The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does a star make the neutron?  (Read 6427 times)

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« on: 16/10/2010 16:21:31 »
Vern, I am astounded. That is very close to what I've been thinking. The neutron is very interesting in that we need to figure out how the hydrogen atom can be turned into the neutron in a star. One idea I've been toying with is that the temperature and pressure of a star can collapse the electron wave into a figure eight with the proton at the center of one loop. This would produce a particle that is slightly polarized which is exactly what some new experiments suggest.


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #1 on: 17/10/2010 02:56:15 »
I suspect that atoms are NOT turned into neutrons in a neutron star. I suspect that a state of matter may exist as a shell structure where binding occurrs between the most central shell (shell 4) and the next shell out (shell 3).



This would be a state of matter much more dense than binding between the proton's outer shell (shell 2) and its next to outer shell, (shell 3).

But this is only a hunch. Below is particles to scale as I suspect them to be.

BTW: This state of matter would be a neutral particle of mass equal to two times shell 4 mass plus two times shell 3 mass. And, of course when discovered, it will be hailed as the Higgs.


« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 12:15:50 by Vern »
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #2 on: 17/10/2010 07:02:32 »
Vern, I mentioned creating a paper that will take the square of the shells rule mainstream. This is what I predicted for the Square of the Shells rule. This fits with the Standard Model, and Guage Theories:

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #3 on: 17/10/2010 10:22:31 »
"The radius of the electron has not been determined exactly but it is known to be less than 1 × 10-13 cm"

From http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DannyDonohue.shtml

and

"The radius of a proton is on the order of 10-13 cm"

from
"The radius of a proton is on the order of 10-13 cm"

So Vern's theory says that one is much bigger than the other. Real measurements show that, at best they are the same size. If anything, the proton is bigger.
Conclusion.
Vern's theory is inconsistent with observations and, therefore, wrong.

 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #4 on: 17/10/2010 13:57:45 »
Quote from: Bored chemist
Vern's theory is inconsistent with observations and, therefore, wrong.

Measurements do not find the electromagnetic bounderies of the particles. Therefore the notion that all of naturre might be electromagnetic is is not inconsistent with observations.

Robert: Great work!!

Did you notice how well the notion predicts nuclear dynamics of the strong force? I can not imagine how that could be coincidence.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2010 14:02:39 by Vern »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #5 on: 17/10/2010 19:54:29 »
"Measurements do not find the electromagnetic bounderies of the particles."
Please define "electromagnetic bounderies".
Quantum mechanics makes it rather difficult to define the size of anything on this scale but I think you are still ignoring the observations.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #6 on: 18/10/2010 11:28:17 »
"Measurements do not find the electromagnetic bounderies of the particles."
Please define "electromagnetic bounderies".
Quantum mechanics makes it rather difficult to define the size of anything on this scale but I think you are still ignoring the observations.

I studied the measurements. They used electrons of such energy that they punched right through the fields until they encountered the most inner particle shells. The inner fields were strong enough to deflect the high energy electrons.

That's why the proton and neutron were the same. Both measurements were of the same inner shells, just as predicted by the shells equations.

So I didn't ignore the measurements, I simply noted that they agreed with the predictions of the rule, below.

Calculator Source Code

Output Result:

« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 11:36:41 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #7 on: 18/10/2010 11:39:51 »
Quote from: SuperP
Vern, I mentioned creating a paper that will take the square of the shells rule mainstream. This is what I predicted for the Square of the Shells rule. This fits with the Standard Model, and Guage Theories:
I'll gladly work with you any way you want, Robert, but I'm old now and damn near senile.:) Or so it seems to me when answers don't come as fast as they used to!

« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 12:22:35 by Vern »
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #8 on: 18/10/2010 13:27:26 »
I'm old now and damn near senile.:) Or so it seems to me when answers don't come as fast as they used to!

This is somewhat funny :D. I am not sure your age, but I had lunch with Steven Rado a couple of months ago, he is 90 years old. And although I do have to slow down a little in our physics conversations, he is still sharp, and I don't see dimness in his eyes. He has a wife that is also 90 years old and she proofs all of his work. He still drives, and studies physics, I can see him getting to 100 years easily. So the moral is, maybe, studying physics is the key to LONGEVITY!!

