Astronomers reveal new details about 'monster' star-forming galaxies

Astronomers reveal new details about 'monster' star-forming galaxies
Artist's impression of the monster galaxy COSMOS-AzTEC-1. This galaxy is located 12.4 billion light-years away and is forming stars 1,000 times more rapidly than our Milky Way galaxy. ALMA observations revealed dense gas concentrations in the disk, and intense star formation in those concentrations. Credit: National Astronomical Observatory of Japan

An international team of astronomers from Japan, Mexico and the University of Massachusetts Amherst studying a "monster galaxy" 12.4 billion light years away today report that their instruments have achieved a 10 times higher angular resolution than ever before, revealing galaxy structural details previously completely unknown. They also were able to analyze dynamic properties that could not be probed before. Details appear in Nature

So-called "monster galaxies" or extreme starburst galaxies are thought to be ancestors of like the Milky Way in today's universe, so these findings about the galaxy known as COSMOS-AzTEC-1 pave the way to understanding their formation and evolution, the researchers say.

Co-author Min Yun, professor of astronomy at UMass Amherst and a member of the team that discovered this galaxy using a UMass-built instrument named AzTEC in Chile in 2007, adds, "A real surprise is that this galaxy seen almost 13 billion years ago has a massive, ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation instead of what we had expected, which would have been some kind of a disordered train wreck that most theoretical studies had predicted." 

That said, he adds, they did observe that this gas disk is dynamically unstable now, which means the entire gas disk that makes up this galaxy is fragmenting and undergoing a gigantic episode of starburst, which helps to explain its enormous star formation rate, more than 1,000 times that of the Milky Way galaxy. 

These most recent observational discoveries of COSMOS-AzTEC-1were made possible by the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), a telescope and facility operated by an international partnership in Chile. Ken-ichi Tadaki is lead author of this week's paper and a postdoctoral researcher at the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and the nation's National Astronomical Observatory. He says, "One of the best parts of ALMA observations is to see such far-away galaxies with unprecedented resolution."

Astronomers have long wondered why monster galaxies can form stars at such a startling pace. To begin to understand, they needed to characterize the environment around stellar nurseries. Drawing detailed maps of molecular clouds is an important step, they say.

Tadaki and the team found that COSMOS-AzTEC-1 is rich in the ingredients of stars, but it was still difficult to figure out the nature of the cosmic gas in the galaxy. They used ALMA's high resolution and high sensitivity to observe the galaxy and obtain a detailed map of the distribution and the motion of the gas to make the highest resolution molecular gas map of a distant monster galaxy ever made.

"We found that there are two distinct large clouds several thousand light-years away from the center," explains Tadaki. "In most distant starburst galaxies, stars are actively formed in the center. So it is surprising to find off-center clouds."

Yun adds, "How these galaxies have been able to amass such a large quantity of gas in the first place and then essentially turn the entire gas reserve into stars in the blink of an eye, cosmologically speaking, was a completely unknown question about which we could only speculate. We have the first answers now."

Unstoppable monster in the early universe
ALMA revealed the distribution of molecular gas (left) and dust particles (right). In addition to the dense cloud in the center, the research team found two dense clouds several thousand light-years away from the center. These dense clouds are dynamically unstable and thought to be the sites of intense star formation. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), Tadaki et al.

He says, "Until this result came in from ALMA, nobody knew how Nature created massive, young galaxies formed only 1 billion years after the Big Bang. Finding them first using AzTEC instrument 10 years ago was a real discovery, but it defied explanation."

With the new observations, team members now believe that the monster galaxy is powered by "an extremely gas-heavy disk that is somehow kept stable until enough gas is amassed. We still don't know yet how so much gas is collected so quickly and what kept this enormous gas reserve from igniting and turning into stars, as gas is known to do in the local universe," Yun adds.

The astronomers found that the gas clouds in COSMOS-AzTEC-1 are very unstable, which is unusual. In a normal situation, they point out, the inward gravity and outward pressure are balanced. Once gravity overcomes pressure, the gas cloud collapses and forms stars at a rapid pace. Then, and supernova explosions at the end of the stellar life cycle blast out gases, which increase the outward pressure. As a result, the gravity and pressure reach a balanced state and star formation continues at a moderate pace. In this way star formation in galaxies is self-regulating.

But in COSMOS-AzTEC-1, the pressure is far weaker than gravity and hard to balance. Therefore this galaxy shows runaway star formation and has morphed into an unstoppable monster galaxy. Tadaki, Yun and colleagues estimate that the gas in COSMOS-AzTEC-1 will be completely consumed in 100 million years, which is 10 times faster than in other star forming galaxies.

Why the gas in COSMOS-AzTEC-1 is so unstable is not clear yet, but a phenomenon called "galaxy merger" is a possible cause. Galaxy collision may have efficiently transported the gas into a small area and ignited intense . Tadaki says, "At this moment, we have no evidence of merger in this galaxy. But by observing other similar galaxies with ALMA, we want to unveil the relation between galaxy mergers and monster ."


Explore further

Explosive birth of stars swells galactic cores

More information: A gravitationally unstable gas disk of a starburst galaxy 12 billion years ago, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0443-1 , https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0443-1
Journal information: Nature

Citation: Astronomers reveal new details about 'monster' star-forming galaxies (2018, August 29) retrieved 21 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-08-astronomers-reveal-monster-star-forming-galaxies.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
560 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 29, 2018
"A real surprise is that this galaxy seen almost 13 billion years ago has a massive, ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation instead of what we had expected, which would have been some kind of a disordered train wreck that most theoretical studies had predicted."

Meaning the Universe is a lot more than 13 billion years old & at 12,4 billion light years distance is on the cusp of the Primordial Gas Cloud (so called).

RNP
Aug 29, 2018
@Benni

A real surprise is that this galaxy seen almost 13 billion years ago has a massive,
ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation instead of what we had expected, which would
have been some kind of a disordered train wreck that most theoretical studies had predicted


Meaning the Universe is a lot more than 13 billion years old.....

LOL.
What on Earth makes you think this true? You clearly have not understood the physics behind this subject or the conclusions of the paper behind this article. Have you read it? I suspect not.

.. at 12,4 billion light years distance is on the cusp of the Primordial Gas Cloud (so called).


This "primodial gas cloud (so called)" is another of your ridiculous inventions. What on Earth is it supposed to mean?

Give me a single reference related to such a thing, I dare you.

Aug 29, 2018
You clearly have not understood the physics behind this subject


The word "physics" should be rewritten Pop-Cosmology, therefore:

You clearly have not understood the Pop-Cosmology behind this subject


I'm surprised that you being the freelance journalist you've laid claim to being, that you are unable to assign proper terminology to the subject material under discussion, but I guess mistakes like this easily happen when your background in real science is so weak.

Aug 29, 2018
Obviously, all galaxies go through a recycling period wherein the gases from spent stars accumulate until there is enough volume to start another period of Star-making.

Gas is Matter, and that Matter is subject to gravity/compression and, depending on the type of volatile Matter that is available in enough volume, such as Hydrogen for Fusion and Uranium (for example) for Fission to start up the process after gravity/compression has done the start of the first process in the gas.
As they haven't found evidence of galaxy-collision, it is more likely that the gas that is spread around in groups is lying dormant for a time until the right conditions.

"With the new observations, team members now believe that the monster galaxy is powered by "an extremely gas-heavy disk that is somehow kept stable until enough gas is amassed. We still don't know yet how so much gas is collected so quickly and what kept this enormous gas reserve from igniting and turning into stars,..."

Aug 29, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Hydrogen GAS will not ignite unless there is an igniter present - following the requisite process of collapse and compression - the igniter is the chain reaction within fissionable materials in the gas that will provide the high enough temperatures that will then ignite the Hydrogen, which will then heat to even hotter temperatures to start the Fusion process.
Thus, the Star-making begins. No need for galactic collisions unless such collisions bring even more Hydrogen gas and fissionable materiel.

Aug 29, 2018
@RNP
You seem to be scoffing at the idea that the Universe may be older than 13.8 billion years old.
But then how do you know it isn't? Scientists have calculated and scrunched the numbers to come up with the 13.8 figure, but even they are only hypothesising the true age without consideration for many other factors that may increase the age billions more.

Uh there had to be a Primordial Gas Cloud, as Benni says, otherwise there would not have been any ignition of the gases in that cloud, which would have resulted in NO Big Bang or concussion of some sort that created the outward bound movement of Hydrogen and all other volatile gases out into Space - IF there had been no primordial gas cloud.

Aug 29, 2018
@Surveillance...
I suspect you have misunderstood the nature of the Big Bang. No-one seriously thinks of it as
" the outward bound movement of Hydrogen and all other volatile gases out into Space ". It was not a sudden expansion of matter THROUGH space, but a sudden expansion OF space. The matter is carried away by the expansion of space, not by flying apart through space.
I suspect you have also confused the process of creating hydrogen fusion in a H-Bomb with that of hydrogen fusion in the hot dense early universe and also with that of hydrogen fusion in the core of stars. Neither of these two latter processes require ignition from fission of heavy elements such as uranium.

Aug 29, 2018
@RNP and @Benni.
[From @Benni]: Meaning the Universe is a lot more than 13 billion years old..
[From @RNP to @Benni]: LOL. What on Earth makes you think this true?
These are all hypothesized estimates, not actual definitively confirmed measurements of actual universal extent in reality. So until actual definitive/indisputable measurements say that the universe has ANY LIMIT to its extent in reality, then such LIMIT age/extent figures are 'fallout estimates' of theoretical calculations from interpretations of observatinal data by the hypotheses which give rise to them. Occam's Razor says: infinite age/extent.
[From @Benni]: ...at 12,4 billion light years distance is on the cusp of the Primordial Gas Cloud (so called).
[From @RNP to @Benni]: This "primodial gas cloud (so called)" is another of your ridiculous inventions. What on Earth is it supposed to mean?
Why the semantics? The Big Bang (Hypothesis) claimed 'primeval' diffuse matter contents/clouds.

Aug 29, 2018
^^^Jesus H. Christ! Talk about word salad. Link us to something that isn't complete sh*te, just for a change. Yes?

Aug 29, 2018
Hydrogen GAS will not ignite unless there is an igniter present
......you mean FUSION, right? Hydrogen gas on Earth "ignites" just fine with a match, but it won't FUSION at that temp.

Aug 29, 2018
LOL. The Huge Bang Fantasy suffers yet another devastating blow. Strike 55...

"We found that there are two distinct large clouds several thousand light-years away from the center," explains Tadaki. "In most distant starburst galaxies, stars are actively formed in the center. So it is surprising to find off-center clouds."

OK, let's see what this really means. This monster galaxy has grown so active ejecting new matter from the huge core, that it has spawned two new supermassive cores that are now diverging from the center while ejecting new gas therefrom along the way. And so, the two clouds surround the divergent cores. This is how galactic clusters eventually form, from a monster in the center. But that is too logical for the merger maniac dreaming of fantasy! See my comments under:

https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv

https://phys.org/...ing.html


Aug 30, 2018
This ALMA observation supports the unified GR/QM expansion of Suntola Dynamic Universe (DU) bouncing replacement of Big Bang (BB) for balancing the motion and gravitational energies of the total mass M in universe beyond the instantaneous balance at BB as speculated by Feynman. Take sqrt of the ratio 1.4 /13.8 B ly distances from BB to get the expansion dC4/C4 rate for the true value of variable speed of light C=3 in units of C_today=1. Multiply present age 9.2 B yrs of universe by 3rd power of dC4/C to get the absolute Newtonian age T4=0.3 B yrs since BB in time units of today. Between T4= 0 and 0.3 B yrs from BB the decelerating (vs inflationary) expansion speed slowed from infinity to about 3 C_today to allow the observed flat or Euklidean expansion pattern along the 3-D space direction orthogonal to R4 radius of Riemann sphere, starting point of Einstein GR with the mistaken spacetime assumption of constant C=C4 and age T4=13.8 yrs.

