argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
Thin-crust objection
forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →Pulsar glitches are difficult to explain with strange quark star models
The argument
Because standard glitch models attribute glitches to a superfluid reservoir pinned within a solid crust, and because a strange quark star can carry at most a thin suspended nuclear crust holding a tiny fraction of the moment of inertia, a strange star lacks the reservoir those models require, so glitches, and especially giant Vela-sized glitches, are hard to accommodate. Starquakes in the thin crust fare no better, since the fraction of crustal moment of inertia involved falls short of what large glitches demand.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Pulsar glitches arise from angular momentum transfer by superfluid vortex unpinning in the neutron star crust
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Strange quark stars can support only a thin nuclear crust containing a tiny fraction of the stellar moment of inertia
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.