Fusion or Explosion

[Steven Sesselmann]

Lyn,

The photons role apperas to be a carrier of energy between past and future particles. From its own perspective it traverses this gap in no time at all.

More deep thought needed ..

Steven

[Steven Sesselmann]

I heard on the radio this morning that Australian scientists have just published proof that the fine structure constant or "alpha" is chaging over time. This has always been my suspicion, and in my post above this one, I was emphasized excactly this.

There are plenty of news articles on it this week. Here is one..

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/ ... tants.html

Original publication here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.3907

A changing alpha is in my opinion, the only way to explain radioactive decay, hence relevance to fusors.

Steven

[Linda Haile]

"If the study is correct, it would force physicists to reconsider many of their most cherished ideas about the universe, including the notion, touted by Einstein, that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the cosmos."

Does this mean that the laws of physics in Australia are different to the rest of the world?

[Linda Haile]

This article is a bit vague, Steven. I can see why you'd like to read up on it.

Statements like 'along one direction' and 'while in the other direction' are particularly vague.

Do they mean 'along one axis'? Or do they mean, for example, 'towards the centre of the universe' and 'while, at the edges'?

I can see that there may be discrepancies in the strength of electromagnetic fields at the centre of, and at the edge of, the universe, for reasonably obvious reasons of interaction.

It's already accepted that the speed of light varies for various reasons, as does time. It's not unreasonable to assume that gravity and electromagnetic force should also vary due to other influencing factors.

[Steven Sesselmann]

Lyn,

I am starting to like this idea, it feels as if the pieces of the puzzle are fitting together.

Here are my thoughts at the moment..

a) the proton is a particle in the past, and the electron is a particle in the future

b) the electron and the proton are born as identical mass/charge particles

c) the electron lies in the protons future and the proton lies in the electrons future ie. they attract eachother.

d) each particle sees the other particle as having low potential energy

e) we the observers reside on the time line between the past and the future, near the proton end, so we also see the electron as low potential.

f) protons and electrons are strongly attracted to each other, but fortunately don't collide with each other due to the distortion of space around the proton. As the electron comes whizzing towards the proton, the space time curvature due to the charge potential, rotates the x axis by 90˚ thereby preventing the electron getting any closer. This effect is what stops the future colliding with the past.

g) in the universe there is this huge energy potential that would love to come to a quick crunch, but it simply can't happen quickly, because of these particles just can't loose energy fast enough. So is time standing still?

h) there is a mechanism by which protons can loose a small amount of potential energy, and that is by fusing, and converting some of their potential enery into kinetic energy

i) post fusion, the particles with less mass and more kinetic energy are ejected, thereby occupying more volume of less density, so the Universe expands.

So my simplistic view is that we are the observers at rest on a time line, and occupy ground state, to the right we have protons of positive potential energy, and to left we have electrons, which are particles of negative potential energy.

We can take a proton and cool it down close to zero kelvin, that will just bring to ground state, but in order to make it fuse we need to do better than that. only by moving some of the protons, from our right to our left (ie. below ground state) can we make them fuse.
This is excactly what we are doing in a fusor.

The fusor shell is ground state, and we force protons to move down into negative territory, where they become stressed and uncomfortable. The problem is we never understood it well, we thought that we just had to make the particles collide.

The fusor is not a great device for taking protons into negative territory, because most of the protons are formed at the shell, and are barely to the left of ground. To get serious fusion rates, we need to get the protons much futher to the left.

The American way is usually to smash them together with a bigger gun (plenty of history there), but hang on......speeding up the particles up, just puts them further to the right???

You can't make fusion happen with brute force, but apply a little cunningness and I think it will be as simple as making pop corn.


Have fun, keep fusing....


Steven

[Linda Haile]

Steve, I agree with some points. I usually refer to the time line between the past and the future as 'the edge of time'. ie the edge between the past and the future. I think this implies that the past and the future are in different planes.

Are you implying that when, for example, a monatomic hydrogen neutral is ionized, that time travels backwards? I can follow that naturally, left to their own devices, the electron is in the proton's future and vice versa, but are you saying that electrostatic/electromagnetic energy (or other factors) can cause time to reverse direction?

Motion and gravity can both distort the space/time continuum. It's plausible that charge could also do this.

Increased gravity causes time to slow down, this presumably slows down fusion rates in stars, from the observer's point of view.

Simply 'using a bigger gun' isn't the answer, as Richard pointed out recently, deuterium fusion is limited to 2MeV, after this fusion ceases and the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect takes over.

My hunch is that the likelyhood of two particles fusing may be related to/governed by spin angle/position, or something similar.

[Steven Sesselmann]

"Are you implying that when, for example, a monatomic hydrogen neutral is ionized, that time travels backwards?"