Aug 30, 2018
Hydrogen GAS will not ignite unless there is an igniter present
......you mean FUSION, right? Hydrogen gas on Earth "ignites" just fine with a match, but it won't FUSION at that temp.

says Benni

Yes, Hydrogen GAS (in the Star-making process) can only be ignited by fissionable materiel such as Uranium in a chain reaction. But first there must be enough volume of Hydrogen gas and dust to collapse and compress enough to heat the igniter (Uranium, for example) so that the chain reaction is started. Only then can the chain reaction of fissionable material provide the high enough temps to start the Fusion part going in the Hydrogen gas which requires 1Million C to fuse He atoms in Star-making.

Important thin is that in the coldness of outer space, Hydrogen will not start the process of Fusion without fissionable material to heat it up sufficiently. The collapse and compression won't do it, so i.e., it takes the power of an atomic bomb to provide the high temps.

Aug 30, 2018
Additionally, I don't think that there actually was a Big Bang. The BB rests on the premise that ALL Matter/Energy started as a pinpoint about the size of an atom - which is nonsense.
Also, IN THE BEGINNING Space was not a tiny speck that suddenly began to expand with the BB as though it were a balloon. IMO, Space was of a size that was quite the same as it is now, so that when the chain reaction began that ignited the Hydrogen in that Primordial Cloud, the force of the "blast" sent the contents of the cloud outward into the Space.

It was almost the very same process as in the later Star-making - before there were any Stars.

Aug 30, 2018
@Surveillance...
I suspect you have misunderstood the nature of the Big Bang. No-one seriously thinks of it as
" the outward bound movement of Hydrogen and all other volatile gases out into Space ". It was not a sudden expansion of matter THROUGH space, but a sudden expansion OF space. The matter is carried away by the expansion of space, not by flying apart through space.
I suspect you have also confused the process of creating hydrogen fusion in a H-Bomb with that of hydrogen fusion in the hot dense early universe and also with that of hydrogen fusion in the core of stars. Neither of these two latter processes require ignition from fission of heavy elements such as uranium.
says IanC1811

No. Matter/Energy is carried away by a Force, not because of an expansion of Space. If it had been due to, as you say, a sudden expansion OF space, the contents of the Primordial Cloud would not have moved, or very little even if there had been a BB.
-CONTINUED-

Aug 30, 2018
-CONTINUED-
The BB supposedly proceeded from a pinpoint; which as I said earlier - is silly science.
Secondly - The process of creating hydrogen Fusion is not accomplished IN an H-bomb, but because of the chain reaction of Fissionable materials that, when the Fissionable materials heated to a high enough temp, that high temperature THEN starts the process of heating the Hydrogen Fusionable material to even HIGHER TEMPS. The FORCE of it created the movement of Energy/Matter into Space (which was always there). Even now, you can see that Space is so much bigger than the Matter/Energy within it.

Your hot, dense Universe did not remain hot very long - out in the coldness of Space.

As I've said (ISMW) Star-making cannot/will not happen without the first 3 steps, to wit:
1. Collapse/compression of gas/dust = temperature
2. Fissionable material heated by collapse to high temps
3. Hydrogen heated to higher temps by Fission that starts chain reaction that results in Fusion of H.


Aug 30, 2018
Hydrogen GAS (in the Star-making process) can only be ignited by fissionable materiel such as Uranium in a chain reaction.


What gives you such an absurd idea? Gravity and compression can most certainly supply enough heat to start fusion.

Even now, you can see that Space is so much bigger than the Matter/Energy within it.


No, you can't. We don't have anything that can detect "space" without anything in it, first off. Secondly, at the very furthest resolution of our instruments there is still matter and energy, in order to detect your empty space we'd have to go further than that. We're still a long way from reaching any limit of the detectable mass and energy of the universe.

Aug 30, 2018
It is remarkable that when speaking of events billions of years in the past, the use of verbal tenses here is so very muddled. This galaxy obviously no longer exists as such. We are imagining a steady state of galactic evolution for no apparent reason. Take heed of the words of Heraclitus some three millennia ago on this subject. How has the lawful evolution of star formation changed and why?

Aug 30, 2018
Hydrogen GAS (in the Star-making process) can only be ignited by fissionable materiel such as Uranium in a chain reaction.


What gives you such an absurd idea? Gravity and compression can most certainly supply enough heat to start fusion.
say Cusco

Nothing absurd about it. As Benni has said, Hydrogen gas (on Earth) can be readily ignite - but NOT to the temperatures required to attain Fusion.

Gravity and compression are only able to bring the Hydrogen gas temperature up to a smaller high, which would be high enough to begin the Fission process, as long as there is adequate Fissionable material close or within the Hydrogen gas. That Fissionable material then gets hot enough to ignite the Hydrogen gas to burn at 1 million C. which starts the process of FUSION.

Compression and gravity can't attain a high enough temperature to begin the FUSION process of Hydrogen. It's not possible. Temperature, Cusco.


Aug 30, 2018
Compression and gravity can't attain a high enough temperature to begin the FUSION process of Hydrogen. It's not possible. Temperature, Cusco.


Total nonsense.


Aug 30, 2018
Even now, you can see that Space is so much bigger than the Matter/Energy within it.


No, you can't. We don't have anything that can detect "space" without anything in it, first off. Secondly, at the very furthest resolution of our instruments there is still matter and energy, in order to detect your empty space we'd have to go further than that. We're still a long way from reaching any limit of the detectable mass and energy of the universe. says Cusco

I never said, "space without anything in it". Space is only expanding now, due to the motions/momentums of Matter/Energy in the form of Stars, planets, galaxies as they move outward. Some galaxies are behind ours; some in front. But all are moving outward, not in a circle. Space always existed large and did not start out like a tiny room that expanded when the walls began moving away from each other.
Of course there is still Matter/Energy. The empty Space existed BEFORE the alleged Big Bang. Thanks for agreeing

Aug 30, 2018
Compression and gravity can't attain a high enough temperature to begin the FUSION process of Hydrogen. It's not possible. Temperature, Cusco.


Total nonsense.

says jonesy

OK...so please explain why it is nonsense.

Compression and gravity can't attain a high enough temperature to begin the FUSION process of Hydrogen. It's not possible. Temperature, Cusco.


Total nonsense.



Aug 30, 2018
^^^^Because fusion is dependent not only on temperature, but on pressure, and therefore density. At ~ 15 000 000 K, 300+ billion atmospheres, and a density of 160 g/cm^3, fusion is certainly possible. In fact, it is inevitable. Hence why we detect the neutrinos from the fusion, but no anti-neutrinos from fission.

Aug 30, 2018
According to the only thing I could find wrt Thermonuclear Fusion was this:
"If matter is sufficiently heated (hence being plasma), fusion reactions may occur due to collisions with extreme thermal kinetic energies of the particles."

I left out the part about Thermonuclear Weapons.

Certainly, there must be pressure and gravity, thus creating density. But the temperature of such cannot be high enough temps that would ignite the FUSION process in the Hydrogen, otherwise Jupiter and Saturn would have already become Stars since their atmospheres are largely Hydrogen and their density far exceeds that of the Earth AFAIK.
There is the "middle-man" (FISSION) that precedes the Fusion process, and which brings the temps that pressure/gravity/density had attained to far greater temps than only pressure/gravity/density could possibly achieve in order to ignite Hydrogen = Fusion.

Aug 30, 2018
^^^^ Wrong. If Jupiter were capable of fusion, it would be a star. It isn't. Ditto brown dwarves. You really need to take some basic science courses.

Aug 30, 2018
Perhaps you didn't read the theory of Fission being required to produce high enough temps in Hydrogen to begin the Fusion process of Star-making.

Here is the name of the name of the physicist who came up with the theory, but has yet for it to be recognised as valid by other physicists. It makes perfect sense - logical and reasonable.

James Marvin Herndon

Aug 30, 2018
Perhaps you didn't read the theory of Fission being required to produce high enough temps in Hydrogen to begin the Fusion process of Star-making.

Here is the name of the name of the physicist who came up with the theory, but has yet for it to be recognised as valid by other physicists. It makes perfect sense - logical and reasonable.

James Marvin Herndon


Nope, it makes no sense whatsoever. And the bloke sounds like a crank. Chemtrails, and all that bollocks.
https://en.wikipe..._Herndon

Aug 30, 2018
^^^^ Wrong. If Jupiter were capable of fusion, it would be a star. It isn't. Ditto brown dwarves. You really need to take some basic science courses.


Obviously, Jupiter and Saturn haven't become Stars, due to the lack of enough Fissionable materials at their cores to start the Fission process, and thence on to igniting the Hydrogen in their atmospheres to start the Fusion process.

It is a step-by-step procedure. The theory is relatively new and hasn't been accepted by mainstream scientists, who are clinging to outdated physics books/learning. It will take some time before Dr. Herndon is vindicated.

Aug 30, 2018
Yes, I read the Wiki on him. And by the way, I see Chemtrails over my property every so often that are unlike airplane contrails that disappear quickly. There are many theories about the Chemtrails. No one seems to know what their purpose it.

But Dr. Herndon's theory is sound.

Aug 30, 2018
Well, you have your ideas and I have mine. But you should seriously consider Dr. Herndon's theory since it makes great sense re Star-making. The Primordial gas cloud also makes perfect sense.

Have to run. Bye

Aug 30, 2018
Yes, I read the Wiki on him. And by the way, I see Chemtrails over my property every so often that are unlike airplane contrails that disappear quickly. There are many theories about the Chemtrails. No one seems to know what their purpose it.

But Dr. Herndon's theory is sound.


Well, the totality of solar physicists would disagree with him. There are always cranks tilting at windows. No reason to take this guy seriously.
And nothing is getting ignited. It is fusing. Look up p-p chain.

Aug 30, 2018
^^^^Because fusion is dependent not only on temperature, but on pressure, and therefore density.


When we set off hydrogen bombs via fission bombs & there has never been a need to generate "pressure" under the conditions:
300+ billion atmospheres, and a density of 160 g/cm^3
...... is such total funny farm fiction about fusion as I've ever seen written by anyone. A hydrogen bomb has never required the use of ANY pressure chamber to create the conditions for the fusion process. Extreme pressure conditions may be obtained SUBSEQUENT to fusion, but NEVER required for attaining fusion.

Your silly psycho-babble is just such great entertainment, a great lesson in why followers of Pop-Cosmology should not be explaining nuclear physics.

Aug 30, 2018
Extreme pressure conditions may be obtained SUBSEQUENT to fusion, but NEVER required for attaining fusion.


Why don't you read what I wrote, you idiot? Or go to any text book on solar nuclear fusion? Christ you're stupid. They are not required for fusion on Earth you idiot, because we cannot attain the ****ing pressure at the solar core, you moron. As we can't attain that pressure, we cannot instigate fusion at 15 000 000 K. However, dipsh*t, at the pressure and density at the solar core, the protons are a damn sight closer together. That's what density means, you fruit loop. Ergo, the temperature required to instigate fusion is lower, because they do not need to move the protons as far as in lower pressure, and once they are close enough, the strong nuclear force takes over.
Is there any subject on which you are not totally clueless?


