Regarding "Neutron Stars" as a Way to Test the Theoretical Work of Sternglass and Simhony

Reads: 155  | Likes: 2  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Non-Fiction  |  House: Booksie Classic
Based on the theoretical work of two theoretical pnysicists, Dr. Ernest Sternglass and Dr. Menahem Simhony, one can postulate that so called "neutron stars" might be composed of tiny objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons. If this is true, then it means that the true size of a "neutron star" might be smaller than that which is given in most textbooks, i.e., only approximately 12 km in diameter rather than 20 km, which is the numeric value which most textbooks give.

Submitted: July 15, 2017

A A A | A A A

Submitted: July 15, 2017






by Mark Creek-water Dorazio, amateur physics enthusiast,  Chandler, Arizona, USA, 4-July-2017
In 1933, soon after the discovery of the neutron, two astronomers wrote a short paper in which they predicted the existence of stars composed of nothing but neutrons [Ref.#1].  Such a star would be very dense:  almost 3 x 10^(14) grams per cubic centimeter, which is more than 100 million tons in a teaspoon !!  The physicist Kip Thorne [Ref.#2] calls this paper "one of the most prescient" of 20th-century physics this paper, because it predicted the existence of very dense and rapidly rotating objects which were not discovered until almost 35 years later.  Since then astronomers have discovered hundreds more "neutron stars".
The first thing which you need to know about "neutron stars" is this:  they are very small, only approx. 10 km radius, maximum.  This means that, even with the most powerful telescopes, they are too small for astronomers to see them directly.  But it's possible to calculate their approximate mass, because some of them are paired with an ordinary star, and the two objects orbit around each other, so astronomers can see the ordinary star moving side-to-side.  By observing how long it takes this so called "binary" system to do one orbit, and the approximate size of the orbit, they can calculate the approximate masses of both objects.
The next thing which you need to know about "neutron stars" is this:  like all the objects in space which astronomers observe, it's difficult to reckon exactly how far away they are from us.  Astronomers constantly argue about this, and there is no agreement on whether an object is, for example, 500 light-years away, or twice that distance.
Because of this uncertainty regarding the actual distance, it's difficult to reckon the actual size of the orbit of a binary system such as a "neutron star" and an ordinary star.  Because, if an orbiting system is twice as far away, then the same observed side-to-side movement means that the orbit is twice as big.  This uncertainty affects the mass calculation, and also the radius calculation.
In this essay I argue that, based on the theoretical work of Dr. Ernest Sternglass [Ref.#3] and Dr. Menahem Simhony [Ref.#4], one can say that the radius of the average "neutron star" is significantly less than the radius which most textbooks give.  Most textbooks give 10 km as the radius of the average "neutron star".  In this essay I argue that the true radius is significantly less, i.e., only approx. 6 km.  Please note that this argument is a way to test the correctness of the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony:  if the true radius of the average "neutron star" turns out to be significantly less than 10 km, then this indicates that Sternglass's and Simhony's work might actually have some merit, despite the fact that they are almost unknown to the physics community.
Though the 2 gentlemen (ages 91 and 92 in 2014) never collaborated, but worked independently of each other, the two models which they developed support and affirm each other.  Sternglass gives a believable scenario for what might have happened before the so called "Big Bang" ----- and before the formation (one wants to say "creation") of protons + neutrons, which evidently did not exist until then.  Simhony gives a believable explanation for how gravity works.  Hint: gravity doesn't pull: it pushes.  Tho he wrote three books to explain his model, one can find all the same information at his several internet sites [Ref.#4].
In 1933 Zwicky and Baade predicted the existence of neutron stars [Ref.#1], and astronomers discovered the first one almost 35 years later.  Zwicky and Baade assumed that the "neutron stars" which they predicted to exist would be composed, naturally enough, of neutrons.  So that the density of "neutron stars" would be approximately the density of neutrons.  This is a natural assumption, but true only if the objects are composed of neutrons.  
In this essay, based on the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony, I argue that "neutron stars" might be composed of tiny objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons, which means that the density of the "neutron star" would be greater, and that the true size of the "neutron star" would be smaller than the 10-km radius which most textbooks give.
In other words, this argument is a testable hypothesis:  if it turns out to be true, then it supports the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony.
This agreement is based on a combination of factors.  It depends on how far away from us the objects are, plus on how dense they are.  If either of these factors is incorrect, then the calculation will give an incorrect result for the radius (i.e., the size) of the "neutron star".
Regarding the distance between us and the neutron star:  astronomers do not agree on the distance to any of the stars or galaxies which they observe, except for the very nearest stars, which are only approximately 4 or 5 light-years away.  Any scientist who says otherwise is not being honest, or else illustrating his or her ignorance.
Please note that the nearest known "neutron star" is at a distance of at least 250 light-years away from us, according to information which I just now "googled", tho I used a different search engine.  One reckons that the google search engine would give a similar result.
Regarding how dense the average "neutron star" is:  it seems that, ever since Zwicky and Baade in 1933 made the assumption that the "neutron stars" which they predicted are composed of neutrons and therefore of approximately the same density as neutrons, scientists have assumed, with no proof, that this assumption is correct.  If it's not correct, then the calculated radius of the "neutron star" is also not correct.
Based on the work of Sternglass and Simhony, one can predict that the density of the average "neutron star" might be significantly greater than the density which most textbooks assume.  Details in the next part of this essay.
A so called "neutron star" results from the collapse (usually followed by a powerful so called "supernova explosion") of a normal star.  Based on the work of Sternglass and Simhony, one can propose that there might be in our universe a maximum density for a collapsed star, and for objects in general, which might prevent any object from collapsing down to a zero-volume infinite-density "singularity" which would produce a so called "black hole".  Please note that "black holes" are presently theoretical objects which scientists have never DIRECTLY observed.
In many books one can read that there is supposed to be a massive or "supermassive" "black hole" at the center of almost every galaxy.  Similarly, Sternglass's model predicts that one can expect to find a very massive object at the center of a galaxy, but that this object is more like a "white hole" than a "black hole".  Nothing gets sucked in, and large amounts of stuff come out.  A full reading of Sternglass's book [Ref.#3] explains this idea in detail.
When a large star has used most of its fuel, it usually collapses down to a density which is so great that the star then explodes.  This supernova explosion blows away most of the large star's mass.  What remains is a very dense and rapidly rotating "neutron star".  When a star whose mass is approximately equal to that of our sun has used most of its fuel, it does collapse, but only to the density of a so called "white dwarf" star,  which is much much less than the density of a "neutron star".  So there is no explosion.  Given these two facts, common sense tells us that there must therefore be some stars whose mass is just the right amount, (somewhere between that of our sun and that of a large star), so that when it has used most of its fuel, it might collapse down to the density of a "neutron star", but then not explode.
During the past 50 years, researchers have determined that most "neutron stars" are of a mass between 1.4 x and 1.9 x that of our sun;  i.e., they're very dense, but not very massive, given that many stars are more than 100 times the mass of our sun.  If one knows the approximate mass of a "neutron star", and also its density, then one can calculate the size of its radius by simple geometry.

