Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Frictionless Superfluid Found In Neutron Star Core

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the always-in-the-last-place-you-look dept.

NASA 145

intellitech writes "NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has discovered the first direct evidence for a superfluid, a bizarre, friction-free state of matter, at the core of a neutron star (abstract). Superfluids created in laboratories on Earth exhibit remarkable properties, such as the ability to climb upward and escape airtight containers. The finding has important implications for understanding nuclear interactions in matter at the highest known densities."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nutron Star? (1)

Froggels (1724218) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313276)

Did they crack it open to look at its core?

Re:Nutron Star? (1, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313312)

They have their own special definition of the word "found".

Re:Nutron Star? (3, Funny)

kwerle (39371) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313620)

Yeah, I happend to find unicorns at the center of that same star. My current theory is that the fluid they discovered is actually unicorn urine.

Re:Nutron Star? (1, Insightful)

Peristaltic (650487) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313332)

I'm not an astrophysicist, but correlating a 4% drop in temperature over 10 years to the existence of a superfluid core seems like a stretch.

Re:Nutron Star? (4, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313478)

Actually, it is. Remember, it takes a photon emitted by a fusion reaction reaction at the suns core tens of thousands of years to make its way to the surface of the sun, because it is reabsorbed and re-emitted so often. The fact that Cas A can be of a uniform temperature and that the temperature can change so rapidly is pretty good "direct" evidence for a superfluid. Besides, a neutron star is essentially one giant molecule anyways, since in degenerate matter protons, neutrons and electrons are pretty much in direct contact, without any "atomic" or "molecular" structure.

Re:Nutron Star? (1)

trentblase (717954) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314936)

So the conclusion is a stretch? Cool, thanks for the info.

Re:Nutron Star? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315118)

Yeah, I realized that later, along with the "fusion reaction reaction". Wish there was a damn "preview" button or something.

Re:Nutron Star? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313986)

I'm not an astrophysicist, but correlating a 4% drop in temperature over 10 years to the existence of a superfluid core seems like a stretch.

Dude, it's astrophysics ... to the layman, it all sounds like it's a stretch.

I'm told the cosmologists are even more vague (with apologies to any cosmologists ;-)

Re:Nutron Star? (2)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314836)

...seems like a stretch.

The gravity gradient will do that to you if you look close enough. ;)

I'm callng bullshit on this one (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313282)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but at best they can guess that's what it is. It's like looking at a picture of kim kardashian's ass (with clothes on!) and caliming to find sperm in her cooch.

Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313384)

She's a slut, so that's most likely a pretty safe claim to make.

Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314714)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to call her a bitch, since she fucks everyone but you?

Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314722)

well, if you look at her 9 months later and she's having a baby, that's pretty good corroborative evidence.

Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314894)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but at best they can guess that's what it is. It's like looking at a picture of kim kardashian's ass (with clothes on!) and caliming to find sperm in her cooch.

No, it's like taking an infrared picture every day for a fortnight and finding her skin temperature is 0.4 degrees C higher than average. From that you can say with pretty good confidence that *someone's* sperm has been in her cooch in the last three weeks.

Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315496)

Or shes got a yeast infection.

Or she's got a viral infection.

Or she's got a bacterial infection.

Or you took your original reference pictures in the shade and the 'raised temperature' happened because you took the pictures in the Sun.

Or about a billion other reasons why the differences showed up that are more likely since she's a slut and probably pretty good at taking her birth control.

I can make random shit up that is apparently true when you have basically 0 factual information about what you are 'studying'. When you make it all up as you go its pretty easy to make all the pieces fit, you have to be a real idiot for your conclusions to fall apart when you're making up all the supporting evidence as well.

Re:I'm callng bullshit on this one (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315998)

I can make random shit up that is apparently true when you have basically 0 factual information about what you are 'studying'. When you make it all up as you go its pretty easy to make all the pieces fit, you have to be a real idiot for your conclusions to fall apart when you're making up all the supporting evidence as well.

