Joule Requirement for Universe level Revision

[ElajRuengies]

Issue: Neutron Star GBE is outdated.
The current calculation for the lower bound of 3-A / Universe level uses the energy to overcome a Neutron Star's GBE at a distance equal to the radius of the Observable Universe. The Neutron Star GBE was calculated using the same GBE Formula for non-degenerate matter stars, and came out to Solar System level. The formula used for Neutron Pulsar PSR J0348+0432 is listed below-

(3*(6.67408×10^-11)*((1.989×10^30)*2.01)^2) = 6.14965486×10^46 joules

However, thanks to @Qawsedf234, it's apparent that this is wrong-

Neutron stats can be used, they're just calced incorrectly. Neutron Stars have a much lower binding energy than what Nik got because their atoms are actively trying to break apart and all that's stopping them is the pressure of gravity.

They also have a different formula to get GBE as well.

Here you go.

But the paper that discuss how to calculate it also gives standard measurements were the most dense Neutron star comes to about 1/3rd to 1/2th of the Sun's GBE

(Binding Energy is Et, and the highest one comes out to 0.57 times that of the Sun's, which would be

• 5.693 * 10^41 * 0.57 = 3.24501 * 10^41 joules

As a result, the requirement for Universe level is now-

• 4 * 3.24501 * 10^41 * ((4.4087×10^26)/12336)^2 = 1.6578621 * 10^87 joules

AKA- 3.96238552 * 10^77 tons of TNT, or 1.6578621 * 10^43 FOE, or 16.578621 TenateraFoe

I'm pretty sure this change effects literally zero profiles, as I seriously doubt there are any folk in Multi-Galaxy level which have an attack potency between 1.66 * 10^87 and 2.825 * 10^92 joules who will get upgraded because of this.

Result: The baseline for Universe level is decreased by factor of 170,000. This changes basically nothing.

(Credit goes to @Qawsedf234 for proposing this change)

...Wait, doesn't this mean that the calculation for Baseline 3-A needs to be redone? Since that one uses Solar System level GBE for neutron stars?

If it uses the 4-B end that Nik's calc uses, then yes.

 

[Pikaman]

Following

 

[Quangotjokes]

Following

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Shouldn't this be a staff thread or put into the calc group area?

I was thinking this should be discussed among the calc group then a final draft be proposed in the staff thread

It'll keep things more organized and I would say this is pretty important and significant. This is just my opinion

 

[ElajRuengies]

Shouldn't this be a staff thread or put into the calc group area?

I was thinking this should be discussed among the calc group then a final draft be proposed in the staff thread

It'll keep things more organized and I would say this is pretty important and significant. This is just my opinion

In hindsight that'd probably be better yeah. Could staff move this to Calc Group Discussion?

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

In hindsight that'd probably be better yeah. Could staff move this to Calc Group Discussion?

id recommend it then ask Ant to tag some calc group members

 

[ElajRuengies]

Did the first part

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Executor_N0 @Amelia_Lonelyheart @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Mr._Bambu @Therefir @Damage3245 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Migue79 @Armorchompy @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I agree with the change, though I am the one who proposed it.

 

[CloverDragon03]

This should be fine

 

[ElajRuengies]

I agree with the change, though I am the one who proposed it.

Credit Added

 

[Damage3245]

... This is fine, I guess.

 

[Pikaman]

Would this not affect baseline 3-As that get that rating through scaling above extremely strong 3-Bs? I’m assuming a decent few of those exist

Also every single baseline 3-A vs non baseline 3-A match would have to be removed from profiles, though that’s a lesser point

 

[DontTalkDT]

One correction: The current value is not actually calculated using the same value as regular stars but using the polytropic formula with the appropriate constant for neutron stars.

Anyway, the change probably is ok although I wonder whether the radius of the neutron star in the formula has to be adjusted as well, as the GBE is related to it.

Would this not affect baseline 3-As that get that rating through scaling above extremely strong 3-Bs? I’m assuming a decent few of those exist

Also every single baseline 3-A vs non baseline 3-A match would have to be removed from profiles, though that’s a lesser point

There are virtually no 3-As who get their stats via calcs, so eh. Don't think there there will be more than a handful of cases like those.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Actually, does the paper in question explain how to chose n(r) and m(r)? I wonder if one could do the calc for our current baseline Neutron Star, as that seems to be an extra thicc neutron star.

 

[Agnaa]

If the GBE for a neutron star is lower than our sun's, why would we still use that as a baseline for universe level? Wouldn't we use the star with the highest GBE instead?

 

[ElajRuengies]

One correction: The current value is not actually calculated using the same value as regular stars but using the polytropic formula with the appropriate constant for neutron stars.

Anyway, the change probably is ok although I wonder whether the radius of the neutron star in the formula has to be adjusted as well, as the GBE is related to it.

Actually, does the paper in question explain how to chose n(r) and m(r)? I wonder if one could do the calc for our current baseline Neutron Star, as that seems to be an extra thicc neutron star.