The main argument in this essay is based on the idea that there might be in our universe a maximum density for objects in space, such as "neutron stars", because there might be a natural, inherent, "MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE" [Sternglass's words, p.203, Ref.#3] for the bits of matter in the object.  If this is true, then it means that one can reckon that standard textbook descriptions of "black holes" might be incorrect, because they're based on a collapse to a "singularity" of infinite density and zero radius.

Here is what one of Sternglass's colleagues said about this:  "Accepting the universe as rational ... we should reject such irrational concepts as singularities with infinite temperatures and densities in discussing it.  If we can avoid such unphysical concepts rationally, we should do so even if we must depart from current dogma and the presently accepted models" ---Dr. Lloyd Motz (1909-2004), astronomer + astrophysicist, Columbia University [p.6, Ref.#5].

In other words, one can reckon that, long before an object shrinks down to a "singularity", there might be a natural, inherent, minimum approach distance for the tiny bits of matter which compose the object, meaning that they can get no nearer to each other than some particular (pun intended) tiny distance.  If so, then this means that there is for our universe a maximum mass density for all the objects in it.If this is true, then there is in fact no such thing as the kind of "black hole" which many textbooks describe.  As already mentioned, above, "black holes" are theoretical objects which have never been observed.

Sternglass says that "black holes" do exist in his model of our universe, but only up to a density comparable to that of ordinary protons + neutrons;  i.e., approx. 3 x 10^14 grams/cc [p.206, Ref.#3].Alternatively, based on his theoretical work, and that of Simhony (the two men never collaborated, but worked independently of each other), one can propose a maximum density of approximately 17 times that, i.e., approx. 5 x 10^15 grams/cc.

Note:  a "cc" is a cubic centimeter.


QUESTION:  Why this particular density ??

ANSWER:  In his "Table 1" [p.234, Ref.#3] Sternglass lists "Masses, Sizes, and Rotational Periods of Cosmological Systems Predicted by the Electron[-Positron] Pair Model of Matter".  All the familiar kinds of physical objects are there, from galaxies + stars + planets, down to sub-atomic entities.

