Talk:Strange matter

Some edits
I have undone most of Dan Gluck's changes to the 1st para. However, the point about strange matter occurring in various points is an important one, so I added text to make that point. For the rest, (1) strange matter is no more hypothetical than any other kind of quark matter. (2) In Dan Gluck's version the contrast between strange and non-strange quark matter has been lost. (3) The extra description of nuclear matter is a distraction: this is not an article about nuclear matter. (4) Strange stars are not analogous to neutron stars. Neutron stars are gravitationally bound, whereas strange stars are self-bound. Dark Formal 00:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A comment on #4.: No strange stars are not analogous to neutron stars, but they might be indistinguishable to observation and they might both be created in similar astrophysical processes. Anyway, the biggest difference is not what holds them together - strange stars are also gravitationally bound, as all matter in bulk is -, it is the forces that keeps them from collapsing into black holes. The forces that resists the gravitational squeeze. In neutron stars this resisting force/pressure originates from the degenerate neutrons, that organize themselves in a stiff lattice. In strange stars the resisting force/pressure originates from the properties of the strange quark matter. RhinoMind (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Negative charged strangelets
The article says that stranglets repel from the nucleus because they are positively charged but I've been pointed at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512112 by a few people in discussion about CERN and destroying the Earth via black holes or stranglets. That paper says that the cascade effect wouldn't happen so the Earth wouldn't be turned into a giant stranglet soup but it would seem some strangelets are possibly attracted to the nucleus. AlphaNumeric 16:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some models predict that strangelets of certain masses might be negatively charged. I rewrote that section to make this clearer. The main reason for not worrying about such a disaster is that if it could happen it already would have (from cosmic rays hitting the moon, for example). I tried to make this clearer also. But I'm open to suggestions for further changes... Dark Formal 23:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
I have proposed merging Strangelet into this article. Squideshi 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the strangelet article is currently languishing because I haven't had the time to develop it properly, but strange matter and strangelets are two different things, just as nuclear matter and nuclei are two different things. Even though a nucleus is made of nuclear matter, it is natural to have separate articles because nuclear matter is a bulk phenomenon, whose thermodynamic limit (large volume, zero charge density) can be taken, whereas a nucleus is a finite chunk, with strong surface effects, and can have non-zero charge density. Exactly the same considerations apply to strangelets vs strange matter.

Again, I admit that right now the strangelet article is so stub-like that it doesn't look as if it deserves a separate existence. I will try to expand it and improve it over the next few weeks, and we'll see if you still then want to merge it then. If you want to join in this process I would be delighted. Dark Formal 14:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Quark stars: How can a supernova explode twice?
There's a (9 DEC 2013) New Scientist article which has the latest research information: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029460.700-quark-stars-how-can-a-supernova-explode-twice.html?full=true#.Uq3Q2VtDuSo.

[quote]ON 22 September last year, the website of The Astronomer's Telegram alerted researchers to a supernova explosion in a spiral galaxy about 84 million light years away. There was just one problem. The same object, SN 2009ip, had blown up in a similarly spectacular fashion just weeks earlier. Such stars shouldn't go supernova twice, let alone in quick succession. The thing was, it wasn't the only one, the next year another supernova, SN 2010mc, did the same.

One of the few people not to be bamboozled was Rachid Ouyed. "When I looked at those explosions, they were talking to me right away," he says. Ouyed, an astrophysicist at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, thinks that these double explosions are not the signature of a supernova, but something stranger. They may mark the violent birth of a quark star, a ... [end quote] 2.123.47.129 (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Alan Lowey
 * Yes, there are several observational hints on "the quark glitch" that should occur when neutron stars are transformed into quark stars. Some gamma ray bursts could maybe also be explained as "quark glicthes". The overall problem is however, that the interpretations are based on simulations and theoretical models, that at the moment isn't strong enough to be decisive on the nature of the specific events. There are many candidates for energetic explosive events and various glitches. RhinoMind (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Is strange quark matter just hypothetical?
I am missing some discussion and/or sources on the observations of strange quark matter. Does anybody know?

Even if the Bodmer-Witten hypothesis does not holds true, strange quark matter could maybe be produced and observed in laboratories like CERN fx.? Or is strange quark matter still a vague hypothetical state of quark matter?

RhinoMind (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There is only ONE meaning of Strange quark matter
Hello. I think I understand why the section "Two meanings of the term "strange matter"" came to be, but it is nevertheless a formulation that can and will be misunderstood.

There is only one meaning of what strange quark matter is actually, and that is simply that it is quark matter containing strange quarks. This is a very simple definition and also easy to understand at the same time. Whether or not strange quark matter is stable or not and under what conditions, is a whole other subject of its own. The problems arise when these two issues are mixed! And the article reflects these problems, as it is now unfortunately.

I think the best way forward from here, will be to write up a section on the stability of strange quark matter, with solid refs. This will make things a lot clearer all in all. What is referred to as "the strange matter hypothesis" or the "Bodmer-Witten hypothesis", is the hypothesis that strange quark matter is stable at T = P = 0, ie. in free space. If this holds true, it has many interesting implications and some of these are already touched here or at the quark star article. If it does not hold true, strange quark matter is still interesting and could very well still exist, but only under extreme conditions, like those inside a neutron star fx. or for a few nano-seconds in a lab. This should all be explained in the section on stability.

RhinoMind (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes and reassuring masturbation for pleasure
Strange matter, quark-gluon plasma, mini black holes explode spontaneously if are small in volume and mass, otherwise are parts of black holes and neuron star core earthquake "events". Now continue your masturbation, but don't sell your sperm as physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4113:F00:8D92:8418:8856:6CF1 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * egg-Jacques-Lee, a stable degenerate pressure mechanism is required!

???? RhinoMind (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)