Leaderboard

There seems to be some confusion, and some misunderstanding, so I'll clarify. My definition of millionaire, and billionaire, is a measure of 'disposable' wealth or assets. I would venture that most people who own homes in certain parts of North America, Europe, and some other parts of the world, are worth more than a million, but I don't consider a house 'disposable', as you need it to live. ... and I didn't want Exchemist to feel like an a__hole ...

I think, you don't understand the numbers... I think you don't understand what I said.

Not central to what we're discussing, but this is a flawed explanation of why electrons --or neutrons for that matter-- cannot have zero kinetic energy. Quantum particles cannot have zero kinetic energy due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, not to Pauli's exclusion principle. So any fermions must always have some kinetic energy in any given reference frame. Never mind other identical fermions being around. This is called ground-state kinetic energy or zero-point KE, and it's the least KE any particle can have. Were fermions allowed to have 0 KE because x,p were not complementary (HUP for position and momentum), they could still be at different places and still PEP would not be violated. What fermions cannot ever do is be in the same quantum state with however much kinetic energy HUP allows them to have. Glueballs aren't either. Yet nobody says glueballs are neutron stars just because they're not bunches of atoms. Things are not only defined by what they're not. Tritium isotopes are not "tiny neutron stars" either. Degeneracy pressure is not electrostatic repulsion, and gravitation has nothing to do with gluons and other ephimeral QCD states going back and forth between nucleons, which is what makes nucleons stick together by QCD. It's a very different animal. Neutron stars do not undergo fission via beta decay, as nucleons do. They do not have magic numbers. They do not have the same scattering properties, they don't have a definite spin statistics. Merging of neutron stars is nothing like nuclear fusion... And so on. \(\sim\)1057 neutrons packed together by gravity against Pauli's exclusion principle is what we call a neutron star \(\sim\)102 neutrons+protons packed together by QCD virtual states against electrostatic repulsion is what we call a nucleus The difference in name is justified because the phenomenology, what makes them, and most everything else, is different enough that it merits a different name.