Aug 31, 2018
Yes, I read the Wiki on him. And by the way, I see Chemtrails over my property every so often that are unlike airplane contrails that disappear quickly. There are many theories about the Chemtrails. No one seems to know what their purpose it.

But Dr. Herndon's theory is sound.


Well, the totality of solar physicists would disagree with him. There are always cranks tilting at windows. No reason to take this guy seriously.
And nothing is getting ignited. It is fusing. Look up p-p chain.
says jonesy

For NOW they disagree with him. But it is obvious that physicists, in particular, are very slow like molasses in winter to take the work/theory of their competitor as seriously as it should be taken.
Why, they might actually have to throw out some outdated formulations/maths and come up with some new ones, unless they are incapable of understanding that a new science has evolved to take the place of the old.
The competition amongst scientists is fierce, after all.

Aug 31, 2018
Cranks tilting at windows, jonesy? Which version of Windows is that?

No, jonesy - the Fusion doesn't begin in Star-making UNTIL the temperature is high enough to start Hydrogen gas becoming PLASMA. And the H gas cannot even get close to becoming Plasma if the only processes heating the H gas is compression/gravity/density. Out in the coldness of outer space, if the Hydrogen gas has only those three to depend on to start the Fusion process, the Hydrogen will go pffft and not do anything.
In addition to the collapse/gravity/density factor, the heat from it will ignite the FISSION process of fissionable material such as Uranium dust, and when THAT goes bloooey, the blast/temperature will trigger the Hydrogen gas to burn hot enough to become PLASMA - which is fusible/fusionable material.
IOW, the blast from the fissionable material chain-reaction then ignites the Hydrogen gas.
Got it?
It's really quite easy-peasy. Even a 5th grader could understand it.

Aug 31, 2018
Extreme pressure conditions may be obtained SUBSEQUENT to fusion, but NEVER required for attaining fusion.


Why don't you read what I wrote? Or go to any text book on solar nuclear fusion? They are not required for fusion on Earth because we cannot attain the pressure at the solar core. As we can't attain that pressure, we cannot instigate fusion at 15 000 000 K. However, at the pressure and density at the solar core, the protons are a damn sight closer together. That's what density means. Ergo, the temperature required to instigate fusion is lower, because they do not need to move the protons as far as in lower pressure, and once they are close enough, the strong nuclear force takes over.
says jonesy

Had to clean up your rant for the kiddies who might read it. Oh no...too late, isn't it.

When you said "pressure and density at the solar core" are you talking about a working Star, or a proto-Star? Or do you mean Fusion on Earth? To me, "solar" = sun or star.

Aug 31, 2018
@ jonesy

OK I see that you both were referring to Fusion on Earth.

Benni said "When we set off hydrogen bombs via fission bombs & there has never been a need to generate "pressure" under the conditions:"

That is correct. On Earth it is the effects from the CONCUSSION AND HEAT generated from the Fission bomb that is transferred to the Hydrogen bomb, turning the Hydrogen into Plasma.
Again - It is the FISSION bomb process itself that produces the Pressure/Concussion and temps that then ignite the Hydrogen in the H-bomb that turns it into Plasma. There is no need for a separate source of pressure/density.

Benni also said "Extreme pressure conditions may be obtained SUBSEQUENT to fusion, but NEVER required for attaining fusion."

Also correct. Pressure/compression is the Concussion that is produced by the Fission bomb just prior to the transference of high temperature to the Hydrogen in the H-bomb where H turns into Plasma. It is only Fission that aids the Fusion process.

Aug 31, 2018
Monster galaxies in the mist 12.4 billion light years away

13 billion years ago has a massive, ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation its gas disk is dynamically unstable now its galaxy is fragmenting and undergoing episode of starburst explains enormous star formation a 1,000 times that of our Milky Way galaxy.
Astronomers wondered why monster galaxies form stars at such startling pace how nature created massive, young galaxies formed only 1 billion years after the Big Bang.
Reality always is outstanding in observation to what the imaginative mind construes now were just of cusp in astronomical observation being endowed the latest's of telescopes of marvel that that ordained priests of angelic substantiation of Georges Lemaitre would given away all his worldly possession to have just one glimpse of what his maker has purported according to his heavenly beliefs beheld his eternal soul as what he could now see he would never have put before his lord that Cosmic Egg!

Aug 31, 2018
due to the lack of enough Fissionable materials at their cores to start the Fission process, and thence on to igniting the Hydrogen in their atmospheres to start the Fusion process.

Erm..that's not how fission (or fusion) works. Don't they teach physics in school where you live?

A hydrogen bomb has never required the use of ANY pressure chamber to create the conditions for the fusion process.

Hydrogen bombs use inertial confinement to create the necessary pressure/temperature point (by means of a shockwave initiated by a fission reaction)

https://en.wikipe...riterion


Aug 31, 2018
"A real surprise is that this galaxy seen almost 13 billion years ago has a massive, ordered gas disk that is in regular rotation instead of what we had expected, which would have been some kind of a disordered train wreck that most theoretical studies had predicted."

Meaning the Universe is a lot more than 13 billion years old .
Benni

Not only have you repeatedly revealed your complete ignorance of basic physics but you have repeatedly revealed your complete idiotic lack of understanding of what is being said and your above assertion is an example of that.

You cannot quote whatever is being said and just then say "Meaning ...." or "Therefore..." followed by some assertion that CLEARLY doesn't logically follow from your quote you just said.
Apparently you have shown you don't understand the meaning of the words "meaning" and "therefore".
Do you understand the concept of inference?


Aug 31, 2018
The device is colloquially referred to as a hydrogen bomb or, an H-bomb, because it employs the fusion of isotopes of hydrogen requires a shockwave to initiate the fusion process
What is this shockwave construed in starry fusionable material of hydrogen construction?

Aug 31, 2018
It's really quite easy-peasy. Even a 5th grader could understand it.
........you're over rating him.

Ever notice how everytime he gets caught in another one of the conundrums he sets himself up for, how he goes off on another one of his foul mouthed name calling rants? Such rants are the sure evidence he knows he's been caught with no way out.

Aug 31, 2018
It's really quite easy-peasy. Even a 5th grader could understand it.
........you're over rating him.

Ever notice how everytime he gets caught in another one of the conundrums he sets himself up for, how he goes off on another one of his foul mouthed name calling rants? Such rants are the sure evidence he knows he's been caught with no way out.


I explained it to you, idiot. Nuclear fusion is controlled via temperature and pressure. The higher the pressure, the lower the temperature needed to attain it. Moron. Go look it up in a relevant textbook. Fool.

Aug 31, 2018
In addition to the collapse/gravity/density factor, the heat from it will ignite the FISSION process of fissionable material


> SEU..........I'd like to suggest that you change the word "ignite" to TRIGGER, that:

"the heat from it will trigger the fission process"

I understand what YOU mean by "ignite", but others don't & will attempt to misconstrue it like jonesy has been doing, and once someone like jonesy gets caught up in semantics he never lets go, like "neutron half-life".

Aug 31, 2018
I explained it to you, idiot. Nuclear fusion is controlled via temperature and pressure.


......no you didn't. According to what you've been writing is that pressure & density comes first, then if those conditions are somehow just perfect they become the catalyst by which upon subsequent addition of higher temperature complete the process. What you & the neophytes on WikiPedia are unable to comprehend is that it's the temperature that leads up to pressure & density properties, not the other way around.

Aug 31, 2018
What is this shockwave construed in starry fusionable material of hydrogen construction?

Erm..whut?

And no, you do not absolutely require a shockwave to initiate fusion. That is just one way to do it. You just need to somehow get over a pressure/temperature threshold (see the link to Lawson criterion in my previous post). If you can get high temperatures you need lower pressures and vice versa.
Stars do not need a shockwave because they have enough pressure (through gravity) to fulfill the Lawson criterion. (though they have the temperature, too, once fusion gets going)

Machines like ITER do not need shockwaves because they are designed for continuous operation using high temperatures. Fusion research labs like NIF use shockwaves (lasers focussed on a pellet which evaporates the outer layer and causes a shockwave to travel inwards) to fuse deuterium at relatively low temperatures.
https://en.wikipe...t_fusion

Aug 31, 2018
You cannot quote whatever is being said and just then say "Meaning ...." or "Therefore..." followed by some assertion that CLEARLY doesn't logically follow from your quote you just said.
Apparently you have shown you don't understand the meaning of the words "meaning" and "therefore".
Do you understand the concept of inference?


> humbo........after you write your "book" on the concept that the momentum trajectories of orbiting bodies is PERPETUAL, that best place you'll find accreditation for your book may be at Comedy Central. Be sure to include the above paragraph of psycho-babble in your book.

Aug 31, 2018
Dhem-trails? Siriusly?

Based upon what verified evidence? Besides your need to visit an ophthalmologist? It will also be helpful if you stop repeating gibberish from the National Enquirer and Faux News.

Amazing eye-sight you guys have! Capable of doing chemical analysis from miles away? With such super-powers why do you allow your local schools waste taxpayer funding on useless equipment? When anyone of you could selflessly volunteer to fill-in for the machinery!

Besides, everyone with two brain cells to rub together? Knows that the chem-trails are actually BEM-LGMs pissing out the portals of their flying saucers. Right on the faces of the slack-jawed yokels, drunkenly gaping up at them!

Hecks & Shucks! All trumpenella's toadies look forward to these "Golden Showers".

Huh... Maybe those are not LGM but actually Russian flying saucers? Moscow whores 'rushin' here and 'rushin' there to meet the demand from the GOP and NRA groveling consumers.


Aug 31, 2018
The cart before the horse
SEU> Fusion doesn't begin in Star-making till the temperature is high enough to start Hydrogen gas becoming PLASMA. the H gas cannot even get close to becoming Plasma if the only processes heating the H gas is compression/gravity/density. Out in the coldness of outer space, if the Hydrogen gas has only those three to depend on to start the Fusion process, the Hydrogen will go pffft and not do anything. In addition to the collapse/gravity/density factor, the heat from it will ignite the FISSION process of fissionable material such as Uranium dust, and when THAT goes bloooey, the blast/temperature will trigger the Hydrogen gas to burn hot enough to become PLASMA - which is fusible/fusionable material.IOW, the blast from the fissionable material chain-reaction then ignites the Hydrogen gas.

SEU, where is the uranium manufactured if stars cannot ignite without it, are uranium atoms constructed from the clouds of tenuous hydrogen in the vacuum?

Aug 31, 2018
The cart before the horse - those pesky pristine protons -
SEU, is not uranium formed in quasars - in other word SEU, it is formed in the various stages of the life cycle of stars which require uranium to initiate fusion; as where did the first stars form from the clouds of pristine protons in the vacuum?

Aug 31, 2018
.......it's the temperature that leads up to pressure & density properties, not the other way around.


Nope. Dear god, this loon is tiresome! Why do you think fusion occurs in the Sun? It is a combination of temperature and pressure. Due to the Sun's enormous gravity, things get a little hot and compressed at the core. What happens when you compress a gas? Ever used a bicycle pump? It gets hot. Burrrrrny! And what happens to the particles in that gas? They get closer together. Nice. And, because they are hotter, they are moving more quickly, and, being less distance apart, their mean free path is shorter. Hence, more likely to encounter another proton, and overcome the Coulomb repulsion, and hey presto, the p-p chain begins!

