hypervelocity star mass

[space noob]

I've heard neutron stars can rotate 500 times per second,

I don't know if it's true, it sounds so incredible that it could be one of those space facts that is made up just for the sake of it but I can also apply this question to hypervelocity stars

there is a neutron star named RX J0822-4300 which is moving through the milky way, this star travels at 3 million miles per hour,

As the faster you travel -the more you weigh would this neutron stars mass get multiplied travelling at this rate?

 

Another question to add to the previous would be whether in space, the speed of travel affect the weight of an object and perhaps friction is needed but there are still atoms in dark matter but just spread much further, I think it's three atoms to every cubic centimeter

 

Just for the sake of it I'd like to know if anyone thinks a hypervelocity black hole is possible, although it would take one hell of a force to move one

[questionposter]

I've heard neutron stars can rotate 500 times per second,

 

there is a neutron star named RX J0822-4300 which is moving through the milky way, this star travels at 3 million miles per hour,

As the faster you travel -the more you weigh would this neutron stars mass get multiplied travelling at this rate?

Wow, I can't believe I'm enough of a nerd to actually recognize that specific neutron star name.

I don't think your using the proper terminology. "Weight" refers to the force a mass at rest exerts on the ground. I think you mean either "mass" or "energy", which are equivalent, and it is true that its relative to you, if you move towards the neutron star it has a higher energy and therefore higher relative mass from your frame of reference. Similarly, if both of you are moving slow, the total kinetic energy the neutron star has is less to your frame of reference.

 

Another question to add to the previous would be whether in space, the speed of travel affect the weight of an object and perhaps friction is needed but there are still atoms in dark matter but just spread much further, I think it's three atoms to every cubic centimeter

Speed does effect the "mass" of an object because mass and energy are equivalent, and varying speeds effect the energy. Both mass and energy distort the fabric of space. Traveling slowly towards it decreases it's energy from your frame of reference, and traveling fast towards it increases its energy from your frame of reference, and consequently it's relative mass.

 

Just for the sake of it I'd like to know if anyone thinks a hypervelocity black hole is possible, although it would take one hell of a force to move one

I'm not familiar with the exact term of "hyper-velocity" and I can't really find a clear meaning, but it is completely possible for a black hole to travel at fast speeds. There's even stars orbiting the black hole in the center of the galaxy at 40km per second. However, it is not possible for them to travel faster than light. The warp drive has yet to be seen.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[space noob]

Sorry, mass not weight, there's a reason that I give myself the screen name "space noob"

[Airbrush]

I've heard neutron stars can rotate 500 times per second,

I don't know if it's true, it sounds so incredible that it could be one of those space facts that is made up just for the sake of it but I can also apply this question to hypervelocity stars

there is a neutron star named RX J0822-4300 which is moving through the milky way, this star travels at 3 million miles per hour,

As the faster you travel -the more you weigh would this neutron stars mass get multiplied travelling at this rate?

 

Another question to add to the previous would be whether in space, the speed of travel affect the weight of an object and perhaps friction is needed but there are still atoms in dark matter but just spread much further, I think it's three atoms to every cubic centimeter

 

Just for the sake of it I'd like to know if anyone thinks a hypervelocity black hole is possible, although it would take one hell of a force to move one

 

Interesting neutron star. They can't figure out what accelerated it, maybe a supernova?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX_J0822-4300

 

The amount of mass an object gains by moving at 3 Million miles per hour (833.33 miles per second) is only 0.2% the speed of light, is very, very tiny.

 

There are atoms in space, but so rarified that the amount of friction is very, very tiny.

 

Dark matter, as we barely understand it, would not cause friction because it is not atoms. Matter just passes through it, no problem.

 

If hypervelocity stars are possible then hypervelocity black holes are also possible. In a binary system of a star and a black hole, they could interact with other stars or black holes and the black hole companion could get thrown out.

[space noob]

At the speed of a hypervelocity star, would even this Tiny amount of friction not have any affect at all? Like the faster you travel jumping into water the more chance you have of dying,

It's speed is impressive, for something other than a wave to move at this speed and given it's size, it's a huge feet

 

From what I've read about this star, everyone keeps going back to the idea that a super nova from the birth of nebula or galaxy, I can't remember, did push it out, I think I did read that they had traced it to it's origins

Edited May 9, 2012 by space noob

[Spyman]

Sorry, (...), there's a reason that I give myself the screen name "space noob"

Sorry for the Off Topic, but do you understand how a lot of people think about and value the term noob? IMHO you should consider a name change.

 

This is quoted from the first definition in the Urban Dictionary:

 

I. What is this?

This guide is designed to give you a better understanding of what a noob is, how to recognize them, some details about them, and how to avoid or get rid of them. It mostly applies to online forums, which are the main targets of migrating noobs.

