The theoretical musings continue.

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
davidtrimmell
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:37 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by davidtrimmell » Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:52 am

Sticky energy. As the primordial "energy" cooled it started to "condense", as the particles grew in mass, then gravity was born. I believe that the understanding of what gravity is, is one of the keys to a unified theory.

David Trimmell

ChrisSmolinski
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:46 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by ChrisSmolinski » Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:56 am

Richard Hull wrote:
>
> CAN ANYONE NAME ONE FORM OF ENERGY THAT IS NOT TRACEABLE TO STELLAR FUSION (gravity at work) OR COULOMBIC ACTION (electrons at work)?
>
> Richard Hull

If, as some theories suggest, [nearly] equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were produced during the big bang, and some of that anti-matter still exists, then you could produce some energy from the annihilation of the matter and anti-matter.

Lots of ifs, and that's the best I could come up with ;-)

Fusion is king. (but only on a large scale)

guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest » Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:03 pm

So was the initial energy source of the big bang, fusion?

Let me throw this in. I have been reading a number of studies that suggest tha the speed of light is decreasing. That the universe is a lot smaller and younger than we think. Some have said the speed of light at the instant of the big bang was 1 billion X faster than it is today.

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12505
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:59 pm

I think a lot of folks may have a wrong idea about mass creation in stellar furnaces. Real, ponderable, inertial mass is indeed created in all fusion processes, but it is without recognizable form in condensed matter!

So unfathomable is this extra mass that it is commonly referred to as "MASS DEFECT". This is effectively the fusion binding energy trapped in fused matter. It is released only in fission or in cataclyismic events for non-fissile material.

Stellar fusion uses ONLY already extant infallen matter (99.999% protons) to make all heavier atoms and certainly all neutrons are fusion products and, likewise, probably the first fusion in stellar furnaces as not one single observed atom save for hydrogen has ever been observed without neutrons. Neutrons are not found in space or as a component of cosmic rays simply due to the short half life of this highly unstable particle. I have always felt that the reason the neutron is stable in an atom is that it is involved in a complex dance with protons sharing its electron in some as yet to be understood electrostatic dance. In short the neutron bound to one or more protons in some nuclear shell arrangement is the nuclear glue. Such gluing can only occur in gravitationally locked matter systems we call stars. The proton electron soup at the core is probably the birth place of neutrons and bulk matter up to a point on the periodic chart where the star's size will not allow further construction. Iron is the accepted limit, but I bet on a grossly reduced basis the fusion probability goes on up the chain to all that we see on earth. The amount of lead or bismuth produced is so low that our spectra analysis can't detect it.

The accepted and somewhat accredited stellar first fusion theory of proton-proton fusion is a joke. Read up on it! It states that two protons fuse and one of them quickly "DECAYS" into a neutron! What an imagination!

The bottom line is that not one single primary charged particle is ever created in a star, by fusion or any known process. In the few observed instances when positrons and anti-protons are seen to form, it is the result of incredible energy releases AROUND BULK MATTER. That is the key....around bulk matter. We never see positrons or anti- protons in cosmic rays. (we do see them is cosmic ray showers as the real ultra energetic charged nuclei entering the atmosphere crash into the atmospheric atoms.) Such energies are rare in the observable universe.

Man makes devices that can really savage matter in the small. He creates non-universal energy densities and thinks that what pours out represents something current and real. The most real particles observed are the vaporous mesons so readily seen in cosmic ray star showers. The bulk of all the crap reaching the ground are mesonic debris. No meson survives beyond 1usec in the real universe and apparently represents a genuine form of proto matter.

Back to the antiproton-positron conundrum. Within a micro second or less of anti-particle creation, the same amount of charge and energy is rebalanced and the anti-particle disappears with the universe retaining the same amount of protons and electrons as before the event but with a crippled and weakened photon. The normal matter particles involved are now moving much faster than before the incident. Charge, energy, momentum, type and form of matter is fully conserved and preserved.

As great a mystery as that of the origin of nascent charge and gravitation associated with bulk matter is the methodology behind the acceleration of the nuclei found in Cosmic ray flux. (nuclei composes about 99.99% of all cosmic radiation) The average energy of the nuclei we detect (mostly protons) is far greater than any accelerator on earth can provide (10e14ev). The upper energy levels are beyond comprehension (10e24-10e26)ev. It appears that the interstellar medium is stirred and accelerated A LOT!

There is apparently a lot of high speed open, unbound coulombic charge moving about the universe. Neutral matter for the most part, just doesn't move except as gravitationally linked mass.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 3:10 am
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 » Tue Sep 16, 2003 4:08 pm

The easiest way to look at the stability of the neutron in the nucleus is that of conservation of energy. Take the deuteron for example. It has a binding energy of 2.2 Mev, while beta decay yields only 1.3 Mev. So the deuteron is infinitely stable, since it would violate conservation of energy if it decayed.

Next example is C12, binding energy of 92.1 MeV, if it beta decayed it would go into N12, which has binding energy of 74 MeV, so beta decay is again prohibited, since 18.1 >> 1.3.

What i don't understand is for radioactive elemnts the undergo beta decay, what determines the half life.

