Milky Way's supermassive black hole may have 'unseen' siblings

April 24, 2018 by Jim Shelton, Yale University

Astronomers are beginning to understand what happens when black holes get the urge to roam the Milky Way.

Typically, a supermassive black hole (SMBH) exists at the core of a . But sometimes SMBHs may "wander" throughout their , remaining far from the center in regions such as the stellar halo, a nearly spherical area of stars and gas that surrounds the main section of the galaxy.

Astronomers theorize that this phenomenon often occurs as a result of mergers between in an expanding universe. A smaller galaxy will join with a larger, main galaxy, depositing its own, central SMBH onto a wide orbit within the new host.

In a new study published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, researchers from Yale, the University of Washington, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, and University College London predict that galaxies with a mass similar to the Milky Way should host several supermassive black holes.The team used a new, state-of-the-art cosmological simulation, Romulus, to predict the dynamics of SMBHs within galaxies with better accuracy than previous simulation programs.

"It is extremely unlikely that any wandering will come close enough to our Sun to have any impact on our solar system," said lead author Michael Tremmel, a postdoctoral fellow at the Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics. "We estimate that a close approach of one of these wanderers that is able to affect our solar system should occur every 100 billion years or so, or nearly 10 times the age of the universe."

Tremmel said that since wandering SMBHs are predicted to exist far from the centers of galaxies and outside of galactic disks, they are unlikely to accrete more gas—making them effectively invisible. "We are currently working to better quantify how we might be able to infer their presence indirectly," Tremmel said.

Co-authors of the study are Fabio Governato, Marta Volonteri, Andrew Pontzen, and Thomas Quinn.

Explore further: New study suggests tens of thousands of black holes exist in Milky Way's center

More information: Michael Tremmel et al. Wandering Supermassive Black Holes in Milky-Way-mass Halos, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aabc0a

Related Stories

Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. ...

Recommended for you

SpaceX gets nod to put 12,000 satellites in orbit

November 16, 2018

SpaceX got the green light this week from US authorities to put a constellation of nearly 12,000 satellites into orbit in order to boost cheap, wireless internet access by the 2020s.

Overflowing crater lakes carved canyons across Mars

November 16, 2018

Today, most of the water on Mars is locked away in frozen ice caps. But billions of years ago it flowed freely across the surface, forming rushing rivers that emptied into craters, forming lakes and seas. New research led ...

Electric blue thrusters propelling BepiColombo to Mercury

November 16, 2018

In mid-December, twin discs will begin glowing blue on the underside of a minibus-sized spacecraft in deep space. At that moment Europe and Japan's BepiColombo mission will have just come a crucial step closer to Mercury.

191 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2018
Milky Way's supermassive black hole may have 'unseen' siblings

Of course there is, one thing there is no shortage of in the standard theory are all things dark, black, and unseen.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 24, 2018
No wonder the cmera & telescope at

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

are unable to get a pic of our most precious BH at point Sgr A*, it has a propensity for wandering.

How long has it been absent that it does not appear the 8th frame from the top of the page? And just think, that star cluster orbiting point Sgr A*, has been orphaned by momma BH, it couldn't even be bothered to drag along it's orbiting companions? There oughta be a law (of physics) regarding this kind of abandonment.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 24, 2018
@Benni: If you take a look https://i.imgur.com/334lo4E.gif you may spot darker areas on it...


That's far less resolution than http://ircamera.a...nter.htm 8th frame from the top of the page.

What's your point about the darker areas in your link?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 24, 2018
The black holes could clean the stars and interstellar gas from these areas.


......then the accretion discs should be clearly visible from the imaging equipments used at:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

.......your image link is quite distant compared to the higher resolution photo frames at Galactic Center.
theredpill
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2018
"There oughta be a law (of physics) regarding this kind of abandonment. "

That's funny.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2018
If I understand this article correctly? The researchers are speculating that whenever the core-galaxy, we call the Milky Way, consumed neighboring galaxies. Those cores either were absorbed into the MW core or ejected. And some of those cores may still be wandering around within the MW gravitational attraction.

For all of you who dispute the reality of BB/BH/DM hypotheses. As unrealized, unproven speculations. Just convenient memes driving clickbait headlines.

Yet the fact remains that there is some sort of previously incomprehensible phenomena occuring.

The still developing theories of Vector Gravity offers new tools towards improving our understanding of what we observe of the cosmos.

For instance, VG predicts that instead of Black Holes? There are super-massive neutron stars of exotic degenerate material.

Is it the final word or an absolute answer? Most probably not but yet another step forward in how we process the data we observe.
Benni
2 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2018
There are super-massive neutron stars of exotic degenerate material.


No there are not any such exotic things.

Only ELEMENTARY PARTICLES can become DEGENERATE. A neutron is not an elementary particle & therefore cannot become degenerate. If you'd have studied any nuclear physics you would have known better than to make a mistake like this, but typical of the field of cosmology there is almost nothing they know about nuclear physics.

Do you know why a NEUTRON is not an ELEMENTARY PARTICLE?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2018
Do you know why a NEUTRON is not an ELEMENTARY PARTICLE?


Indagator has made it clear he doesn't know.
jimmybobber
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2018
@Benni I do not see any posts by Indagator on this subject. Why are you dragging hiim into this discussion?
jimmybobber
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2018
@benni A neutron is made up of quarks but do you have pics? Pics or it didn't happen you idiot.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (12) Apr 26, 2018
If a neutron is made of quarks why do they decay into a proton and electron?
Indagator
3.4 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2018

Indagator has made it clear he doesn't know.


Oh! Benni! Did I hurt your feeling? I'm so sorry I left you hanging like that! Be strong, little one! Don't you cry! You've got your religion to fail back on (for now)! If you repeat the same tired "eu" lies, it might help ease your pain!

You asked, "Do you know why a NEUTRON is not an ELEMENTARY PARTICLE?"

Hell, is that the best you've got?

As an aside, Benni, I like the all-caps SHOUTING thing, too! Really gets the point across, doesn't it?
Indagator
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2018
(Cont...)

To answer your trivial question, NEUTRONS and PROTONS are composite subatomic particles! More specifically, the NEUTRON (udd) and PROTON (uud) are the FERMIONIC building-blocks of normal ATOMIC NUCLEI (i.e., matter)!

Now what's special about FERMIONS?

FERMIONIC particles, BY DEFINITION, are characterized by Fermi-Dirac Statistics, which FORCE these particles to hold specific quantum numbers as required by the Pauli Exclusion Principle! This principle simply states two or more identical FERMIONS cannot occupy the same quantum state!

Obviously, it's much more complex than that, but you still seem to be having trouble understanding simple concepts from an introductory astronomy course, so I don't want to tax you!

Indagator
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2018
(Cont...)

Next, let's address your failure to comprehend the physics of DEGENERATE MATTER!

So, what is DEGENERATE MATTER?

The term applies to a highly compressed state of matter, where gravitational pressure is balanced, not by thermal pressure, but by quantum mechanical effects in order to satisfy the Pauli Exclusion Principle! Do you know what's coming next, Benni?

This extreme physical state applies to FERMIONS (i.e., NEUTRONS and PROTONS)!

Hence, a neutron star is a degenerate star as it is composed of degenerate matter (i.e., fermions, and that includes electrons, too)!

I hope this all makes sense, Benni! And if I may, I would like to recycle some of your own words,

If you'd have studied any nuclear physics you would have known better than to make a mistake like this


I hope you are starting to learn some real physics! Afterall, physics is all the fun!

Indagator
4 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2018
(Cont...)

OK, Benni! Fair is fair! I answered your question and addressed your fundamental flaws and failures in basic particle physics. Now, it's your turn to answer one of my questions!

Why do the Rieke's write, "There is a supermassive black hole (about 3 million times the mass of the sun) in the center of the Milky Way ...," on their IRCamera lecture notes webpage?

To find said quote, just click on this IRCamera link: http://ircamera.a...hygc.htm

And look, Benni! Just for fun, the Rieke's included your favourite picture of pretty stars!

I'll bet you still can't tell the class where Sgr A* (i.e., the "stolid" radio source) is located in that picture, now can you?

I'm glad I found Phys.Org, Benni! I am having so much fun talking physics with you! Hee! Hee!
Indagator
3 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2018
(Cont...)

PostScript!

Hey Benni! Don't you worry! If you have questions, I'll do my best to answer them! After all, I've made it my mission to educate you in "all things science," with the ultimate goal of getting you to renounce your affiliation with the electric religion! Think of it as my gift to you!

And from this point forward, I will always be there to correct your mistakes and hopefully send you on a grand adventure of actually learning how the world REALLY works! Spoiler - we live in a universe that has four fundamental forces! I'm looking forward to lots of educational discussions with you Benni!

Hey! I also like that you check to see who's voting for you! It makes me feel good to know you care! And guess what, Benni! You can always count on my vote!!!
Indagator
3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2018
@cant

If a neutron is made of quarks why do they decay into a proton and electron?


Good question!

Have you attempted to find the answer yourself?

If not, perhaps Benni could provide the answer. After all, Benni has studied "nuclear physics."

Unfortunately, as you can see above, I fear Benni may have failed "nuclear physics."

If Benni fails to provide an answer, I'll get back to you sometime tomorrow.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2018
If a neutron is made of quarks why do they decay into a proton and electron?
.....plus a neutrino, but otherwise you are the one to nail it, Inda was unable able to figure it out, but you expect that from COSMOLOGISTS who don't know that a NEUTRON is not an ELEMENTARY PARTICLE because in the free state it decays within 15 minutes, he didn't know that either or he would have mentioned it if he thought he had SUPERIOR knowledge over & above me & yourself when it comes to NUCLEAR PHYSICS as opposed to COSMOLOGY, right Inda?

So Inda, you had your meaningless foul mouthed name calling rant, tell the operators at the Large Hadron Collider from which I use data, that they are wrong about the 15 DECAY RATE of a neutron. Of course you're probably still having problems trying to figure out what this has to do with NEUTRON STAR formation aren't you? I'll give you a clue & you can go back to your crib & work on it, the hypothesized TIME for the formation of a neutron star.



Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2018
by quantum mechanical effects in order to satisfy the Pauli Exclusion Principle
.......as cannot be applied to a neutron because it is not an ELEMENTARY PARTICLE, an electron is for which case Pauli Exclusion can be applied.

Do you know what's coming next, Benni?
......sure, more of your cosmology fantasies in which you will try to explain an unfounded hypothesis that a neutron can be made DEGENERATE in conditions of another one of Cosmology's fantasies called GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE.

jimmybobber
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2018
@Benni from wikipedia about degenerate matter

"Degenerate matter[1] is a highly dense state of matter in which particles must occupy high states of kinetic energy in order to satisfy Pauli exclusion principle. The description applies to matter composed of electrons, protons, neutrons or fermions in general. The term is mainly used in astrophysics to refer to dense stellar objects where gravitational pressure is so extreme that quantum mechanical effects are significant. This type of matter is naturally found in stars in their final evolutionary states, like white dwarfs and neutron stars, where thermal pressure alone is not enough to avoid gravitational collapse."