If one extend this "TABLE 1" , a bit farther than Sternglass did in the book, down into the section which he would call "stage 28", then one sees that there is room for a tiny "system", WHOSE MASS IS THAT OF AN ELECTRON, and WHOSE RADIUS IS APPROX. 4.1 x 10^(-15) cm;  i.e., approx. 4.1 x 10^(-17) meter.  Such a tiny but very dense system, whose mass is that of an electron, also figures prominently in the theoretical work of Simhony.  THE DENSITY OF SUCH A TINY SYSTEM, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT IT IS OF A TORUS-[DONUT]-SHAPE, WOULD BE APPROX. 5 x 10^(15) grams / cc ----- INSPIRING ME TO PROPOSE THIS NUMERIC VALUE AS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY POSSIBLE FOR ANY OBJECT IN OUR UNIVERSE.

{[ Note:  if you actually do this calculation, remember to divide by 137, the so called "inverse of the fine-structure constant", to account fot the relativistic shrinkage which Sternglass describes in his book {Ref.#3], saying that it affects the sizes of all the tiny cosmological systems [Table 1, p.234, Ref.#3] in his model. ]}

If there is a maximum density for a collapsed star of approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams / cc, and if the average "neutron star" is approximately of this density, then, given that the mass of the average "neutron star" is approx. 1.4 times the mass of our sun [p. 192, Ref.#2], one can easily calculate that its radius is approx. 5.6 km.

The math is easy:  VOLUME = MASS / DENSITY = (2.8 x 10^(33) grams) / (5 x 10^(15) grams/cc) = (5.6 x 10^(17) cc).

Note:  2.8 x 10^(33) grams is approx. 1.4 times the mass of our sun.

If the volume is approx. 5.6 x 10^(17) cc, then simple geometry gives the radius as approx. 5.1 km.

Allowing for a little bit of "wiggle room" between the tiny objects which compose the "neutron star" means that its density would be slightly less than that of the tiny objects which compose it, and that its volume would be slightly larger, and also that its radius would be slightly larger.  Perhaps 5.6 km.


Recently, [Ref.#6] some astronomers published results of their observations of a "neutron star" [J1614-2230] whose mass they determined to be approx. two times that of our sun, evidently one of the largest masses ever observed for a "neutron star".Quote from Ref.#6:  "We measure a ... mass of (1.97 +/- 0.04) solar-masses, which is by far the highest precisely measured neutron star mass determined to date".  Please note that this result supports the proposal for a maximum density of approx. 5 x 10^15 gm/cc for "neutron stars" ...

If the ideas which I present in this essay are correct, then one can reckon that this "neutron star", whose measured mass is approximately 2 times that of our sun, was produced by an ordinary star which collapsed to "neutron star" density but did not explode.  Because an explosion would blow away some of the mass, resulting in a less massive "neutron star".  Because more massive stars "burn" their fuel more quickly, one expects that most supernova explosions are produced by more massive stars, many with masses greater than 100 times that of our sun.  This is why almost every known "neutron star" has a measured mass of only approximately 1.4 times the mass of our sun [p.192, Ref. #2],  while a few have larger measured masses, with the largest being approximately 2 times that of our sun [Ref. #6].

In other words:  ironically, a less massive star, after it has "burned" most of its fuel, and collapsed down to the density of a "neutron star", is expected to produce a more massive "neutron star" than one produced by a more massive star.

As already mentioned, most textbooks give 10 km as the approximate radius of an average "neutron star".  So most PhD-holders believe this, without questioning it.  Because it's in most of the textbooks which they studied while in the process of earning a PhD.  Please note the following, from p.238 of Ref.#7, and written by Dr. Fulvio Melia, a Ph.D-holder at the University of Arizona in Tucson:"Interestingly, [assuming] that the emitting surface is spherical, one derives a photospheric radius of only ~6.4 +/- 1.4 km ... small for a neutron star".

On the contrary, according to the ideas and the numbers presented here, as explained in the previous part of this essay, that numeric value for the radius of a "neutron star" seems to be just about right.  Evidently this researcher has found some evidence to support the idea that the radius of a neutron star which he studied might be smaller than the 10 km size which most textbooks give.

{ Please note that a recent conversation which I pursued on a popular physics internet-site produced no compelling evidence that astronomers have ever made any accurate DIRECT measurement of the radius of a "neutron star" }.


QUESTION:  How might one offer a physical explanation for the proposal that there is a maximum density for objects in our universe ??  In other words:  what physical mechanism might prevent total collapse, and therefore prevent the formation of any kinds of objects of zero radius and infinite density, such as so called "black holes" are supposed to be ??

THE SHORT ANSWER:  neutrinos trapped inside a collapsing object prevent it from collapsing down to zero radius;  instead the object usually explodes, producing a so called "supernova explosion".