Oh yeah- upon closer inspection it seems that the GBE are for the hypothetical maximum mass neutron stars (which at that point would have quark-matter cores and so be called quark stars) according to the "confined-isospin-density-dependent-mass" (This is what CIDDM means) model.

The radii for quark stars like these depends on the mass and what parameter of some constant is being used (list here, it's near the bottom)- all ends seem to be less than 13 kilometers though.

 

[ElajRuengies]

If the GBE for a neutron star is lower than our sun's, why would we still use that as a baseline for universe level? Wouldn't we use the star with the highest GBE instead?

Because its not just GBE that's important in the Inverse Square law, it's also cross sectional area.

Giant stars are actually easier to destroy at a distance than the Sun, because while their GBE's may be several times higher than the Sun's, their cross-sectional area is gonna be dozens to hundreds of times higher than the Sun's.

Red dwarf stars by contrast are actually harder to destroy than the Sun at a distance for the same reasons just inverted- GBE is much smaller, but Surface Area is proportionately even smaller.

Neutron Stars, even with GBE's less than that of the Sun, are still the hardest thing to destroy at a distance due to how tiny their cross-sectional areas are.

(This also means that all space explosion based tiers and calcs except for Solar System level stuff should be using Red Dwarf GBE and Cross-Sectional Area, but I'm not even gonna pretend like that Revision is ever gonna happen.)

 

[Agnaa]

Ahh okay, that makes perfect sense. Thanks.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

We should use the star that has the highest GBE per surface area; plenty of large stars have GBE that's only a few times greater than the sun, but many times more surface area which would be less than just using the sun.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, do neutron stars have a different equation for their GBE? I was just curious and looked up a couple links and the GBE formula being used appears different than what is on the links I read.

Edit: because the links i found are using a completely different equation to find the GBE of a Neutron star.

 

[DontTalkDT]

(This also means that all space explosion based tiers and calcs except for Solar System level stuff should be using Red Dwarf GBE and Cross-Sectional Area, but I'm not even gonna pretend like that Revision is ever gonna happen.)

You mean we should use giant stars for baseline, as those are the lowest end.

Anyway, reason we don't do that is that the sun is our agreed upon standard star for getting star parameters. If you have stars and no better guess you use the sun. Universe level is an exception as basically all stars in existence are involved.

Oh yeah- upon closer inspection it seems that the GBE are for the hypothetical maximum mass neutron stars (which at that point would have quark-matter cores and so be called quark stars) according to the "confined-isospin-density-dependent-mass" (This is what CIDDM means) model.

The radii for quark stars like these depends on the mass and what parameter of some constant is being used (list here, it's near the bottom)- all ends seem to be less than 13 kilometers though.

So, I assume you have taken a closer look at those papers. Which radius is the best to use for our high-end star in your opinion?

 

[ElajRuengies]

You mean we should use giant stars for baseline, as those are the lowest end.

You know what that'd probably be the safer choice yeah

Anyway, reason we don't do that is that the sun is our agreed upon standard star for getting star parameters. If you have stars and no better guess you use the sun. Universe level is an exception as basically all stars in existence are involved.

Fair enough (and using UY Scuti for everything would be weird anyway)

So, I assume you have taken a closer look at those papers. Which radius is the best to use for our high-end star in your opinion?

I have, and rather conveniently, both lists have the model-stats of a maximum mass Neutron/Quark Star with a mass of 2.07 Solar Masses, giving both the GBE and the Radius, as such, the calculation is being slightly modified with the new radius. (Re is radius, taking into account the Elliptical bulge thanks to various external forces)

(Also, while the Quark Star with a mass of 1.2 something Solar Masses, and radius of 7.3-ish kilometers would have a cross sectional area ~2.84 times smaller than the Big Boi being used, it's GBE would probably be less than the 1.40 Solar Mass neutron stars on the first list, making it 3-4 times less durable, meaning it'd be easier to destroy at a distance than the Big Boi.)

 

[Antvasima]

So has this change been sufficiently accepted to be applied now, and if so, would DontTalk or one of our administrators here be willing and able to properly handle it please?

 

[KLOL506]

Y'all come to a conclusion on what to use?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

So has this cjange been sufficiently accepted to be applied now, and if so, would DontTalk or one of our administrators here be willing and able to properly handle it please?

Yes, this is the case.

... This is fine, I guess.

I agree with the change, though I am the one who proposed it.

This should be fine

 

[KLOL506]

All this needs to be put in a blog first BTW.

 

[KLOL506]

You know what that'd probably be the safer choice yeah

Fair enough (and using UY Scuti for everything would be weird anyway)

I have, and rather conveniently, both lists have the model-stats of a maximum mass Neutron/Quark Star with a mass of 2.07 Solar Masses, giving both the GBE and the Radius, as such, the calculation is being slightly modified with the new radius. (Re is radius, taking into account the Elliptical bulge thanks to various external forces)

(Also, while the Quark Star with a mass of 1.2 something Solar Masses, and radius of 7.3-ish kilometers would have a cross sectional area ~2.84 times smaller than the Big Boi being used, it's GBE would probably be less than the 1.40 Solar Mass neutron stars on the first list, making it 3-4 times less durable, meaning it'd be easier to destroy at a distance than the Big Boi.)

Also what about this?

 

[ElajRuengies]

All this needs to be put in a blog first BTW.

Done- https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:ElajRuengies/Updated_Baseline_Universe_level_Requirement

 

[ElajRuengies]

Also what about this?

That just changed the radius from 13 kilometers to 12.336 kilometers

 

[KLOL506]

That just changed the radius from 13 kilometers to 12.336 kilometers

Ah. I see. Okay then.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Done- https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:ElajRuengies/Updated_Baseline_Universe_level_Requirement

As a question, since PSR J0348+0432 has a mass 2.01 suns would that effect which end we use or are we just going with a theoretical maximum end?

EDIT: I see the basis of the calc was different from what I was thinking. Never mind, I think this is fine then.

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate if @DontTalkDT and other calc group members here respond to the following blog please, as a single official confirmation does not seem sufficient for updating our standards.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:ElajRuengies/Updated_Baseline_Universe_level_Requirement

 

[Huzy]

This is hilarious. You guys have looked at energy values with M ☉ (Solar Mass) as the unit and somehow determined it to be a multiplier of the Sun's Gravitational Binding Energy instead of the energy simply being listed in terms of mass (hence the unit used is one for quantifying mass).

Secondly, you guys have completely ignored the per nucleon energy values (the values under E/A). There are 10⁵⁷ neutrons in a neutron star. Multiply that by the per nucleon energy values given in the paper and you should get your result in the 10⁴⁶ joules range.

 

[ElajRuengies]

This is hilarious. You guys have looked at energy values with M ☉ (Solar Mass) as the unit and somehow determined it to be a multiplier of the Sun's Gravitational Binding Energy instead of the energy simply being listed in terms of mass (hence the unit used is one for quantifying mass).

[Googles Mass-Energy of the Sun]
[Multiplies 1.7877139260254E+47 J by 0.57]
[Is about 10^47 Joules]
.
.
.
Huh. Well would you look at that.

In my defense, this was what @Qawsedf234 said.

Secondly, you guys have completely ignored the per nucleon energy values (the values under E/A). There are 10⁵⁷ neutrons in a neutron star. Multiply that by the per nucleon energy values given in the paper and you should get your result in the 10⁴⁶ joules range.

[202.78 Mega-Electronvolts or 202.78 million electronvolts * 10^57 divided by 6.242*10^18 electron volts per Joule]
[It's 3.24863826×10^46 Joules]
[Since the number of neutrons in a neutron star was an order of magnitude estimate, not an exact number, that's close enough]

Yeah that checks out.

 

[Antvasima]

This is hilarious. You guys have looked at energy values with M ☉ (Solar Mass) as the unit and somehow determined it to be a multiplier of the Sun's Gravitational Binding Energy instead of the energy simply being listed in terms of mass (hence the unit used is one for quantifying mass).

Secondly, you guys have completely ignored the per nucleon energy values (the values under E/A). There are 10⁵⁷ neutrons in a neutron star. Multiply that by the per nucleon energy values given in the paper and you should get your result in the 10⁴⁶ joules range.

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Damage3245 @Agnaa

 

[Agnaa]

I don't know enough about the paper at hand to parse which interpretation is correct.

I also don't know much about astrophysics, but I wouldn't expect neutron count * per neutron energy to give us GBE, or anything equivalent to it.

 

[Huzy]

I don't know enough about the paper at hand to parse which interpretation is correct.

I also don't know much about astrophysics, but I wouldn't expect neutron count * per neutron energy to give us GBE, or anything equivalent to it.

The paper lists Gravitational Binding Energy values per nucleon under Eg/A.

 

[KLOL506]

[Googles Mass-Energy of the Sun]
[Multiplies 1.7877139260254E+47 J by 0.57]
[Is about 10^47 Joules]
.
.
.
Huh. Well would you look at that.

In my defense, this was what @Qawsedf234 said.

[202.78 Mega-Electronvolts or 202.78 million electronvolts * 10^57 divided by 6.242*10^18 electron volts per Joule]
[It's 3.24863826×10^46 Joules]
[Since the number of neutrons in a neutron star was an order of magnitude estimate, not an exact number, that's close enough]

Yeah that checks out.

So, what now?

 

[ElajRuengies]

I don't know enough about the paper at hand to parse which interpretation is correct.

I also don't know much about astrophysics, but I wouldn't expect neutron count * per neutron energy to give us GBE, or anything equivalent to it.

It's not neutron energy, it's Et (the GBE binding energy) divided by the number of nucleons.