"electrons, protons, neutrons or fermions in general"
DarkHorse66
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2018
@jimmybobber:
Just a quick format tip for presenting information:
If you are going to quote from something specific (especially to present a more complex idea), it is always a good idea to also provide a link to it (like citing a source), if not already provided earlier in the thread. Alternatively you could find an article that supports or adds more detail to what you are talking about &/or post that. That allows others to quickly & easily access any article you are using & be 'on the same page' quickly - or learn something new. Not everybody on this site is equal in terms of level of education. For example:
https://en.wikipe...e_matter
Some other links as possible sources of discussion here:
http://www.wisege...tter.htm
http://www.sun.or...generacy
https://en.wikipe.../Neutron
https://en.wikipe.../Fermion
Best Regards, DH66
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2018
@Benni from wikipedia about degenerate matter

"Degenerate matter[1] is a highly dense state of matter in which particles must occupy high states of kinetic energy in order to satisfy Pauli exclusion principle. The description applies to matter composed of electrons, protons, neutrons or fermions in general. The term is mainly used in astrophysics to refer to dense stellar objects where gravitational pressure is so extreme that quantum mechanical effects are significant. This type of matter is naturally found in stars in their final evolutionary states, like white dwarfs and neutron stars, where thermal pressure alone is not enough to avoid gravitational collapse."

"electrons, protons, neutrons or fermions in general"


Why don't you take a more scientific approach & QUOTE data from the Large Hadron Collider showing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that a NEUTRON can be made DEGENERATE? I'm gonna give you a heads up here jimbo, there is no such DATA, it's a FANTASY.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2018
Why don't you take a more scientific approach & QUOTE data from the Large Hadron Collider showing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that a NEUTRON can be made DEGENERATE? I'm gonna give you a heads up here jimbo, there is no such DATA, it's a FANTASY.


This has already been explained to you in language that even somebody with the IQ of a brain damaged trilobite, such as yourself, could understand. It is not our fault that you are denser than a neutron star.
The neutrons produced at the LHC are 'free' neutrons, and will hence decay in ~ 15 minutes. In a neutron star, they are not 'free,' due to being packed so closely together. As fermions, they are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. Once all the possible states are occupied, the neutron cannot decay.
Now, what we can do with such a situation, is to make predictions, such as; neutron stars exist = verified. Two merging neutron stars will produce GWs = verified. R- process nucleosynthesis will ensue = verified. Etc, etc.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2018
Here is a .pdf that describes neutron degeneracy pressure in a bit more detail than can be achieved here, but is still at the level of undergrads, and isn't too complicated:

http://www.physic..._hw1.pdf

It isn't a peer reviewed piece, but it is unlikely that one would find such a description in peer reviewed literature, as it would be assumed that anyone reading such papers would already understand the basics.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2018
It isn't a peer reviewed piece, but it is unlikely that one would find such a description in peer reviewed literature,
.......because NEUTRON DEGENERACY is a Cosmologist's Fantasy.

This has already been explained to you in language that even somebody with the IQ of a brain damaged trilobite, such as yourself, could understand. It is not our fault that you are denser than a neutron star.
.....this is not data from the Large Hadron Collider which confirms a free neutron decays within 15 minutes of it's creation, no exceptions. This is just a name calling rant from someone who has been having a memory related problem still trying to recall if he had Differential Equations in a high school algebra class or if it in the one during his one year stint at Aukland Uni, I remember very clearly when I had them & it wasn't in a high school algebra class.

DarkHorse66
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2018
http://www.wisege...tter.htm
This one's got pictures:
http://minerva.un...sure.htm
Still hypothetical but interesting (how to make quarks from neutrons,or the quark star):
http://www.wisege...star.htm
Cheers, DH66
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2018
this is not data from the Large Hadron Collider which confirms a free neutron decays................


And is irrelevant as the neutrons in a neutron star are not free, you idiot. Learn to read, and stop quoting irrelevant stuff. How old are you? 12? Overestimation, probably.
DarkHorse66
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2018
perhaps this will VERY detailed analysis will give you what you are after (from CERN). Just ignore the German page, the rest is in English:
dumb editor will repost

http://www.iaea.o...4%3A2009
I hope you guys are gluttons for punishment....
Happy Readings! DH66
(Btw, I am not sure that the actual raw data is freely available. This was the closest that I came) :)
DarkHorse66
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2018
(Corrected repost)
perhaps this will VERY detailed analysis will give you what you are after (from CERN). Just ignore the German page, the rest is in English:
http://www.iaea.o...4%3A2009
or this:
http://cds.cern.c...1038.pdf
You might like to explore these too:
https://www.resea...Lifetime
I hope you guys are gluttons for punishment....
Happy Readings! DH66
(Btw, I am not sure that the actual raw data is freely available. This was the closest that I came) :)
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2018
Still hypothetical but interesting (how to make quarks from neutrons,or the quark star)


When a neutron decays it does not decay into a quark(s). Try to capiche, a neutron decays into a PROTON, ELECTRON, NEUTRINO. Can you follow this? A neutron has never been observed to decay leaving behind a QUARK, only the aforementioned three.
Indagator
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2018
Benni! Benni! Benni!

Regarding @cant's question! @cant asked, "... WHY do they decay into a proton and electron?"

The operative word is "WHY"

You FAILED again Benni! Constant FAILURE can't be good for the psyche ... you may want to seek counseling to help you deal with the stress that I appear to be causing you!

Benni! To answer @cant's question you need to include the mechanism and energy delta.

Now, because I care, I'm going to give you one more chance to answer @cant's question!

Indagator
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
(Cont...)

And what's with all the elementary particle nonsense?

... a NEUTRON is not an ELEMENTARY PARTICLE because in the free state it decays ...


You need to work on your reading comprehension skills! Please recall ...

NEUTRONS and PROTONS are composite subatomic particles! More specifically, the NEUTRON (udd) and PROTON (uud) are the FERMIONIC building-blocks of normal ATOMIC NUCLEI (i.e., matter)!


The word "composite" implies that the neutron is not an elementary particle! You might also note the cryptic (udd) and (uud) quark nomenclature! Turns out, quarks are the elementary particles in this opera!

Here's a question worth ten points, Benni - Protons and neutrons are composed of elementary particles called quarks! Protons don't decay! Neutrons do! Why?

Mechanism and discussion of the energy delta is required for full marks! You'll also answer @cant's question.

Try again!
Indagator
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
(Cont...)

Now, let's address this little nugget ....

... the hypothesized TIME for the formation of a neutron star.


Benni! In future, before you shoot your mouth off, you may want to do a little research first. Tis something any good scientist or engineer would do! However, by your own admission (i.e., your written text) we all know you are not a scientist or an engineer!

I give you is one "hypothesized" mechanism and time line for the formation of a neutron star!

A neutron star forms as a consequence of gravitational collapse when a massive star (i.e., > 8 solar masses) ends its life in a Type II supernova. What follows is nothing short of extreme!

(...)
Indagator
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2018
(Cont...)

When a massive star reaches the stage of iron fusion, a process that produces no net energy, the star's core becomes inert! Because the star's core is no longer producing a thermal counter-balance to gravity, the inner core implodes! As the inner core collapses, the outer core is gravitationally drawn into the volume vacated by the inner core! Here, the outer core collapse reaches speeds close to 0.25c! The kinetic energy of collapse, plus compression drives the temperature of the inner core to exceed 1E+11 K, at which point reverse beta-decay produces an excess of neutrons and neutrinos along with about 1E+45 J of energy!

During core collapse, which occurs in seconds, the matter-neutrino cross section is reduced to 1E-44 m^2, temporarily trapping the neutrinos!

(...)
Indagator
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2018
(Cont...)

Core collapse stops when the nuclear equilibrium density (which is proportional to the neutron degeneracy pressure) reaches 1.6E+46 fermions/m^3! FYI, the particle density in the core of our own star is roughly 1E+32 fermions/m^3! A difference of 14 orders of magnitude!

Now we start the clock on the formation of a neutron star!

Recall, reverse beta-decay yields an excess of neutrons and trapped neutrinos in the core. As a result, neutron degeneracy (i.e., quantum mechanical effects) halts core collapse! In other words, neutron degeneracy produces a "solid" barrier to the inbound motion of the collapsing outer core! This inbound outer core material suddenly rebounds, driving a shock back through the stellar mantle resulting in the supernova explosion! As a consequence of this "pressure release," the inner core also experiences a sudden "release" of energy and an associated pressure loss due to neutrino emission with a diffusion time of approximately 10 seconds!
Indagator
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2018
(Cont...)

FYI, this neutrino diffusion time was confirmed via observations of SN 1987A way back when!

At this point, neutrino loss and continued reverse beta-decay further enhances the neutron-rich proto-neutron star! This process also heats the stellar interior over a span of approx. 10 to 20 seconds. As the neutron core continues to "relax" over a period of approx. 50 to 60 seconds, the star becomes transparent to neutrinos resulting in significant cooling!

And ... stop the clock! At this point in time, we have a neutron star!

Elapsed time is less than 90 seconds! Far less time than your "free" neutron decay cluster ...!

(...)
Indagator
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2018
(Cont...)

Some trick "nuclear physics" questions for you Benni -

Why don't neutrons in atomic nuclei experience "free" neutron decay?
Why don't neutrons in neutron stars experience "free" neutron decay? Same physics?
Why don't neutrons repel each other to achieve a "free" state and associated decay? Hee! Hee!
Why does tritium decay to helium-3 via beta-decay? Hee! Hee!

DAMN! Science is hard, eh? Benni? Religion (like what you've got) is easy! No thought required, eh?

Poop! Forgot to mention that the proto-neutron star may also become a black hole if it is able to recover some of its original mantle material. There are two possible mechanisms for this to happen!

(...)
Indagator
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2018
(Cont...)

Now, Benni! The "eu" will always be a religion in my eyes until you and yours start producing some real science! I demand a model that can be tested or an exploitable technology! Based on my understanding of your "eu" religion, I have a list of six "easily" engineered technologies that could make you BILLIONS! Unless, of course, the electric universe is a lie!

In order to become a science, the "eu" must learn to, "Count what is countable, measure what is measurable, and what is not measurable, make measurable."

Who do you think said that?

The same guy that said this, "Mathematics is the key and door to the sciences." --- Galileo Galilei

Get with the program!
Indagator
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2018
I would also like to quickly address a few more critical errors in your earlier comments, Benni ...

... in order to satisfy the Pauli Exclusion Principle
.......as cannot be applied to a neutron because it is not an ELEMENTARY PARTICLE, an electron is for which case Pauli Exclusion can be applied.


The Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) states that two or more identical fermions with "half-integer spin" cannot occupy the same quantum state at the same time! Fermions with "half-integer spin" include elementary particles like the electron, neutrino, and quarks! Protons and neutrons, composed of three quarks, also exhibit half-integer spin, and by definition are governed by the PEP!

Now, here's where science gets freaky ... helium-3 is also subject to the PEP!

Why? Half-integer spin!

Finally, particles with integer spin, called bosons, are not subject to the PEP!

Get your facts and definitions straight, Benni!
Indagator
3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2018
(Cont...)

Do you know what's coming next, Benni?
......sure, more of your cosmology fantasies in which you will try to explain an unfounded hypothesis that a neutron can be made DEGENERATE in conditions of another one of Cosmology's fantasies called GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE.


The study of degenerate matter and gravitational collapse are what we call basic physics, along with things like quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and ballistics! In this universe, we assume that the same laws of physics apply equally everywhere! It's appropriate then that cosmologists use basic physics as they develope their branch of science! It's when we get into strong gravity regimes (e.g., near our SMBH) that "basic" physics breaks down and we (scientist) get to jump on a whole new set of problems to solve!

Perhaps you would like to join the mainstream and actually get to do some REAL science!
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2018
And what's with all the elementary particle nonsense?
I see your problem, you've never studied nuclear physics, I have & I know "what's with all the elementary particle" sciences. It's "nonsense " to you because it's beyond your novice level of comprehension.

The study of degenerate matter and gravitational collapse are what we call basic physics


.......and at your novice level of NUCLEAR PHYSICS, it is beyond your level of comprehension why "gravitational collapse" cannot cause a neutron to become DEGENERATE. In fact you cannot even prove "gravitational collapse" is REAL, much less that it can cause a non-elementary sub-atomic particle to become DEGENERATE. Degeneracy of a neutron has never been observed in the LHC, but degeneracy of an electron has, maybe you can explain why?

(e.g., near our SMBH) that "basic" physics breaks down
What SMBH? Got a pic? Oh, that's right it has wandered, just like the author of this article has suggested.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2018
In this universe, we assume that the same laws of physics apply equally everywhere!

That is a complete and utter lie. The standard theory views space plasma as being different from laboratory plasmas. Alfvén said of astrophysicists;
"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory."
If you really believe your statement to be correct then the same principles of laboratory plasmas will be the same as space plasmas and Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe are correct and the standard theory is bupkis.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2018
And the neutron decays to a proton and electron because they are composed of a proton and electron. There is no hypothetical strong force, it's just another ad hoc invention required to make the accepted hypothesis to be relevant.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
Degeneracy of a neutron has never been observed in the LHC, ....


Because those pressures are unattainable on Earth, bozo. However, we observe neutron stars, so your argument is pointless, as usual. What is the neutron going to decay to, when all the states available to the electrons are taken? Hmm? Bit thick, aren't we Benni? Particle physics and quantum are obviously beyond you, so I'm not sure what you are doing here. Is there any aspect of science that you actually know anything about? I have my doubts.
And let's have a link for the observation of electron degeneracy seen at LHC.
cantdrive85
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
Because those pressures are unattainable on Earth, bozo

Convenient isn't it? Another unfalsifiable concept put forth by the plasma ignoramuses.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
And the neutron decays to a proton and electron because they are composed of a proton and electron. There is no hypothetical strong force, it's just another ad hoc invention required to make the accepted hypothesis to be relevant.


The 'accepted hypothesis' is verified through multiple observation, so your ignorant obfuscation is irrelevant. And I'm not sure what the strong force has to do with things. We are dealing with pressure from gravity, and quantum mechanics as per the Pauli exclusion principle. However, do feel free to explain to us why the strong force is relevant, and doesn't actually exist. Given that it is responsible for the effects of nuclear fusion and fission. So, I guess they don't exist either?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
Because those pressures are unattainable on Earth, bozo

Convenient isn't it? Another unfalsifiable concept put forth by the plasma ignoramuses.


Sorry? Please outline anything suggested by the electric sun loons that isn't invisible and/ or impossible. Like your conveniently invisible, undetectable current, for instance. Or the conveniently invisible, undetectable gamma rays from fusion in the chromosphere, as suggested by the ignorant loon Scott. I'd say it's all invisible, wouldn't you? As in zero theory, zero evidence, yes?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
However, we observe neutron stars


How so? You have a pic of something 2 miles in diameter that is 500 lys away? Make it up as you go along, one more Cosmology fantasy & you can't prove it isn't.

What is the neutron going to decay to, when all the states available to the electrons are taken?
I keep telling you: ELECTRON, PROTON, NEUTRINO.

Pressure has nothing to do with the decay rate of a neutron, those of us who have sat in a college classroom studying Nuclear Physics, taken a final exam & gotten a passing grade know this to be true.
Bit thick, aren't we
...... right, a novice like you can never comprehend what a real science professional learns from studying Nuclear Physics like I have.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
Alfvén said of astrophysicists;...


Yawn. Who cares what Alfven said? He died 20 odd years ago.

f you really believe your statement to be correct then the same principles of laboratory plasmas will be the same as space plasmas and Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe are correct...


And are still an evidence-free zone. Funny that, eh?

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
I keep telling you: ELECTRON, PROTON, NEUTRINO.


Why would I listen to anything a janitor has to say? You are thick. The frigging neutron cannot decay to an electron and a proton, dipstick, because there are already electrons taking up every available state. So, what is it going to decay to? Come on genius. And I still want this link to the LHC observing electron degeneracy pressure, otherwise it didn't happen.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
Like your conveniently invisible, undetectable current, for instance.

Increase the resolution of the detectors and you will find it. It has already been found by Voyager out where there is no solar wind to obscure the observation. The has been more dollars spent looking for DM in the last month then there has been spent looking for space electric currents in the entire history of science.
Or the conveniently invisible, undetectable gamma rays from fusion in the chromosphere

You obviously are unaware of radiation trapping, Safire has already reproduced this concept in their lab.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
Increase the resolution of the detectors and you will find it. It has already been found by Voyager out where there is no solar wind to obscure the observation.


Lol. Way to kill your own argument! Haha. If 1970s technology can spot electrons at the heliopause, why can we not detect them at 1 AU with more modern technology? The solar wind has nothing to do with it, bozo. You need a shed load of electrons (I presume) heading inwards. They are not seen. We see electrons heading out. Even if they could be confused with the outbound electrons, there are nowhere near enough to power this electric sun fantasy, even if every electron were doing a u-turn and heading back. Do the maths.
And where is the magnetic field created by this incoming current? How is it getting past the outgoing IMF? What would the IMF do to any electron heading inwards? How are they getting to the sun? Not only invisible, but physics defying, these electrons, eh?

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
You obviously are unaware of radiation trapping, Safire has already reproduced this concept in their lab.


Oh dear. And how is this preventing your fusion gammas from reaching our detectors, but not those created in occasional large flares? Selective, is it? What a load of scientifically illiterate crap. So much lying and ignorance to support a bunch of mythology based non-science, for which there is no valid scientific hypothesis, nor a scrap of evidence.

cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
If 1970s technology can spot electrons at the heliopause, why can we not detect them at 1 AU

Observational resolution and noise, the solar wind obscures the drift current.
You need a shed load of electrons (I presume) heading inwards.

You should be presuming anything from your position of willful ignorance. All the required quantities and energies are explained here;
http://electric-c...2012.pdf
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
I know your only response will be ad hominem attacks and willful ignorance.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
And how is this preventing your fusion gammas from reaching our detectors, but not those created in occasional large flares?

The double layers trapping the radiation is what explodes, as such detectable gamma. It's not too difficult for most, obviously beyond you.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
How so? You have a pic of something 2 miles in diameter that is 500 lys away? Make it up as you go along, one more Cosmology fantasy & you can't prove it isn't.


And another piece of ignorance from our resident janitor with the worst case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome ever observed! Ever seen an electron? So how do we know they are there? Well, neutron stars have to exist if the theories are correct. So, we can make predictions about what we should see from them, given their inferred properties. And that is what is seen. Including GWs from their merger, and r-process nucleosynthesis in the aftermath. Very good fit to theory, and you have no theory, so I'd say you're losing. Correct?

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
And how is this preventing your fusion gammas from reaching our detectors, but not those created in occasional large flares?

The double layers trapping the radiation is what explodes, as such detectable gamma. It's not too difficult for most, obviously beyond you.


Really? Lol. How much crap can you write in one day in support of this scientific impossibility? Please show where this has been explained. i.e. the non-detection of gamma from fusion in this non-existent double layer. How are electrons/ protons preventing gammas from escaping in such a tenuous gas? I realise it won't be in the scientific literature, because nobody would be stupid enough to submit this garbage to peer review, but an explanation on a woo site will do. Because I've read Scott's crap. and he never even addresses gamma rays, because he is too ignorant to realise that they would be created.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
And where is the magnetic field created by this incoming current? How is it getting past the outgoing IMF?

Another example of your willful ignorance preventing your understanding. There is much information on electric discharge in gases for you to study which will enlighten you. Your ignorance of plasma processes is so profound you can't grasp where the electrolyte is in plasmas to enable electrochemistry. You need to learn the fundamentals before you can attempt to understand the complex stuff, you're a long way away.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
Please show where this has been explained. i.e. the non-detection of gamma from fusion in this non-existent double layer.

There is a paper forth coming on the radiation trapping. These processes involve radiation hydrodynamics, it would be absolutely futile to start that discussion with you. However, radiation trapping has been observed in Safire.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
And where is the magnetic field created by this incoming current? How is it getting past the outgoing IMF?

Another example of your willful ignorance preventing your understanding. There is much information on electric discharge in gases for you to study which will enlighten you. Your ignorance of plasma processes is so profound you can't grasp where the electrolyte is in plasmas to enable electrochemistry. You need to learn the fundamentals before you can attempt to understand the complex stuff, you're a long way away.


So, answer the question, bozo. Where is the magnetic field of this current, or doesn't it have one? If it does, where is it, and what would happen when it encounters the IMF? At what distance would this happen? What would the IMF do to any incoming MF and its electrons? Still waiting.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2018
Please show where this has been explained. i.e. the non-detection of gamma from fusion in this non-existent double layer.

There is a paper forth coming on the radiation trapping. These processes involve radiation hydrodynamics, it would be absolutely futile to start that discussion with you. However, radiation trapping has been observed in Safire.


Safire is irrelevant. It in no way resembles the Sun. In case it has escaped your pitifully poor understanding of all things scientific, the chromosphere is at too low a pressure and temperature for fusion to happen. Have they seen this fusion in this safire nonsense? What about an outflowing wind of equal numbers of electrons and ions, at the same speed? I'm sure there will be a publication forthcoming - on Vixra, or in Concrete Today. Lol.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2018
Have they seen this fusion in this safire nonsense?

Yes!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2018
Have they seen this fusion in this safire nonsense?

Yes!


Really? And where is this ground-breaking discovery announced? ApJ? A & A? Link please.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2018
How so? You have a pic of something 2 miles in diameter that is 500 lys away? Make it up as you go along, one more Cosmology fantasy & you can't prove it isn't.


Well, neutron stars have to exist if the theories are correct. So, we can make predictions about what we should see from them, given their inferred properties.
......that's a stretch, "if the theories are correct", yeah, and neutron degeneracy is just one another of those silly ass theories that simple minds like yours swallow hook, line & sinker.

Why is that when neophytes like you are challenged to produce OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of your FANTASIES you ALWAYS resort to: "inferred properties"?

There is nothing "inferred" about the 15 minute decay rate of a neutron into a proton, electron & neutrino. In real Nuclear Physics we don't INFER observational evidence, either it's OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE or it isn't, anything "inferred" is your dimwitted fantasy.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
^^^^^Hey, thicko, do you not understand electron degeneracy? Do you not understand the difference between free neutrons which can decay, and those that aren't free, and can't? How thick do you need to be? So, I'll ask the question again - what is the neutron decaying into, when all the electron states are filled? Don't take an hour to think about, D-K boy. Answer, now.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
In real Nuclear Physics we don't INFER......


How would you know? You have never demonstrated the least understanding of anything scientific, including nuclear physics. Mopping floors, maybe, but nothing else.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
what is the neutron decaying into, when all the electron states are filled?


Little old man living in fantasyland..........what do you infer by the "electron state" of a neutron? My 12 year old knows a neutron contains one electron, there is no other "electron state" of a NEUTRON. And yeah, I had to spell it out in capital letters or you would have missed it, but you probably will anyway.
barakn
5 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
You're a nuclear engineer and you think a neutron contains an electron? Haha. What a liar.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
^^^^^^Benni, Jesus, talk about thick! The star has already gone through the white dwarf stage. That is held up by electron degeneracy. This has been explained to you in terms that a six year old could understand.

As the core continues to collapse past the white dwarf state, the matter within it will continue to
heat up due to the release of gravitational potential energy. Enough free energy is available that the
following inverse beta decay reaction can occur: p+ + e- + 1.36 MeV > n + -ve.

Ordinarily neutrons generated in this fashion would be unstable, and the neutron would turn back
into an electron and a proton within ~10 minutes via beta decay. This is not possible, however, as
the degenerate electron gas in the star has filled all of the available electron states in the core. No
electrons (of energies ≤ 1.36MeV) can be formed, which makes the neutrons stable.


http://www.physic..._hw1.pdf
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2018
You're a nuclear engineer and you think a neutron contains an electron?

A neutron decays into a proton and electron, you'd have to be an utter moron to not know it must contain an electron.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2018
The star has already gone through the white dwarf stage. That is held up by electron degeneracy.


You should reread your own question little old man, here:
So, I'll ask the question again - what is the neutron decaying into, when all the electron states are filled?


So I'll answer your question yet again:
"what do you infer by the "electron state" of a neutron? My 12 year old knows a neutron contains one electron, there is no other "electron state" of a NEUTRON. And yeah, I had to spell it out in capital letters or you would have missed it, but you probably will anyway."
......and predictably, again you missed it.

I guess you mistakenly think a neutron has an ELECTRON SHELL?

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Aaaannndddd, thickness personified, yet again. How can a neutron decay into a proton and an electron, when all the electrons within the neutron star have filled all available states? Understand, thicko? Any electron produced from decay weould need to occupy its own energy state. All those states are already filled. So, I'll ask again, where are these electrons going? Jeeesus.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2018
when all the electrons within the neutron star have filled all available states?

Because neutron stars don't exist as stated. They are pipe dreams of morons such as yourself.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
when all the electrons within the neutron star have filled all available states?

Because neutron stars don't exist as stated. They are pipe dreams of morons such as yourself.


Really? So show me where this has been proven. And I'll link you to a text file where I'll show you all the evidence for neutron stars (not enough room here). Let's start with a peer reviewed paper that says they are impossible. I'll take it from there. If there is no such thing, then it is you who is in denial of the observed evidence for neutron stars. While you're at it, you might want to point to the similarly reviewed literature that explain the GWs from the merger of two NS (as predicted), and how you explain the observed r-process nucleosynthesis that followed (as predicted). Anybody want to bet we won't see anything other than scientifically illiterate handwaving, with nothing to back it up, as usual? I'll take that bet.
Go away and learn some science.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2018
Last resort of cranks and crackpots, incoming in 3.......2......1..... "They faked the data!"
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2018
How can a neutron decay into a proton and an electron, when all the electrons within the neutron star have filled all available states?
What is meant by: "electrons within the neutron star have filled all available states

Any electron produced from decay weould need to occupy its own energy state.
Tell us what YOU mean by this?

All those states are already filled.
So, I'll ask again, where are these electrons going?

The question you seem to be asking is what happens to the ELECTRON that results from the decay of a NEUTRON? Right? Same as what happens to the PROTON & the NEUTRINO, it's kinetic energy recoil finds something to combine with & eventually form some other kind of particle, but it will never form another neutron because the neutrino will be so far distant from the point of recoil, from traveling at almost the speed of light, that it will be gravitationally unrecoverable to recombine with an electron & proton to form a neutron.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2018
observed evidence for neutron stars.


........and we keep asking you for those pictures & you never produce them.

It appears you confuse the term "observed evidence" of the object under discussion with "observing words on a paper". Hey, little old confused man, a picture is worth more than all the words you can ever put up links for, be it a thousand or tens of trillions.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
What is meant by: "electrons within the neutron star have filled all available states


Jesus H. Christ. You are arguing about this stuff and you don't even understand that? I spelled it out for the benefit of 6 year olds further up. Learn to read:

Ordinarily neutrons generated in this fashion would be unstable, and the neutron would turn back
into an electron and a proton within ~10 minutes via beta decay. This is not possible, however, as
the degenerate electron gas in the star has filled all of the available electron states in the core.


jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
It appears you confuse the term "observed evidence"


No, thicko, it is the evidence of all the predicted behaviours of neutron stars that you cannot explain. Such as pulsars, GWs, r-process nucleosynthesis, etc, etc, and numerous others. If you want to carry on your puerile insistence of needing pictures (lol!), then I want a picture of an electron, otherwise they don't exist.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2018
then I want a picture of an electron, otherwise they don't exist.
.....likewise neutron stars. So, got your pic ready?
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
then I want a picture of an electron, otherwise they don't exist.
.....likewise neutron stars. So, got your pic ready?


So yet another dodge. Ergo, electrons don't exist, as espoused by Benni. You read it here first, folks! Little boy can't see it in a piccie, so it isn't real!
barakn
5 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2018
You're a nuclear engineer and you think a neutron contains an electron?

A neutron decays into a proton and electron, you'd have to be an utter moron to not know it must contain an electron. -cantdrive85

You appear to stuck with a 1920s era knowledge of neutrons. You have a century's worth of reading material to catch up on. I suggest starting with the Klein paradox. Until you are ready to discuss this without acting like a child, please refrain from posting.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
You're a nuclear engineer and you think a neutron contains an electron?

A neutron decays into a proton and electron, you'd have to be an utter moron to not know it must contain an electron. -cantdrive85

You appear to stuck with a 1920s era knowledge of neutrons. You have a century's worth of reading material to catch up on. I suggest starting with the Klein paradox. Until you are ready to discuss this without acting like a child, please refrain from posting.


I disagree, Barakn! I have learned something very useful here today - neutrons are just an electron and a proton. In other words, all neutrons are hydrogen atoms! Yay for science!
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
Listening to the segue between On The Run and Time from Dark Side of the Moon. If @Lenni ever "gets it," this is what it will sound like.
434a
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018


A picture in the visible spectrum of a neutron star taken by hubble.
http://hubblesite...on-stars

Now for the love of science will you shut up.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2018
Even more embarrassing the picture of the neutron star was taken two decades ago.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2018
You appear to stuck with a 1920s era knowledge

Yep, sometimes a wrong turn is made and one has to backtrack.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
You appear to stuck with a 1920s era knowledge

Yep, sometimes a wrong turn is made and one has to backtrack.


Well, luckily no serious scientists believe that. Only cranks that don't understand science. Of course they could use their collective expertise (lol) to write all this up, and show everyone where they've gone wrong, but they seem to prefer to talk bollocks on Velikovskian crank sites, and places like this, where it is rightly ignored. Physics cranks are 10 a penny. You're just another one.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2018
Even more embarrassing the picture of the neutron star was taken two decades ago.

Presumed neutron star, don't present it as a fact there liar.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2018
Only cranks that don't understand science.

But alas, I do understand science and I understand how it operates lately, since the early 20th century. I understand it's people, mistake ridden, fallible, prideful people who will protect their beliefs like they're their children. Like you do with all your ad hominems and name calling.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2018
But alas, I do understand science......


Lol. That gave me a laugh! When were we orbiting Saturn, again? I've lost track of all your woo. When was Venus spat out of Jupiter? How is your invisible current and its magnetic field getting anywhere near the Sun? Why are we not being fried by Scott's nuclear fusion? Sorry, but science really isn't your thing. Stick to mythology, with the rest of the cranks.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2018
Even more embarrassing the picture of the neutron star was taken two decades ago.

Presumed neutron star, don't present it as a fact there liar.


Perhaps you could tell us what has a spin period of ~ 0.15s, a radius of ~ 15 km and a magnetic field of ~ 10^11 Gauss?
https://arxiv.org...4199.pdf
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2018
@Benni.

Re your BARYCENTER 'argument' against MW's central 'active stellar-accelerating' feature: I posted a 'known science' reminder to you on Feb 27, 2018, in:

https://phys.org/...big.html

@Benni, @jonesdave.
Center of mass/gravity of the galaxy.
Sorry Benni, but that doesn't explain it.

Such a 'barycenter' would be 'passive'; without 'locally effective' effects like accelerate/redirect near-BH core stars around it on extreme 'slingshot' type trajectories around 'center'.
...
...
Hence 'Galactic barycenter' would NOT be LOCALLY TRAPPING/RE-DIRECTING near-'BH'-orbiting core stars into such 'slingshot' trajectories/orbits (they would be 'oscillating' from one 'side' to the other equidistantly from 'center'.

See? It must be a 'locally active feature'. :)
The extreme stellar re-directions near the MW's central 'region' imply some sort of extreme 'active feature' must occupy that 'region'. :)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2018
@indagator.

See 'known science' reminder, Jan 25, 2018: https://phys.org/...lky.html
@antialias, @Benni.

REMINDER: There is NO SUCH THING as a 'stable' Neutron. A Neutron MAY 'decay' at all PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS UN-stable (as compared to Proton, which is the ONLY 'nucleon' that IS stable).

