0600America/Chicagov51 by Golantrevize because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   

lostbook
reply to post by Golantrevize
 


I'd always felt that Black Holes were in the center of Stars since they collapse in on themselves and turn into Black Holes. Light is still there, it's just inside the black hole and we can't see it.


Incorrect. Read this: en.wikipedia.org...



Are Neutron Stars similiar to Black Holes? Are they the same thing? I forget.


Different. Read the link above.



I know that in reality Stars are born in Stellar Nurseries. However, someone stated on an earlier thread that babies were developed in the womb inside out. So, maybe there is something to my idea.


It would not be wise to compare stellar formation to the biology of a human fetus.

This may be of help:

Stellar Evolution 101: Different classes of stars have different ends...

edit on 26-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Xcathdra
reply to post by Golantrevize
 


Could it be possible that we are seeing a transition from one star type to the next?

I mean science has classified star types and established what happens when a star goes from A to B to C. Have we ever actually observed / located a star that has been in transition?


All stars are in transition after they leave the main sequence. See above chart.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Golantrevize
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


How is it possible for me to leave a part out of an article I have never read?
How is is possible for you to state the object is proven to be a Thorne-Zytkow object when I can't find any record of anybody saying that?

You never said where you got the information. You referenced the meeting of the American Astronomical Society implying that was the source, did you attend it? Or did you read about it, and if so where? If your source was the meeting as you referenced in the OP, here is what the astronomer announced at the meeting:

www.technology.org...

Speaking at this year’s American Astronomical Society meeting, Hubble Fellow, Emily Levesque reported that she and her colleagues at the University of Colorado have discovered a star that just might qualify as a Thorne-Zytkow object.
So even at the meeting she didn't say it was proven, only that it "might qualify as a Thorne-Zytkow object".

I don't know why you're being so difficult about providing us with the source of your information. Even if you're rephrasing and simplifying it, you're rephrasing something and simplifying something that you sourced somewhere, right? Is it asking too much to provide such a link? Everybody else here does it, with very few exceptions.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join