No, not that complicated...I am simply stating that we live on an inclined potential energy plane, and that those particles that exist above us, are positive energy and belong in the past, and that those particles that are below us are negative and belong to the future. You the observer are on the edge of time.


"I can follow that naturally, left to their own devices, the electron is in the proton's future and vice versa, but are you saying that electrostatic/electromagnetic energy (or other factors) can cause time to reverse direction?"

No I was simply stating that from the electrons frame of reference, the proton will look the same way that we see the electron.

Can you imagine how a neutral atom would look if it was distorted so that the electrons were in the middle and the protons whizzed in a shell around the electron?

This mind bending exercize can be achieved with a tool like the Lorenz transformation.

Steven

[Linda Haile]

I can follow that a particle starts with potential energy (past), it is expended as kinetic energy (present), and the particle ends up at a lower energy level (future).

But particles can also gain energy.

[Steven Sesselmann]

Lyn,

As we know, energy can converted from one form to another, but can not get lost.

When we increase the energy of a particle, we are moving it up the potential energy plane and into the past, but to do this, something else will have to fall to a lower potential. There is no such thing as a free lunch in physics.

As observers we are on a slippery slope into the future, and a lower potential, with nothing to hold on to. This explains our appetite for energy, because, by consuming energy, we are in a funny way holding back time.

So once again, something needs to give, so by continuously sacrificing potential by burning something , we can keep time running slower.

So, do you now see why fusion must take place on the left hand side

Steven

[JamesC]

Steven,

The universe is mind-boggling, we see it in a particular way but there are certainly other perspectives.

I think the double-slit experiment which concretely displays the wave nature of matter has always bent my mind. I have long wondered what interference means for matter. It is supposed to be a super-position of a wave causing cancellation. To superimpose two D particles just sounds so fusion-ey to me.

So,.. (ultra) cool down the D particles to make their wavelength physically realiseable, then cause them to interfere by shooting very low energy ion beam through a two slit apparatus. This should make the D ions interfere with each other.

Now, when they interfere they are actually making a quantum choice between a large number of future options including the possibility of fusing with another D. What actually happens when two D ions quantum interfere with each other?? I dont know but what I think you are saying is that we may be able to rig that quantum choice by putting the whole apparatus at an energy potential such that only if they fuse in a certain way can they escape the potential well and hence get back to their proper place in time. That this desire to get back to their proper place in time will actually bias the quantum choice.

Boy oh Boy, this ought to be good.

-- James

[Steven Sesselmann]

James,

Nicely put, cooling deuterons to room temperature will put them at ground potential, but to make them fuse, we need to take them down further, either by cooling them or pulling another trick, which I will share with you if you email me

Think carefully about the Sun, a well established fusion reactor (although according to Richard, not such an efficient one). Where does the Sun sit on your potential energy slope?

If the electron is the distant future and the fast moving protons the distant past, with you the observer somewhere in between? .....think....

Yes....., the Sun is actually way down below you on the energy scale, and those fusion particles exist in your future.

Do you realize that we are sitting on a planet traveling through space around the Sun at around 30 km/s ? For us to get to the Sun, we would need to first loose all that kinetic energy...... We have still not built a rocket ship capable of traveling 30 km/s!!!

Most people look up at the stars, but when I look up, all I can see is a whole bunch of down.

Steven

[Chris Bradley]

I came across this, this evening, whilst hunting for other material.

I immediately thought of you, Steven!

Not that I necessarily believe this is true - I would've though ambipolar diffusion would fix such an imbalance, but this is what this guy has put...

"The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts."

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

[inflector]

A few questions come to mind:

1) If the proton is a particle in the past and the electron in the future, then what is a positron and an antiproton?

2) How does an electromagnetic field fit into this? Are we pushing "futureness" around in our wires?

3) How does the magnetic field fit in?

4) What are quarks in your scheme?

5) Why can we see (or notice the effect of at any rate) both future and past particles at the same time?

6) What is mass in your scheme degree of futureness or pastness? So how do you explain muon decay into an electron or tauon decay? Muons have much greater mass than electrons but they have equal charge, how do you account for this?

- Curtis

[Steven Sesselmann]

Curtis,

I will answer your question as I see it at the moment, and hopefully avoid painting myself into a corner,....... we are skiing off piste here okay?

1) If the proton is a particle in the past and the electron in the future, then what is a positron and an antiproton?

When we create artificial particles in a lab, we always see pair creation, ie two particles A and B of opposite charge and equal mass. this is entirely consistent with my theory, because both particles are equally created and observed from the same potential. But now change your perspective and imagine how the whole experiment would look from particle B's point of view. In the big experiment called the Universe we humans are made from B particles.

2) How does an electromagnetic field fit into this? Are we pushing "futureness" around in our wires?

Funny way to put it, but we may be pushing antiprotons with future potential around.

3) How does the magnetic field fit in?

