Talk:Quark star

Strange Matter

I can't decide whether strange stars deserve their own article, separate from strange matter. There is a Danish-language article on strange stars, so we get a nice interwiki link, and they make more sense if they link articles on the same things. But on the other hand, everything that one can say about a strange star is also something about strange matter, so we can't really remove the information from strange matter that I've moved here... Oh, I'll think about it later... -- Oliver P. 19:30 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

It might be good to talk about Strange Matter/Quark Matter (I'd advocate the latter terminology) purely in terms of the physics of degenerate matter and the debate over it's plausibility (ie, does QCD allow the arrangement? Is the degeneracy pressure provided by the strong nuclear force strictly analogous to neutron or electron degeneracy pressure? Are exotic quark flavors required or implied by the theory?) and move the bulk of the astrophysical considerations to this writeup.

-Peter

Giant Hadron?

The star then becomes known as a "quark star" or "strange star", similar to a single gigantic hadron (but bound by gravity rather than the color force).

The force of gravity may have much to do with the binding of such a star, but wouldn't the color force also contribute to the binding energy? -- User:Kryptid Nov 2006

I have to say, is this an entirely appropriate line to include in the introduction to this article? Surely stating that a quark star is like a giant hadron is akin to stating that a neutron star is like a giant atomic nucleus -- misleading and factually inaccurate.

Not being an expert, I'd move for a second opinion, but I think that line should be reworded. --InvaderXan (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Giant Hardon!

I don't know about the rest of you(s) but my Giant Hardon defies gravity and is not bound by it.

Epic Typo for the Win.

"Some of these quarks may then become strange quarks and form strange matter. The star then becomes known as a "quark star" or "strange star", similar to a single gigantic hardon (but bound by gravity rather than the strong force)" August 9,2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.66.91 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Quark Star

Shouldn't this article redirect to Quark Star or vice versa?

--User:Killroy

Quark non-strange star

Is it strictly necessary to have strange quarks? If not then "Strange star" requres splitting into a separate section. Zzzzzzzzzzz 03:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Classification

All Strange stars are Quark stars. But, not all Quark stars are Strange stars. Other Quark Stars. Strange Exotic States and Compact Stars

• Jaffe 1977, suggested a four-quark state with strangeness (qsqs
• H-dibaryon, a six-quark state with equal numbers of up-, down-, and strange quarks (uuddss)
• bound multi-quark systems with heavy quarks QQqq
• pentaquark states were first proposed with a charm anti-quark (qqqsc), 1987
• pentaquark state with an antistrange quark & four light quarks consisting of up- and down-quarks only (qqqqs)
• light pentaquarks are grouped within an antidecuplet, the lightest candidate, Ө+ (big epsilon)
  • can also be described by the diquark model of Jaffe and Wilczek (QCD)
• Ө++ (big epsilon) & antiparticle Ө--
• doubly strange pentaquark (sssddu), memeber of the light pentaquark antidecuplet
• charmed pentaquark Өc(3100) (uuddc) state was detected by the H1 collaboration

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0608317 Thanks, CarpD 1/07/06

Almost all of the particles suggested here contain strange quarks, and thus do not support your assertion.--Cherlin (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

almost is not the same as all - so it does support his assertion, since atleast one is not strange. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Theorized Quark Formations

This section should be deleted. First of all, to requote the Pentaquark page, there is "overwhelming evidence that the claimed pentaquarks do not exist". The idea of 4, 5, and 6 quark hadrons has been discarded by the particle physics community. But this is besides the point, theoretical hadrons have nothing to do with structure of a quark star. It would be more appropriate to reference Quark-gluon plasma. Pulu (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Wired, Popular Science, and Astronomy Picture of the Day are not authoritative sources. Please replace these references with links to the papers they cite (or quote but don't cite).--Cherlin (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a serious overhaul. I hope to get to it in the near future, now that strangelet is in decent shape. Dark Formal (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)