Which describes you, if you think this describes the situation in TFA.

drank it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313286)

Starbucks already has some

My Reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313352)

Every time I see stories like this I have an urge to play Mass Effect 2.

Permo (0)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313400)

So the universe creates a perpetual motion machine?

Re:Permo (2, Funny)

Ancantus (1926920) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313460)

For all intensive purposes the universe is a perpetual motion machine. Yah enthalpy and all that will eventually slow down everything, but we wont be around to see it.

Re:Permo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313492)

intents and purposes

Re:Permo (2)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314926)

For all INTENTS and purposes it's not, but since those purposes (if you're looking at supra-galactic time scales) aren't particularly intensive... I guess GP is right. :(

Re:Permo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313514)

Are you trying to troll, or what?

It's for all "intents and purposes", and it's entropy that is the ongoing process (enthalpy is removed from the system).

I'm sorry for being pedantic, but we all have our roles to fill.

Re:Permo (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313846)

Ah, but entropy is an intensive property, so in a way, the poster was right.

Re:Permo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314688)

sorry, but entropy is an extensive property. It depends linearly upon the size of the system, whereas something like temperature is unaffected by system size (and is thus intensive). So, in conclusion: nice try.

Re:Permo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314790)

But certainly wrong about 'intents and purposes' there is no way to argue that one.

Re:Permo (2)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313518)

For all intents and purposes, you don't know what "perpetual" means, either.

Re:Permo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313588)

I have a tiger-repellent rock that will work until the end of time if it is stored properly.

Re:Permo (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315678)

Stored properly meaning that it is not stored in proximity to a tiger?

Re:Permo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314028)

"Intensive purposes", but you can spell enthalpy? Oh, right, spell-checker.

Re:Permo (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315576)

"Intensive" means "highly concentrated" or "highly focussed", and when I'm reading Slashdot that's exactly what my purposes aren't.

Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314934)

Sex lube.

Already seen it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313418)

Last time I got close enough to a neutron star to confirm this theory, the tidal forces nearly killed me, despite being in a General Products #2 hull.

B. Shaeffer

Re:Already seen it (1)

merky1 (83978) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314190)

Now I need to go and re-read N-Space... Thanks.

Re:Already seen it (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314388)

Funny that you know that, given Puppeteer selective memory erasure technology. ;)

Re:Already seen it (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315172)

Woah, you must be the only survivor besides that one star mangled spanner [wikipedia.org] .

(OK, OK, but I always assumed that story was a silent nod to General Products. Call it product placement if you will. ;)

Re:Already seen it (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315698)

Be glad your universe doesn't have black holes...

airtight? big deal (1)

alta (1263) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313426)

Ok, so you have a container that you think is air tight. But something escapes it, so obviously your container needs to be tighter than air tight.

Now, if you can put this stuff in a seamless glass sphere, and it still leaks out, I'll be impressed.

Re:airtight? big deal (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313482)

I believe, what their saying is that, a superfluid can escape a container that air can not. Not that the superfluid can escape an inescapable container.

Re:airtight? big deal (5, Funny)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314156)

I believe, what their saying is that, a superfluid can escape a container that air can not. Not that the superfluid can escape an inescapable container.

So, we should hold off on naming it 'Houdinium'?

Re:airtight? big deal (5, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313520)

Now, if you can put this stuff in a seamless glass sphere, and it still leaks out, I'll be impressed.

Normal helium can leak out of a seamless glass sphere, so I imagine you'd see supercooled helium leaking out as well from the same mechanism. Not that exciting, but gives you an idea of how hard some things are.

Re:airtight? big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313612)

Liquid hydrogen also leaks thru containers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen

Re:airtight? big deal (1, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314272)

Normal helium can leak out of a seamless glass sphere

Really? What, it just seeps out through the actual glass? Are the helium atoms small enough to squeeze through the gaps between molecules, or just really sneaky?

I continue to be awed by all of the wacky shit that is apparently everyday physics.

Re:airtight? big deal (4, Interesting)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314930)

Are the helium atoms small enough to squeeze through the gaps between molecules, or just really sneaky?