However, this is nuclear physics, and we all realise that you do not understand it.

Aug 31, 2018
Stars do not need a shockwave because they have enough pressure (through gravity) to fulfill the Lawson criterion.


A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.

The theory for it was already suspect in the 1930's when it was first proposed as the means for creating fusion temps in stars, then 100% debunked & became an abandoned theory after the first fission bomb was detonated & the temperatures were recorded.

Of course I see above where jonesy also screwed it up with the gravity theory.


Aug 31, 2018
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.


Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.


Aug 31, 2018
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.


Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.



OK, prove I'm wrong!

Aug 31, 2018
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.


Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.



OK, prove I'm wrong!


I don't need to prove you wrong, you ****wit, it is accepted science, and has been since Bethe in ~ 1930. You know crap about nuclear physics, and do not even know what p-p fusion is. Hint; it has nothing to do with ****ing hydrogen bombs! Idiot.

Aug 31, 2018
it is accepted science, and has been since Bethe in ~ 1930.
......sure I already told you this.

It was "accepted science" until the first A - Bomb was detonated. Since then serious nuclear physicists have realized there is almost no gravitational collapse occurring on the Sun that can function as a heating trigger for fusion.

Pop-Cosmology however has never moved on, choosing instead to ignore the variety of fission processes that are consistently recorded occurring in the Sun resulting in fusion.


Aug 31, 2018
In addition to the collapse/gravity/density factor, the heat from it will ignite the FISSION process of fissionable material


> SEU..........I'd like to suggest that you change the word "ignite" to TRIGGER, that:

"the heat from it will trigger the fission process"

I understand what YOU mean by "ignite", but others don't & will attempt to misconstrue it like jonesy has been doing, and once someone like jonesy gets caught up in semantics he never lets go, like "neutron half-life".
says Benni

Thanks for the suggestion, Benni. I shall avoid using "ignite".

Aug 31, 2018
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.


Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.



OK, prove I'm wrong!


I don't need to prove you wrong, you ****wit, it is accepted science, and has been since Bethe in ~ 1930. You know crap about nuclear physics, and do not even know what p-p fusion is. Hint; it has nothing to do with ****ing hydrogen bombs! Idiot.
says jonesy
.
Don't get your bowels in an uproar, jonesy.
I found your Pp fusion (proton to proton fusion) in Wiki.

-CONTINUED-

Aug 31, 2018
-CONTINUED-
To wit: "The proton–proton chain reaction is one of two known sets of nuclear fusion reactions by which stars convert hydrogen to helium. It dominates in stars with masses less than or equal to that of the Sun's,[1] whereas the CNO cycle, the other known reaction, is suggested by theoretical models to dominate in stars with masses greater than about 1.3 times that of the Sun's.[2]
In general, proton–proton fusion can occur only if the kinetic energy (i.e. temperature) of the protons is high enough to overcome their mutual electrostatic or Coulomb repulsion.[3]
In the Sun, deuterium-producing events are rare. Diprotons are the much more common result of proton–proton reactions within the star, and diprotons almost immediately decay back into two protons. Since the conversion of hydrogen to helium is slow, the complete conversion of the hydrogen in the core of the Sun is calculated to take more than ten billion years.[4]

But this doesn't mention the preliminaries

Aug 31, 2018
Having your cake and eating it
A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.

Complete and utter shite. My god you are thick! Where was this debunked, you fraud? Stop lying. Idiot.

OK, prove I'm wrong!

I don't need to prove you wrong, you ****wit, it is accepted science, and has been since Bethe in ~ 1930. You know crap about nuclear physics, and do not even know what p-p fusion is. Hint; it has nothing to do with ****ing hydrogen bombs! Idiot.

I see Benni, you have to prove your gibberish, but oh no, saintly ordained priest that he is, JD, he does not have to prove anything.
jonesdave> I don't need to prove you wrong, you "expletive"

He has saintly gibberish on his side, he is never wrong as its blasphemous to contradict the word of saint JD

Aug 31, 2018
Science is moving on, jonesy. It will not remain steady and rock-solid so that you and others who prefer the old science and old textbooks can continue to fight progress and the newest theories.

Benni is correct again. He knows what he is talking about, I assure you.
"A totally debunked hyberbole soon after the first hydrogen bomb was built that gravity via gravitational collapse had enough energy to create temperatures needed for fusion.

The theory for it was already suspect in the 1930's when it was first proposed as the means for creating fusion temps in stars, then 100% debunked & became an abandoned theory after the first fission bomb was detonated & the temperatures were recorded."

Aug 31, 2018
But this doesn't mention the preliminaries
......Exactly right. The only thing you find are vague references that compression forces caused by gravity as the "heat trigger". It's all 1930's Pop-Cosmology bohunk.

The biggest problem with the gravity theory is the Inverse Square Law. Gravity at the center of the Sun is zero, it is maximum at the surface. At the center only COMPRESSIVE forces from above exist, but it cannot be measured what heat those forces can create as a fusion TRIGGER, if any. However free neutrons are always available & buzzing around crashing into things heavier than helium, that will generate a lot of heat upon splitting an atoms of MANY different elements.

Aug 31, 2018
Diminishing theories due to Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass

Thank you SEU, for pointing out a deficiency in the theory of gravitational collapsing compression heating and Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass which works wonders with compressive fusion heating and coupled with all the above - the cart before the horse so to speak, with all those pristine protons should be enough to give even Benni with his iron clad constitution a headache that not even saint JD has even managed to inflict and all within the infamous half a neutron.

Aug 31, 2018
@ granville
There appears to be someone here on physorg who has been imitating your colloquial speech patterns, but with a different user name than your granville583762. Even RealityCheck was puzzled and asked who he was and what had he done with granville.
We were all quite worried as you are one of a kind.
Was that other person you under an alias? He did "talk" similarly to you.

Aug 31, 2018
Of course, if you wish to retain anonymity, that is fine. As long as the other fellow doesn't start mentioning the dreaded "Aether Wave".

Aug 31, 2018
Thank you SEU, for pointing out a deficiency in the theory of gravitational collapsing compression heating and Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass which works wonders with compressive fusion heating and coupled with all the above


.....yer welcome granDy

Sep 01, 2018
Demons in the mist
@ granville
..Even RealityCheck was puzzled ...
We were all quite worried as you are one of a kind.
...

SEU, the unspoken realities as RealityCheck is doing an excellent thankless task, and now JD has had to resort to religion to keep his sanity above water and all our relative's have to come with the constitution of a Benni in hot pursuit, then battling with every ones demons are positioned to the ethereal distant corners this equivalent vacuum, fore ever to eternally haunt to the quantum fluctuations, we can only hope one day the light will dawn on JD, he's had enough of the demons that exist, so apart from are persistent puns he has to make that break he so desperately wish's as resorting to religion - he like everyone else are forever on their own to battle their demons in the mist.

Sep 01, 2018
Compression Forces on a proton under compression of 800,000miles diameter

Water at 1 ton cubic metre at 7 miles down on the Marianas Trench or 11,263,000kg/m* the proton in its femto-world on the Marianas Trench is experiencing 1.13x10-23kg, when you consider the proton is capable of withstanding 10x the force of the infamous neutron 1 ton cubic metre at 4000 miles to the core correlates to 6.44x10-21kg – in approximate terms the proton experiences 6.4x10-20N at the earth's core.
Where as in the Sun at 400,000miles to its core the proton would experience 6.4x10-17N of force

Considering the electric field of the proton compressed to 1 femto metre to the adjoining proton gives a force of - 230Newtons -
What is this gravitational collapsing compressive force that is greater than the electric field at 1 femto metre?

P.S. Further diminishing forces on these protons due to Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass has yet to be considered

Sep 01, 2018
Protons are weightless at the solar core

No matter how close-packed proton to proton experience under compression in stars as they go through their life-cycles, as even in a neutron stage the atoms are still freely moving within their femto-world.

When this important point is considered; the protons at the solar core, as they freely speed around their plasma, because of Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity that gravity is zero at the centre of mass, means as these high velocity protons continue in motion, they continue in motion in a gravitational zero environment at the solar core. – They are Weightless at the solar core!

Sep 01, 2018
Demons in the mist and their Priestly Ordinations
Protons are weightless at the solar core
No matter how close-packed proton to proton experience under compression in stars as they go through their life-cycles even in their later stages, the atoms are still freely moving within their femto-world.

SEU it is possible for you to make a predictive of the demons in the mist that exist in these Isaac Newton's gravitational observations with the reliability of the eternal life time of the 66,000 yottayears of the electron as physics world explains 66,000 yottayears https://physicswo...tayears/
As you only have to wait SEU for the predictable reaction to the inter reactive of the electric fields of these apposing protons preventing to close adjoining interaction, the demons in the mist will emerge in the now familiar pattern of those who having taken their Priestly Ordinations that will result in making Georges Lemaitre blush

Sep 02, 2018
@granville
Perhaps a few demons have settled in the mist, but there are quite a few out in the clearing where they are best detected. And they are, indeed, able to exist and observe electrons, protons, and all other atomic structures - far more so than human eyes, no matter how capable and observant.
They do, however, relate best to the atomic structures of the human mind, where they are known to manipulate such a mind to accept demonic suggestions, however subtle and seemingly benevolent. They gravitate toward those whose interests in science compel them toward science websites where scientific discourses are most assuredly occurring, and in which the several demons reach out electronically in order to manipulate others so as to enlarge the membership of the demonic Five Star Clubs that have begun to sprout into many other science websites. Where else but a science site should demons attempt to contact and manipulate the minds of the formerly innocent, all things considered.

Sep 02, 2018
Seriously, Georges Lemaitre was a genius who it appears that he gave all or much of the credit to Hubble for the Expanding Universe theory. But he also erred with his "Cosmic Egg" hypothesis as the beginning of the Universe or Big Bang from a tiny atomic pinpoint. Such an hypothesis is an absurdity of the worst kind. And it has continued to be repeated over and over and being taught to the unwary as to the ridiculous aspects of such a small atomic dot with everything crammed into it. Size does matter, after all.

Sep 02, 2018
And yes, I completely agree that jonesdave has been resorting to religion - the religion of the nonsensical Big Bang - that unimaginably small bag of tricks that supposedly held all Matter/Energy at bay until such time was ripe that,
(without due explanation for its explosion,
which sent Matter/Energy in motion,
purportedly causing Space to expand)
that started the whole shebang with the Big Bang.

It must be enervating to believe so wholeheartedly in such religious nonsense. Mired deeply into it, JD, et al, froth and foam while making vituperative invectives at those opposing forces who avoid such religious dogma. Perhaps it is also a Culture, as well as a religion. The Culture of the Big Bang.

Sep 02, 2018
Demons in the Mists and Referential Thinking
SEU> And yes, I completely agree that jonesdave has been resorting to religion - the religion of the nonsensical Big Bang - that unimaginably small bag of tricks that supposedly held all Matter/Energy at bay until such time was ripe that,
(without due explanation for its explosion,
which sent Matter/Energy in motion,
purportedly causing Space to expand)
that started the whole shebang with the Big Bang.
It must be enervating to believe so wholeheartedly in such religious nonsense.

SEU:- if you have noticed on your magic carpet fly by's, jonesdave does not leave any comments of his own as he does not inkly type what's on his mind, instead he expletively criticises other commenter's comments – But if you search his comments on first arrival, he has left comments of his own as the Demons in the Mists have led him a stray with the plethora of others.

