Talk:Strangelet
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Archives:1 |
It should be statet that Tiberium in C&C universe is an equivalent to strangelets, despite the difference in name it is describbed to have exactly the same properties.Kubatoja2 (talk)08:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple questions about the "scare" scenario involving strangelets:
1. Is it really plausible that stranglets would turn every object they contact into strange matter? It would seem to me that if the conversion rate was slow enough, the stranglet would initially acquire enough mass to begin falling toward the center of the earth. It would continue falling in this direction and acquiring mass (at a presumably slow rate) until it reached the center of the earth. Once it was here, it is not clear to me that it would continue to gain mass indefinitely, or even at a sufficiently fast rate to be scary.
2. Suppose the above scenario does happen, and a stranglet inhabits the center of the earth. Could we tell with modern experiments? That is, does this lead to predictions that differ from current models of the core of the earth?
Thanks.70.247.173.254 (talk)07:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One case is not yet discussed: Could strangelets be metastable rather than stable so that they may exist since the big bang, but will be converted into nuclear matter upon interaction with nuclear matter? If so, then both quarkstars with a strange core and neutron stars (depending on their mass and thus central pressure; the higher the pressure, the more stable strange matter becomes) as well as strangelets could exist, but there would be no danger of a runaway process unter low pressure (i.e. outside the core of a neutron star). Or are there serious arguments against such a "hybride strange matter hypothesis"?--SiriusB (talk)17:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The modern non idealized idea of a black hole is a quark star with someBanach-Tarski rotational canceling mechanisms of quark merger via degeneracy (not all accept the last one). Small quark stars decay immediately, and bigger ones become "black hole like" (because modern physicists don't accept the blackness of black holes quark star is a better name). Dark Matter doesn't reveal any quark star explosion neither any black hole focal spots, thus this connection isn't supported by important physicists.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2A02:587:410B:1A00:C0B5:F4CF:A849:DF65 (talk)13:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