Regarding creating a paper. The Square of the Shells rule is your theory, and had you not pointed out your very close approximations, I am not sure that I would not have even tried to solve proton and neutron structure like that. However, the way that I do physics, I don't just jump on the band wagon of someones crazy ideas. Like I stated in an earlier post I became aware of your Square of the Shells rule in 1992 and used to call you on the telephone for you to explain this mechanism. There was no internet in those days! Then much much later on in my studies, I started seeing that the square of the mass played a fundamental role in Gravity. This was a very suprising result. I then began to remember your Square of the Shells rule in which you are squaring the mass to get to the proton and neutron structure. As I worked out the mathematics, I determined that you, by pure luck stumbled onto something fundmental to how mass self gravitates and attracts other mass. This squaring of the mass is independent of whether you are discussing Aether/Electromagnetic Gravitation or Inertial Mass Gravitation, that is what makes the square of the shells rule fundamental.

You have finally been able to work out the spatial sizes for these particles, I waited years for you to come to an understanding that the from an electromagnetic gravitation perspective, the Electron is much bigger in size than the Proton and Neutron. And that the Proton is bigger in spatial size than the Neutron except for the outer shell of the neutron which actually makes the neutron bigger than the proton; once again from an electromagnetic perspective. This is great! But now you need to work out the spatial sizes for the inertial mass gravitation. There the spatial sizes are reversed; and in my opinion this is where the strong force manifest.

Back to the paper, I am very busy working in other areas, and this subject is way to controversial for me to devote lots of time and energy. I have worked out the mathematics for the mass and energy structure as described in the tables in the pervious  posts. And to me the mathmatics is very beautiful, which is what the SUSY, Guage, and Standard Model physicist are requiring. I don't want to post the mathematics here for various reasons. And the mathematics that you currently possess with your program is sufficient to get results that you need.

I will be able to write the paper, and would only be seeking your two thumbs up of approval. I will not be able to get to the paper until sometime early next year. But if you are not seeking mainstream this will not work, and I will continue to develop slowly and independently. What do I mean by mainstream? You don't mention Quarks in your shells rule. Early on I resisted the quarks concepts. But it appears that the quarks are here to stay; because those that are in charge of mainstream physics will call you a "Crack Pot" without accepting the quarks. I am not, and do not want to be labeled a "Crack Pot." So from my perspective give unto "Caesar" what belongs to "Caesar."
« Last Edit: 18/10/2010 13:31:30 by SuperPrincipia »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #9 on: 19/10/2010 07:12:49 »
They have to use high energy electrons to probe small things- that's the uncertainty principle for you. Does that mean your ideas are untestable?
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #10 on: 19/10/2010 13:58:58 »
Bored Chemist, this is actually a really good question. I am assuming the you conclude that the particle zoo listed above is determined by slamming, typically protons into the nucleus, similar to a car crash and observing what results from the wreck. Hence the particle zoo.

They would use electrons but the energy is not sufficient. Slamming an electron with a proton would be like a forty (40 lb) pound girl running into a two hundred fifty (250 lb) pound football player; this would do no damage to the football player, and the only person that would be hurt is the little girl.

So I am going to assume that you are refering to the spatial sizes of the particles in the zoo. Using the Vernon Brown Square of the Shells Rule, the constituents of the proton and the neutron are in shells similar to layers of an onion.

So if we want to get to the interior of the onion, we could just take a hammer and ram the onion so hard that the onion breaks into very many pieces and this is a total mess. But if we would like to get to a certain part in the center with wisdom, it is wiser to take a knife and apply a little pressure and the top layer of the onion becomes free. Then if we with wisdom apply a little more pressure we can cut deeper and more layers become free. And to get to the core using wisdom, we apply even more pressure than the previous cuts we can get to the core. What this says is that you can not just slam an electron into another object to make the measurements, and like the uncertainity principle states you will destroy what you are trying to measure. But if we had an electron or proton gun in which the intensity of our bullets could vary precisely, we could determine the sizes from an "Electromagnetic" perspective only.

What this means is that the Aether/Electromagnetic spatial size of the "Brown Radius" of the particles can be determined
d(Brown) = (1/2π)*(h/(m*c))

However, there is a concern for the Inertial Mass Gravitation spatial size of the "Schwarzschild Radius"
d(schwarzschild) = 2*(m*G/c²) which may be much much harder to measure on sub atomic scales; if ever. It is easier to make these measurements on cosmological scales (planets, suns, and galaxies).