Yep, pretty much. Practically speaking, it's one of the things that keeps a helium-based Stirling engine from being one of the most efficient methods of solar power production - the stuff leaks out at every opportunity.

Re:airtight? big deal (3, Interesting)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315250)

Yep, that's how it goes.

Although I was disappointed to find that the "climbs the walls of the container" thing was actually just in a one-atom-thick layer. (At such scales, surface tension beats gravity, and with no viscosity to hold it in check, the fluid flows up the sides molecule-by-molecule. It looks like it's just dripping through a hole in the container. :( )

Re:airtight? big deal (1)

Fus (809178) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313740)

Prepare to be impressed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI [youtube.com] (see the 1min mark) & http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/lhel.html#c3 [gsu.edu] ~Fus

Re:airtight? big deal (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314906)

Except what you posted a video to was a cylindrical container with an open top in which you are looking at capillary action/forces draw the liquid up the side walls of the container and then back down the sides to drip off the bottom.

Re:airtight? big deal (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315948)

No it wasn't. It was flowing through the glass. The even SAY it in the video. Yes they top was open, but what was being shown was the liquids moving through the glass.

Re:airtight? big deal (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313904)

>> . But something escapes it, so obviously your container needs to be tighter than air tight.

Try a congressional sub-committee, nothing valuable ever gets out of that.

Re:airtight? big deal (1)

ep32g79 (538056) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314114)

Try a congressional sub-committee, nothing valuable ever gets out of that.

Thats different because nothing of value is ever put in...

Re:airtight? big deal (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314904)

Correction, sub-committees are more like a black hole, because no matter how much money and time you throw at them nothing ever comes out, and sub-committees can take an infinite amount of both without trying.

Re:airtight? big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314120)

except for all that hot air, right?

Superfluid helium behaves differently to liquid He (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314396)

Re:Superfluid helium behaves differently to liquid (0)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314968)

Again, that video is of a cylindrical container with an open top. The liquid "escapes" using capillary action/force in which the liquid is drawn up the sides of the container, out/over the top, and then back down the sides to then drip off the container.

Re:airtight? big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35315456)

You mean like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI [youtube.com]

Re:airtight? big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35315884)

Now, if you can put this stuff in a seamless glass sphere, and it still leaks out, I'll be impressed.

So you wouldn't be impressed if they just put it in a seamless glass sphere, but only by it coming out again? Wouldn't the first part be equally impressive?

Useless (3, Insightful)

TideX (1908876) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313560)

Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313700)

Let's see... How many people will fall into the (very clever) trap set by this comment?

Re:Useless (2)

TideX (1908876) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313842)

It wasn't a trap just me not reading my posts carefully ._. I mean a cubic centimeter obviously.

Re:Useless (1)

Jake Griffin (1153451) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314262)

It is possible though for a gram (a unit of measure for mass) to weigh a few million pounds, if the "pounds" you are talking about is "pound force", not "pound mass" (an ambiguity in the Imperial system). All you would need to do is get the 1 gram mass to a place with extreme enough gravity (about 1.33e10 m/s^2 [google.com] .

Re:Useless (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314260)

I believe the correct answer is - a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers. Am I right?

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35315080)

You obviously did since a gram is a measurement of mass and pounds are a measurement of force (typically gravitational force on an object).

Re:Useless (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315142)

Apparently many, with the 'Cowards being the standard bearer for falling into the trap.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313750)

Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

actually a gram of it would weigh a gram.

Re:Useless (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315302)

actually a gram of it would weigh a gram.

Not if it's made of feathers. FFS dont you know any physics. It's bad enough that slashdot is full of misinformation...

Re:Useless (1)

angelbar (1823238) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313754)

ooooh my!... try cm3, mililliters, gals, spoons...

Re:Useless (1)

egamma (572162) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313834)

Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

I'm almost positive that a gram will always weigh a gram. Did you mean a cubic centimeter?

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314448)

A gram of anything will weight a few million pounds in a sufficiently deep gravity well.

