• State Verified Answer
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 6 subscribers
  • Views 95 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

A question from my students about stars. AI responded. Should I accept its credibility?

Laura Massa

Today, while discussing the life cycle of stars, one of my students asked what factor determines whether a massive star becomes a neutron star or a black hole after its explosion. I knew that it depended on the mass of the star but nothing else beyond that, so I asked ChatGPT. Should I consider it as a credible source?  The answer is posted below.   

Whether a massive star becomes a neutron star or a black hole depends primarily on the star's mass after it undergoes a supernova explosion, which is part of the star's final stages of evolution.

Here’s a breakdown:

  1. Neutron Star Formation:

    • When a massive star (between about 8 to 20–25 times the mass of the Sun) exhausts its nuclear fuel, it can no longer support itself against gravity, and its core collapses.
    • The outer layers are ejected in a supernova explosion, and the core is compressed into a very dense object made mostly of neutrons.
    • If the remaining core’s mass (after the explosion) is below a certain limit (about 1.4 to 3 solar masses, called the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit), the pressure from neutrons is enough to halt further collapse, leading to the formation of a neutron star.

  2. Black Hole Formation:

    • If the core's remaining mass exceeds about 3 solar masses, even neutron degeneracy pressure (the force preventing further collapse in a neutron star) cannot stop the gravitational collapse.
    • The core continues to collapse under its own gravity until it forms a black hole, where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, and not even light can escape.

Summary:

  • Neutron star: Forms when the core remnant mass is below the upper limit (~3 solar masses).
  • Black hole: Forms when the core remnant mass exceeds this limit.

The exact boundary between forming a neutron star and a black hole depends on several factors, including the initial mass of the star and the details of the supernova explosion.

  • 0

    Yes, you can accept this answer as reasonable.  By the way, I'm using INTUITION and LOGIC, only because I'm not an AUTHORITY, and can never be 100% on EVIDENCE coming from any source without some corroboration (although I did spend the summer listening to John Green's podcast on space).  And this is what I'd tell the kids in my class using Chat or any other AI.  I'd suggest if it's not believable, or they need to really verify the specifics, then multiple credible sources are required.  No different really than 1985 when I was doing some really important work for Mr. Hanby in my sophomore year.  Even back then I'd check two books, an encyclopedia and some thick book from the back recesses of the library.  What I see now with AI is that the hallucinations are almost zero, and information is being sifted pretty well from the web.  You are going to be getting facts from Chat off a large number of web sources, and luckily Chat will make those comparisons between sources for you in the blink of an eye.  So AI is giving you the best possible answer.  For questions like what you posed, I'd trust it.  There are a ton of great sources for these facts, so it's "common knowledge" in the science community, and they posts thousands of papers a day.   Now,  unless you are baiting me with some fake news just to get me... I'd trust what you collected from my good buddy Chat.

  • 0 in reply to Bryan Dibble

    LOVE your answer,  .  I was also following the LOGIC fairly well.

    But I must admit, I was under the impression that the low-mass stars formed a white dwarf  INSTEAD of exploding as a Supernova. Then the white dwarf could turn into a neutron star.

    I thought only high-mass stars exploded.

  • 0 in reply to Bryan Dibble

    Thank you  for your response. I love your application of claim testers in your answer. Very clever and funny! Slight smile 

    I am grateful for your explanation on the capacity of AI for checking different sources. In fact, after my post, I asked ChatGPT to give me the sources that supported that claim, and it did it, which game me additional confidence on its credibility.

  • +1 in reply to Laura Massa

       I hoped the technology would quickly get to the level to deliver accurate sources.  I was afraid we'd spend half a decade with a half-baked AI.  In just over two years we've seen accurate sourcing and almost non-existent hallucinations.  Next thing to tackle for AI is bias of many types, especially in images.  However AI is only as good as the internet as a whole, so the main obstacles are still the human ones.  I always check the sources AI gives me and I have been pretty impressed.  When back-in-the-day I had to use a card catalog to find sources in 1980s high school and college, I just grabbed the first five books that I found on the topic.  I think we all did.  Pretty much decided my sources because the books were on the same library shelf, or in the same isle.  That was the extent of my source selection.  AI definitely is better than me at finding a variety of sources!  We've come a long way.

    I'm glad you brought up this topic.  Any who read this who might still be on the fence regarding AI are, I hope, encouraged to try it out.  AI is the future, and there are more positives than negative for sure.

  • 0 in reply to Bryan Dibble

    I agree with your comment, At my school, some colleagues are hesitant to use AI, viewing it as a form of plagiarism or a threat to academic integrity.