 

II. Defining 'Noob'

Contrary to the belief of many, a noob/n00b and a newbie/newb are not the same thing. Newbs are those who are new to some task* and are very beginner at it, possibly a little overconfident about it, but they are willing to learn and fix their errors to move out of that stage. n00bs, on the other hand, know little and have no will to learn any more. They expect people to do the work for them and then expect to get praised about it, and make up a unique species of their own. It is the latter we will study in this guide so that the reader is prepared to encounter them in the wild if needed.

 

Noobs are often referred to as n00bs

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=noob

[RichIsnang]

a) (s)he can can him/herself what they want b) that definition for noob and n00b are complete rubbish, I think the definitions will change depending on who you ask and c) It's completely off topic, unnecessary and irrelevant.

Don't do that again please

[Spyman]

a) (s)he can can him/herself what they want

Yes, of course.

 

 

b) that definition for noob and n00b are complete rubbish,

No, AFAIK it is a very common definition.

 

 

I think the definitions will change depending on who you ask

Yes, thats why I only said a lot of people instead of everyone.

 

 

c) It's completely off topic...

Yes, I already made and apology for that in advance in my above post.

 

 

...unnecessary and irrelevant.

Irrelevant for the thread yes, but she might consider the information important.

 

 

Don't do that again please

I do whatever I feel is appropriate, when I consider it necessary.

[zapatos]

a) (s)he can can him/herself what they want b) that definition for noob and n00b are complete rubbish, I think the definitions will change depending on who you ask and c) It's completely off topic, unnecessary and irrelevant.

Don't do that again please

Lighten up. Jeez. You might want to remove that corncob from your lower orifice.

[RichIsnang]

HahahahahahHahaha zapatis, that made me laugh

Yeah sorry that was a bit uncalled for, I was having a bit of a stressy moment,

My apologies

[zapatos]

HahahahahahHahaha zapatis, that made me laugh

Yeah sorry that was a bit uncalled for, I was having a bit of a stressy moment,

My apologies

[space noob]

Well I think my name is more suited to the term newbie, in England, a noob is a newbie but if anyone asked me then I shall explain and it doesn't bother me in the slightest if they think it's the latter of your two definitions,

However thank you for your concern, also I think your latter definition may have been intended as a joke to insult noobs

Edited May 11, 2012 by space noob

[space noob]

Now that the discussion has been derailed I may never bee able to get more in depth about hypervelocity stars

Edited May 11, 2012 by space noob

[Spyman]

Yeah sorry that was a bit uncalled for, I was having a bit of a stressy moment,

My apologies

Apology accepted.

 

 

Well I think my name is more suited to the term newbie, in England, a noob is a newbie but if anyone asked me then I shall explain and it doesn't bother me in the slightest if they think it's the latter of your two definitions,

However thank you for your concern, also I think your latter definition may have been intended as a joke to insult noobs

Ok, but if you ever change your mind remember that the name change option is available.

 

 

Now that the discussion has been derailed I may never bee able to get more in depth about hypervelocity stars

Well, let's see if we can get it back on track again, your last post was:

 

At the speed of a hypervelocity star, would even this Tiny amount of friction not have any affect at all? Like the faster you travel jumping into water the more chance you have of dying,

It's speed is impressive, for something other than a wave to move at this speed and given it's size, it's a huge feet

 

From what I've read about this star, everyone keeps going back to the idea that a super nova from the birth of nebula or galaxy, I can't remember, did push it out, I think I did read that they had traced it to it's origins

Stars are very huge and holds together against their inner nuclear reactions by their immense gravity, they are not solid and fragile like humans, spaceships or even rocky planets. I would think that they are more fluid like and even if a sufficient massive body would crash into one with enough speed to slightly disturb its inner structure, the gravity and nuclear reactions would soon bring it back to its ordinary equilibrium.

 

However if it picks up lots of particles during its travel those particlest will slow it down, albeit very very little, due to conservation of momentum.

 

 

Here is a NASA article of the discovery:

 

Chandra Discovers a Cosmic Cannonball

 

November 28, 2007: Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory have discovered one of the fastest stars ever seen. It's a "cosmic cannonball" that is challenging theories to explain its blistering speed.

 

The name of the star is RX J0822-4300. It's a neutron star created by the Puppis A supernova explosion about 3700 years ago. Three Chandra observations clearly show the neutron star moving away from the center of the blast. Speed: 3 million mph! At this rate, RX J0822-4300 is destined to escape the Milky Way just millions of years from now.

 

Above: A composite image showing the off-center location of RX J0822-4300 in the Puppis A supernova remnant.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/28nov_cosmiccannonball/

(Click on the link for the full story.)

