Talk:Compact star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Compact star is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.


Can someone redirect "Stellar Remnant" to this article. I do not know how to do it myself nor do I have time today to learn,--Dr.Worm 00:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody did far ago from 20:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC). ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


"Compact stars last forever" announces one heading boldly. Sure? Really? AFAIK black holes are believed to evaporate in the end. And beside that: this is a boring encyclopedia where bold newspaper headings aren't appropriate. A neutral heading such as "lifetimes" would be more appropriate. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


This is an article of particularly poor quality. Someone please help... (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph[edit]

I came here looking to learn something; that is, I am NOT an expert in the field and don't feel comfortable changing stuff here. Still, even to this non-expert, the line in the first paragraph "These objects are all small for their mass." seems completely the opposite of what is intended, especially when it is followed by "... it is very massive and has a small radius". Would somebody who DOES know something make just the first paragraph make sense? Chopbox (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but I think it's OK. Perhaps have a look at the article on mass? Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Small by volume but with a high mass. "Small" normally refers to volume, not mass, I think, but I said volume explicitly in the sentence which confused you. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The star attempts to cool itself?[edit]

"In an attempt to cool itself, the star radiates energy in the form of surface luminosity." Should this be described so animistically? This radiation of energy is just a basic consequence of natural laws/physics. FirstMatter (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I have rewritten the paragraph. It was badly explained altogether and the stellar life cycle is explained in great detail on linked wikipedia articles.
What you call "animistic" is often used when discussing and describing stars, even in pure scientific terms. Actually words like "death", "life", "attempt" etc. are used extensively in the natural sciences. Mostly for pedagogical reasons, but also because the natural sciences does not distinguish as rigidly between animals (including the human) and objects, as some people would like to believe. These distinctions are to a large degree of religious and cultural origin. What you object against is probably (?) that words like "attempt" implies some kind of conscience, and that inanimate objects (whatever that is) does not have a conscience? Well everybody and everything is guided by forces and the laws of nature and when inanimate objects "attempt" something, it just means that this is their reaction to these laws and forces. I agree that "animistic" words should be limited and used with caution when discussing science, but they certainly have their place too. A better description in this particular situation would simply be "In order to cool itself, ...". RhinoMind (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Creation vs Formation[edit]

@JorisvS: changed the words "creation" to "formation" some time ago throughout the article and I was wondering why? Is there any reasonable explanation for this change?

As I grasp these two terms (as an astrophysicist, but not a native speaker of English), a formation is exactly that: something that is "formed" or rearranged so to speak. I believe the correct terms to be used here is "creation", simply because something new is created. It is not just a forming or rearranging of something that already existed prior to processes discussed. It is something new. A creation. I am looking forward to some kind of reasonable explanation. Cheers. RhinoMind (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Creation is an act by a someone/something to make something else, to be given a shape, to be made to be. To form (the intransitive form)/formation means 'taking shape', 'become to be', which is the correct meaning here. There is no entity that caused them to become what they are. Compare wikt:create and wikt:form#Verb #2. --JorisvS (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

New name with working verb needed to distinguish between collapsing stars[edit]

In astronomy, the term compact star (or compact object) is used to refer collectively to white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. The term "collapsar" is also used to describe these 3 stars. For starts my problem with this is a white dwarf is way different than a neutron star or black hole, the densities are way over a million different.

Why not use the term "collapsar" with an acting verb to describe what collapses in a star smaller than about 2.0 Schwarzschild radius? Lets consider what happens if an attempt is made to compress a star of 2.0 Schwarzschild radius down to 1.0 Schwarzschild radius. Assuming the star is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, this should be reflected in the name for different types of collapse (unless all types of particles collapse at the same instant).

Consider: (1) A "proton collapsar" (2) A "neutron collapsar" (3) An "electron collapsar".

(3) sounds like baloney. As for (2) a neutron is just a proton and an electron so this process is the same as (1). When you compress a star enough at somewhere below about 2.0 Schwarzschild radius, you get proton collapse. Thats what should be analyzed. "Proton collapsar" would be a good name to describe this family of stars. It does not include white dwarfs. (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)BG

Unfortunately any changes have to be made on the basis of reliable sources. Unless you can provide them no changes can be made. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There are several problems with this post. 1 Wikipedia is not the place to discuss how astrophysicists should name objects. We only present information that has already been established by them. 2 To use an active verb, limits the usefulness of the word. Compact objects can also be created without a prior collapse. They can be relics from the early universe for one thing. 3 I can see that your understanding of the collapsing process of stars is insufficient. I would advice you to study more about what a Schwarzschild radius is. It is a distance that is innately linked to and determined by an objects mass and it can not be changed. Only if you add or remove mass will it change accordingly. Physical processes like compression will not change an objects SR. RhinoMind (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, then I will focus this issue on the "Collapsar" stub. (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)BG

Planetary mass stellar remnants[edit]

Would stellar remnants which are composed of mostly carbon (diamond planet) i.e. red giants which have been stripped of their outer shells by a closeby pulsar or similar, belong into this class?

(Stellar remnant points here, so there should be some notion of it.)

They're not exactly stars any more, but very compact and consisting of rather exotic matter. -- (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)