Sep 02, 2018
Rats in the sack in less time than it takes a muon to reach the ground
SEU:- now with the help of Hyperfuzzy, these demonic misty demons are well and truly ousted in their demonic possession, although they will still linger, as now with the help of RealityCheck who has ousted his demons, now many more are ousting their demonic demons.
The magic is SEU, as you have probably noticed, there so easy to deal with as there only a few of the stoutest hardest nuts to crack left, as king of demonic possession actually politely opened those five-star starry gates SEU, can you just imagine it SEU, a granville being ordained in the five star club, it would be the rats in the sack in less time than it takes a muon to reach the ground.

Sep 02, 2018
jonesdave does not leave any comments of his own as he does not inkly type what's on his mind, instead he expletively criticises other commenter's comments


You bet. I've repeatedly tried to get him & others in that ranting brigade to explain how a free neutron can exist in a state whereby it's 14.7 minute beta decay rate can supposedly extend into billions of years so they can have their NEUTRON STARS, but only expletives follow.

Once in awhile one of the ranting brigade will cough up a vague reference to something called a DEGENERATE NEUTRON but don't explain it, that is other than to make an incoherent blurb about Pauli Exclusion which even they have no comprehension of what that is & why it cannot prevent a free neutron from decaying within 14,7 minutes.

Sep 02, 2018
You bet. I've repeatedly tried to get him & others in that ranting brigade to explain how a free neutron can exist in a state whereby it's 14.7 minute beta decay rate can supposedly extend into billions of years so they can have their NEUTRON STARS, but only expletives follow.


And it has been explained to you, you moron. You just fail to understand it. Why not grow a pair and ask the question on a physics forum, if you don't believe the literature I've linked to? Because, as we all know, you are a scientifically illiterate loon with a terminal case of D-K syndrome. Neutron stars are observed. Fact. Get over it, woo boy.


Sep 02, 2018
The Pauli Exclusion Principle

The Pauli Exclusion Principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system
Disregarding JDs ranting, this implies as atoms are empty vacuum in the femto world, are free to move under 10x the pressure of a neutron star, strewth, this implies as two or more identical fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state in a quantum system – the freely moving neutrons simply by virtue of their motion are not occupying the same quantum state at the same moment in time
Two neutron do not interact with one another and The Pauli Exclusion Principle states they have to keep their distance
Which comes to the beta-decay, we have established neutrons are freely moving and must keep freely moving according to The Pauli Exclusion Principle, therefore the neutron in its femto-world, is freely moving, and free to decay in 14.7minutes

Sep 02, 2018
You bet. I've repeatedly tried to get him & others in that ranting brigade to explain how a free neutron can exist in a state whereby it's 14.7 minute beta decay rate can supposedly extend into billions of years so they can have their NEUTRON STARS, but only expletives follow.


And it has been explained to you, you moron. You just fail to understand it. Why not grow a pair and ask the question on a physics forum, if you don't believe the literature I've linked to? Because, as we all know, you are a scientifically illiterate loon with a terminal case of D-K syndrome. Neutron stars are observed. Fact. Get over it, woo boy


See what I mean? Can't explain DEGENERATE NEUTRON, so he goes on another of his usual name calling rants, and here's the best part:
Neutron stars are observed. Fact.
Hey jonesy, "observed" also carries the connotation that PICTURES can be made, so tell us where to find pictures of objects that are only two miles in diameter at 500 lyrs.


Sep 02, 2018
I don't need to explain neutron degeneracy, you cretin. There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php

Sep 02, 2018
I don't need to explain neutron degeneracy, you cretin. There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php


No thanks, just more DEGENERATE Pop-Cosmology

Sep 02, 2018
I don't need to explain neutron degeneracy, you cretin. There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php


No thanks, just more DEGENERATE Pop-Cosmology


And tell us, oh stupid one; who, other than your idiot self, is proposing that degenerate matter doesn't exist? As far as I can see, it is only you. Given that you are demonstrably a moron, then why should anyone take seriously anything that comes from your Dunning-Kruger addled mind?

Sep 02, 2018
A quantum system
A portion of the whole Universe (environment or physical world) which is taken under consideration to make analysis or to study for quantum mechanics pertaining to the wave-particle duality in that system. Everything outside this system (i.e. environment) is studied only to observe its effects on the system. A quantum system involves the wave function and its constituents, such as the momentum and wavelength of the wave for which wave function is being defined

This definition of a quantum system is a physical dimension of the vacuum, where it is called a quantum system. In this quantum system the wave function (a wave function is a mathematical entity so does not exist) and its constituents, such as the momentum and wavelength (momentum is a mathematical calculation and wave length is a dimension so are not physical realities so do not exist)
A quantum system is simply parameters.

Sep 02, 2018
A quantum state
Is the state of an isolated quantum system. A quantum state provides a probability distribution for the value of each observable, i.e. for the outcome of each possible measurement on the system. Knowledge of the quantum state together with the rules for the system's evolution in time exhausts all that can be predicted about the system's behaviour
So just like a quantum system, a quantum state has no bearing on The Pauli Exclusion Principle that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system
All two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system is saying is two neutron cannot occupy the same spatial dimension at the same time so therefore the neutron in its femto-world, is freely moving, and free to decay in 14.7minutes

Sep 02, 2018
And tell us, who, other than yourself, is proposing that degenerate matter doesn't exist?
....any nuclear physicist who has seriously studied neutron/electron capture.

why should anyone take seriously anything that comes from your Dunning-Kruger addled mind?


"why" you ask?

And you "ask" it inside the context of D-K because you aspire to be like someone you never can, this because your limited skills prevents you from attaining that which is innate for me.

"why" is also because your studies in Anthropology at the Uni in Auckland was your highest achievement in life, and only for a year at that. What happened after only a year at Uni in Anthropology? You failed it? You wished you could but can't, solve Differential Equations, you can only aspire to that capability, in the meantime your realtime fallback positions are your foul mouthed name calling rants & acceding to authorities of deity to fulfill your wish list in life.

Sep 02, 2018
The electric fields repulsion force is 230N

The pressure on a femto-diameter neutron in this theoretical neutron star
10km radius x 1.4 solar mass
Taking a popular view, They are so dense that a single teaspoon would weigh a billion tons, a tea spoon is 4cmx4cm which equal a force on the neutron of 6.3x10-15N where proton to proton femto metre repulsion of the electric field is 230N

The neutron in the theoretical neutron star is hardly under pressure at 6.3x10-15N
When the electric fields repulsion force is 230N

Sep 02, 2018
Trip to Mars in Total Recall

Then the neutron in the theoretical neutron star is hardly under pressure at 6.3x10-15N
When the electric fields repulsion force is 230N
When taking these two relevant forces and taking into account and The Pauli Exclusion Principle, and the fact in the femto-world the neutron is mainly empty space in other words vacuum where neutrons move over each other as though they are in a weightless vacuum because in reality they are, as gravity is zero at the centre of mass where these neutrons are moving weightless

Bennies assertion neutron decay in 14.7 minutes has more merit than a JD experiencing a delusion episode in his trip to mars in Total Recall..

Sep 02, 2018
^^^^^^Give up thicko. Benni knows crap about anything. Neutron stars exist. As does the PEP. You won't find any scientist in the relevant area to disagree. Why should we care what a pair of scientifically illiterate dolts on a comments section think?

Sep 02, 2018
And tell us, who, other than yourself, is proposing that degenerate matter doesn't exist?
....any nuclear physicist who has seriously studied neutron/electron capture.


Jesus, what a f***wit. So link us to their work, dumbass. Otherwise I'm calling BS. Show me their disproof of Pauli, you ignorant burke. There is nobody questioning degeneracy in the scientific literature. Only some brain damaged loon on a comments section. And you know what that is worth, dumbo? **** all.

Sep 02, 2018
jonesdave:- Benni is not saying a neutron star does not exist, he is saying neutrons decay in 14.7 minutes in neutron stars

Sep 02, 2018
jonesdave:- Benni is not saying a neutron star does not exist, he is saying neutrons decay in 14.7 minutes in neutron stars


Yes he is, and no they don't. See Pauli. And quit commenting on stuff that is beyond either of you.

Sep 02, 2018
Can you not see JD
jonesdave:- Benni is not saying a neutron star does not exist, he is saying neutrons decay in 14.7 minutes in neutron stars

Yes he is, and no they don't. See Pauli. And quit commenting on stuff that is beyond either of you.

For me, this is just a passing fad, but not for this theory of neutron decay in 14.7 minutes in neutrons leading to a neutron star being not a neutron star, neither want this to end and everyone else wants the expletives to stop.
Therein lies the solution to your problem JD, this is your style of discussion, but it has to be without expletives, you used to carry on these discussions without expletives when everybody were thicko's and you can carry on these discussions today and tomorrow without expletives when everybody are still thicko's.
Can you not see JD, that this is what this all about and not the specifically the neutron.

Sep 02, 2018
Can you not see JD, that this is what this all about and not the specifically the neutron.
.........ohhhhh, but it is specifically about the neutron.

Unless it can be proven that a free neutron has anything other than a 14.7 lifetime decay rate, the theory of ELECTRON CAPTURE by a proton is a mindless & vacuous wasteland.

I know far better than you how Pop-Cosmology is the residence of theories that end in mind boggling swamps of Perpetual Motion, which is why you find Pop-Cosmology such a friend to yourself.

You went to Uni In Auckland to major in Anthropology, took your first field trip to a nearby swamp & still haven't returned, but you found a friend out there in that swamp, Pop-Cosmology, and you quickly recognized the affinity these two swamps have for one another.

Sep 02, 2018
OK I see what the problem is. FREE Neutron Decay as opposed to Neutron Decay.

Sep 02, 2018
For FREE NEUTRON DECAY, Wiki says:

"Free neutron decay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feynman diagram for beta decay of the neutron

A schematic of the nucleus of an atom indicating
β−
radiation, the emission of a fast electron from the nucleus (the accompanying antineutrino is omitted). In the Rutherford model for the nucleus, red spheres were protons with positive charge and blue spheres were protons tightly bound to an electron with no net charge.
The inset shows beta decay of a free neutron as it is understood today; an electron and antineutrino are created in this process.
++Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds). Therefore, the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) ≈ 0.693) is 611±1 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds).[1] The beta decay of the neutron, described above, can be denoted as follows:[2]++

Sep 02, 2018
OK I see what the problem is. FREE Neutron Decay as opposed to Neutron Decay.


yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes yes, yes, and again YES

There has never been an occasion in the history of the Universe that it has been proven that a neutron UNBOUND. FREE & totally separated from an atomic nucleus can exist for more than about 14.7 minutes.

If 100 neutrons are observed come into existence at the same instant in time, all 100 of those neutrons will no longer exist after about 14.7 minutes, they will all wink out of existence at exactly the same instant in time, decaying into a proton, electron & neutrino.

Sep 02, 2018
Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s (about 14 minutes, 42 seconds).
....this part is right

the half-life for this process (which differs from the mean lifetime by a factor of ln(2) ≈ 0.693) is 611±1 s (about 10 minutes, 11 seconds).
........this part is dead wrong, it is based in Quark Theory that there are opposite spins & flavors of a particle that has never been proven to exist,

Quarks are VIRTUAL PARTICLES, essentially a PLACEHOLDER that sometimes fits to explain the behavior of particles as a BEST FIT THEORY, but doesn't FIT well at all for the behavior of other kinds subatomic particles. It's a smorgasbord of best fit theories.