..Even in the nucleus of atom, a Neutron is ALWAYS in 'unstable equilibrium'; as Proton(s) provide the opportunity for 'mutual exchange' of negative (electron) charge which transiently 'changes' adjacent Proton to 'Neutron-like state' while allowing adjacent Neutron to transiently 'convert' to a Proton-like state, back and forth, so stabilizing that nucleus.

IMAGERY: Think of it as TWO (or more, as the case may be) PROTONS 'juggling' a 'hot potato' (electron) between them so that EITHER ONE may become a 'Neutron' FLEETINGLY before 'handing back' the 'hot potato' (electron) to the OTHER Proton, which, in its turn, fleetingly becomes the 'Neutron'.
Indagator
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2018
@RC!

NO!

Just STOP! Neutrons do NOT contain an electron!!!!

Nor do they contain a W- boson or an electron anti-neutrino!

By Definition ---

A proton is a composite subatomic particle. They are built from 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, written symbolically as uud! Just quarks, nothing else!

A neutron is also a composite subatomic particle. They are assembled from 1 up quark and 2 down quarks, written as, udd! Again, just quarks, no electrons, bosons, or neutrinos!

The up quark is the "lightest" elementary particle subject to Fermi-Dirac statistics. It is further defined to carry a +2/3 elementary charge, half-integer spin, and is affected by all four fundamental forces.

The down quark is the second "lightest" elementary particle subject to Fermi-Dirac statistics. This quark carries a -1/3 elementary charge, half-integer spin, and is also affected by all four fundamental forces.

(...)
Indagator
4 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
(Cont...)

Beta Decay Process ---

Please note, a "free" neutron is unstable because one down quark is unstable within the udd configuration of said neutron!

Beta decay of a neutron goes like this ...

A down quark (at -1/3e) decays into an up quark (at +2/3e), changing the neutron to a proton, while simultaneously emitting a W- boson through charged-current interaction! After a short period of time, the W- boson decays into an electron and an electron anti-neutrino! Restated as an equation,

udd --> uud + W- --> uud + e- + electron anti-neutrino, and illustrated,

https://upload.wi....svg.png

(...)
Indagator
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2018
(Cont...)

Because the total rest mass of the proton, electron, and electron anti-neutrino is less than the rest mass of the neutron, some of the neutron's rest mass is converted into kinetic energy which is transferred to the electron!

FYI RC, that means the electron gets gone! In other words, no "hot potato" oscillation nonsense!

Benni! The process outlined above is what we see when a "free" neutron decays. This also answers Cant's original question! Unfortunately, this entire exercise has been a grand waste of time as none of you "eu" zealots care about science, observational evidence, or learning anything new!

You all seem quite satisfied with your "I am absolutely certain that I am absolutely right all the time" kindergarten science!

Get you facts and definitions straight!

Benni! Cant! RC! You all get a failing grade on this thread! Not that any of you give a damn because you all have a religious agenda to follow! No need to think! Just spew!
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2018
@Indagator,
Agreed. As a first year undergrad textbook I own says:

As you may remember, the type of B-decay that you encountered there involves the emission of an electron from the nucleus of an atom. Perhaps the first question to address is where did that electron come from? Was it there in the first place? The answer is no; it is quite impossible for nuclei to 'contain' electrons. The electron is created by the decay, just as a photon is created when an atom makes a transition from a higher energy level to a lower energy level.


Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
Because the total rest mass of the proton, electron, and electron anti-neutrino is less than the rest mass of the neutron, some of the neutron's rest mass is converted into kinetic energy which is transferred to the electron


At least you've learned something from what I posted above you as you tried restating it:

So, I'll ask again, where are these electrons going?

The question you seem to be asking is what happens to the ELECTRON that results from the decay of a NEUTRON? Right? Same as what happens to the PROTON & the NEUTRINO, it's kinetic energy recoil finds something to combine with & eventually form some other kind of particle, but it will never form another neutron because the neutrino will be so far distant from the point of recoil, from traveling at almost the speed of light, that it will be gravitationally unrecoverable to recombine with an electron & proton to form a neutron.
.......see how much better I explained than you did.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 29, 2018
^^^^Lol. You've got to laugh when people are so dense that they don't realise how dense they are!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2018
My 12 year old knows a neutron contains one electron, there is no other "electron state" of a NEUTRON. And yeah, I had to spell it out in capital letters or you would have missed it, but you probably will anyway."


So, apparently Benni has been allowed to breed, which is a worrying thought. Let's hope its offspring gets a decent education somewhere! For the hard of thinking, and Benni's offspring - no, a neutron does not contain one electron! It decays, producing an electron, among other things. However, that electron would need to find an energy state that is not already occupied by other electrons. That is not possible. So it cannot decay.

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2018
Just STOP! Neutrons do NOT contain an electron!!!!

May I repeat myself? If you think the neutron which decays into a proton and electron does not contain an electron you must be a moron. Elementary particles don't just appear.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 29, 2018
^^^^^^^Oh dear! Lol.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2018
^^^^^^^Oh dear! Lol.

jonesdumb has established he is a moron already, an adherent of all things pop-sci-fi.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 29, 2018
^^^^^^^Oh dear! Lol.

jonesdumb has established he is a moron already, an adherent of all things pop-sci-fi.


Sorry, bozo, have you got a reference for this nonsense? Or just making shit up again? It has already been explained by Indagator. It isn't rocket science.
In beta- decay of a neutron (udd) a down quark (-1/3e) is converted into an up quark (+2/3e) (uud). Therefore the overall charge goes from neutral (+2/3e -1/3e -1/3e) to positive (+2/3e +2/3e -1/3e). The conversion of the down quark into an up quark causes the emission of a W- boson, which itself then decays to an electron and an electron antineutrino. There are no bloody electrons in a neutron.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
Swell pop-sci-fi story jonesdumb, an electron pops into existence. The BB of the atomic scale, "creatio ex nihilo".
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2018
Swell pop-sci-fi story jonesdumb, an electron pops into existence. The BB of the atomic scale, "creatio ex nihilo".


Translation: "I have never done a science course, and have to rely on scientifically illiterate, Velikovskian morons for my education. Therefore I never knew that stuff, and am well out of my depth."
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 29, 2018
"creatio ex nihilo".


Only if you've never heard of the conservation of charge. What was the charge of the neutron before decay? What is the charge of the proton that is created by the decay? So, we have a change in charge of +1. That is balanced by the creation of the electron. There is also conservation of lepton number; so, as an electron (+ 1 lepton) is produced, then we need something to balance that lepton. That would be the antineutrino (-1 lepton).
Like I said, it isn't rocket science, and is first year undergrad stuff in many disciplines.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
How many up quacks and down quacks does it take to create an electromon?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
How many up quacks and down quacks does it take to create an electromon?


Do you mean an electromoron? I don't know; ask Wal Thornhill or Don Scott.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2018
You're telling the cute pop-sci-fi story, why stop now?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
You're telling the cute pop-sci-fi story, why stop now?


I've told you the facts, as you can find within the scientific literature. You are the one making idiotic claims, and refusing to support them. Mainly because there is no science to support them. Just EU fairy tales.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
@cant:

Just STOP! Neutrons do NOT contain an electron!!!!

May I repeat myself? If you think the neutron which decays into a proton and electron does not contain an electron you must be a moron. Elementary particles don't just appear.


You are right; no, they don't 'just appear'. And notice that I have not degenerated into insults.
I am only asking that you give my next few posts (along with the provided links) some sincere thought & try to keep an open mind & try work with me.
...cont
DarkHorse66
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
cont...
I am not quite sure what your personal definition of 'decay' is, but the devil is in the detail. What they are trying to tell you is that the electron is not sitting there fully pre-formed inside the neutron beforehand. It is what is left over after a heavier particle (in this case a W- boson, =also elementary) has lost some of its mass-energy & left behind the amount of mass-energy corresponding to another particular elementary particle, which MUST of course be lighter than the original one. The W- boson has a mass-energy of 80.4 GeV; the electron only has a mass-energy of 511 MeV. As an analogy; it's a bit like crumbling a big Styrofoam ball to make a smaller one. The smaller one does not exist independently – until a part of the big one has been removed.
...cont
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
cont...
I have found a nice site from the LHC (well worth exploring further, especially the other 'articles') that has an interesting but well written way of describing things, including good diagrams. (this is not just for you) Many elementary particles DO decay into each other, according to distinct rules. This page makes a point of spelling them out:
https://profmatts...me-dont/
Here is 'decay' described as a form of 'dissipation':
https://profmatts...cay-why/
...cont
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
cont...
This one gives an overview, with some fun facts, numbers & relationships:
https://profmatts...rticles/

As an extra; how to confuse those not in the know (or 'the big lie about the proton') ;) :
https://profmatts...-anyway/
Anyway, see if you can use the above to see where the others are coming from.

Best Regards, DH66
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2018
Not wanting to interrupt DHs flow, but this site is basic, but informative:

http://www2.lbl.g...ine.html
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2018
For the last several hundred years science was getting ever simpler, until the 1920's or so, since then it has gotten exceedingly more complicated with invented forces and particles at every turn. Rather than understanding that these new requirements falsify their theory they continue to add layers of epicycles and slog headlong into a dead end.
Simplification is progress in science, not added complexity. QM with its probabilistic statistics is not science, it's maths gymnastics used to confuse and complicate and offers no answers but only probabilities. There is no answer to "spooky action at a distance" nor is there a useable model of the atom, just a cloud of probability without reference to cause and effect.
There is however a atomic model under construction that is useful to physics and chemistry (and much more) that simplifies the forces and matter and results in a much more coherent PTE. Simplicity at its finest, a model that is based in reality which can be taught to kids.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2018
The Structured Atomic Model;
https://etherealm....org/sam
Simplicity for progress in science.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
How many up quacks and down quacks does it take to create an electromon?

I don't how many quacks (in any direction) it takes. But I do know how many ducks it takes.
Just one...
http://www.abc.ne...6856.htm

Cheers, DH66
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
@jd:

Not wanting to interrupt DHs flow, but this site is basic, but informative:

http://www2.lbl.g...ine.html

Blame Flood Control. Luckily I had just managed to finish posting.

Cheers, DH66
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2018
The Structured Atomic Model;
https://etherealm....org/sam
Simplicity for progress in science.


W*nker! Try some actual science. Lol.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2018
The Structured Atomic Model;
https://etherealm....org/sam
Simplicity for progress in science.


W*nker! Try some actual science. Lol.

Obviously a bit too real for you, nothing imaginary or conjured involved.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
....For the last several hundred years science was getting ever simpler......


Aaaah, jeez, the eejit copy pasted some more moronic crap. What a surprise. Are you the idiot Chris Reeve in disguise? If not, is there any chance that you made it out of primary/ grade school? Bloody unlikely, eh? Science really isn't your thing, is it dear? Stick to misinterpreting mythology. Along with the other eejits, like Thornhill, Talbott, Scott etc.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
The Structured Atomic Model;
https://etherealm....org/sam
Simplicity for progress in science.