Re:Useless (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315432)

Oh snap, that old weight / mass dichotomy. Well played, sir.

Re:Useless (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315092)

Not if it's Jumbonium!

Re:Useless (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315116)

As the AC pointed out, a gram never weighs a gram, because a gram is not a unit of weight, it's a unit of mass. A gram will weigh about 0.0098 Newtons on earth, though it will vary slightly from place to place.

I like to point this out to illustrate that humans have fucked up the SI as well, and the it's hardly an advantage over the US Customary system when your answer is off by a factor of ten, you are less likely to know where you screwed up your units in the calculations. :-)

Re:Useless (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315506)

I like to point this out to illustrate that humans have fucked up the SI as well

SI was much better before humans got involved. I guess.

I am trying to think who may have invented SI, before the advent of humanity. Alien astronauts? God? Cthulhu? FSM? Morgoth? the Hainish?

/shrug

It's a mystery.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35315518)

Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

I'm almost positive that a gram will always weigh a gram. Did you mean a cubic centimeter?

Pounds are really a measure of force, though. So if the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s^2, a gram will weigh about 0.0098N.

On the surface of a neutron star that was 1.5 solar masses and whose radius is 8km, a gram would weigh 6.99 * 10^8 pounds [wolframalpha.com] , so the original poster is in the ballpark.

Re:Useless (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315666)

A gram is a mass measurement, not weight.

The weight of a gram of matter is relative to the gravitational forces exerted on it. A gram of mass that weighs a pound on Earth does not weigh a pound on the moon.

Cubic centimeter is a unit of volume. It may contain one gram of matter, or it may not, as the density of the matter determines how much mass will fit into the cubic centimeter, and likewise it may weigh one pound or it may weigh an intentesimally large/small value, depending on what forces are acting on it. Near the neutron star one cubic centimeter of any mass is probably compressed to be very dense and likewise very heavy. In open space, not so much.

Gram is not a measurement of weight.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313930)

how can a gram of anything weigh more than ~1/28 ounces ? * mindblow *

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314102)

Farnsworth: "You see, Vergon 6 was once filled with the super dense substance known as 'dark matter', each pound of which weighs over ten thousand pounds!"

Re:Useless (1)

The Wild Norseman (1404891) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314022)

Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

At first I thought this was a "yo mama" joke, as in "Yo mama so fat, one of her grams weighs a few million pounds."

Sadly, I'm mistaken.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314204)

Yea except a gram of it will weigh a few million pounds.

1 gram = 0.0022~ pounds always

Re:Useless (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314412)

There's no problem here, since pounds are units of force :)

Little-g is quite large near a neutron star.

how dense? (1)

Fulseman (1031990) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313576)

"The finding has important implications for understanding nuclear interactions in matter at the highest known densities." So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?

Re:how dense? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313908)

So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?

Note that they mentioned "the highest known densities". The part of the black hole that's under the event horizon is unknown and will remain so forever. We have theories and extrapolations about those parts, but no experimental evidence that any of it is true, so we don't "know" anything about the density of a black hole.

Re:how dense? (1)

gtbritishskull (1435843) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313962)

So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?

No, it isn't (as far as we know). And they never claimed it was. Unless you are trying to claim that understanding nuclear interactions in neutron stars WILL NOT help with the understanding of other, more dense nuclear interactions (such as black holes).

You could also argue that a black hole might no longer have nuclear interactions and instead only have sub-atomic particle interactions.

Re:how dense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314556)

"So the core of a neutron star is now more dense than a black hole?"

No, but I'm guessing you might be. Reading comprehension -- try it sometime.

Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313594)

So the takeaway for the average Slashdot reader is that if the researchers can find away for this fluid to maintain its properties at or around [alive human] temperatures, you can reduce your Astroglide budget accordingly.

ah lubricant... (2, Funny)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313622)

I'm trying really hard to not make a KY joke out of this.

Re:ah lubricant... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314352)

I'm trying really hard to not make a KY joke out of this.