 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #11 on: 19/10/2010 16:12:25 »
I like that word Super, Zoo. It takes trillions of collisions to produce QM's predictions.That is what they are, predictions. They never put a time that their prediction will occur. A true understanding of the micro Universe will be able to do so. My own feeling is that the Zoo is to complicated. If they must invent hypothetical particles to make it stand up then something is wrong with it. I am about 95% in agreement with your and Vern's ideas.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #12 on: 19/10/2010 16:15:10 »
Quote from: SuperP
You have finally been able to work out the spatial sizes for these particles, I waited years for you to come to an understanding that the from an electromagnetic gravitation perspective, the Electron is much bigger in size than the Proton and Neutron.

I had the sizes down from the beginning. Size comes from the wave length of the photon that makes up the shell, as per the equation you know about.

My main interest right now is the dynamics of the strong force. The model predicts both the dynamics and the strength of the force.

The inner shells are trapped inside the outer shells in the binding. So to come apart, forces must first increase as the inner shells come closer to their captive outer shells.

Anyway it's fun. The source code produces the model and animates the binding.

Source Code Required library Also needed is the SDL library available on line.
« Last Edit: 19/10/2010 16:46:05 by Vern »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #13 on: 19/10/2010 16:18:11 »
They have to use high energy electrons to probe small things- that's the uncertainty principle for you. Does that mean your ideas are untestable?

No, it just means that the measuring device must determine the positive-negative transition point in the shell. This would be a very subtle point requiring exact energy probes.

Edit:
Hofstadter at Stanford discovered this in the sixties. He used probes of 600 MeV and saw nuclear structure in the proton. Hofstadter said that the proton seemed to be a shell structure.

This was at odds with the new QM theory so it was not mentioned in the Nobel Prize awarded Hofstadter.



« Last Edit: 19/10/2010 16:32:20 by Vern »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #14 on: 19/10/2010 18:47:37 »
"Bored Chemist, this is actually a really good question. I am assuming the you conclude that the particle zoo listed above is determined by slamming, typically protons into the nucleus, similar to a car crash and observing what results from the wreck. Hence the particle zoo.

They would use electrons but the energy is not sufficient. Slamming an electron with a proton would be like a forty (40 lb) pound girl running into a two hundred fifty (250 lb) pound football player; this would do no damage to the football player, and the only person that would be hurt is the little girl.
"
Sort of.
It's a bit more like saying that if I throw baseballs at a car and see where I need to throw them to get them to bounce off I can work out the shape of the car to an accuracy of roughly the size of a baseball. If I uses spacehoppers I can only tell the shape of teh car to the nearest "spacehopper".
I can tell a car from a truck using either projectile, but I would struggle to tell two sorts of small car apart.

You are saying that my use of baseballs is not permitted because they have too much energy and so they bounce off something inside the car, or break the windows or some such.
If that's the case, it's going to be impossible to tell the two cars apart.
Actually, it's worse than that but ...
Anyway, saying " This would be a very subtle point requiring exact energy probes." doesn't really help much.
What would you actually need to do? If you can't answer that then you have entered the world of theology. You are saying one thing is bigger than another but it doesn't look like it is, because it changes when you look at it.
I don't see that as science.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #15 on: 19/10/2010 19:07:50 »
You keep assuming that you are trying to measure something solid, like a steel ball.

The actual particles are made of electric and magnetic fields. We can calculate the sizes very easily. Everything we can discover about the particles matches the calculations.

Now if we energize electrons so that they punch right through the outer fields, we don't measure much.