W*nker! Try some actual science. Lol.

Obviously a bit too real for you, nothing imaginary or conjured involved.


Jerk! Doesn't work on my computer; then again I block javascript. Just post a link to the peer reviewed paper, and I'll take a look at it.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
Typical, judged from complete ignorance. That's how jonesdumb operates though. Mindless troll.
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2018
Jonesdave from cantdrives link lol:

"An Alternative to the Peer Review Process

The internet provides an alternative to the peer review process. This process guarantees that new, revolutionary theories will not get published and therefore will not get a fair analysis.

In the past in order to get a new theory exposed to the world you first had to write a paper, submit it to a journal, and hope they publish it. If you don't have the correct credentials you'll be lucky to get past this point. Once published you wait for people to read it and then the discussion begins about it's validity.

With the internet this process can be completely bypassed. A person can publish their theory and within minutes thousands of people can be notified of it's existence and read it. Discussions can begin immediately and the theory can advance and evolve real-time. People from all over the world can chime in and add their knowledge."
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
Eliminate the gatekeepers, real progress can occur. Or continue on with the imaginary conjecture of the darkies.
jimmybobber
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
You are paranoid cantdrive85 and that Electric Universe link you posted is complete gibberish written by an uneducated idiot.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
Nope, my eyes are open to reality.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
Can anybody else remember those days when you sat in physics lessons at school, and the first thing on your mind was, "when did Earth orbit Saturn."? No, neither can I. Know why? Because most people have an IQ that outstrips that of a brain damaged trilobite. However, this doesn't apply to everyone. Electric universe loons are a case in point...........
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
And jonesdumb changes the subject again. But he's got his willful ignorance on display.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
Cantthink: "Neutrons are made of electrons."

Brilliant. This is the level of stupid that we have to deal with! Strewth!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2018
A proton and electron, just what they decay into. Lie much jonesdumb?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
And jonesdumb changes the subject again. But he's got his willful ignorance on display.


Changes the subject from what, woo-boy? Fusion in SAFIRE? Lol. Link, please. Your ignorance of quantum? What is it that you think you actually know something about? Sod all, as far as I can see.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2018
And jonesdumb changes the subject again. But he's got his willful ignorance on display.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2018
A proton and electron, just what they decay into. Lie much jonesdumb?


Dick. It has already been explained! Lol. Take primary school science again. Try to pass it this time, dear. Not really your thing, this science lark, is it, bozo?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
jonesdumb shouts out vulgarities and shows his true Bill Cosby like character.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
EU recruiting brochure:

"Were you rubbish at science at school? Have you got a sub-human IQ? Well, fear not; we are here to help you!........................."
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2018
jonesdumb shouts out vulgarities and shows his true Bill Cosby like character.


Only because you can't understand basic science, woo-boy. Be honest; you have never been near a university in your life, have you? Just like Benni. You are nothing more than a gobshite. All talk, no IQ. Correct? Couldn't re-wire a plug if your life depended on it. A bit like your heroes Thornhill and Scott? Thick as pig muck. N'est-ce pas?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
Name calling and low brow responses is what jonesdumb considers science discussion, typical acolyte behavior.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
Name calling and low brow responses is what jonesdumb considers science discussion, typical acolyte behavior.


Well then, woo boy, actually do some science. Yes? You'll be the first from the idiotic Velikovskian cult to which you belong to actually do so. Go.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2018
low brow responses......


From the eejit who thinks neutrons contain electrons! You really have to laugh.

(p.s. what happens when a positron is released?)

IQ of a brain damaged trilobite. Yes?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
Can you post a comment related to a science discussion? Can you post a comment and not lie? Haven't seen it yet, but according to QM miracles happen.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2018
Can you post a comment related to a science discussion? Can you post a comment and not lie? Haven't seen it yet, but according to QM miracles happen.


See my point? IQ of a dead thing!!!!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2018
Can you post a comment related to a science discussion? Can you post a comment and not lie? Haven't seen it yet, but according to QM miracles happen.


Can you ever post a scientific link to the crap that you believe? I have posted plenty of stuff to back up the observed QM. Idiot. So, let's see your rejoinder. And please don't let it be morons like Thornhill. Real science, such as we post yes? Go.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2018
mumble, mumble mumble, Saturn orbited Earth, mumble, mumble, Venus came out of Jupiter, mumble, mumble, craters are from electric woo, mumble, mumble, comets are rocky electric woo, mumble,mumble, etc, etc. Pathetic crap. Do some science, woo boy. Let us know when you have graduated from primary school.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2018
@indagator, @jonesdave, @DarkHorse66.

Please realize, you're just 'parroting' old/naive/mathematical 'simplified' (and too simplistic) 'interpretational constructs' devised early on, to 'make sense' of the "zoo of particles". This is very annoying; because it has held back understanding of the actual physical reality entities/processes for too long (much like naive/simplistic and patently erroneous Big Bang/Inflation/EXOTIC-DM has held back understanding of the actual physical cosmological reality features/processes).

You need to ditch all old/naive 'interpretational' constructs invented 'back when' scientists were only just beginning to scratch the surface of reality physical phenomena...and just gave up the reality in preference for mathematical/metaphysical 'constructs' which 'side-stepped' the requirement for actual explanation, and 'just settled for' mathematical/metaphysical 'calculation/prediction'.

The up-to-date understanding based in reality (not maths)...cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
@indagator, @jonesdave, @DarkHorse66

cont... is that the ONLY fundamental FERMION is the ELECTRON; which itself is the 'fundamental particulate' perturbation in the PLASMONIC FIELD which exists wherever electronic and photonic 'particles' (said photons being the fundamental BOSONIC bosonic 'particulate perturbation).

Moreover, NEUTRINOS are the 'non-particulate' QUANTA of GRAVITATIONAL-INERTIAL ENERGY 'swirl-cage' FLOWS which form around, and can be 'shed' from, all PLASMONIC 'particulate perturbations'. These PLASMONIC perturbations first arise as ELECTRONIC 'scale/mass/spin' forms; and can gain/lose 'gravitational-inertial energy' to form more/less energetic/massive FERMIONIC particles....with the electron as the least massive. This is easily realized when you consider that KAONS decay to PIONS, MUONS and eventually ELECTRONS...with the relevant 'applicable scale' QUANTA of gravitational-inertial energy 'swirl-cage flow structures' being 'shed' at each stage!

cont...
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2018
@indagator, @jonesdave, @DarkHorse66.

Please realize, you're just 'parroting' old/naive/mathematical 'simplified' (and too simplistic) 'interpretational constructs' devised early on, to 'make sense' of the "zoo of particles". This is very annoying; because it has held back understanding of the actual physical reality entities/processes for too long (much like naive/simplistic and patently erroneous Big Bang/Inflation/EXOTIC-DM has held back understanding of the actual physical cosmological reality features/processes).


Oh, give us a frigging break. Do you think neutrons are made of electrons? Or are you as big a moron as cantthink? Do you understand degeneracy pressure? Yes or no? Otherwise, STFU. Please.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
@indagator, @jonesdave, @DarkHorse66...cont:

Do you see the REALITY PHYSICS PATTERN there? Think it through; sleep on it then think it through again until you 'get' it. :)

Anyhow, regarding this from you:
NO!

Just STOP! Neutrons do NOT contain an electron!!!!

Nor do they contain a W- boson or an electron anti-neutrino!

By Definition ---

A proton is a composite subatomic particle. They are built from 2 up quarks...etc etc etc
I NEVER said "the Neutron contained an electron". :)

I said the electron (which is in the plasmonic form within the atomic neuleus dynamical system/feature) is bandied back-and-forth BETWEEN PROTONS such that they 'transiently stabilize' each other's 'neutron-like' states whenever the electron plasmonic state is affecting one or other in turn. Please re-read what I originally wrote and 'get' the context/thrust.

By now you should have realized that QUARKS are actually the HEAVIEST forms of 'Electronic type' PLASMONIC forms...

cont...
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2018
@indagator, @jonesdave, @DarkHorse66...cont:

..., complete with their own applicably-massed 'gravitational-inertial energy' swirl-cage 'flow structure/feature' of NEUTRINO type.

You will easily understand this, once you realize that when protons are 'smashed' they can 'release' Kaons, which can release Pins etc as previously described, with each stage releasing the respectively-massed 'neutrinos' until the final fundamentally-massed neutrino and electron is left!

So, I trust you now will cease 'old simplistic parrotings' of 'old simplistic mathematical/metaphysical/interpretations'. Try instead, to 'get with' up-to-date understandings of ACTUAL REALITY entities/processes involved in the observed quantum/universal physical phenomena (when I publish my ToE complete it will help you even more to that end).

PS to all sides: Please stop insulting/bickering from ignorance/malice. Be true scientists, not just 'the usual fails' in science/humanity'. OK?

Cheers! :)

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2018
@jonesdave.
@indagator, @jonesdave, @DarkHorse66.

Please realize, you're just 'parroting' old/naive/mathematical 'simplified' (and too simplistic) 'interpretational constructs' devised early on, to 'make sense' of the "zoo of particles". This is very annoying; because it has held back understanding of the actual physical reality entities/processes for too long (much like naive/simplistic and patently erroneous Big Bang/Inflation/EXOTIC-DM has held back understanding of the actual physical cosmological reality features/processes).


Oh, give us a frigging break. Do you think neutrons are made of electrons?

Mate, why jump in all excited and combative before my as-indicated continuing series of posts (in response to @indagator's own series) was finished? If you had waited patiently, you would have seen my response to @indagator re that.

I never said any such thing as you just mistakenly also implied; and hence mistakenly insult therefrom.

Calm down, mate. :)
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
not just 'the usual fails' in science/humanity'.

jonesdumb is the epitome of a humanity fail. And an utter science joke.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2018
PS to @jonesdave (and everyone here).

I AM NOT 'with' any group/other individuals when it comes to science. I am the quintessential INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE, LONE RESEARCHER; and have been such since I was 9! Yes...since age NINE years; when I realized I was atheist; and so determined on a course of investigation/comprehension to find out and understand FOR MYSELF, scientifically and objectively, what the Universe was; and how it worked to produce the observed phenomena. So please, @jonesdave and everyone, do yourselves a favor: avoid 'lumping me in with' anyone and everyone else you disagree with. There is NO ONE else I am associated with; nor depend on in any way, for my OWN OBJECTIVE work/understandings. OK? Neither plasma universe group, nor electric universe group, nor Big Bang/Inflation/Exotic-DM group; nor any other 'group'. These and all other groups/individuals have either partial theories or outright erroneous theories. My ToE is the ONLY one complete/correct. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2018
@cantdrive85.
not just 'the usual fails' in science/humanity'.

jonesdumb is the epitome of a humanity fail. And an utter science joke.
HEY! I'm trying to get people to calm down; and to discuss objectively as scientists, not as kindergarten drop-outs. And you're NOT HELPING. Please COOL IT with the personal insults. Thanks. :)
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2018
I'm trying to get people to calm down

And what does that have to do with jonesdumb? You said people.
My ToE is the ONLY one complete/correct.

