Talk:Neutron Star (short story)

Novels: Short story / Sci-fi Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

On 8 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Neutron Star. The result of the discussion was not moved.

"Scientifically flawed" removed

I've removed " Satisfying, albeit scientifically flawed" from the body of this article for two reasons. Firstly, although Niven's work is generally hard SF, it is, nonetheless, fiction- it is redundant to point out every instance of scientific fallacy in a fictional story. Second, nothing was included in the original article that detailed what exactly was flawed; if anyone can give valid scientific reasons that the end was innaccurate, it would be constructive to create a new section that details what could be corrected.EvilMrWizard 01:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis expanded

I've expanded the synopsis of "Neutron Star" to be more complete and descriptive of the storyline. Most of the original text was moved to the top. - John 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics of the tidal forces

Can anyone demonstrate or point to the mathematical analysis that allegedly shows that the ship leaves with a spin? Intuitively (I don't have the math) it seems to me that the same tidal force that imparts spin as the ship approaches peri-position would tend to reduce spin as it left; i.e., the tide wants to keep the long axis pointed at the star at all times, so as the ship recedes toward infinity in its parabolic orbit, it would slow down. Consider also conservation of angular momentum. The ship has to pick up that spin from somewhere, and if BVS-1's rotation is slowed a tiny bity by the ship orbiting in one direction, would it be sped up if the ship approached from the opposite side? (I guess the ship's spin would then be opposite, so maybe.) -- AJWM, 6/25/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.81.65.99 (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to EvilMrWizard and AJWM: if the analysis cited by Niven himself is correct -- that a ship leaving hyperbolic orbit around a neutron star comes away with a massive amount of spin -- that would explain what's inaccurate about the story's ending. I understand that AJWM has raised a question about the validity of that analysis whilst also admitting to not having the math to analyze the issue. But it's worse than that. If Shaeffer's ship leaves the neutron star with a spin, then so does the Laskins' -- and that pretty much blows the entire premise of the story out of the water (especially given the retcon that the puppeteers understand tidal effects). Gharlane (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually worse than even the cited analysis states. Using the given values in the book (A mass of 1.3 sols, a diameter of 11 miles, and an approach within 1 mile) we can work out what the g-forces would be at the nearest point. The sun has a mass of about 333,000 Earths, so the neutron star has a mass of 432,900 Earths, and proportionally greater gravitational effects. The radius of the Earth is about 4000 miles, and at this distance we experience one gee. Since gravity falls of at the distance squared, at 6.5 miles from the center of the neutron star there should be 432,900 * 4000 * 4000 / (6.5 * 6.5) = 1.639 * 10^11 gees. Now let's go a single foot further out, or 6.500189 miles from the center. 6.5^2 / 6.500189^2 = 0.9999418, so we've only lost 0.00582% of the gravitational pull. Unfortunately, that amounts to a difference of 9.538 * 10^6 gees. Completely unsurvivable. LordQwert (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that the effects of space and time dilation would do some wonky things to how the tidal forces would be experienced in the local frame. I suspect they'd both make things significantly worse, but I haven't the math at the moment. LordQwert (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This probably constitutes independent research, but... If an indestructible ship's close approach to a neutron star yields a ship spinning too fast for the human passengers inside to survive, then Peter and Sonya Laskin's ship would have emerged spinning and no one would have asked Shaeffer to repeat their debacle - so Shaeffer would have survived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.154.8 (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of italics in "warship"

The third sentence of the second paragraph of the plot summary starts off as thus: "It is thus the only warship ...." I understand that it's for emphasis, and the MOS allows for that, but it feels off to me. Could anyone please tell me if this is a good use of emphasis or not?--Thylacine24 (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's an unusual thing to encounter in the context of the story (because of the nature of the Pierson's Puppeteers as a species), but this doesn't make much sense when stripped of that context in the article. significant to fans of Niven's work, but they'd already know how odd it was for the PPs to build a 'warship' if they were reasonably well-read. see also Ringworld

duncanrmi (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron Star (short story) → Neutron Star – Per WP:DIFFCAPS and page views, this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the proper noun "Neutron Star", as opposed to the common noun "neutron star". Paradoctor (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. To be fair, the primary topic neutron star should be included in page-view comparisons, and when it is, it dwarfs the short story/collection in views. DIFFCAPS is being thrown around too much in RM discussions to essentially say "capitalization differences don't matter". That's not what the guidance says. It says Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings... The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for. From the image I uploaded on the right, readers are quickly guided to the short story and the short story collection by the parenthetical disambiguation in their titles. Removing "(short story)" from one would likely drive readers to the collection article first, and then from there to the short story, because it's not clear to readers who don't realize that Wikipedia avoids title case that Neutron Star would be an article about a story, and not, well, neutron stars. Now, if the short story article were titled something like "NeutronStar", "Neutron Star!", or "Neütron Star", then maybe the title would be sufficiently different to distinguish it from the generic, primary topic. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't really see that the (short story) is clearly primary over the (short story collection) – wbm1058 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Type "Iron Maiden" into the search box. "Neutron Star" does not yet appear in the suggestions because it currently is a redirect, not an article.

don't really see that the (short story) is clearly primary Have you looked at the pageviews? Moreover, the anthology was published two years after the short story, was named for it, and did not win a Hugo. Paradoctor (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the primary topic neutron star should be included in page-view comparisons No. We're talking about "Neutron Star", not "neutron star". Different topics with different names, as I already explained. Neither is a legitimate alternative spelling of the other.

small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics Paradoctor (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with "Iron Maiden" is that the band has triple the page views of the torture device. The page views of your short story and collection articles combined come nowhere close to approaching the views of the collapsed core of a massive supergiant star, i.e. they are light years away from having triple the views. Not a remotely close standard of comparison. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An exclamation point!, a diacritic, using CamelCase or ALL CAPS – those are what the guidance means by "small details". Title case is different.That's a typographically near-identical expression from which ambiguity arises. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose readers are much more likely to be searching for information on neutron stars (the primary topic) than the collection of short stories. Polyamorph (talk) 07:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.