Talk:Strangelet

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives: 1

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

/Archive 1

In fiction

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]

Plausibility

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]

"Is it really plausible that stranglets would turn every object they contact into strange matter?" This was stated as a fact in the article, but it's just a theory and I'd say the evidence for this theory is extremely weak, for a number of reasons - one being that the calculations supporting it were quite hand-wavy, and another being that nobody has ever seen evidence for the existence of strange matter. So I weakened the claim in the article. John Baez (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metastable strangelets

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]

quark star as a black hole

The modern non idealized idea of a black hole is a quark star with some Banach-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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410B:1A00:C0B5:F4CF:A849:DF65 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it was supported in the afar past, but this belongs to the history section not to analytical physics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410B:1A00:C0B5:F4CF:A849:DF65 (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]