Answers regarding matter in neutron stars are on the way.

I remember this "factoid" from a physics class: A sample of a neutron star the size of a sugar cube has a mass equivalent to Mt. Everest and, if somehow placed on the earth's surface would sink to the planet's core.

On the way? I'll tell you about matter in neutron stars right now: Black lives matter.

quote:

---

Black lives matter.

---

That's dark matter

Commander

I appreciate these type of post. Space is really fascinating to me, although I do not know enough to have an intelligent conversation about some of these topics, they have inspired me to read more and learn more.

The Neutron Star topic has heloed me pass some time today reading about them while watching the SEC BB tournament

quote:

---

I am not mathematically inclined enough

---

Math isn't necessary to understand the concepts of physics. In fact, the greatest physicist of all time struggled with math and had his assistants do most of it for him. Rather, Einstein used thought experiments to hash out his fantastic theories.

Of course that isn't to say that math isn't crucial to exploration. It certainly is and helps modern physicists "see" that which is unseeable, such as strings. Some geniuses such as Edward Witten, the father of the unified String Theory, are so unbelievably skilled in math that it's another language for them. He used it to show that the five competing string theories of the 1990s were actually just five versions of the same thing! Unbelievable. Such a mind.

quote:

---

I do wish I could go back to school and learn complex geometry and other mathematical skills though.

---

"School" is redefined in the 21st century. It's now available from your keyboard. I attend the World Science University, for example. You choose the level and pace at which you want to learn.

quote:

---

I admit to not seeing the big picture of string theory or maybe I should say the very small picture. I still struggle to believe that everything is just vibrations of little strings

---

Very few people can grasp String Theory. It's beyond even the quantum world and, we must remember, is an unproved concept at this time. It's support comes exclusively from mathematics right now but that's so strong that it's almost inconceivable that it could be spurious.

I find it helpful to avoid anthropomorphism as much as possible when studying science. For example, I don't think in terms of believing, beliefs, faith or any other quasi-religious terms that indicate an acceptance without evidence.

Science either is or is not. Something exists or it doesn't. The scientist accepts something based only upon evidence. This evidence must be observable, else it remains in the realm of philosophy, or study.

quote:

---

just because the math of the theory incorporates gravity into the picture doesn't mean it's true.

---

I don't understand what you mean here.

quote:

---

I can't see how the theory could possibly be tested so we are forced to accept in on faith alone and that's hard for me.

---

No one can right now but this is a common problem in science. We couldn't detect dark matter or dark energy either until we learned to look for indirect evidence for them, such as their observable effects upon galaxies. I'm confident we'll do this for strings as well.

quote:

---

Maybe you could suggest some research material that would help me out with the issue. I would appreciate it. I have an open mind even if it is stubborn.

---

I don't know the level of science studies you have from high school or college but I can recommend my favorite physics "public educator," Brian Greene. His books and online courses are great and, like World Science U, he teaches to different levels of interest. There are many others like him but I just find his style interesting and understandable.

As for research, there's plenty of that available, too. Even the projects at the Large Hadron Collider can be followed online. The problem here for us lay people, however, is that those professional physicists speak in their jargon and very advanced math. It's very difficult to follow and can be understood only through a "translator" such as Dr. Greene.

quote:

---

I mean that one reason the theory is so popular is because gravity is explained at this level because of the 10 or more dimensions.

---

Okay, I gotcha. Well, it sort of explains one puzzling aspect of gravity, why it's such a weak force. If it's a force at all, that is. That's still very much up in the air.

The two competing thoughts about gravity are that it's a fundamental force, which used to be almost universally accepted, or an effect of space/time. This latter view has arisen because of the failure to find the carrier of gravity, the graviton.

If gravity truly is one of four forces, then it, like the other three, must have a carrier. This classic view of gravity is eroding both because the graviton can't be located and because of the seemingly absurd idea that a force can be exerted across the entire Universe. The other three forces are extremely local so it's a strong departure from a force pattern for gravity to be so far reaching.

So some physicists are beginning, largely because of String Theory, to associate it with space/time via the 10 dimensions you mentioned. We got our first proof of space/time's materialistic existence in 2012 when the LHC was used to find the Higgs boson. That confirmed the existence of the Higgs Field, which assigns mass to particles. The field may also regulate gravity. Exciting stuff will continue to come from the LHC.