Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: acsinuk on 26/02/2020 22:45:12
-
Well done Tommy, I think you are correct in your assumptions. The sun/stars generate sunshine by nuclear fissioning of matter or anti-matter and over centuries lose weight and gradually fade to red dwarfs. Where has all that energy gone? Between the stars is a border where the incoming starlight balances the outgoing sunlight so in fact the energy must be going its own systems planets moons and asteroids of course. So what are the planets doing with the energy ? Well we are not getting hotter so the inner core must be building up more complex molecules of matter and pushing them upwards into the lava which erupts in volcanoes and builds up the planet.
-
Thank you acsinuk, for your post. This particular approach to energy applies to our own make-up. And everything else of course. Mankind's understanding of 'what is' is hampered by knowledge, knowledge itself being part of the energy system in constant change.
-
Well done Tommy, I think you are correct in your assumptions. The sun/stars generate sunshine by nuclear fissioning of matter or anti-matter and over centuries lose weight and gradually fade to red dwarfs. Where has all that energy gone? Between the stars is a border where the incoming starlight balances the outgoing sunlight so in fact the energy must be going its own systems planets moons and asteroids of course. So what are the planets doing with the energy ? Well we are not getting hotter so the inner core must be building up more complex molecules of matter and pushing them upwards into the lava which erupts in volcanoes and builds up the planet.
No. So many errors here.
•Stars, in general produce energy during fusion processes, not fission (no antimatter involved, unless you count anti-neutrinos)
•There may well be a boundary where the flux of energy going each way is the same, but I think you should try thinking about where those boundaries are. For example, we are clearly much closer to the sun than the boundary is (we can tell because daylight is so much brighter than starlight--ie the amount of light reaching us from our nearest star is much more than from all other stars combined.) Even out as far as Pluto, the sun is several hundred times brighter than the rest of the stars combined. So the planets and asteroids are not being warmed up due to this proposed effect.
•Typically increasing temperature leads to smaller molecules, not larger ones.
-
The sun/stars generate sunshine by nuclear fissioning of matter or anti-matter
no antimatter involved, unless you count anti-neutrinos
There are some steps in hydrogen fusion which produce positrons, which are antimatter.
- This occurs when a proton decays into a neutron, producing a positron and a neutrino.
- These positrons immediately react with nearby electrons to produce gamma rays...
See diagram at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Hydrogen_fusion
over centuries lose weight and gradually fade to red dwarfs.
Only about 0.1% of the mass is lost when fusing hydrogen to helium - and not much more in fusing helium to iron.
However, stars lose 50% or more of their mass than this when progressing through red giant phase and shrinking to a dwarf star.
This loss of mass does not come about from producing energy, but from more mundane causes like the stellar wind causing the outer fringes of their diffuse red-giant atmosphere to drift off into space, forming a "planetary nebula" (even though it has nothing to do with planets).
Larger stars undergo a more dramatic weight-loss process, the supernova...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula#Origins
-
Wiki quote "(nuclear fusion of four protons to form a helium-4 nucleus[18]) is the dominant process that generates energy in the cores of main-sequence stars."
But if the sun is made of anti-matter then the central H+ ions will be H- ions and these 4 negatrons will produce the anti-Helium which are surrounded by their positron shell enclosure. Just hope Parker probe can identify the difference of matter in electron enclosures from anti-matter in positron enclosures.
-
if the sun is made of anti-matter then...these 4 negatrons will produce the anti-Helium
It isn't, so it doesn't.
The solar wind represents the Sun shedding the outer part of its atmosphere - and the Parker Solar Probe is looking at the mechanisms propelling the solar wind, as it plunges deeper and deeper into the Sun's outer atmosphere.
If the Sun were made of anti-protons (or anti-helium), the Parker Solar Probe would be blasted by gamma rays as the antimatter annihilated with the normal matter of the space probe, frying the electronics and killing the mission.