BTW, you seemed to respond to my post but you quoted SuperP.
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #16 on: 19/10/2010 20:00:46 »
It's a bit more like saying that if I throw baseballs at a car and see where I need to throw them to get them to bounce off I can work out the shape of the car to an accuracy of roughly the size of a baseball. If I uses spacehoppers I can only tell the shape of teh car to the nearest "spacehopper".
This is the pretty much the way that I see it!
I can tell a car from a truck using either projectile, but I would struggle to tell two sorts of small car apart.
Arthur Compton, determined that the angle of the projectiles will improve your detection and resolution. And this is pretty much how Radar works. The better your signal processing techniques on the returns, the more you can tell whether you were actually hitting a car or a truck. This sort of radar detection and signal processing is what I do for a living. I am been employed as a Radar Systems Engineer for way too many years.
You are saying that my use of baseballs is not permitted because they have too much energy and so they bounce off something inside the car, or break the windows or some such.
It is this concept that does not fit common sense to the brain; but this is how it is! Quantum Mechanics is not intuitive, because we try and relate the macroscopic world to Quantum Mechanics. When we do this we are proved wrong every time is what history has revealed over the last 100 years.
If you can't answer that then you have entered the world of theology. You are saying one thing is bigger than another but it doesn't look like it is, because it changes when you look at it.
I don't see that as science.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Quantum Mechanics!
But I do agree with Vern, these are not solid objects like steel balls, they are fields, similar to water waves. If someone drops a rock into a pond and you are swimming toward that disturbance, you destroy the waves as you approach. Also Vern’s concept is good for basic description of nature. But not a very accurate picture of these entities. These zoo particles if we could see them would look like three dimensional “Donut Vortices” toroid’s. And free photons that are not bound would look like a “Football Vortices.” The electron because it is very large in size, we should someday be able to see the Donut Vortex shape of the electron. Just keep living long enough to see; now this is “Faith.”
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #17 on: 19/10/2010 20:34:11 »
I am on vacation, and have way too much free time on my hands!

Bored Chemist, I would like to elaborate a bit more on the pond, water waves, and you swimming, to explain even more of how weird Quantum Mechanics is.

If a rock is dropped into a pond of water and you are swimming towards the disturbance, the water would become more dense, and you would be required to expend more energy in your swimming to reach the disturbance; because the fields become more dense nearer to the disturbance!
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #18 on: 20/10/2010 07:19:22 »
"You keep assuming that you are trying to measure something solid, like a steel ball. "
No, I'm not.
I'm not the one citing a diameter to 9 digits.

I'm also more familiar with quantum mechanics than I really want. I have been working with it on and off for nigh 30 years.
I still don't think you can calculate the sizes ab initio and I think it's pointless to say "the measured values are all wrong" unless you have additional evidence.
At the least, we need some experimental design that would verify this notion, before it can be accepted.
Incidentally, water is nearly incompressible so it doesn't change density. Also, since it's a conservative field (with the much-loved caveat that we ignore viscosity) if moving towards it becomes harder then moving away becomes easier. Since staying still takes no energy there must be a net force acting away. That's not what happens. Throw a pebble into a pond and you will see the leaves bob up and down, but they are not moved away by the ripples.
 

Offline SuperPrincipia

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 31
    • View Profile
How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #19 on: 20/10/2010 11:15:17 »
Incidentally, water is nearly incompressible so it doesn't change density. Also, since it's a conservative field (with the much-loved caveat that we ignore viscosity) if moving towards it becomes harder then moving away becomes easier. Since staying still takes no energy there must be a net force acting away. That's not what happens. Throw a pebble into a pond and you will see the leaves bob up and down, but they are not moved away by the ripples.

This is great!! You are right my analogy of water in the pond is not a good description of the nature of quantum mechanics, because as you pointed out the density of water in the pond is constant. If this were a true experiment it is only a metaphor, swimming towards the disturbance in water would not require any additional expenditure of energy. If you have a good stroke going, you could continue that same stroke all the way to the origin of the disturbance without any problem.

Now if we swap the "water" for "molasses" the molasses is even more dense than water, but similar, if you have a good stroke going, you could continue that same stroke all the way to the origin of the disturbance without any problem.

Now, remember we are trying to describe the field/wave nature of the leptons or hadrons (electrons or protons or neutrons) and as you pointed out their field is conservative and compressible, and there is no phenomenon in nature that we are familiar with in the macroscopic world that I can think of that would be a good analogy besides water. Maybe you can?

Now this force that you speak of in our metaphor for water waves, it is the Electrostatic Force, and likewise the Magnetostatic Force that acts on the leaves in our metaphorical water waves. It is precisely these arguments that moved me away from an Electromagnetic/Photon Only Universe, and all of the dead ends that I was running into in 1995 and 1996, to a universe filled with Aether.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

How does a star make the neutron?
« Reply #19 on: 20/10/2010 11:15:17 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums