(Blogger now has backlinks – very similar to the trackback feature in Movable Type. Six Apart started a working group in February 2006

) Some individuals or companies have abused the TrackBack feature to insert spam links on some blogs (see sping). As a result, TrackBack

End spoilers

The only thing more awesome then science fiction is science. Well, except for the warp drives.

You have a lepton number of 2 on the left hand side (2 leptons, 0 antileptons), and a lepton number of 0 on the right hand side (0 leptons, 0 antileptons). Thus you’ve managed to propose a process that is an even worse violation of lepton number conservation!

If you try to draw the Feynman diagram for what you suggest, you find it doesn’t work. Plus, even if it did, it’s a 4-particle interaction (electron+proton+neutrino+antineutrino).

Furthermore, reverse beta decay is proton+electron–>neutron+neutrino.

Whether BA is a bad astronomer I don’t know, but the reaction he put in this post is definitely bad particle physics.

Imagine a virtual neutrino-antineutrino pair forming in the vacinity of a proton. Along comes an electron. The neutrino, electron and proton combine to form a neutron and the antineutrino wanders off on its own.

I think this is how you get the electron+proton -> neutron+antineutrino interaction without relying on the extremely improbably 3-way electron+proton+neutrino all arriving at the same place at the same time. I’ve never really understood what is meant by “an antiparticle is just a normal particle travelling backwards in time”, but in this case, the produced antineutron if regarded as a neutrino travelling backward in time is a neutring arriving rather than an antineutrino departing, so making that substitution, we have electron+proton+neutrino->neutron, which is just reverse beta decay.

Is it a fair assumption that if we go back far enough in time what we originally had was a binary star pair orbiting one another?

I barely know enough of the science to comprehened it all (so I keep reading) but I would think that a supernova event for the now neutron star would have all but obliterated the second star, in fact wouldnt the pre-supernova expansion of the first star been enough to create a real issue for the pair? Is it assumed that the 2nd star formed post-neutron formation, and if so how could it do so in such close proximity to such a gravational magnent? So many questions. Love Science!

nevresim takimi modelleri ceyiz havlu deseni kenari
bilgisayar tamiri teknik yetkili servis sorun arıza veri kurtarma sirket sozlesmesi

If matter is going to get pulled from the companion to the neutron star, it needs to first escape from the companion – close to the companion, the combined gravity pulls toward the lighter but much nearer companion. As you move away from the companion, at some point the pull from the neutron star becomes stronger, and matter falls towards it instead. If you draw the outline of the region where that happens, you get a teardrop shape. It’s a teardrop roughly because on the side towards the neutron star, as soon as matter crosses the center of mass of the system it falls towards the neutron star. That is the point of the teardrop (leaving aside things like stellar and pulsar winds and radiation pressure). The teardrop shape is called the Roche lobe, and in any binary system it exists as an invisible dividing line. Roughly, stellar matter inside a star’s Roche lobe may stay put, but any that overflows is doomed. So if the companion is large enough to overflow its Roche lobe, any extra matter gets gobbled by the neutron star, leaving only a teardrop.

That being said, I don’t want to be anywhere near one of those things!

I’ll give Markwardt and Krimm a gold star if they document rotation of the two stars around one another.