But we didn't need to wait for the Parker solar probe to discover this - the solar wind is continually striking the Earth's atmosphere, producing the polar auroras. If the Sun were made of antimatter, the aurora would not be greens and reds, but gamma rays and X-Rays.
if the sun is made of anti-matter then the central H+ ions will be H- ions and these 4 negatrons will produce the anti-Helium which are surrounded by their positron shell enclosure. Just hope Parker probe can identify the difference of matter in electron enclosures from anti-matter in positron enclosures.
The temperature of the Sun is over 5000C at the surface, and progressively hotter as you progress inwards, reaching somewhere around 15 million C in the core.
At these temperatures, hydrogen and helium do not form atoms, but form a plasma, where the electrons are not attached to any nucleus, but are all floating around freely. So the electrons/positrons do not form "enclosures" around the nucleus.
The Sun is made of "normal" matter, so there are no "negatrons"/anti-protons doing nuclear fusion. The proton-proton chain of nuclear fusion does produce anti-electrons/positrons in the core, but these are very ephemeral, immediately annihilating with electrons in the plasma, and producing gamma rays in the core. By the time this heat percolates to the surface of the Sun, most of the radiation is in infra-red, visible and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum.
The Proton-Proton chain is the dominant source of power for the Sun. In larger stars, the alternative CNO cycle dominates, and this does not produce positrons as a byproduct.
Go back and reread this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Hydrogen_fusion
-
. To balance the solar system should contains roughly equal amounts of positron enclosed anti-matter in the sun as there is electron enclosed planetary matter in the planets, moons and asteroids. To stop electrostatic annihilation the negative matter must be spun around its star magnetically. These dark energy/matter forces are all electro-magnetic. If Parker probe gets too near the sun it will be annihilated and not crash.
-
Well, in new theories I can at least link everyone to the magnoflux3d electric universe website " https://magnoflux3d.wordpress.com/ " so that you can see the images understand the logic behind having electrostatic dark energy repulsion of stars causing the universe to expand using and the electromagnetic magnoflux spin effect to provide the rotation of not only planets with a dark matter force but also to spin stars into spiral galaxies around a magnetic hub also known as a black hole. I did put links in my answers on the other board but they were unfortunately removed..
-
No, the Sun is not made of antimatter. If it was, then the solar wind would be made of antimatter as well. But it isn't, as solar wind has been sampled and found to be made of normal matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(spacecraft)#Sample_extraction_and_results
-
The electric positive H+ ions in the solar wind are absolutely necessary to balance the negatron emission of magnoflux light that to us is sunshine and warms us up. Everything must balance electrically for the magnoflux hypothesis to work.
-
" Is the sun made of antimatter?"
No
Because science.
-
Because existing scientists see a stars absorption spectrum and claim it is an emission spectrum. You cannot think of landing on a star as you will be annihilated. When Parker does its final approach we will see whether it crashes or just disappears??
IMHO stars are definitely made of positive charged anti-matter, end of story!!
-
IMHO stars are definitely made of positive charged anti-matter, end of story!!
"IMHO" means "in my humble opinion". Opinions are weak in science. Evidence is far more preferable.
-
IMHO stars are definitely made of positive charged anti-matter, end of story!!
If you opinion doesn't tally with the observed universe then
it's not a humble opinion and
it's not reality that has got it wrong.
You calso can't sensibly say end of story!!
while explicitly waiting for (yet another) experiment to test the idea.
When Parker does its final approach we will see whether it crashes or just disappears??
(And, incidentally, that's not a question so it doesn't even need one question mark, never mind two.)
-
To balance the solar system should contains roughly equal amounts of positron enclosed anti-matter in the sun as there is electron enclosed planetary matter in the planets, moons and asteroids.
The stars and their accompanying planets must be made of the same kind of matter because they form from the same gas clouds. We can see via telescope protoplanetary disks surrounding some young stars. Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen have the same mass, same total charge, same radius, etc. There is therefore no reason for antimatter to conveniently clump in the middle while normal matter moves to the outer regions of the disk. Both matter and antimatter would react the same way to gravity and centrifugal forces.