 

 

Let's make a rough estimate of how much the friction of the interstellar space will slow down RX J0822-4300 during its journey through the Milky Way.

 

Puppis A is a supernova remnant inside the Milky Way galaxy around 3700 lightyears from Earth.

 

A typical neutron star has a mass between about 1 and 2 solar masses, with a corresponding radius of about 12 km, since a solarmass is 1.98892e30 kg let's say that this neutron star have a mass of around 1.5 * 1.98892e30 = 3e30 kg.

 

Intergalactic space have a density of about few atoms per cubic meter but that is the space between galaxies. We are talking about a speeding star inside our galaxy the Milky Way and the interstellar space inside a galaxy is thicker of around one million particles per cubic meter.

 

Interstellar space is the physical space within a galaxy not occupied by stars or their planetary systems. The interstellar medium resides—by definition—in interstellar space. The average density of matter in this region is about 10⁶ particles per m³, but this varies from a low of about 10⁴–10⁵ in regions of sparse matter up to about 10⁸–10¹⁰ in dark nebula. Regions of star formation may reach 10¹²–10¹⁴ particles per m³. Nearly 70% of this mass consists of lone hydrogen atoms. This is enriched with helium atoms as well as trace amounts of heavier atoms formed through stellar nucleosynthesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#Interstellar

 

Hydrogen atoms has a mass of 1.00794 * 1.660538921e-27 kg and Helium atoms has a mass of 4.002602 * 1.660538921e-27 kg, that makes one cubic meters of interstellar medium containing around 0.7 * 10^6 * 1.00794 * 1.660538921e-27 + 0.3 * 10^6 * 4.002602 * 1.660538921e-27 = 3.17e-21 kg.

 

We are located around 27 200 lightyears from the center of the Milky Way which has a radius of about 55 000 lightyears and if we assume that Puppis a is located between us and the center of the galaxy, then it has to travel roughly 55 000 - 27 200 + 3 700 = 31 500 lightyears to reach the estimated border of our galaxy.

 

One lightyear is 9 460 730 472 580 800 meters so during its escape it will "punch a hole" through the interstellar medium with a radius of 12 km and length of ~300e15 km.

(With a speed of 1500 km/s it will take around 6.3 million years for it to leave the Milky Way.)

 

The Volume of this cylindrical hole is pi * 12 000^2 * 300e18 = 135e27 m^3 and the mass of interstellar medium it contains is 135e27 * 3.17e-21 = 427e6 kg.

 

If all the particles that collides with the neutron star gets stuck like bugs on the windshield of a speeding car then we have perfectly inelastic collisions.

 

[math] V = \frac {m_a*u_a+m_b*u_b}{m_a+m_b} [/math]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision#Perfectly_inelastic_collision

 

m_a = mass of star = 3e30 kg

u_a = speed of star = 1 500 000 m/s

m_b = mass of medium = 427e6 kg

u_b = speed of medium = 0 m/s

 

Final speed = (3e30 * 1 500 000 + 427e6 * 0) / (3e30 + 427e6) = 1 499 999.999 999 999 999 999 786 613 621 m/s.

 

 

While this is only a very rough estimate, I think it clearly shows that the star is mostly unaffected by the interstellar medium it travels through.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Spyman

[space noob]

If I could find the name change option using my phone then I would most likely change my name but technology skills somewhat lack that of the average human being in my generation,

 

Although I would only change it to space newbie,

 

Nice save spyman :-D

you're very good at going in depth, possibly the best answer I could have asked for, thank you

Edited May 12, 2012 by space noob

[Airbrush]

The speeding neutron star is traveling 833 miles per second and it is only about 15 miles in diameter. So it is rather streamlined and I wonder if it could pass right through a solar mass star without disrupting it?

[space noob]

Where did you get the 15 mile diameter from?

[Spyman]

If I could find the name change option using my phone then I would most likely change my name but technology skills somewhat lack that of the average human being in my generation,

 

Although I would only change it to space newbie,

 

Nice save spyman :-D

you're very good at going in depth, possibly the best answer I could have asked for, thank you

I think "space rookie" has a better ring to it, but that's your choice to make.

(I sent a PM to an admin about helping you change name.)

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

 

Where did you get the 15 mile diameter from?

A radius of 12 km corresponds to a diameter of 2 * 12 000 / 1 609 ~ 15 miles.

 

A typical neutron star has a mass between about 1 and 2 solar masses, with a corresponding radius of about 12 km...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

 

A mile is a unit of length, most commonly 5,280 feet (1,760 yards, or about 1,609 metres).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile

 

 

----------

 

 

The speeding neutron star is traveling 833 miles per second and it is only about 15 miles in diameter. So it is rather streamlined and I wonder if it could pass right through a solar mass star without disrupting it?

