Talk:Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit

message: I've created a redirect page from the abbreviation "TOV limit" to here. Mostly this is a convenience for edit summaries and so forth, but it should be handy elsewhere too. --Christopher Thomas 06:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortcut

message: How does this article relate to the Schwarzschild radius?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
Should there be a connection of ideas between these two ideas?
Reddwarf2956 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: r_s = \frac{2 M_{TOV} G}{c^2} 
Pulu (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schwarzschild radius 

message: The article states: "most astrophysicists assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a neutron star above the limit collapses directly into a black hole."  All observed neutron stars have a maximum mass of about 2.0 SM. All observed black holes have a minimum mass of 5 SM. If any 2.0 SM neutron star accretes mass, the mass equivalent gets ejected as gamma rays. Neutron stars do not become black holes unless they get absorbed by an already existing black hole. 72.69.11.171 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The product of neutron star merger GW170817 had a mass close to 2.7 SM after GW emission, and it didn't emit 0.7 SM of gamma radiation. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is unclear what is upper mass for NS. If it is exactly 3 SM or even 2.9 it should'nt. Need more observation data.213.24.134.17 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A large neutron star does not collapse into a black hole 

message: It's bothered me for a while that Wikipedia has lists of most massive stars and most massive black holes but not one for neutron stars, so I figured this article seemed to be a good place to create one as it is relevant to the subject matter. My thanks to WolfmanSF for fixing the table so that it can be sorted by mass. I've tried to include every candidate which realistically could claim to be the most massive neutron star known; there are ten now, and I don't want to add any more unless necessary as the table is already looking a little bloated. Sonicology (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that if the rate of advance of the periastron is based solely on general relativity effects, it gives the total mass of the system  (see eq. 1 here), so since a more inclined orbit is consistent with a more massive companion to account for the NS radial velocities, that implies a less massive primary NS. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, this is the case for all entries measured by rate of advance of periastron. It's part of the reason I felt it was important to include how the mass value was derived. Vela X-1 for example is at the bottom of the table at 1.88 solar masses, but the reference notes that a different inclination gives a mass of 2.27. Ultimately I went with 1.88 because that is the value commonly cited in the literature, and the value the researchers felt best fitted the data. The same is true for PSR J1748-2021B. Personally I would be against adding a caveat for the stated mass figure; it's well understood in astronomy that values are subject to change as better data becomes available, you only have to look at the constant editing of the lists of most massive and most luminous stars to see that in action. With that said I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, although for the sake of consistency I would suggest that if you must leave in the ≤ symbol then we should add similar symbols for all entries measured by rate of advance of periastron (for example adding ≥ for Vela X-1) Sonicology (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of High Mass Neutron Stars 

message: Follow-up work in 2022 argued that V723 Monocerotis does not contain a black hole, but is a mass-transfer binary containing a red giant and a subgiant star that has been stripped of much of its mass.  Voproshatel (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  V723 Monocerotis is not a black hole 

message: Later work found another explanation, namely that the moving star is actually much lighter, but emitting a similar amount of light. In that case there is no need to invoke the presence of a black hole. This explanation is supported by the detection of motion in the hydrogen disk surrounding the other star, with the 40-day period.
  The model with a Be star and a stripped giant star, but no black hole, has been confirmed in a further paper published in 2022.
 Voproshatel (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  HR 6819 (QV Tel) is not a black hole 

message: From spectroscopic measurements, the mass of the black-hole GX 339-4 was found to be at least of 5.8 solar masses. Voproshatel (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GX 339-4 has a slightly different mass. 

message: Analysis in 2012 calculated a mass of . Voproshatel (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GRO J0422+32/V518 Persei has a significantly smaller mass, so it is not in mass gap