Not hard enough apparently ... besides, it would have to be an Astroglide joke in this context.

Re:ah lubricant... (3, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315078)

When it comes to science, Kentucky is already a joke.

Re:ah lubricant... (2)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315166)

well played, sir.

God Sperm! (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 2 years ago | (#35313836)

Sloppy remnants of the Big Bang!

Let the infomercials begin! (1)

electricprof (1410233) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314824)

I can't wait for the infomercials about this new superlubricant!

Business Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35313988)

Step 1: Collect friction-free matter from the core of a neutron star.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

New Product Development? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35314154)

So what we have here is actually "Astral Glide" right?

Oil (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#35314186)

Leave a bottle of vegetable oil somewhere (back of an upper cabinet is excellent) for a long time (year or 2) without disturbing it.

When you finally do disturb it, you are likely to find that its exterior is sticky, and that it may be puddling around the base of the container.

Oil can climb, and it can get through seals you thought were tight. All it takes is thermo- and electro-dynamics.

Quantum-fluid frictionlessness not required.

Re:Oil (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315060)

" thought were tight."

See, superfluids get through materials that ARE tight. meaning air tight.

Re:Oil (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315738)

No, they get through materials that were THOUGHT to be inescapable. You're trying to define air tight as inescapable, which is clearly wrong. 'Air tight' simply means that given a specific set of conditions, the container will not transfer 'air'.

It very well might transfer oil however. For instance, set a bottle of vegetable oil somewhere for long enough and the oil will escape slowly, even though air will not. At least thats the perception. Reality is generally entirely different than perception.

Re:Oil (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315954)

Explain to me how a seal will pass long carbon chains but not O2 molecules.

Re:Oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35315088)

I just tested this. It's bullshit. No leakage whatsoever.

The actual physics (5, Interesting)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 2 years ago | (#35315636)

The Chandra x-ray satellite can measure the spectrum of x-rays emitted by the neutron star, which is relatively close, only 330 light years away. From this they can infer the temperature. Over the last ten years they have seen the roughly 4% temperature drop.

According to the two teams of scientists who analyzed the Chandra x-ray data to determine the cooling rate, these observations provide strong evidence for superfluidity in neutron-star cores. Indeed, the onset of neutron superfluidity opens a new channel for neutrino emission from the continuous breaking and formation of neutron pairs.

The energy is leaving the star via neutrino emission, which in turn is a result of the neutron superfluid inside the neutron star. That's the important discovery.

This is very interesting physics, because there is no way to produce these conditions in the lab, or anywhere outside a neutron star.

Of course you could just read the abstract and get all this information yourself, but this is Slashdot so knoledge takes a back seat to bad jokes and uninformed opinion.

Re:The actual physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35315906)

The Chandra x-ray satellite can measure the spectrum of x-rays emitted by the neutron star, which is relatively close, only 330 light years away. From this they can infer the temperature. Over the last ten years they have seen the roughly 4% temperature drop.

According to the two teams of scientists who analyzed the Chandra x-ray data to determine the cooling rate, these observations provide strong evidence for superfluidity in neutron-star cores. Indeed, the onset of neutron superfluidity opens a new channel for neutrino emission from the continuous breaking and formation of neutron pairs.

The energy is leaving the star via neutrino emission, which in turn is a result of the neutron superfluid inside the neutron star. That's the important discovery.

This is very interesting physics, because there is no way to produce these conditions in the lab, or anywhere outside a neutron star.

Of course you could just read the abstract and get all this information yourself, but this is Slashdot so knoledge takes a back seat to bad jokes and uninformed opinion.

The neutron star is actually 11,000 light years away (as it is located in the supernova remnants Cassiopeia A).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiopeia_A

The 330 years refers to how long ago it (the explosion of the supernova) appeared to have occurred from earth.

It must be done because there is SCIENCE! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35315656)

Organic Superlube? Oh, it's great stuff, great stuff. You really have to keep an eye on it, though - it'll try and slide away from you the first chance it gets.
T. M. Morgan-Reilly, Morgan Metagenics

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?