Talk:Degenerate matter

message: The first sentence ('Neutron degeneracy is analogous to electron degeneracy and is demonstrated in neutron stars, which are partially supported by the pressure from a degenerate neutron gas') is fine, but the whole rest of the paragraph is talking about electron degeneracy and the formation of neutron stars, which is talked about in the previous section on electron degeneracy.
The second sentence of the second paragraph sounds like it was written by primitive AI: 'In the case of neutron stars and white dwarfs, this phenomenon is compounded by the fact that the pressures within neutron stars are much higher than those in white dwarfs'. I think what it should say is: 'In the case of neutron stars, this phenomenon is compounded by the fact that the pressures within neutron stars are much higher than those in white dwarfs', and even then, it should come with a citation.
The first sentence of the last paragraph states: 'There is an upper limit to the mass of a neutron-degenerate object, the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit, which is analogous to the Chandrasekhar limit for electron-degenerate objects.' I don't see why you would say 'neutron-degenerate object' when I think what you mean is 'neutron star' - keep it simple & readable.
The section then finishes with these words: 'The theoretical limit for non-relativistic objects supported by ideal neutron degeneracy pressure is only 0.75 solar masses; however, with more realistic models including baryon interaction, the precise limit is unknown, as it depends on the equations of state of nuclear matter, for which a highly accurate model is not yet available. Above this limit, a neutron star may collapse into a black hole or into other possible dense forms of degenerate matter'
I think the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit article gives it a better treatment. It states: 'Theoretical work in 1996 placed the limit at approximately 1.5 to 3.0 solar masses, corresponding to an original stellar mass of 15 to 20 solar masses; additional work in the same year gave a more precise range of 2.2 to 2.9 solar masses... In the case of a rigidly spinning neutron star, the mass limit is thought to increase by up to 18–20%.' I think it's also OK to mention the unrealistic 0.75 solar mass limit for historical purposes too though. I also wonder if thermal pressure caused by friction between different layers and latitudes rotating at different rates would be significant. I don't know if there's any evidence of this in neutron stars, but there is in ordinary stars: https://www.space.com/does-the-sun-rotate
MathewMunro (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has only two references. If you disagree with sentences with references please explain.  Otherwise I would just encourage you to make your edits in logical chunks with edit summaries and have at it. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   I suggest a re-write of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter#Neutron_degeneracy section. 

message: The phrase "he also pointed out that ordinary atoms broadly similar in regards to the filling of energy levels by fermions" in the fourth paragraph seems to be missing an "are" in between "atoms" and "broadly". 155.190.0.9 (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Next time do not hesitate to edit it yourself :-) --ReyHahn (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential typo