Sep 02, 2018
"There are six types, known as flavors, of quarks: up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top.[4] Up and down quarks have the lowest masses of all quarks. The heavier quarks rapidly change into up and down quarks through a process of particle decay: the transformation from a higher mass state to a lower mass state. Because of this, up and down quarks are generally stable and the most common in the universe, whereas strange, charm, bottom, and top quarks can only be produced in high energy collisions (such as those involving cosmic rays and in particle accelerators). For every quark flavor there is a corresponding type of antiparticle, known as an antiquark, that differs from the quark only in that some of its properties have equal magnitude but opposite sign.

Sep 02, 2018
-continued-

"The quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig in 1964.[5] Quarks were introduced as parts of an ordering scheme for hadrons, and there was little evidence for their physical existence until deep inelastic scattering experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1968.[6][7] Accelerator experiments have provided evidence for all six flavors. The top quark, first observed at Fermilab in 1995, was the last to be discovered.[5]"

Did they "observe" these quarks directly? Or indirectly? Sounds more like woo physics to me.

Sep 02, 2018
.........ohhhhh, but it is specifically about the neutron.

Unless it can be proven that a free neutron has anything other than a 14.7 lifetime decay rate, the theory of ELECTRON CAPTURE by a proton is a mindless & vacuous wasteland.


I should have been more succinct about this.

It is a Pop-Cosmology theory that there exists a minute probability that an proton can by ELECTRON CAPTURE absorb an electron, whereupon such absorption results in the creation of a neutron. They invoke Pauli Exclusion Principle as the means by which this capture occurs.

This Pop-Cosmology Theory of ELECTRON CAPTURE by protons invoking the PEP are far out of whack regarding how orbital electrons shells actually function according to PEP. But Pop-Cosmology doesn't care about certain immutable facts, they have their fantasies & their fantasies ARE THEIR RULES.

Sep 02, 2018
Did they "observe" these quarks directly? Or indirectly? Sounds more like woo physics to me.


No, they did not isolate a particle dubbed a QUARK. They observed EFFECTS among other particles that when are smacked hard by protons in places like the LHC where these EFFECTS can be recorded. So they diddle around & come up with this stuff about flavors & spin, it seems to work in some cases others not so good.

At least they try to keep in mind the usefulness of the Pauli Exclusion Principle as it relates to the atomic electron shell, but it's TOTAL guesswork. The most important issue you need to keep in mind about QUARKS, they've NEVER been isolated to prove they ACTUALLY exist.........remind you of anything else like this?

Sep 02, 2018
Uh...does it began with the word, "Dark"?

Sep 02, 2018
jonesy? JONESY? Mission Control calling jonesy. You have a problem here!

Sep 03, 2018
Just been thinking again about that Primordial Gas Cloud that you brought up, Benni. The cloud seems to have either been there in that location all the time, or it had seeped in from, perhaps the Quantum Universe, bubbling up into our Space before what we call our Universe, existed. I can think of no other reason for it to have appeared in the location from whence the cloud was ignited, which resulted in Matter/Energy overcoming Entropy, so that the blast was the beginning of our Universe.
And, for that cloud to have ignited, it was necessary to have fissionable materials in it already, plus the ubiquitous Hydrogen and Oxygen. Pressure and gravity could not have been enough for the cloud to combust so violently. So that if the cloud already had consisted of fissionable AND fusionable materials, all of it had to come from SOMEWHERE before it collected in that particular location.
-CONTINUED-

Sep 03, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Therefore, it may be possible that the chemistry at the quantum level had a way of flowing/bubbling up into the Space where it then accumulated to enough volume before it could activate exponentially to create a Universe of Matter/Energy.
We know already that Matter/Energy does not/cannot create/manufacture itself out of Nothing, so it had to have either come from somewhere else, OR it was created from Energy, then transmuted into Matter/Energy.
If it had bubbled up from the Quantum or a SubSet Universe that is below Quantum, that would mean that those universes, as little as they are, have somehow been availed of the various types of Matter/Energy that the early Universe had none of. I think that this is likely to have happened at the Beginning.
The other alternative is that God created the Matter/Energy for the purpose of then creating the Universe and all that is in it. That is also Logical, and man is still unable to turn Energy into Matter.

Sep 03, 2018
PSYCHOBABBLE, cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously!

WHAT EXACTLY DOES – Pauli's exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously. - ACTUALY MEAN

Separating; quantum state and quantum system from two or more identical fermions, particles with half-integer spin, quantum state and quantum system are two interlinked entities that are basically one of the same describing wave length, momentum and wave function which are all mathematical functions of calculations and therefore not physical realities are describing mathematical entities in a spatial region of the vacuum!

Particles with half-integer spin cannot simultaneously occupy the same spatial region of the vacuum

Sep 03, 2018
In your own region of vacuum

Two free neutrons do not interact, as protons and neutrons in atoms are not in the same spatial region of the vacuum, they are two separate particles – two free neutrons moving past each other in their femto-world are not in the same spatial region of the vacuum and as free neutrons, decay in 14.7 minutes

Sep 03, 2018
Descriptive of your own spatial region of vacuum

For a proton and neutron to exist as two separate particles in the atom they are in their own region of vacuum
When a neutron decays (yes, unbelievably, it does actually decay) the proton, electron and neutrino emerge from the same spatial region of space the decayed neutron previously occupied – this is what Wolfgang Ernst Pauli is actually saying "cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously"

Wolfgang Ernst Pauli - German: 25 April 1900 – 15 December 1958) was Austrian-born Swiss and American theoretical quantum physicist In 1945, after having been nominated by Albert Einstein, Pauli received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery, the exclusion principle involving spin theory, which is the basis of the structure of matter

Sep 03, 2018

The proton and neutron have opposite isospin, so even though they do not occupy the same identical spatial region of vacuum as each other, as particles of opposite spin can coexist as two separate particles enabling the neutron to remain stable until it is ejected from the atom as a free neutron in its own spatial vacuum and must decay in 14.7minutes!

Sep 03, 2018
The wood from the trees!
ISOSPIN - Its meaning and further Obfuscation of Multiplicity of terms as to their Misty Mists of Confusion

In nuclear physics and particle physics, isospin is a quantum number related to the strong interaction. More specifically, isospin symmetry is a subset of the flavour symmetry seen more broadly in the interactions of baryons and mesons – So just like spin is not actually spin, isospin is not actual spin, but two definitions of spin and isospin, defining mathematical entities of the differences in protons and neutrons, enabling the proton with identical spin to the neutron to coexist nearby side by side in their own region of spatial vacuum until the neutron is ejected where it must and does decay in 14.7 minutes

Isospin is just yet another term in the MULTIPLICITY OF TERMS that make it impossible to see the wood from the trees!

Sep 03, 2018
Obfuscation of language
Defining Pauli's exclusion principle in its own spatial vacuum, yet another term of obfuscation of language – Isospin; a symmetry is a subset of the flavour symmetry seen more broadly in the interactions of baryons and mesons!
WHAT DOES - symmetry is a subset of the flavour symmetry - ACTUALY MEAN

Sep 03, 2018
Sciencey Sounding Definitions

Quantum state, quantum, spin, isospin, exclusion principle, identical fermions, half-integer spin, quantum mechanical principle in the English language of jargon, have the scientific jargon about their construction.

Unless you have the memory and recall and absolute complete understanding of all these terms simultaneously, and there are a lot more in the woodwork you cannot have any proper understanding of Pauli's exclusion principle, as even Wolfgang, Albert and other eminent scientist have noted that over time in their twilight of their calling, they have difficulty in understanding their own Nobel prize winning work!

Sep 03, 2018
Free neutrons in the vacuum decay in 14.7 minutes

In this epic battle of the neutron decay - there are no free neutrons that we breathe in from the atmosphere, the residents of the space station are not breathing in and bombarded from neutrons occupying the vacuum.

How can this be stated clearier, there are no free neutron in the vacuum we inhabit.
Because they have decayed in 14.7 minutes from the moment they became the few lucky neutrons who became free-neutron in the vacuum.

Sep 03, 2018
Further clarification
All particles in habit their own spatial dimension of vacuum, the neutron in the nucleus and as a free neutron also inhabits its own spatial dimension of vacuum, according to Pauli's exclusion principle as a free neutron must and does decay in 14.7 minutes!

Sep 03, 2018
According to Pauli's exclusion principle free neutrons decay in 14.7 minutes

Pauli's exclusion principle states by implication two free neutrons occupying their own spatial vacuum as having identical spin and isospin remain separate and as electrically neutral, do remain separate no matter how dimensionally close two neutrons approach each other as there is no interaction between them, consequently according to Pauli's exclusion principle decay in 14.7 minutes!

Sep 03, 2018
Uh...does it began with the word, "Dark"?


Unusual that it doesn't, what else is there to say?

Sep 03, 2018
Unless you have the memory and recall and absolute complete understanding of all these terms simultaneously, and there are a lot more in the woodwork you cannot have any proper understanding of Pauli's exclusion principle


..........at least you cannot have the best memory recall for how to apply the Pauli Exclusion Principle to anything other than atomic electron shell structure as it applies to pairs of orbital electrons, that two electrons of the same spin cannot occupy the same orbital position within the shell of ANY atom.

What has happened since the 1940's is that nuclear physicists are trying to apply Pauli's description of the spin of orbital electrons to sub-atomic particles. There are cases it fits well, in others not so well. As I suggested previously, it's a smorgasbord of BEST FIT as to how PEP applies to anything OTHER than atomic electron shell structure for which the FIT seems to be PRECISE, but less precise at the sub-atomic level.

Sep 03, 2018
Free neutrons in the vacuum decay in 14.7 minutes

In this epic battle of the neutron decay - there are no free neutrons that we breathe in from the atmosphere, the residents of the space station are not breathing in and bombarded from neutrons


Slow down granDy, there are always a few free neutrons floating around in the air we breath, they are what we use for bullets to create fission in nuclear reactors.

It is certainly true there is not a great quantity of them whizzing around our heads, luckily for us. I say luckily for us because it is suspected in the beta decay of a free neutron that there is also a gamma ray emission, that if it hits anywhere on your body it will destroy the DNA of the body cell it hits, think cancer here.

Sep 03, 2018
jonesy? JONESY? Mission Control calling jonesy. You have a problem here!


No, I don't. Everything I said is backed up by science. Including the existence of neutron stars. You have a problem, insofar as you do not understand that science. Not my problem. Show me where a scientist is contradicting what I'm saying, as opposed to a bunch of semi-educated loons on a comments section. Can't do it, can you? In which case, STFU.

Sep 03, 2018
Do free neutrons interact with other free neutrons?
Benni> It is certainly true there is not a great quantity of them whizzing around our heads, luckily for us. I say luckily for us because it is suspected in the beta decay of a free neutron that there is also a gamma ray emission, that if it hits anywhere on your body it will destroy the DNA of the body cell it hits, think cancer here.

A good point that by my efforts of practically diminishing free neutrons to zero, if there were no free neutrons in the atmosphere there would be no free neutrons to decay in the first place!
As you point out if they did not decay or join in nuclear reactions in the atmospheric molecules a large majority of atomic reactions would not occur, but the point is that while they wiz through the atmosphere they are free neutrons till they interact.
The question is Benni, as free neutrons in the atmosphere or the vacuum; do they interact with other free neutrons?