-
Remember the WMAP results.The universe only contains 4.5% of the matter needed to balance and stabilize the galaxies. Classic physics then dreams up dark energy and dark matter which astronomers can't find to explain the 95% error.
What I am explaining is that it will balance perfectly if you take the dark energy electrostatic repulsion force which is 23 times stronger than the gravity force and add to this the dark magnetic matter force; with its magnoflux spin force of 6.3 times gravity force at right angles then the universe is electro-magnetically balanced
-
Remember the WMAP results.The universe only contains 4.5% of the matter needed to balance and stabilize the galaxies. Classic physics then dreams up dark energy and dark matter which astronomers can't find to explain the 95% error.
What I am explaining is that it will balance perfectly if you take the dark energy electrostatic repulsion force which is 23 times stronger than the gravity force and add to this the dark magnetic matter force; with its magnoflux spin force of 6.3 times gravity force at right angles then the universe is electro-magnetically balanced
Whatever.
If your idea requires that the sun is antimatter then your idea is wrong.
-
What I am explaining is that it will balance perfectly if you take the dark energy electrostatic repulsion force which is 23 times stronger than the gravity force and add to this the dark magnetic matter force; with its magnoflux spin force of 6.3 times gravity force at right angles then the universe is electro-magnetically balanced
So what evidence do you have that there is some kind of "dark energy electrostatic repulsion force" that is 23 times stronger than gravity or a "magnoflux spin force" that is 6.3 times stronger than gravity?
-
The evidence is obvious that the stars and sun are showing an absorption spectrum. The idea that this reversal is caused by the steam/gases in the corona has not been proven.
It would be great if we could meet at a nearby university and check whether in fact the spectrum does reverse when we view a hot object through any gases of your choosing. When and where can we meet??
-
The evidence is obvious that the stars and sun are showing an absorption spectrum.
Matter and antimatter have identical spectra (within experimental error): https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/alpha-observes-light-spectrum-antimatter-first-time
So what does the absorption spectrum have to do with evidence of antimatter in the Sun?
-
Whatever your view is on the Greenhouse effect, I presume you accept that the atmosphere absorbs some wavelengths of radiation.
It would be great if we could meet at a nearby university and check whether in fact the spectrum does reverse when we view a hot object through any gases of your choosing.
OK,
I choose to observe the spectrum of the sun through the Earth's atmosphere.
When and where can we meet??
We can start with your local library or search engine.
We know, for example, that ozone in the upper atmosphere absorbs short wave UV
-
The CERN experiment shows that the wavelength of a H+ matter and H- antimatter are exactly the same but does not mention whether the spectrum was a black absorption line or blue/green emission line so we still need to get this confirmation from them. If its absorption then stars are made of antimatter, period.
-
The CERN experiment shows that the wavelength of a H+ matter and H- antimatter are exactly the same but does not mention whether the spectrum was a black absorption line or blue/green emission line so we still need to get this confirmation from them.
Then you didn't read the article very carefully. It says:
Within experimental limits, the result shows no difference compared to the equivalent spectral line in hydrogen. This is consistent with the Standard Model of particle physics, the theory that best describes particles and the forces at work between them, which predicts that hydrogen and antihydrogen should have identical spectroscopic characteristics.
The article clearly states that their spectroscopic characteristics are identical to each other, not the opposite of each other. Here is yet another article about the same subject: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/12/first-observation-of-antimatters-spectrum-looks-like-regular-matter/ The title itself says that antihydrogen's spectrum is indistinguishable from that of hydrogen. If it's indistinguishable, then matter and antimatter do not have opposite spectra: antihydrogen's absorption spectrum does not look like hydrogen's emission spectrum. It looks like hydrogen's absorption spectrum instead.
If you understood how anti-atoms were structured, you would understand why the absorption spectra are identical. It takes the same amount of energy to excite the positron in antihydrogen as it does to excite the electron in hydrogen because both are bound to their respective nuclei by the same amount of force.
Perhaps you would like to read the paper about the experiment itself: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0017-2.pdf
It says:
We find that the shape of the spectral line agrees very well with that expected for hydrogen and that the resonance frequency agrees with that in hydrogen to about 5 kilohertz out of 2.5×1015 hertz.
This is another confirmation that the spectra are the same, not opposites.
-
What we want is to see the visual spectroscope image. We do not dispute the frequency vibration and energy are the same for both the matter and antimatter variants, it is just whether is it an absorption or emission spectrum that needs clarification.
-
No clarification needed... They are talking about absorption spectra of antihydrogen, and comparing to absorption of hydrogen.
-
What we want is to see the visual spectroscope image. We do not dispute the frequency vibration and energy are the same for both the matter and antimatter variants, it is just whether is it an absorption or emission spectrum that needs clarification.
Then go look at it. It's in the last paper I linked (fig 3.). The spectral line follows the same curve as that for hydrogen. The standard model predicts that the absorption spectrum of matter and absorption spectrum of antimatter should look the same. Do you really thing these researchers are morons and don't know how to tell the difference between something being the same and something being the opposite of expectations? That's like arguing that you can't tell the difference between having one million dollars in the bank and being one million dollars in debt. If it was the opposite of expectations, they would have made it abundantly clear.
If you had read this quote of mine...
If you understood how anti-atoms were structured, you would understand why the absorption spectra are identical. It takes the same amount of energy to excite the positron in antihydrogen as it does to excite the electron in hydrogen because both are bound to their respective nuclei by the same amount of force.
...you would realize that it doesn't even make physical sense for antimatter to have an emission spectrum that looks like matter's absorption spectrum.
-
The CERN experiment shows that the wavelength of a H+ matter and H- antimatter are exactly the same but does not mention whether the spectrum was a black absorption line or blue/green emission line so we still need to get this confirmation from them. If its absorption then stars are made of antimatter, period.
The conservation of energy requires that the wavelengths of emission and absorption spectra are the same.
So it doesn't "matter" ;full stop.
If you think it does , that's just further evidence of your lack of understanding of science.
For what it's worth, the measured spectrum was almost certainly an emission spectrum. It's much easier to measure.
-
What we want is to see the visual spectroscope image.
Why?
Visually, you can't tell hydrogen's spectrum from deuterium's.
The differences between hydrogen and antihydrogen, if they exist at all, are many millions of times smaller.
-
One reason the sun cannot be made of matter and anti-matter, is the sun does not burn itself out in short time. A Matter and Antimatter sun would have the proper fuel to oxidizer ratio, (to use the term oxidizer loosely) for a runaway chain reaction. The sun would burn itself in a very short time, with blazing glory, Instead, it burns slow and steady, suggestive of a controlled burn. This would require a way to segregate the matter and anti-matter.
The observed controlled burn of the sun, also suggest that existing theory may have a problem, A large fusion core in a middle of a hydrogen based sun, also has a good fuel setup for a gobal chain reaction.. Why does the sun, using existing theory, not chain react into a blaze of glory? How does the sun's fusion core limit the input of hydrogen fuel or how does it limit the expansion of fusion outward, so the sun can last for billions of years?
-
One reason the sun cannot be made of matter and anti-matter, is the sun does not burn itself out in short time. A Matter and Antimatter sun would have the proper fuel to oxidizer ratio, (to use the term oxidizer loosely) for a runaway chain reaction. The sun would burn itself in a very short time, with blazing glory, Instead, it burns slow and steady, suggestive of a controlled burn. This would require a way to segregate the matter and anti-matter.
The observed controlled burn of the sun, also suggest that existing theory may have a problem, A large fusion core in a middle of a hydrogen based sun, also has a good fuel setup for a gobal chain reaction.. Why does the sun, using existing theory, not chain react into a blaze of glory? How does the sun's fusion core limit the input of hydrogen fuel or how does it limit the expansion of fusion outward, so the sun can last for billions of years?
No need for anything complicated; the reaction is fairly slow, mainly because the nuclei that have to react are positively charged and strongly repel eachother.
-
Exactly so, the suns output is limited/stabilized by the planetary matter returning electrons that magnetically helix around the incoming H+ ions in the solar wind. Planets can't just absorb positive charge without completing the electric circuit. Its like electricity you need two wires to get a flow of current round and balance the system. When the return electron hits the sun it cancels a positron which releases a negative neutrons worth of light energy to the planetary object and we stay warm.
-
Exactly so, the suns output is limited/stabilized by the planetary matter returning electrons that magnetically helix around the incoming H+ ions in the solar wind. Planets can't just absorb positive charge without completing the electric circuit. Its like electricity you need two wires to get a flow of current round and balance the system. When the return electron hits the sun it cancels a positron which releases a negative neutrons worth of light energy to the planetary object and we stay warm.
You do know that the Sun also produces electrons, don't you?
Because they are much lighter than protons they don't carry much momentum so they are not considered an important part of the "solar wind".
But they are there- otherwise the negative charge would build up on teh SUn.
No need for poistrons or anything like that.
Just common-or-garden electrons.
And the Sun is still not made of antimatter.
-
One reason the sun cannot be made of matter and anti-matter, is the sun does not burn itself out in short time. A Matter and Antimatter sun would have the proper fuel to oxidizer ratio, (to use the term oxidizer loosely) for a runaway chain reaction. The sun would burn itself in a very short time, with blazing glory, Instead, it burns slow and steady, suggestive of a controlled burn. This would require a way to segregate the matter and anti-matter.
The observed controlled burn of the sun, also suggest that existing theory may have a problem, A large fusion core in a middle of a hydrogen based sun, also has a good fuel setup for a gobal chain reaction.. Why does the sun, using existing theory, not chain react into a blaze of glory? How does the sun's fusion core limit the input of hydrogen fuel or how does it limit the expansion of fusion outward, so the sun can last for billions of years?
No need for anything complicated; the reaction is fairly slow, mainly because the nuclei that have to react are positively charged and strongly repel eachother.
Wouldn't solar flares and sun spots, which reflect vastly different amounts of energy reaching the surface, suggest there is a variability in the amount of the fusion? Why not just solar flares or just sun spots all the time instead, of cycling back and forth? This suggest that the fuel flux is cyclically rate limiting. During higher fuel pulses we get flares.
Charges will indeed repel. However, a charge in motion will create a magnetic field. Similar charges moving in opposite directions will attract each other through their magnetic fields. So again, what prevents fusion from running away, seeing fusion is highly exothermic? The charge repulsion is similar to an activation energy. The activation energy hill is lowered by the degree of the magnetic attraction; charges in motion. Once the reactants reach the top of the energy hill, fusion reactions proceed very vigorously. Particle accelerators use the same principle; magnetic can overcome charge repulsion and nuclear binding energies.
As positive charge is evacuated from the core due to the "nuke burn", their directional magnetic flux will induce a counter current magnetic induction. This draw in hydrogen proton fuel supply back toward the core. My theory is the fuel flux is somehow rate limited due to pressure induced phase affects. Materials behave differently as pressure increase.
In our early earth, iron appears to have sunk to the core of the earth due to its high density, relative to the other molten materials. In terms of the sun, this same density logic may not apply.
If iron was present inside the early sun, since it is part of our early solar system cloud of material, it would be highly ionized due to the core heat. On the otter hand, atoms like oxygen which are also common to our early solar system, would b fully ionized since they are smaller. As such, the elections remaining in the iron would make it less dense than fully ionized oxygen. Elections take up a lot of space compared to naked nuclei.
As an analogy, if I take a cube of iron it will sink in water. This is the earth phase analogy. If I fabricate that same piece of iron into the hull of a small ship, it will float in water. The inner electrons of iron will make it float above the core of the sun de to the high temperate and pressures, even though iron will sink at lower temperatures and pressures like it does in the earth. The result is a heavy material shell that floats above and surrounds the fusion core, that limits the rate of fuel diffusion into the fusion core. Smaller fully ionized atoms can pack denser and can enter the core as fuel.