3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:51 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by 3l » Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:06 pm

Hi Greg:

In Quantum Mechanics 509, we learn that the size and charge of the nucleus
determines whether an atom will be radioactive or not and how long the decay is. In elementary chem course we learned that charge imbalance is bad for a nucleus. Too many or too few charges. In the case of the beta decay ,too many neutrons, too few protons. In the advanced course we learned nifty concepts like the nucleus was mostly empty space with charges milling around at high speed. The particles are so small that the energy provided by the enviroment was enough to cause them to move at many km/sec...the lighter the particle the faster it goes. The "skin" of the nucleus is really where the particles are yanked back by attraction. This prevents the escape of those particles.
However if the nucleus is undergoing an imbalance of charge or energy a particle can tunnel out of the nucleus. The probabilty of escape can be calculated to the millisecond if you like by simply taking the depth of the energy well of the nucleus (energy to pull that particle away) vs the energy to form that particle. You would think the little fellow wouldn't have a chance. But by rebounding back and forth against the skin the particle reduces the probabilty by each hit so to speak. The size of a nucleus is pretty tiny so the hits would be several thousand per second.
It takes billions of hits or more to cause a decay. Until the number of hit equals the probality coefficient nothing happens.
But when it does the particle tunnels out of the nucleus and bounds away on it's merry way. Oh yeah most beta decays are fast due to the low mass of the electron...faster movement.
A tip of the hat to Dr Hammidi my advanced nuclear instructor.

PS this method seems to work pretty good on uranium decay natural decay series by alpha decay
It seems to work when a nucleas has too much energy and "boils" away neutrons.(just turn up the heat)
positron decay happens just like beta decay but a proton turns into a neutron

I hope this helps (?)

Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12505
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull » Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:18 pm

Anthony has brought up some interesting points which are vey reasonable questions. Questions for which there appears to be little in the way of evidence. This would opt for an evolving universe with sliding constants which I happen to believe in strongly. I would imagine that in the universe I envision that only potential energy is fixed and inviolate. dynamic energy and all constants we hold dear alter to maintain the PE balance. Dynamic energy (EM, Photon, momentum) being mere secondary reactions acting as conveyance for the exchange and balance of PE.

As regards the big bang.......... this states that all matter was created from an infinitely small point with a virtually infinite amount of energy. I am still working out my thoughts here. I am positive whatever happened evolved exponentially with time as relates to what we call constants and matter particles. I am equally sure that charge and gravity were hear all along, although the relative balance and actions may have evolved to what we observe today, with all the PE perfectly perserved. We are currently on the long slow tail of that exponetial curve where things just aren't changing much per unit time anymore.

As to where the initial creation energy or matter or whatever came from...........you are on your own.....faith-religion..... or just happened kinda' because it did. Your choice.

I have also considered the very real possibility that when the universe as a whole detects a loss of coulombic charge (condensed, neutral, stable matter, that an equal amount of gravitational PE is formed as is actually exhibited in condensed, stable, neutral matter. This helps explain some balancing of the PE, but leaves the mystery still swimming nicely around charge and gravity. We don't know anything about the origins of charge. We are forced to say that it just is! Just as we are forced to admit the same of gravity. We have a smug feeling about charge because we think we have its source pinned down. (protons and electrons) Where did they get there charge? Don't say spin in a magentic field for that is crap. We know that with no charge there is no magnetic field. There is no charge made in or by a magnetic field. It is quite the other way around. All magnetic fields are the result of charges in motion as is all EM and all light and all gamma rays, etc. What is a root cause of motion of charged matter....coulombic force....potential energy.

Lots to cogitate over.

Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled.

One doesn't hear much of the nuclear shell model today, but once it was a big deal with no congealed theory to advance it. It is found discussed in depth in numerous nuclear physics texts of the 50's and early 60's i.e. "Nuclear Phsics", Kaplan, 1955, Addison-Wesley.

Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

davidtrimmell
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:37 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by davidtrimmell » Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:57 pm

Richard, all, very interesting stuff. Richard I have a question, though. What about Positron decay? Cu64 decays 19% of the time by Positron emission. The following process is the usual description: proton (+1 charge) => neutron (0 charge) + positron (+1 charge) + neutrino (0 charge).

David Trimmell

Richard wrote:
"Lots to cogitate over.

Finally, The neutron is not stable in a nucleus due to beta decay problems, for beta decay occurs in a whole gang o' isotopes and there is no problem here. What makes it stable in stable atoms is the nuclear shells are satisfied and balanced to rigidly hold and stabilize the neutrons which seem to link the protons, perhaps via the contained electron. Radioactive isotopes that beta decay are obviously unhappy with the neutron-proton ratio having been upset by the addition of a neutorn or the loss of other particles in the parent element which has left matters unsettled."

guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest » Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:58 pm

Ooh Now you got me started!

What about the "Speed of Gravity?" (lots of articles on it lately)

Example: If the sun was snuffed out of existence, would the Earth hurl out orbit and into the universe immediately or would it take 8 minutes for the lack of gravity to reach Earth? (Speed of light reference)

Also, would it be a ripple effect? like plucking a bowling ball off of a waterbed.

davidtrimmell
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:37 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by davidtrimmell » Tue Sep 16, 2003 6:08 pm

Well I found a answer to my question regarding Positron decay.
See; http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1259.html

But it would be interesting to understand how this actually happens. Like Pair production...

David Trimmell

Post Reply