Sep 03, 2018
This not what is normally alluded to!
Benni, If they do not interact - free neutron to free neutron, they can be close packed in billions in stars consisting solely of neutrons, because they are separate from one another and can move freely because the electric field in the femto-world is 230N, is greater than the gravitational force on individual neutrons, and they are free to decay in 14.7 minutes, but being close packed you then have billions of neutron converting to protons, electrons, neutrinos and gamma rays with leads to proton- neutron nuclear reactions. This eventually will lead to a star consisting solely of neutron not consisting solely of neutrons because 230N is greater than the gravitation force on the nucleons, the production of protons repel protons at 230N a femto metre squared or 2.3x10+32Nm*.

Sep 03, 2018
I suggest that some of the unqualified dolts posting in this thread should get an education. Start here:

https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

Sep 03, 2018
jonesy? JONESY? Mission Control calling jonesy. You have a problem here!


No, I don't. Everything I said is backed up by science.
.........NO? What you ought to be saying is that "everything" you say is "backed up by" the swamp of Pop-Cosmology.

Including the existence of neutron stars.
......however totally ignoring the immutable 14.7 minute beta decay rate of a free neutron, more Pop-Cosmolgy.

You have a problem, insofar as you do not understand that science.
Pop-Cosmology is not a "science", Science does not ignore the immutability of the 14.7 minute decay rate of a free neutron, you do as you try to make it out to be some kind of hair brained HALF LIFE that doesn't exist.

Show me where a scientist is contradicting what I'm saying
Should read, "show me where a Pop-Cosmologist is contradicting what I'm saying"...........OK, I'll answer it for you, NOT A SINGLE ONE, all of you share your fantasies alike.


Sep 03, 2018
The production of protons repel protons at 230N a femto metre squared or 2.3x10+32Nm*, until its written down these atomic forces are difficult to comprehend!

Sep 03, 2018
^^^^In other words, Mr. D-K has no science to offer. As usual. Bore off Benni, you are a waste of space, and are scientifically illiterate.

Sep 03, 2018
Should read, "show me where a Pop-Cosmologist is contradicting what I'm saying"...........OK, I'll answer it for you, NOT A SINGLE ONE, all of you share your fantasies alike.


Lol. Everybody except the idiot Benni is wrong! You need to check in to an asylum. Pronto.
What about Oppenheimer, by the way? Is he a nutjob as well?


Sep 03, 2018
The question is Benni, as free neutrons in the atmosphere or the vacuum; do they interact with other free neutrons?
It's never been observed because neutron-neutron combinations only form via the strong & weak nuclear forces which are not present in the absence of electrons,neutrinos & protons.

the electric field in the femto-world is 230N, is greater than the gravitational force on individual neutrons, and they are free to decay in 14.7 minutes, but being close packed you then have billions of neutron converting to protons, electrons, neutrinos and gamma rays with leads to proton- neutron nuclear reactions


This is basically the Electron Capture Theory. It can't be duplicated in the LHC, but they keep looking for it. It doesn't work like you suggest above because of the velocity rate of neutrinos which would escape the beta decay almost at the speed of light & never be gravitationally recoverable to the system to create new neutrons.

Sep 03, 2018
So why is the Pauli Exclusion Principle relevant to the humble neutron?
Benni>..........at least you cannot have the best memory recall for how to apply the Pauli Exclusion Principle to anything other than atomic electron shell structure as it applies to pairs of orbital electrons, that two electrons of the same spin cannot occupy the same orbital position within the shell of ANY atom.

BUT Benni, a neutron free or otherwise is electrically neutral and as far as I'm aware does not have an electron shell structure, when Wolfgang is applying his principal, to two electrons of the same spin.

Sep 03, 2018
The more you dig this half a hole
Benni> This is basically the Electron Capture Theory. It can't be duplicated in the LHC, but they keep looking for it. It doesn't work like you suggest above because of the velocity rate of neutrinos which would escape the beta decay almost at the speed of light & never be gravitationally recoverable to the system to create new neutrons.

The LHC is completely out its depth, at its limits, it gives an idea of the process's involved in only millionths and billionths of a second, where as these occur continuously in stars over billions of years - the ionic repulsion of 2.3x10+32Nm* in the solar plasma is starting to give an idea of the velocity and force involved that the neutron and proton can withstand, which is far greater than a neutron star.
What is the velocity of the proton when the free neutron decays, the proton has its rest mass, its inertial mass, its energy/C* but it all so has actual velocity, has this velocity been measured?

Sep 03, 2018
BUT Benni, a neutron free or otherwise is electrically neutral and as far as I'm aware does not have an electron shell structure, when Wolfgang is applying his principal, to two electrons of the same spin.


Right you are, tell that to Pop-Cosmologists and their aficionados who are looking for structure inside the neutron.

Electron orbitals with the same energy levels are called degenerate orbitals, for example, p orbitals consist of three degenerate orbitals all which have exactly the same energy level within that part of the electron shell....... now carry this over to a neutron of similar structure to create a so-called DEGENERATE NEUTRON that mimics the electron shell of an atom, this is the holy grail theory of a free neutrons with an almost infinite decay rate instead of 14.7 minutes.

It's never been clear to me what has been proposed for orbitals of a so-called degenerate neutron, maybe dark quarks or something just as fictional.

Sep 03, 2018
^^^^In other words, Mr. D-K has no science to offer. As usual. Bore off Benni, you are a waste of space, and are scientifically illiterate.
says jonesy

Why jonesy - who would have thought that you would be unable to recognise the scientific facts that Benni has been favouring us with all along here on physorg. I have been regarding Benni as my instructor/educator, while as long as I have been coming to this site to learn and observe with great interest, all I have found in your posts are meanness, nasty verbiage, behaviour unbecoming a gentleman, and a reluctance to explain your stance(s) as though you will be found out. Tell us, jonesy. Are you jealous of Benni?

Sep 03, 2018
Electron degeneracy pressure
Benni> Electron orbitals with the same energy levels are called degenerate orbitals.

Pauli Exclusion Principle disallows two identical half-integer spin particles (electrons and all other fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state. The result is an emergent pressure against compression of matter into smaller volumes of space. Electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter. For bulk matter with no net electric charge, the attraction between electrons and nuclei exceeds (at any scale) the mutual repulsion of electrons plus the mutual repulsion of nuclei; so absent electron degeneracy pressure, the matter would collapse into a single nucleus. In 1967, Freeman Dyson showed that solid matter is stabilized by quantum degeneracy pressure rather than electrostatic repulsion https://en.wikipe...pressure

Sep 03, 2018
^^^^In other words, Mr. D-K has no science to offer. As usual. Bore off Benni, you are a waste of space, and are scientifically illiterate.
says jonesy

Why jonesy - who would have thought that you would be unable to recognise the scientific facts that Benni has been favouring us with all along here on physorg. I have been regarding Benni as my instructor/educator, while as long as I have been coming to this site to learn and observe with great interest, all I have found in your posts are meanness, nasty verbiage, behaviour unbecoming a gentleman, and a reluctance to explain your stance(s) as though you will be found out. Tell us, jonesy. Are you jealous of Benni?


Lol. Seriously? Benni is scientifically illiterate, and is wrong about pretty much everything he's ever posted! Why would I be jealous of a moron?

Sep 03, 2018
Pauli Exclusion Principle disallows two identical half-integer spin particles (electrons and all other fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state.


When Pauli came up with this, his ONLY application for it was the electron shell structure of atoms. Since the 1960's or thereabouts, this principle has been ADAPTED & ADOPTED for things not envisioned by Pauli. The principle has good fit cases & bad fit cases, it's a matter of how whimsical some nuclear physicists want to be with their hypotheses.

The DEGENERATE NEUTRON hypothesis is about the most weirded out hypothetical that's ever been concocted & actually functions to subvert QUARK THEORY for the formation of a neutron. But what does Pop-Cosmology do? They adapt & adopt both hypothetical theories thinking they can fool most people into believing there's no contradiction, I guess they have.

Sep 03, 2018
When Pauli came up with this, his ONLY application for it was the electron shell structure of atoms. Since the 1960's or thereabouts, this principle has been ADAPTED & ADOPTED for things not envisioned by Pauli. The principle has good fit cases & bad fit cases, it's a matter of how whimsical some nuclear physicists want to be with their hypotheses.

The DEGENERATE NEUTRON hypothesis is about the most weirded out hypothetical that's ever been concocted & actually functions to subvert QUARK THEORY for the formation of a neutron. But what does Pop-Cosmology do? They adapt & adopt both hypothetical theories thinking they can fool most people into believing there's no contradiction, I guess they have.


Given that you seem to be the only person on the planet questioning this, and are demonstrably scientifically illiterate, then your objections are worthless drivel, born of a diseased mind.

Sep 03, 2018
And there you go again, jonesy. Out with the meanness, nasty verbiage, etc. This IS a science site, after all. Or are you competing with thegrossofotto1923 to see who is the most and worst user of flagrant violations of the physorg terms of service?

IF, as you insist, that Benni has somehow erred, then why don't you just explain what that error was, so that we can all look it up to find what, where, and how the mistake happened. It is not so hard to do if you set your mind to it. I have found no errors in Benni's comments wrt Free Neutron Decay. So why don't you give it a try, OK?
There's a good lad.

Sep 03, 2018
IF, as you insist, that Benni has somehow erred, then why don't you just explain what that error was, so that we can all look it up to find what, where, and how the mistake happened. It is not so hard to do if you set your mind to it. I have found no errors in Benni's comments wrt Free Neutron Decay. So why don't you give it a try, OK?
There's a good lad.


What the hell are you on? It has been explained to him countless times. With links. He is too stupid to understand them.


Sep 03, 2018
@jonesy
Perhaps it is your delivery tactics that may be likened to a snarling gorilla that is so off-putting as characterised in the vast majority of your posts. It would be much more pleasant for the likes of myself, as well as others who read your comments to not read the nastiness of a spoilt child who didn't get his own way.
Try to relax more and throw out the nastiness with the bath water.

Sep 03, 2018
Science is supposed to be enjoyed while being learned. When you make science sound more like a chore like mopping the floor all because your verbiage is smattered with invectives to be read by all - the science becomes less enchanting.

Sep 03, 2018
@jonesy
Perhaps it is your delivery tactics that may be likened to a snarling gorilla that is so off-putting as characterised in the vast majority of your posts. It would be much more pleasant for the likes of myself, as well as others who read your comments to not read the nastiness of a spoilt child who didn't get his own way.
Try to relax more and throw out the nastiness with the bath water.


It is the only way to deal with idiots like Benni. After taking the time and effort to refute his untutored rubbish, there seems little point in continually linking to it, when the loon is incapable of understanding it, and continually derides the real scientists doing real science. In my book, the idiot deserves everything he gets. At least I deride him to his face - he lacks the cojones to address these scientists in their own medium - the scientific literature. He can't even drag up the courage to debate his garbage on physics forums, where he will likely run into real scientists.

Sep 03, 2018
Science is supposed to be enjoyed while being learned. When you make science sound more like a chore like mopping the floor all because your verbiage is smattered with invectives to be read by all - the science becomes less enchanting.


Yes, and plenty of us did enjoy learning it. Only to be told that everything we learned is wrong, by an idiot who is scientifically illiterate, as demonstrated numerous times.

Sep 04, 2018
I don't need to explain neutron degeneracy, you cretin. There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php
says jonesy to Benni

From your link, I viewed the last of the 3 photos of the "neutron merger" of 2 neutron stars. Upon enlarging the photo on my computer screen I noticed that the second comparison photo on the right was the exact same as the one on the left; but for the neutron star that supposedly had merged with the larger one, it had not merged at all. But instead, the smaller neutron star on the right comparison photo appears to have been smudged and its colour darkened slightly brownish to pretend that it was no longer there.
The timeframe was from 8/17/2017 to 8/21/2017
There is another star on the right side of the same large star, and that too had been smudged and darkened, in the exact same spot as it had been before also.
SSS17a appears to be a hoax.

