The video in this article brings me joy; it's just so good and fun to watch.

I tried finding some research and found lots about freezing matter or putting it under extreme pressure, but not trying both.

My thought experiment involved taking a small portion of ideal of matter (not sure what), artificially applying extreme pressure to it and than attempt to lower its temperature and if possible, apply even more pressure before trying to lower its temperature - taking it as low as possible under the highest pressure you could.

I assumed there's likely to be a conflict between pressure - thus increasing vibration/wave properties of the material - and how it would be possible to reduce those energetic wave properties.

Thanks for any insight.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/19422551

> "In a new article published in Nature Communications, a team centered at the University of Helsinki provided a first-ever quantitative estimate for the likelihood of quark-matter cores inside massive neutron stars. They showed that, based on current astrophysical observations, quark matter is almost inevitable in the most massive neutron stars: a quantitative estimate that the team extracted placed the likelihood in the range of 80–90%."

edit: found this research just today on nucleon liquid Vs quark liquid - very interesting and very much related to this original post.

"In a new article published in Nature Communications, a team centered at the University of Helsinki provided a first-ever quantitative estimate for the likelihood of quark-matter cores inside massive neutron stars. They showed that, based on current astrophysical observations, quark matter is almost inevitable in the most massive neutron stars: a quantitative estimate that the team extracted placed the likelihood in the range of 80–90%."

edit: removed my personal crackpot musings surrounding the subject. I do however, still suggest for those interested on the subject to study/brush up on quantum chromodynamics (focusing on the quark sea) and zero-point energy - never neglecting Relativity, of course. They're all very much connected and I believe the ZPE field will be a focus of continuous, real experimental science, with significant ramifications in cosmology.

edit 2: Found this research just today on nucleon liquid Vs quark liquid - very interesting and very much related to this original post.

Found this very useful Youtube video about How do Magnets & Magnetic Fields Work? and within it I finally found someone willing to explain greater details about how same poles repel in laymen terms. The link above takes you to the section where the Presenter explains how (as I understand him) potential energy forms between the same poles and that energy ultimately causes the repulsion. I like his thermodynamic(?) description and haven't ever come across a better laymen explanation. That said, I was hoping to get some opinions about them. I've also read about the exchange of virtual photons but even that wasn't intuitively explained.

Thank you for any additional insight.

Language of any kind has always been hard for me, as most languages aren't intuitive and require your brain to be forced into learning often odd and unnecessary rules. My brain hates math, the only language I actually respect and a lot of science is built on complex math and non-intuitive nomenclature. I've been increasingly frustrated by it lately and just need to get this off my chest.

I'm a non-professional and have been studying physics for a long time - Quantum Color Dynamics of late - and almost everything I read and listen to requires my brain to constantly process almost every bit of information from non-intuitive nomenclature to personal made ones. It's frustrating that the most challenging aspect of science (besides the complex math) isn't the concepts (I honestly don't find quantum mechanics to be weird) but rather the scientific community's self-imposed nomenclature made of scientist names or hodgepodge of words.

Worst of all, I've only been able to process science like this as an adult because as a younger student, the subject matter seemed too hard because it was weighed down by both non-intuitive nomenclature and often teachers who barely understood the concepts they were teaching to the extent that they could translate that nomenclature beyond a book's presentation (obviously my own learning experience).

Since I could remember I've loved science and wonder if I might have sought a career in physics, if not for frustrating hurdles like nomenclature, thrown on top of truly beautiful but complex subjects. At least I can enjoy it non-professionally - if only slowly, as I have to process its nomenclature.

Thank you. And with that, back to my particle zoo...

"Until now, observations have been difficult to interpret, but thanks to this study we can no longer ignore bipolar winds."

Curious non-professional here.

Thought experiment that led me to the question: If we assume that at any given time there's an extreme level of EM and gravitational waves propagating through some point within a cosmic void (a seemingly homogeneous "vacuum"): do the transient emissions form any kind of emergent field?

I understand the ever-present zero-point energy but that should be in absence of all else. I'm contemplating an emergent field formed by EM/gravitational traffic. Obviously this field is only as present or strong as the transient fields passing through this point under consideration.

Thank you.

Since I've started studying cosmology as a non-professional, I've found myself rather convinced that there's so much dark matter but with a little "d" - since JWST has started giving us incredible data we've been finding more and more dense regions of dust, ice and gas where we've never thought, or previously seen before - but not new Dark Matter particles, regardless of claims of their influences. To be clear, both models should be studied and MOND continues to develop, however slowly it might be.

As for those who've been keeping score between MOND vs DM (with a big "D") many have pointed to the recent wide binary as "proof" that MOND is falsified. I honestly believe space is so much more nuanced than we've observed so far and future discoveries will certainly reveal as much. At any rate, I'd like to link Stacy McGaugh's recent entry into the debate for consideration.

Edit: Found this Youtube video that does a good job explaining the basics of this paper.

Here's a direct link to their paper (also found in the phys.org).

And a link to a post I've already made about Prof Kroupa - a large proponent for MOND. There's a link for another post I made for Prof Stacy McGaugh there too; another great source for those interested.