4 ms·
Well, in some ways that is faster. Even if it's only 100m across (I assume it's larger than this), it spins at 223km/s at the surface. It would hit light spee
by Groxx 13y ago
Well, in some ways that is faster. Even if it's only 100m across (I assume it's larger than this), it spins at 223km/s at the surface. It would hit light speed at only 133km across (assuming I plugged those numbers correctly), so it must be smaller than that, which is a pretty small star.
- jlgreco 13y agoNeutron stars are bounded by mass, somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 solar units it seems (if it were more massive it would collapse further), so I think their radius is bounded too (since if it was too large then it wouldn't be dense enough to be a neutron star). It seems like the likely radii for neutron stars are around 10km. There is also this idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star
- mtdewcmu 13y agoThis area of astronomy still contains a lot of conjecture, as far as I can tell, and it could change. A recent Scientific American article made a case that black holes might not exist, but, instead, quantum mechanical effects would intervene and prevent a star from collapsing past the radius of the event horizon. They called the resulting not-quite-a-black-hole a black star (N.B., not the hip hop act featuring Mos Def and Talib Kweli). Black holes themselves are considered to have a spin, so since their radii are infinitesimal, they are the rotation champs.