Talk:Neutron star

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Weight of neutron star material

[edit]

The article discusses neutron star density with the weight of a matchbox worth of material but shouldn't that be mass? If using weight should it be clear whether that refers to weight under a neutron star's gravity or under earth's gravity? AlgosLiberDeBauche (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified representation of the formation of neutron stars

[edit]

This representation is incorrect: the gravity force in the center of a star is zero because for a gravity force in each direction there is an equal gravity force in the opposite direction. The highest gravity is in a sphere somewhere between the surface and center. Zyavrik (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Gravity" section example

[edit]

The example says that an object falling from 1 meter height would reach the ground at 1400 km/s. The cited source seems to be using "(2*1*9,8*10^11)^(1/2)", which checks out. However, I think there is a typo in the source: the equation for a falling body is "v = (2*g*d)^(1/2)", as per Equations for a falling body#Equations, and "[t]he gravitational field at a neutron star's surface is about 2×10^11 times stronger than on Earth", as per the section introduction. So there should be two 2's in the source's equation: (2*1*2*9,8*10^11)^(1/2) = 1980 km/s. 85.216.152.106 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs tend not to be reliable sources. Lithopsian (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think of making a single list of neutron star.

[edit]

I had see there are many things about neutron star but not seen a list of neutron stars including Pulsar and magnetars. Is this a great idea. Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-relativistic does not mean "slower than c"

[edit]

Every massive particle moves slower than the speed of light. If you'll accept Wiktionary as an authority here: "1. Not relativistic; classical, Newtonian. 2. Not moving at a speed comparable to the speed of light." Meanwhile, "relativistic", sense 2: "(physics) At or near the speed of light." Or Merriam-Webster, "nonrelativistic", sense 2: "of, relating to, or being a body moving at less than a relativistic velocity", and "relativistic" sense 2: "moving at a velocity such that there is a significant change in properties (such as mass) in accordance with the theory of relativity", which two of the sources clarify: "a significant fraction of the speed of light" and "moving near the speed of light".

The current state of the article explains "non-relativistic" as "moving slower than the speed of light", which would imply that every relativistic neutron is also non-relativistic. The phrase "much slower" may be "linguistically imprecise" but it is not an improvement to give a blatantly incorrect definition! It would also be "precise" to say that nonrelativistic means "moving at three times the speed of light"; that doesn't make it a good gloss.

The reason for "imprecise" glosses of "non-relativistic" is that "non-relativistic", like "short", is an inherently imprecise word. It would be an error to gloss "short person" as "a person whose height is less than ten feet", even though it would be precise.

ZergTwo, please stop inserting glosses for technical terms that are directly contrary to how the entire field of physics uses the term. A particle moving at .99999c is not "non-relativistic"; ask any physicist, any textbook, or consult the sources I named above. Patallurgist (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]