LOL, ego much? Where is this "complete/correct" TOE? Must be a big TOE, not a pinky?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2018
not just 'the usual fails' in science/humanity'.

jonesdumb is the epitome of a humanity fail. And an utter science joke.


Sorry, where am I wrong? And you right? You are abysmally clueless in every area of science that you pontificate upon. You believe Venus was spat out by Jupiter. That Earth used to orbit Saturn. That impact craters are electrical woo. That the Sun is a giant lightbulb. Any and all attempts to garner some scientific evidence and valid theory on such things are met with silence and/or utterly ludicrous, and scientifically impossible claims. You wouldn't know science if you fell over it. All you have learned to do is to parrot a few phrases from a decades dead scientist. The above applies to all the rest of your EU cultists, also.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2018
@RC,
Please re-read what I originally wrote and 'get' the context/thrust.


Which was;
Even in the nucleus of atom, a Neutron is ALWAYS in 'unstable equilibrium'; as Proton(s) provide the opportunity for 'mutual exchange' of negative (electron) charge which transiently 'changes' adjacent Proton to 'Neutron-like state' while allowing adjacent Neutron to transiently 'convert' to a Proton-like state, back and forth, so stabilizing that nucleus.


Which is bollocks. We are dealing with a degenerate gas in which the Pauli exclusion principle applies. There is no state for an electron to exist within. End of story. And antineutrinos are produced every time a neutron produces an electron. Where are they in stable nuclei? Sorry, it's just nuts.

RNP
4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2018
@Realitycheck
I am the quintessential INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE, LONE RESEARCHER;...

No. You are a scientifically illiterate troll.

....and have been such since I was 9! Yes...since age NINE years; ..


OK. So you stopped listening at age nine. Now we can all understand why your understanding of science is so poor.

My ToE is the ONLY one complete/correct


Do you not hear yourself? Do not not realise how idiotic you sound? How pathetically needy? You really should get some help.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2018
@cantdrive85 (& @jonesdave if reading).
I'm trying to get people to calm down
And what does that have to do with jonesdumb? You said people
You and @jonesdave seem to prefer mutual-insults-fests above mutual-scientific-comprehension. It makes you both as bad as each other. Which of you two will turn out to be the better man/scientist and drop the personal animus between you two I wonder. We'll see in due time. :)
My ToE is the ONLY one complete/correct.
LOL, ego much? Where is this "complete/correct" TOE? Must be a big TOE, not a pinky?
Irrelevancies like "ego" have no role to play in my scrupulously independent, objective application of best scientific principles at all times during my lone researching and long comparing/sound-boarding my ToE against all partial/incomplete ones on offer from other individuals/groups, whether professionals/amateurs.

And you are well aware by now, that I'll only publish my complete reality-based ToE/Maths in full. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2018
@jonesdave.
We are dealing with a degenerate gas...
No. We are dealing with an EXTREMELY DENSE PLASMA FLUID state/dynamic, not a 'gas'.

Please stop using old 'descriptions' that bear no relation to what is actually involved here; ie: degenerate PLASMA states; involving charge dynamics which are NOT as simplistically assumed/ described/labeled early on.

Drop the 'gas' concept; comprehend the plasma-fluid reality in such extreme contexts. Statistics 'calculates' abstractions/probabilities, while real physics treats reality.

You also miss the obvious self-contradiction in your stance; eg: according to orthodoxy, degeneracy pressure eventually forces an electron to FUSE WITH A PROTON to produce a Neutron...BUT THEN...you/orthodoxy maintain that no Electron is involved in a Neutron's dynamical state"! You can't have it both ways, mate. :)

Once we are dealing with such EXTREME dynamics/features, old/simplistic mathematical/metaphysical approaches/interpretations fail. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2018
^^^^^Complete bollocks. Nothing more than pseudoscientific word salad. If degeneracy pressure doesn't exist, then I assume you are going to tell us that white dwarves and neutron stars don't exist, yes? You might as well go and join the scientifically illiterate loons over at thunderdolts!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2018
@RNP.
I am the quintessential INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE, LONE RESEARCHER;
No. You are a scientifically illiterate troll.
Apparently yu'bve been missing/ignoring many recent mainstream quantum/astro/csmo physics discoveries and reviews which increasingly confirm my longstanding observations/points correct all along. So what have YOU to offer; apart from incessant parroting of patently ld/untenable 'beliefs' and personal insults from your own ignorance willfully, cultivated because YOU "stopped listening" to information/understandings being presented under you very nose every day now?
and have been such since I was 9! Yes...since age NINE years; ..
OK. So you stopped listening at age nine. Now we can all understand why your understanding of science is so poor. You 'expediently' left out the scrupulously independent, objective application of scientific principles; obviously in order to 'concoct' your lame, self-serving 'frame' that I "stopped listening". Sad.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^Complete bollocks. Nothing more than pseudoscientific word salad. If degeneracy pressure doesn't exist, then I assume you are going to tell us that white dwarves and neutron stars don't exist, yes? You might as well go and join the scientifically illiterate loons over at thunderdolts!
Really, mate, you need to calm down so that you can read/comprehend objectively, and so avid such misjudged kneejerks from your own misreading.

So, please re-read it calmly. Then you will see that I NEVER said that degeneracy pressure doesn't exist. I merely pointed out the old/simplistic and abstractions/statistics descriptions/treatments may bear no relation to the actually physical states/dynamics within such EXTREME and DENSE PLASMA contexts.

You must be careful to NOT employ ld/simplistic 'cnstructs' and 'explanatins' beynd their realm of applicability/usefulness. We must all take care to shed prior misleading terminolgies/labels that masquerade as 'explanations'. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2018
No. We are dealing with an EXTREMELY DENSE PLASMA FLUID state/dynamic, not a 'gas


Well that is what real scientists call it. You can call whatever TF you like. The fact remains that Paili says there is nowhere for a frigging electron to go. And as I already asked - each time a neutron decays into a proton an antineutrino is produced. So, where are they? If this were happening in my block of cheese in the fridge, then it should be a good source of neutrinos and antineutrinos, yes? Every time a proton becomes a neutron, or vice-versa we will see an electron or positron, and a neutrino or antineutrino. Very easy to test, I would have thought. Not that it can happen in a degenerate gas anyway, as explained.
Then again, I guess Pauli was an idiot, and you know better.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2018
Really, mate, you need to calm down so that you can read/comprehend objectively, and so avid such misjudged kneejerks from your own misreading.


I read it. You said that the frigging neutrons and protons are shuffling electrons between themselves, for christ's sake! Cannot happen, can it? Whether it is in a degenerate gas or not. It is totally disallowed in a degenerate gas, and if it were happening in a non-degenerate situation, you would have electrons, positrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos being produced every time a proton changed to a neutron and vice versa. It is complete woo.

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2018
And you are well aware by now, that I'll only publish my complete reality-based ToE/Maths in full. :)

I have heard that copout before, but up above you said;
My ToE is the ONLY one complete/correct

So what is it?
BTW, if you as an individual were truly capable of producing "the ONLY one complete/correct" ToE you would in fact be the greatest scientist/philosopher ever to walk this planet. Galileo, Aristotle, Archimedes, Maxwell, Tesla, de Vinci, Planck, Faraday, Copernicus, Newton, or any other great mind that has lived wouldn't be able to hold your jock. All paupers compared to your egoless greatness. Somehow I think Uncle Pedo's opinion of you is much more accurate than a comparison of you to any of the above. I don't disagree you have an open mind, but check the floor beneath you because it would seem as if some of it fell out and got stepped on. That said, you are partial heads and shoulders beyond the dolt jonesdumb. Practice some humility once in a while.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2018
That said, you are partial heads and shoulders beyond the dolt jonesdumb. Practice some humility once in a while.


Lol. Says the idiot who doesn't know what a collisionless plasma is, and thinks Earth used to orbit Saturn in the neolithic! Irony, much?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2018
REFORMATTED:

@RNP.
I am the quintessential INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE, LONE RESEARCHER
You are a scientifically illiterate troll
Apparently you've been missing/ignoring many recent mainstream quantum/astro/csmo physics discoveries and reviews which increasingly confirm my longstanding observations/points correct all along. So what have YOU to offer; apart from incessant parroting of patently ld/untenable 'beliefs' and personal insults from your own ignorance willfully, cultivated because YOU "stopped listening" to information/understandings being presented under you very nose every day now?
and have been such since I was 9! Yes...since age NINE years
So you stopped listening at age nine. Now we can all understand why your understanding of science is so poor.
You 'expediently' left out the scrupulously independent, objective application of scientific principles; obviously in order to 'concoct' your lame, self-serving 'frame' that I "stopped listening". Sad.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
No. We are dealing with an EXTREMELY DENSE PLASMA FLUID state/dynamic, not a 'gas
And as I already asked - each time a neutron decays into a proton an antineutrino is produced.
Mate, scientists have used misleading terminology in many disciplines. Just beware, is all. :)

And you ask the wrong questions; because you still misunderstand what I said.

I never said Neutron became a stable entity, did I?

I said Electron-equivalent plasmonic energy 'particulate perturbatin feature' is shuffled between PROTONS (the ONLY NUCLEONS KNOWN TO HAVE A PERSISTENTLY STABLE STATE); which proton FLEETINGLY becomes 'Neutron-like' TRANSIENT 'feature' which NEVER SETTLES to 'stable Neutron' state before immediately shuffling the 'hot potato' Electron-like energy feature ONTO THE NEAREST PROTON; which latter experiences the same TRANSIENT STATE of UNSTABLE 'Neutron-like' feature, but NEVER a 'settled' state (ie, 'electron' is NOT 'fused' to Proton-Neutron). OK? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2018
@cantdrive85.
My ToE is the ONLY one complete/correct
...if you as an individual were truly capable of producing "the ONLY one complete/correct" ToE you would in fact be the greatest scientist/philosopher ever to walk this planet....
NO. It would simply make me the one who has been most scrupulously objective; independently applying the (modern) Scientific Method Principles to the exclusion of all distracting irrelevancies and unhealthy 'personal/professional imperatives' and 'influences' throughout.

Which is why I have taken ample time, trouble, patience and determination to make a proper and complete reality-based job of it rather than 'publish-or-perish' piecemeal 'papers' ad nauseam with only 'partial theory'.
Practice some humility once in a while.
Human ego, humility carry no weight in true science; only scrupulous adherence at all times to Science Method Principles. To exclude such 'subjective' considerations is why Scientifc Method was invented. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2018
OK? :)


No. It is still complete crap. How does a proton become 'neutron-like'? I mean, WTF is that? Either it is a proton, or it is a frakking neutron. Make your mind up. It is all word salad.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
OK? :)


No. It is still complete crap. How does a proton become 'neutron-like'? I mean, WTF is that? Either it is a proton, or it is a frakking neutron. Make your mind up. It is all word salad.
You may not realize that many 'particles' are merely transient (transitional/intermediate state) energy-mass 'features'? Only the 'persistently stable' systems can be truly termed a 'stable particle'.