THE LONG ANSWER:  In Sternglass's model, neutrons and protons are NOT composed of "quarks" --- which have never been observed in a physics lab [Ref.#8, pp.322-324].  Instead, the Sternglass proton is composed of SPEEDY ELECTRONS + SPEEDY POSITRONS --- which are DEFINITELY KNOWN TO EXIST !!

In fact, a schematic diagram in Sternglass's book [p.250, Ref.#3] clearly shows that there are, in Sternglass's proton model, three [3] parts to each proton or neutron, (left side + center + right side), analogous to the three "quarks" which most physicists have been taught believe compose each proton or neutron.  Sternglass has no problem with quark theory --- and mentions it several times in his book:  he just simply shows that "quarks" are composed of smaller objects:  SPEEDY ELECTRONS + SPEEDY POSITRONS.

One suspects that, when a massive star collapses, not only do most of its ordinary protons + electrons get crushed together, which forms neutrons, but that these neutrons then break apart, due to the immense density which the collapse produces, into electron-positron pairs ---(also called "dipoles"), which are similar to the electron-positron pairs which are found in neutrons under ordinary conditions, according to Sternglass's model [p.250, Ref.#3].

One can call this stuff "degenerated neutrons" and, as already mentioned, calculate that it is composed of objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons.  One can even propose to call a star composed of this kind of stuff a "quark star", as some Ph.D-holders have done  [ ], and this would make sense, according to quark-theory, despite the fact that, as already mentioned, "quarks" have never been observed in a physics lab [pp.322-324, Ref. #8]. 

Meanwhile, as the star continues to collapse, there are lots of neutrinos trapped inside it.  One suspects, (based on one's reading), that it's mainly these neutrinos --- (at the immense mass-density of approx. 5 x 10^15 grams/cc)--- which prevent further collapse, and, in most cases, cause the star to REBOUND ===>>!!BOING!!<<=== creating a SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION, which blows away most of the star's mass.

After the explosion, there is a very dense and rapidly rotating "neutron star" ---(also called a supernova remnant)--- left behind.  One can visualize that equal numbers of speedy electrons + speedy positrons have emerged from the crushed and broken neutrons, and formed electron-positron pairs.  One can visualize these electron-positron pairs, many many tons of them, (each with the mass of a single electron and a radius of approx. 4.1 x 10^(-15) cm [4.1 x 10^(-17) meter], as described in Part 3 of this essay), as composing a so called "neutron star".

As already mentioned, Sternglass's "Table 1" [p.234, Ref.#3] predicts the existence of these "objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons".  Given their size and mass, and assuming that they are of a torus-(donut)-shape, one can calculate that their mass density would be approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc, as already mentioned in Part 3, above.


A "neutron star" whose mass is 2 times that of our sun is probably the result of a normal star of approximately that mass which collapsed after using all its fuel, but did not explode.  Such a star would produce a "neutron star" whose mass density is approximately 4.5 x 10^(15) grams per cubic centimeter, and whose radius is only approx. 6 km.  One can use the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony to hypothesize the mass density given above.  If the radius of the average "neutron star" turns out to be only approx. 6 km, then this is evidence to support the theoretical work of Sternglass and Simhony.


Perhaps, what we have (until now) called "neutron stars" might (in fact) be composed of objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons.  Perhaps, for now, one might want to refer to "neutron stars" as just simply "supernova remnants" --- despite the fact that the most massive object of this kind, having a mass of approximately 2 times that of our sun, might have formed without an accompanying supernova explosion.


Based on the ideas and the numbers presented in this essay, one can predict that, when astronomers are able to make accurate DIRECT measurements of supernova remnants, then they will agree that the RADIUS of a typical supernova remnant is nearer to 6 km than to the current accepted value of approximately 10 km .....


(1)  Baade, W. and Zwicky F., paper: "On Super-novae", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 20, (5): 254-259 (1934);

(2)  Thorne, Kip, book: Black Holes and Time Warps (1994);

(3)  Sternglass, Ernest; book: Before the Big Bang (1997, 2001);

(4)  Simhony, Menahem, internet sites:,;

(5)  Motz, Lloyd, paper: "The Cosmological Problem: The Origin and Fate of the Universe", The Sixteenth International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, Atlanta, Georgia, November 26-29, 1987, page 6;

(6)  Demorest, P.B., et al; paper: "A Two-Solar-Mass Neutron Star Measured Using Shapiro Delay", Nature, 25-October-2010;

(7)  Melia, Fulvio, book: High Energy Astrophysics (2009);

(8)  Kragh, Helge, book: Quantum Generations (1999);




© Copyright 2018 Mark Creek-water Dorazio. All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments: