[Bored chemist]

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

[acsinuk (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[acsinuk (OP)]

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.

[chiralSPO]

No clarification needed... They are talking about absorption spectra of antihydrogen, and comparing to absorption of hydrogen.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[puppypower]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[acsinuk (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[puppypower]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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".

[Kryptid]

negative neutrons

Neutrons are not negative.

[acsinuk (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[evan_au]

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.

[puppypower]

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.

[acsinuk (OP)]

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,