I don't think a Sun like star would survive such an encounter and it's possible the neutron star would be destroyed too.

 

While the neutron star has a 'small' size it would still create a powerful shockwave while passing through and when it reaches the very dense core of the Sun like star the released kinetic energy from the deformations of both stars would be epic.

 

A neutron star is very close to a black hole in terms of huge gravity in close quarters and as such it's gravity would start to rip off material from the Sun like star even before it penetrates the other star's surface and continue to do so for a prolonged time after it leaves on the other side.

 

I think the neutron star will capture a large portion of the other star's mass and splash or stretch out the remaining mass too much for it to reform.

 

It's also possible that the increased nuclear reactions in the core of the Sun like star during the tremendous collision could cause it to go nova.

 

If the neutron star captures to much material, it might reach the upper bound of the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit and turn into a black hole.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Spyman

[Airbrush]

Thanks for the info Spyman.

 

That neutron star would take 16 minutes to pass through our Sun (traveling 833 miles/second, with sun diameter 800,000 miles).

 

It would take less than a quarter of a second to punch through our atmosphere and another 10 seconds to pass through the Earth and out the other side without slowing down. I hate to think about what it would do to Earth in the process. Probably absorb the entire Earth, crushing it into a new thin layer on the surface of the neutron star.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Airbrush

[Airbrush]

Here is my question for any science or math expert. If such a hypervelocity neutron star was to hit the Earth, what would be the effects? It would pass through the Earth like a bullet through a cloud of gas. After it absorbed the entire Earth, in a matter of seconds, how thick a layer of neutron star material would the Earth add to the 15-mile-wide neutron star? If a bucket of neutron star material has the mass of Mt Everest, how much neutron star material would the Earth's mass be equivalent to?

Edited May 15, 2012 by Airbrush

[Spyman]

Here is my question for any science or math expert. If such a hypervelocity neutron star was to hit the Earth, what would be the effects? It would pass through the Earth like a bullet through a cloud of gas. After it absorbed the entire Earth, in a matter of seconds, how thick a layer of neutron star material would the Earth add to the 15-mile-wide neutron star? If a bucket of neutron star material has the mass of Mt Everest, how much neutron star material would the Earth's mass be equivalent to?

Well, I am not an expert or excellent at math and the answer depends very much on neutron star structure which is not well known. But if we make it simple and assume an average density that doesn't change from internal structure, by adding more mass or by rotation then:

 

An average density of 4.8×10¹⁷ kg/m³ with Earth's mass of 5.9736×10²⁴ kg, gives a neutron star sized Earth a volume of ~12×10⁶ m³.

(That is in building size around twelve Empire State Buildings bunched together.)

 

Volume of a sphere is: [math] V = \frac {4} {3} \pi r^3 [/math] that would give a 'neutron' Earth a radius of ~144 meters.

 

For comparison a 'black hole' Earth would have a radius of: [math] r = \frac {2Gm} {c^2} [/math] which is only ~0.009 meters.

(G= 6.67384×10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2 and c= 299 792 458 m/s.)

 

The slighly larger neutron star with Earth's 'neutron' volume added, would have a radius of ~12 000.007 meters, around 7 millimeters thicker.

 

EDIT: Copy&Pasted Airbrush's quote since my reply ended up on a new page.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Spyman

[space noob]

If gravity is said to travel at the speed of light and the star is travelling at a slower rate than that, would earth not be pulled towards an incoming neutron star? Even having a neutron star in the core would that not crush the earth? Not to mention the temperature, are you all from America? Kilometers are different here eg- 10km is 6 miles over here where as with you, the miles seem to be different to America

[Airbrush]

Spyman: ".....The slighly larger neutron star with Earth's 'neutron' volume added, would have a radius of ~12 000.007 meters, around 7 millimeters thicker."

 

Very interesting! Thanks for that. So the results would be what is left of the Earth, after a great deal of it was converted into energy, the Earth material would be like a thin layer of paint covering a smooth sphere 12 km radius (which I always convert into units I am familiar with) which is about 14.4 miles in diameter (12 X 2 = 24 X 0.6 = 14.4).

 

Yes Space Noob gravity works at the speed of light, so the speeding neutron star would start pulling the Earth out of a Sun orbit and towards itself. The effects would be dramatic. We might even feel the abrupt movement of the Earth. Then the atmosphere would be stripped away by tremendous winds that blow out towards the sky, and we would could not breath air. Then it would suck up the oceans and everything loose. Then the Earth would begin to accrete to the Neutron star like a liquid. Even though the Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter, its' mass is nothing compared to a neutron star of a few solar masses. I'd like to see an episode of "The Universe" that shows by cgi what it would look like for a neutron star traveling 833 miles per second towards Earth, and how Earth would be accreted.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Airbrush