Another curious thought: The neutron star. 

Could these fairly well-known objects be composed of UDH, instead of neutrons?

The concept of UDH was not around when these objects were first studied and 
named and of course no one has ever been close to one- or even done an 
experiment which confirms that any large mass of neutrons would be possible. In 
fact all laboratory efforts to bind neutrons to each other suggest there is no 
stable way to do this in small groupings. Yet that complete failure to bind 
neutrons has not deterred Astronomers as they had no other option.

A neutron star is the collapsed core of a large star which before collapse had 
a total of between 10 and 30 solar masses and 99% of that mass was hydrogen – 
with almost no neutrons. Therefore Ockham would say the simplest answer is that 
in the end - two forms of hydrogen are involved in this type of object – not a 
wholesale transformation of one form to another form which is known to decay.

Neutron stars result from a supernova explosion combined with gravitational 
collapse but it happens too fast for complete conversion into neutrons, plus 
once formed, the star no longer actively generates heat, and that suggests the 
hydrogen has become dark matter, whatever that is – possibly WIMPS which are 
themselves composed of UDH in its most stable form. But not a complete 
transformation in a short time to neutrons. 

The Universe is a simpler place to explain as being composed of mostly hydrogen 
in different forms, especially since there is no doubt that neutrons decay over 
time and protons do not. Most of the basic models for the supernova collapse 
imply that they in the end they are composed almost entirely of neutrons when a 
few hours before there was almost no neutrons at all, but the theorists that 
developed these models did not have knowledge of any other dense form of matter 
with no net charge (to work with in creating the model) – that is ... before 
Holmlid came along with the UDH concept.

Perhaps it is time to revisit neutron stars with other thinking but of course 
that would only happen when Holmlid is independently confirmed. It is premature 
to do so now.

When this happens, my suggestion is that we honor Holmlid and rename the 
neutron star as the Holmlid star.

Reply via email to