Just as in chemistry there are myriad 'intermediate states/products' which do not survive/persist, but are transient 'background fluctuations' tending towards one or other 'end product' state which persists and able to be extracted from the reacting system.

Also consider the role of chemical CATALYSTS. It transiently changes the reaction dynamics but does not itself ever become a 'stable something else'.

It always returns to its original catalyst feature/state/form...merely 'shuffling' energy-matter features/charges etc between itself and reactants. See? :)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) May 01, 2018
See? :)


Nope, it's an even bigger load of bollocks now than it was previously. Either a proton is a proton, or it becomes a neutron. There is no bloody in-between state. And if it becomes a neutron, a positron and an electron neutrino are produced. If the neutron then becomes a proton again, an electron and an electron antineutrino are produced. This is conservation of charge and conservation of lepton number. No amount of word salad if going to change something so fundamental. As I've said, it is bollocks of the highest order.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
Either a proton is a proton, or it becomes a neutron. There is no bloody in-between state. And if it becomes a neutron, a positron and an electron neutrino are produced. If the neutron then becomes a proton again, an electron and an electron antineutrino are produced. This is conservation of charge and conservation of lepton number. No amount of word salad if going to change something so fundamental.
Again, I don't blame you entirely; I blame the old/simplistic approach/teaching-by-dogma' that keeps getting in the way of progressing your understandings beyond the abstract mathematical stage. Consider: All your 'objections' and 'arguments' so far have been based on the premise that the extreme dynamical interactions within Neutron Stars are completed/settled; as suggested by simplistic Feynman Diagrams etc. It's not so. The internal dynamics isn't 'finished'; it's in flux. No 'end-products'; so 'accounting' is 'premature' until the dynamics STOP. See? :)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) May 01, 2018
See? :)


No, you are still talking bollocks. The conservation of charge, and the conservation of lepton number are not assumed. They are facts. A proton is +1, a neutron is 0. How are you going to conserve charge? And lepton number?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) May 01, 2018
A proton +1, an electron -1, a neutron 0...
Hmmmm, now think hard jonesdumb.
(+1) + (-1)=0
How'd they do that?
It's not the 1+1=2 your brain cell can handle but still equal neutron.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) May 01, 2018
A proton +1, an electron -1, a neutron 0...
Hmmmm, now think hard jonesdumb.
(+1) + (-1)=0
How'd they do that?
It's not the 1+1=2 your brain cell can handle but still equal neutron.


A perfect demonstration of the grade school level of EUist 'science'! I'll spell it out again, for the schoolchildren; if a neutron (0) decays into a proton (+1), we need to conserve charge. That is done by the emission, via a W- boson, of an electron (-1). Charge is conserved. Happy days. However, we have just created a lepton, and we need to conserve lepton number as well. The lepton will have to be the opposite number of the electron (+1), so will be an electron antineutrino (-1). If the process goes the other way, we get a positron (-1) and an electron neutrino (+1). If RCs woo was correct, we would see these neutrinos and antineutrinos coming from almost every atom, as Ps flip back and forth with Ns. We don't.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) May 01, 2018
.......So, nobody is saying that charge and lepton number are not conserved - we know neutrons decay to protons, and protons can become neutrons. Happens all the time. If, however, they were flip-flopping, as RC suggests, then this would produce an endless stream of electrons, positrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos from atoms. Is this observed? In a block of cheese, for instance? No, it isn't. Thankfully, as the positrons and electrons would annihilate in short order to produce gamma rays. They are not good for you.
In a neutron star, the electron could never be produced in the first place due to degeneracy. So, all in all, RCs suggestion was about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) May 01, 2018
.........another problem with RCs woo (as if there weren't enough already), is that when the neutron decays to a proton + electron, the electron will be at such an energy that it will escape the nucleus. It isn't getting shared with anything. So, for the proton to then turn back into a neutron, it'll need to find an electron from elsewhere. They can't just keep playing a two man game of pass the parcel.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2018
@jonesdave.

Before proceeding, I would advise you to not be upset by @cantdrive's/@Benni's naive/simplistic 'accounting' etc; it is equally inadequate/misleading/inapplicable as your own 'accounting' etc is, in the Extreme Energy States/Processes situations we're discussing.

Re your arguments, I again remind you that the Neutron NEVER forms a stable state/configuration in this context (because, as I said, the electron-energy becomes part of the PLASMONIC ENERGY 'sea', and NEVER actually 'fuses' with the proton-neutron states/particles).

Hence naive 'accounting' for Lepton Number is inapplicable; because they never 'settle' into stable neutron states. OK?

Also, again, realize we're speaking of highly exotic quantum material/states, energy-flows/features in extreme contexts; wherein old naive/simplistic views do not suffice (recall the *shock* to naivete' when Superfluidity/Superconductivity etc were discovered!).

Extreme plasma/fluids require novel understandings. :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) May 02, 2018
^^^^^^^More word salad, and a total lack of science. As usual. Complete gibberish.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2018
Re your arguments, I again remind you that the Neutron NEVER forms a stable state/configuration in this context (because, as I said, the electron-energy becomes part of the PLASMONIC ENERGY 'sea', and NEVER actually 'fuses' with the proton-neutron states/particles).


So, the electron never fuses with anything? Great. So, we have a proton, a neutron and an electron. Magic. The rest of us call that deuterium.
Where is this electron 'energy' coming from. if not from an electron? Where did the electron come from? What is it doing? This gibberish needs to be defined in scientific terms, rather than hopeless word salad.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
@jonesdave.

Good Morning, mate. :)
So, the electron never fuses with anything?
Not 'stably persistent'; hence not 'fused', merely 'transiently entangled' until the internal dynamics 'un-entangle' it. Hence the 'hot potato' shuffling illustrative imagery I used earlier.
Great. So, we have a proton, a neutron and an electron. Magic. The rest of us call that deuterium.
And what is needed in that (or more complex, ie, beyond ordinary Hydrogen) Atomic Nucleus for 'stability' of that Nucleus? You guessed it!...one/more *sufficient* PROTON(s) with which to play 'hot potato' with whatever electronic-plasmonic energy quanta is involved. The well known 'magic number' of neutron-to-proton 'ratios' is all about that 'shuffling' dynamics between the proton-neutron 'mix'.
Where is this electron 'energy' coming from. if not from an electron? Where did the electron come from? What is it doing?
Ask yourself what a *Plasmon* is. The answer should put you on the right track. :)
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) May 02, 2018
^^^^^^Sorry, but that is just a bunch of meaningless word salad. Total gibberish, and nothing whatsoever to do with real science. I mean, WTF is this?

Not 'stably persistent'; hence not 'fused', merely 'transiently entangled' until the internal dynamics 'un-entangle' it. Hence the 'hot potato' shuffling illustrative imagery I used earlier.


??????? Complete and utter crap, is what it is.

Ask yourself what a *Plasmon* is.


I did. And looked it up. It has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.

Plasmons can be described in the classical picture as an oscillation of electron density with respect to the fixed positive ions in a metal.

https://en.wikipe.../Plasmon

So, you need free electrons, and they are doing nothing whatsoever to the neutrons and protons. In degeneracy, such as in a neutron star, they cannot even exist.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2018
@jonesdave.
And looked it up. It has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.
You're letting your emotions get in the way of digesting new information about how such things apply.

Take your time to read up exhaustively. Realize what the term 'plasmon sea' implies about actual state of electronic-photonic energy flow/wave 'features' readily detected on material surfaces/edges/interstices (which also explains 'two-slit etc experiments'; as I have long pointed out; and which is increasingly being found by mainstream researchers). You are patently insufficiently read-up on the evolving cross-discipline discoveries/understandings of subtle/complex dynamics/features (you seem to be 'stuck' in old/naive/erroneous views inculcated by naive/simplistic 'formal' education/thinking).

Again, mate, it's not for me to spoonfeed you an 'updating master-class into everything' here in a text-limited discussion format. Nor do I haven't the time, as I'm finalizing my ToE math. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) May 02, 2018
You're letting your emotions get in the way of digesting new information about how such things apply.


No, I'm using known and well attested science, as opposed to completely unscientific word salad. I can smell BS a mile off, and believe me, this reeks of it.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
@jonesdave.
No, I'm using known and well attested science,..
All such science is subject to updating as necessitated by new understandings/observations as they occur; else you are in danger of getting 'stuck' in superseded 'dogma'.
..as opposed to completely unscientific word salad. I can smell BS a mile off, and believe me, this reeks of it.
Please be aware that past instances where certain other posters here (who were likewise 'stuck in old dogma' and/or were 'not-up-to-date with new/revised understandings) also called me names and said I was wrong etc etc....only for them to eat their words when finally/inevitably they found out that I was correct all along and they incorrect. So whenever you address me or my posts, please first take care to listen/think carefully/properly in context; and, if necessary, do exhaustive research until you are au fait with ALL the necessary cross-discipline understandings since you were 'inculcated'. Avoid kneejerks/insults. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) May 02, 2018
All such science is subject to updating as necessitated by new understandings/observations as they occur; else you are in danger of getting 'stuck' in superseded 'dogma'.


More word salad. Sounds like you might have copy/ pasted it from thunderdolts.

...do exhaustive research until you are au fait with ALL the necessary cross-discipline understandings since you were 'inculcated'.


Exhaustive research isn't needed to know BS when we see it. And that is what this is - just sciency (to some) looking words on a string. To be correct it would need to overthrow pretty much everything we know about physics. And it only exists in your head, and in drivel written in the comments section of this website. A website where other Dunning-Kruger affected individuals see fit to post their ToEs. Strangely, they never make it to the scientific literature. If and when it does, give us a call. From Stockholm.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2018
@jonesdave.
All such science is subject to updating as necessitated by new understandings/observations as they occur; else you are in danger of getting 'stuck' in superseded 'dogma'.
More word salad. Sounds like you might have copy/ pasted it from thunderdolts.
Why make lame spurious 'association' between me and any other group/individual, mate? You KNOW I'm scrupulously independent lone researcher. Don't stoop to such unscrupulous tactics, mate; it diminishes your character/intellect.
...do exhaustive research until you're au fait with ALL the necessary cross-discipline understandings since you were 'inculcated'.
Exhaustive research isn't needed to know BS when we see it...
I'm increasingly confirmed correct all along on many fronts by mainstream now. I've been found correct in many instances when certain posters also called me names (because they were ignorant of known science and/or just nasty-in-denial). So much for you/they "knowing BS", mate. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.