If the fusion was to get hotter; solar flare, this will further ionize the shell. Less electrons will make it denser causing it to sink toward the core. This increases shell density and pinches off the fuel supply. As the fusion core cools; sun spot, the shell will gain electrons. This causes it to gets less dense and float higher, This allows more fuel to enter. The phase density affect allows the core to regulate solar burn.
Because we have a shell of heavier atoms, fusion heat induced particles fluxes, will be accelerated outward from the core, and bang off the heavy material shell, to create even more higher atoms. The current model does not have a shell, so this extra step is not possible. This model create a huge particle accelerator and shell target, for higher atom and exotic particle formation.
As larger atoms form over time, and the shell increases in thickness, fusion can become more and more fuel limiting, even as it cools. The result can be an over cooling of the core and an expansion of the shell, leading to an eventual huge surge of fuel into the smoldering core. This can cause a huge fusion surge that will blow off all or part of the shell; solar system. This blowout cleans the pipes, allowing the sun to become efficient again.
Conceptually the inner planets of a solar system could have formed from the blown out shell of a solar pipe clean out. Most stars do not have solar systems. Theu may need to form from a secondary step. If the blow out is not too vigorous, the materials stay contained in space, this can regenerates the star with its planets. Other stars might blow out one side; weaker side, with a huge particle streamer. Still others explodes never to be seen again.
-
Wouldn't solar flares and sun spots, which reflect vastly different amounts of energy reaching the surface, suggest there is a variability in the amount of the fusion?
No.
Because they are on the surface of the Sun, and the fusion takes place in the core where the temperature and pressure are much higher.
Charges will indeed repel. However, a charge in motion will create a magnetic field. Similar charges moving in opposite directions will attract each other through their magnetic fields. So again, what prevents fusion from running away, seeing fusion is highly exothermic?
You seem not to realise that, in a way, the Sun is a runaway reaction. But it is running "flat out".
There is a feedback pathway- if it got hotter it would expand.
And if that happened the nuclei would be further apart (on average) so they would hit each other less often and the reaction would slow down.
No need for anything complicated.
As positive charge is evacuated from the core due to the "nuke burn",
Charge is conserved, not just in the fusion processes of the Sun but, as far as we are aware, in all possible processes.
The rest of you stuff makes no sense. I'd have to write it off as "not even wrong".
-
negative neutrons
Neutrons are not negative.
-
Thanks for the correction Kryptid. Yes, you consider the neutrons to be electrically neutral but neutral to what? The touchable outside enclosure shells of course. In the case of matter in electron shells this would be negative but if the sun corona is antimatter hydrogen and helium gas in positron shells then the touchable shell is positive.
-
Yes, you consider the neutrons to be electrically neutral
Take care with your wording. You make it sound as if it is my opinion that neutrons are electrically-neutral. It is not my opinion. It is the observed reality.
but neutral to what?
All electric charges. That's what being electrically-neutral means.
The touchable outside enclosure shells of course.
Touchable outside shell? Why not just call them valence shells, as they are in atomic physics and chemistry?
but if the sun corona is antimatter
It isn't. Haven't you been paying attention to our posts? There is zero evidence for the assertion that any significant portion of the Sun is antimatter (while there is significant evidence that it is not). The absorption spectrum of antimatter is identical to matter.
-
How does the sun's fusion core limit the input of hydrogen fuel or how does it limit the expansion of fusion outward, so the sun can last for billions of years?
The rate-limiting step in a star the size of the Sun is:
proton + proton -> deuterium (=bound proton+neutron) + neutrino + positron
The protons are both positively charged, and when they collide, they just repel each other, and fly away again (no reaction).
- Helium-2 is extremely unstable!
However, if, at the very instant that two protons collide, one of the protons decays into a neutron (+shrapnel), then you can form Hydrogen-2 = Deuterium, which is stable
- This coincidence is extremely unlikely, as the decay of a proton into a neutron is mediated by the weak nuclear force, which operates on long timescales compared to the strong nuclear force.
- Deuterium, once formed, fuses very easily to form the familiar Helium-4 nucleus, which is extremely stable (and releases lots of energy)
- In fact, Deuterium fuses so easily, that even brown dwarfs, about a dozen times bigger than Jupiter are able to fuse Deuterium, even though they can't fuse ordinary Hydrogen (they don't have enough temperature and pressure).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Hydrogen_fusion
The other rate-limiting step is temperature and pressure. If you double the mass of a star, the temperature and pressure in the core increases, and the rate of fusion increases by a factor of around 16.
- That's why red dwarf stars (with a mass perhaps half the Sun) will outlast the Sun by billions of years.
-
How does the sun's fusion core limit the input of hydrogen fuel or how does it limit the expansion of fusion outward, so the sun can last for billions of years?
The rate-limiting step in a star the size of the Sun is:
proton + proton -> deuterium (=bound proton+neutron) + neutrino + positron
The protons are both positively charged, and when they collide, they just repel each other, and fly away again (no reaction).
- Helium-2 is extremely unstable!
However, if, at the very instant that two protons collide, one of the protons decays into a neutron (+shrapnel), then you can form Hydrogen-2 = Deuterium, which is stable
- This coincidence is extremely unlikely, as the decay of a proton into a neutron is mediated by the weak nuclear force, which operates on long timescales compared to the strong nuclear force.
- Deuterium, once formed, fuses very easily to form the familiar Helium-4 nucleus, which is extremely stable (and releases lots of energy)
- In fact, Deuterium fuses so easily, that even brown dwarfs, about a dozen times bigger than Jupiter are able to fuse Deuterium, even though they can't fuse ordinary Hydrogen (they don't have enough temperature and pressure).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Hydrogen_fusion
The other rate-limiting step is temperature and pressure. If you double the mass of a star, the temperature and pressure in the core increases, and the rate of fusion increases by a factor of around 16.
- That's why red dwarf stars (with a mass perhaps half the Sun) will outlast the Sun by billions of years.
In terms of the original topic," is the sun made of antimatter", the generation of the positron, in the hydrogen-hydrogen reaction, implies the sun generates anti-matter; positrons.
Does the reverse reaction imply anti-matter, as the positron, can be absorbed by matter, such as the neutron, and therefore be off limits to the election, thereby conserving anti-matter within matter itself?
Pressure and temperature play a role in the phase behavior of matter. For example, the core of Jupiter is assumed to be composed of metallic hydrogen. Even with this relatively low T and P, we are no longer dealing with hydrogen as a gas. Instead there is metallic phase containment of the hydrogen with metallic electrons very mobile; shared. This scenario restricts the degrees of freedom of positive charge repulsion, compared to gas phase hydrogen. Circulating elections can stabilize the positive charge repulsion. In the hydrogen bomb they contain hydrogen with lithium to form a solid state salt. This is an easier target.
The higher temperature of the sun can move the reactants up the activation energy hill, further than cold gaseous hydrogen. The net affect are the forward reaction becomes more likely.
What I also brought to the table, in my last post, was the phase behavior of larger atoms at very high pressures and temperatures, like in solar core. High temperature will created ionized phases of atoms, while high pressure will compress these ionized phases. If larger atoms retain inner electrons, they will become fluffier than smaller fully ionized atoms with no elections. Electrons take up a lot of space. There is an inversion of density relative to lower T and P on earth. Iron will not sink to the core of the sun. It will float above a fully ionized smaller atom core.
If we assume our solar system; sun and planets, formed together and our earth and inner planets and asteroids contains iron, than the sun should also have plenty of iron,stemming from its original formation. The iron would have originally concentrated at the center as way to help gravity nucleate sun formation; low T and P density phase. As temperature and pressure increased, there will be an ionization based density inversion of density. The iron will gradually float outward above compressed hydrogen. With a large atom shell, encapsulating the core, core reaction scenarios will change. You can form higher atoms by bombarding the shell. This is not possible in the current scenarios since these model so not assume an ionized phase density inversion.
-
In order to electrically balance the amount of positive charged matter in the universe there must be an equal amount of negative charged matter At the moment physicists have a 1386 dis-balance in mass weight of the two charges and they need to explain this disparity before claiming the standard model is correct,
-
In order to electrically balance the amount of positive charged matter in the universe there must be an equal amount of negative charged matter At the moment physicists have a 1386 dis-balance in mass weight of the two charges and they need to explain this disparity before claiming the standard model is correct,
In our universe, negative charge is connected to the lower mass election and positive charge is connected to the large mass proton.
Since the electromagnetic force or EM force is a unified force composed of electrostatic and magnetic components, the larger mass of the proton causes universal positive charge to move net slower than the lighter election. This reduces the magnetic contribution of the EM force output of universal positive charge, The net affect is that universal negative change has higher EM force potential.
Since the EM force is a unified force, the higher EM force total of negative charge, may also reflect possible tweaks in negative charge potential, since unified means interchangeable.
The impact of mass has an impact on charge via the unified EM force. The net affect is positive and negative charge may not be the same and their choice of mass may halo each balance out better. The obvious connection is mass and magnetism since mass impacts a charge in motion,
-
In order to electrically balance the amount of positive charged matter in the universe there must be an equal amount of negative charged matter At the moment physicists have a 1386 dis-balance in mass weight of the two charges and they need to explain this disparity before claiming the standard model is correct,
Mass and charge are different things. The magnitude of electric charge on the electron is equal to the magnitude of electric charge on the proton. So a hydrogen atom (the most common atom in the Universe) is already "electrically balanced".
-
At the moment physicists have a 1386 dis-balance
What did you think that meant?
-
The inside of atoms and molecules are occupied by electrical charges held apart by the magnoflux spin effect. There is nothing else there.. "Mass and charge are different things" but related as the atomic weight and atomic charge number increase together
If we touch and feel matter we are in fact touching the outside of balanced electric charges. But we are not getting a shock because we are touching the electron shell and all matter is negatively charged including the feel of the inside neutrons.
-
magnoflux spin effect.
No more so than they are held apart by unicorns or the power of prayer.
The touchable outside enclosure shells
More made up phrases without defined meanings or a basis in evidence don't help.
.. "Mass and charge are different things" but related as the atomic weight and atomic charge number increase together
Except when they don't.
In the real world of science, it's occasionally a problem.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2001/ja/b103707m/unauth#!divAbstract
-
"Mass and charge are different things" but related as the atomic weight and atomic charge number increase together
Ever heard of isotopes?
and all matter is negatively charged
Not at all.
including the feel of the inside neutrons.
Neutrons are neutral. I've clarified this before.
-
Neutrons are neutral to what? What are they neutral to? Surely not to the earth ground potential which I have already explain to you is made of negative electron shell enclosures. Please clarify what your reference point is!
-
What are they neutral to?
That makes as little sense as asking "tomatoes are red to what?"
Neutrons are neutral.have already explain to you is made of negative electron shell enclosures.
You may have said that, you may even have said it repeatedly.
You have not even shown that it is meaningful, never mind show that it is true.
Is the sun made of antimatter?
Which part of "no" don't you understand?
-
Neutrons are neutral to what?
The electromagnetic force.
Surely not to the earth ground potential which I have already explain to you is made of negative electron shell enclosures.
They are neutral to all electric charges. That's what it means to be electrically-neutral.
-
There is no such thing as a stable atom that is not made of balancing electric charges. Isotopes can break the mass to charge symmetry but the charges will always balance
-
There is no such thing as a stable atom that is not made of balancing electric charges. Isotopes can break the mass to charge symmetry but the charges will always balance
Nobody said otherwise, except there is no "mass to charge symmetry"; that's just something you made up.