Actually I think our current understanding of fields is okay, Maxwell and Einstein were spot on, with the maths, I just think that we are continuing to make the same silly mistake that we have been making since before Copernicus, that Earth somhow is the centre of the Universe.

4) What are quarks in your scheme?

Don't know the answer......

5) Why can we see (or notice the effect of at any rate) both future and past particles at the same time?

You may as well ask why not, these are just particles and antiparticles of the same mass, but observed from a very distorted perspective.

6) What is mass in your scheme degree of futureness or pastness? So how do you explain muon decay into an electron or tauon decay? Muons have much greater mass than electrons but they have equal charge, how do you account for this?

So, a Muon has a charge of -1, so it is nothing more than an electron existing further up the potential energy curve, ie. not so far into the future as the electrons. This question makes me ask another question....why are all electrons and protons of the same mass?

The only explanation is that they must have been created in exactly the same way and possibly at the same time in some cataclysmic event, otherwise one would have expected these particles to exist with varying mass.

A thought just came to mind....

If one were to create a particle pair, in an absurdly high potential gradient, and one particle was created downward and one upward, then this particle pair may be of such differing mass that they were no longer capable of mutually inhialating, quantum mechanics would prevent this as the mass would differ.

Is it then possible that such particle pairs are manufactured on the surface of super dense charged objects?

Who knows...?

I attach a simple visual showing the potential energy levels of Protons electrons etc..

A particle will not change its potential without acquiring or giving up some mass/energy.

Steven

[Chris Bradley]

Steven,

You know I am a broad-minded chap on these things, but I suggest you reflect on this and consider whether this is a bit of a disfunctional ramble, at the moment. Maybe think it through more and put something 'consistent' together, but at the moment you seem to be emptying out a progression of meandering thoughts and it is difficult to follow or give much credence to it.

If you have time for theorising then I would very much like to see a completion of your 'Domain Theory';

view.php?bn=fusor_theory&thread=1251013427

After integrating to infinity, that came out with such a neat answer that we must reflect on Gell-Mann's comments and ask whether we might hope to infer some 'intrinsic correctness' due to such an elegant outcome.

[Steven Sesselmann]

Chris,

I stand guilty as charged, I have been rambling, time to bring out the big scissors and cut this thread short :-/

Hopefully it inspired some lateral thinking, and who knows, maybe it can be sanitized....

Had fun writing it anyway.

Steven

[fusornator]

Non uniformity of proton scale particles.
I think that most of the fusion interpretations and analogies are great but it is also possible that there is something else at work which I have not come across and this could also be the result of my lack of education in particle/quantum physics.
In my view.
Particles are not uniform in nature (not perfect spheres) they have polar formatives (like magnetic but not of EM nature) these do not have to be constant with time.
At a meeting of polar alignment the joining energy is less than at none alignment. Hence tunneling and not coulomb .
At distances greater than tunneling/polar alignment EM forces dominate and disturb alignment this results mostly in misalignment and none fuse, even at tunneling proximity.
If EM forces are significantly overcome then polar activity becomes the dominant mechanism (super nova, G>>EM). This also implies that charge is lost faster than mater for these stars. Similar to crystal growth but at the proton level and at the speed of light+-.
We do not as yet have the ability to reproduce or even test alignment at the proton level so no one is giving it any thought. Instead we use the probability functions.
I would think that the periodic table implies the symmetry of pole alignment and ordering of particles and more?
So for all fusion practical purposes we use random collision in the hope that 1 in some 10^-24 will do the trick the only question is how much energy does it take to have some many collisions before you get something out of it.
It is also ironic that the force we are using for fusion is EM, while it is probably the dominant force in preventing it. If we found a way to reduce its effect we could increase fusion.
When you have groups of ions dancing around in close proximity it’s easy to see how once in a while the sum of all EM force around 2 ions could be very close to null, that’s when alignment/tunneling takes place. Again this is usually described in probably as a function of heat/dance proximity/density.
Just a thought.

[Chris Bradley]

This is not strictly true to say there is no ability to reproduce such effects. Magnetic spin-polarising some atoms does give an increase in fusion tunnelling probability, so what you are saying is, to some extent, already held as known to be true.

I am not aware of any information that the spin angle of protons makes a difference to fusion. The only example I know of is that the boron-11 nucleus is more amienable to fusion if the proton comes up to it in a particular direction. But the effect is only 'a few' times better, it is not orders-of-mag.

Shown below is a slide off of a presentation by Todd Rider. I am not sure where this presentation is on the internet these days, so I trust that Dr Rider will not mind me reproducing his slide here. I believe you are talking about the top left situation.

.

[Starfire]

If Stevens theory is correct, the Temporal constant is 5.76413872x10-4 -- something

Correction

[Steven Sesselmann]

John,

Would love to know how you arrived at this number .

Steven