Sep 04, 2018
There is another star on the right side of the same large star, and that too had been smudged and darkened, in the exact same spot as it had been before also.
SSS17a appears to be a hoax.


Lol. Thousands of scientists getting together in a photoshop hoax! Dear god we have some loons on here.
Go reply to their papers. Here is one of them;

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC COUNTERPART OF THE BINARY NEUTRON STAR MERGER LIGO/VIRGO GW170817. III. OPTICAL AND UV SPECTRA OF A BLUE KILONOVA FROM FAST POLAR EJECTA
Nicholl, M. et al.
https://arxiv.org...5456.pdf

Sep 04, 2018
Actually, this paper is probably a better reference:

Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger
https://arxiv.org...5833.pdf

Sep 04, 2018
@ jonesy
The photos (enlarged) don't lie. Look at it yourself. The stars on the right comparison photo are smudged. Enlarge the comparison photo. They are the same but with smudges. The bluish colour has been changed to brownish. Perhaps those other scientists did not bother to take a bit of time to examine it more thoroughly and just accepted it. It happens.

Sep 04, 2018
I would suggest that it is YOU who should make them answer to such a grievous bit of pretense since it was your link in the first place. I am only an interested observer and scholar, remember?

Sep 04, 2018
@ jonesy
The photos (enlarged) don't lie. Look at it yourself. The stars on the right comparison photo are smudged. Enlarge the comparison photo. They are the same but with smudges. The bluish colour has been changed to brownish. Perhaps those other scientists did not bother to take a bit of time to examine it more thoroughly and just accepted it. It happens.


Don't talk crap. You think this whole detection was about one image? Jesus. Read the bloody papers.
They detected it at 3 different sites from the gravitational waves. They detected the associated gamma ray burst. They detected it optically. They detected it in UV. And in IR. And in x-ray. And radio. They detected the predicted r-process nucleosynthesis.
Quit commenting on stuff that is beyond your understanding.

Sep 04, 2018
I would suggest that it is YOU who should make them answer to such a grievous bit of pretense since it was your link in the first place. I am only an interested observer and scholar, remember?


And somebody who knows sod all about the relevant science, and can't understand a paper when he's linked to it. Give up.

Sep 04, 2018
Slipshod handiwork in science is unacceptable - or should be. Acceptance of that which is destined to be added to the textbooks from which students learn is a source of future misery when there is a problem that cannot agree with the references.

jonesy, sorry to say but there are those of ill repute in all walks of life. You just have to know how to weed them out. And one of the ways is to be more diligent and not accept everything on face value.

Sep 04, 2018
FROM THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVES!! But not from any other optical sources.
ahaaa so it is the gravity waves that prove without a doubt that phony baloney plastic banana science can't possibly be in error. WOW all those sources of proof that cannot be questioned.

Suit yourself. You have proven that you will fall for anything.

Sep 04, 2018
Slipshod handiwork in science is unacceptable - or should be. Acceptance of that which is destined to be added to the textbooks from which students learn is a source of future misery when there is a problem that cannot agree with the references.

jonesy, sorry to say but there are those of ill repute in all walks of life. You just have to know how to weed them out. And one of the ways is to be more diligent and not accept everything on face value.


Stop talking crap, you idiot. You don't even understand the science. You're as thick as Benni.

Sep 04, 2018
FROM THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVES!! But not from any other optical sources


Christ what a moron. Read the paper you dickhead. There were dozens of optical detections from numerous telescopes.

Sep 04, 2018
Where are your links to those other "optical detections from numerous telescopes"? Did you post them here other than just the one? I would like to compare the photos.

Sep 04, 2018
Where are your links to those other "optical detections from numerous telescopes"? Did you post them here other than just the one? I would like to compare the photos.


Read the f***ing paper, you idiot. Table 6 might be a start. And what the f*** would you know about assessing images in optical, IR, UV, etc? Qualified, are we? No. Just another bloody loon posting on a comments section.

Sep 04, 2018
The optical spectra in the .pdf is interesting. But it isn't an actual photo like your other link that show the smudges.

Sep 04, 2018
The optical spectra in the .pdf is interesting. But it isn't an actual photo like your other link that show the smudges.


The original image is two images from two different telescopes, taken 4 days apart! Or did you think the SWOPE and Magellan telescopes were the same thing? Like I said, you are better off not commenting on things that are beyond your level of understanding. You'll just end up looking stupid, like Benni.

Sep 04, 2018
Right, I'll do this again;

Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger
https://arxiv.org...5833.pdf

Scroll down to table 6. Look at column 1. That is the telescope. Look at column 4. That is the observation wavelength. Look for 'optical'. Look at column 5. That is the reference to where the work was written up. Go check all those papers, and see if they have included pretty pictures for you to misinterpret. The first one I checked did:

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC COUNTERPART OF THE BINARY NEUTRON STAR MERGER LIGO/VIRGO GW170817. I. DISCOVERY OF THE OPTICAL COUNTERPART USING THE DARK ENERGY CAMERA
Soares-Santos, M. et al.
https://arxiv.org...5459.pdf

Sep 04, 2018
Your second Arxiv link has 8 b&w photos that supposedly show the neutron star merger - but does not. And they are too small to enlarge enough to actually see a merger. Courtesy of 8 optical telescopes, I gather.
But your first link offered a large degree of proof that the neutron merger did not really take place within those 4 days that they were observed. The other instruments - IR, UV, X-ray, etc. may have detected something, but from what I have seen in that comparison photo, there was no neutron star merger. The other instruments may have picked up something else.

Sep 04, 2018
Your second Arxiv link has 8 b&w photos that supposedly show the neutron star merger - but does not. And they are too small to enlarge enough to actually see a merger. Courtesy of 8 optical telescopes, I gather.
But your first link offered a large degree of proof that the neutron merger did not really take place within those 4 days that they were observed. The other instruments - IR, UV, X-ray, etc. may have detected something, but from what I have seen in that comparison photo, there was no neutron star merger. The other instruments may have picked up something else.


And you haven't got a f***ing clue what you are talking about, you idiot. You are not qualified to understand the subject matter. If you think you are, you loon, write up your crap and get it published, you fraud. Christ, the number of Dunning-Kruger affected idiots on this site!

Sep 04, 2018
Your second Arxiv link has 8 b&w photos that supposedly show the neutron star merger - but does not.


Then you need to get your eyesight tested, woo boy. Anybody else seeing Fig. 1 as B & W?
Bloody idiot.

https://arxiv.org...5459.pdf


Sep 04, 2018
The optical spectra in the .pdf is interesting. But it isn't an actual photo like your other link that show the smudges.


The original image is two images from two different telescopes, taken 4 days apart! Or did you think the SWOPE and Magellan telescopes were the same thing? Like I said, you are better off not commenting on things that are beyond your level of understanding. You'll just end up looking stupid, like Benni.


I am fully aware of the sources of that comparison photo. They had photographed the same exact size, angle, colour, depth - everything was the same except for the time difference.
Nevertheless, the neutron star still remained in the photo that was taken 4 days later. It had not merged, otherwise the "ghost" image would not have been retained, even as a smudge. But the smudge is real for anyone to see after enlargement.

Sep 04, 2018
Your second Arxiv link has 8 b&w photos that supposedly show the neutron star merger - but does not.


Then you need to get your eyesight tested, woo boy. Anybody else seeing Fig. 1 as B & W?
Bloody idiot.

https://arxiv.org...5459.pdf



This is not the same photo that you linked to earlier. That one had 8 b&w shots.

Sep 04, 2018
And looking at the aforementioned Table 6, I see ~80 optical observations, from ~80 different telescopes. You can't even navigate a scientific paper, let alone understand it!

Sep 04, 2018
This is not the same photo that you linked to earlier. That one had 8 b&w shots.


Hey, thicko, did you miss this?

Right, I'll do this again;

Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger
https://arxiv.org...5833.pdf

Scroll down to table 6. Look at column 1. That is the telescope. Look at column 4. That is the observation wavelength. Look for 'optical'. Look at column 5. That is the reference to where the work was written up. Go check all those papers, and see if they have included pretty pictures for you to misinterpret. The first one I checked did:

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC COUNTERPART OF THE BINARY NEUTRON STAR MERGER LIGO/VIRGO GW170817. I. DISCOVERY OF THE OPTICAL COUNTERPART USING THE DARK ENERGY CAMERA
Soares-Santos, M. et al.
https://arxiv.org...5459.pdf


Comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?


Sep 04, 2018
There is a whole load of stuff in the scientific literature. It is accepted science. Go read it.

https://www.eurek...3215.php
says jonesy to Benni

From your link, I viewed the last of the 3 photos of the "neutron merger" of 2 neutron stars. Upon enlarging the photo on my computer screen I noticed that the second comparison photo on the right was the exact same as the one on the left; but for the neutron star that supposedly had merged with the larger one, it had not merged at all. But instead, the smaller neutron star on the right comparison photo appears to have been smudged and its colour darkened slightly brownish to pretend that it was no longer there.
The timeframe was from 8/17/2017 to 8/21/2017
There is another star on the right side of the same large star, and that too had been smudged and darkened, in the exact same spot as it had been before also.
SSS17a appears to be a hoax.


Like I said -

Sep 04, 2018


I am fully aware of the sources of that comparison photo. They had photographed the same exact size, angle, colour, depth - everything was the same except for the time difference.
Nevertheless, the neutron star still remained in the photo that was taken 4 days later. It had not merged, otherwise the "ghost" image would not have been retained, even as a smudge. But the smudge is real for anyone to see after enlargement.


You are aware of nothing, you prat. You can only see the f***ing thing because it has merged! Jesus. First there was nothing to see in that part of the sky. Then the merger was detected through the GWs. So they turned their telescopes to that area of the sky, and saw the EM from the merger. 4days later it was fading. Some time later it was no longer visible in optical.
Stop commenting on stuff that you don't understand.

Sep 04, 2018
Like I said -


You said nothing that made any sense, because you are too stupid to understand the science, but still feel compelled to comment on it. Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Look it up. Ask Benni - he has a terminal case of it.

Sep 04, 2018
Joan of Arc

When a school yard bully goes about his tactics, usually with backing from his reluctant followers showers his abuse on those he thinks he can.

Till the day arrives, when his reluctant followers having left, he is the one on the receiving end.
It is not pleasant is it not Saint Jone

No comparison of Joan of Arc from days of old, who is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War, and was canonized as a Roman Catholic saint https://en.wikipe...n_of_Arc

Sep 04, 2018
Degenerate – take your pick

Noun: a degenerate person
Physics: a. (of the constituents of a system) having the same energy but different wave functions
b. (of a semiconductor) containing a similar number of electrons in the conduction band to the number of electrons in the conduction band of metals
c. (of a resonant device) having two or more modes of equal frequency

A degenerate person, how appropriately named, now who could that be!

Sep 04, 2018
Electron degeneracy pressure

Pauli Exclusion Principle disallows two identical half-integer spin particles (electrons and all other fermions) from simultaneously occupying the same quantum state. The result is an emergent pressure against compression of matter into smaller volumes of space. Electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter

Physics: a. (of the constituents of a system) having the same energy but different wave functions

When Pauli came up with this, his ONLY application for it was the electron shell structure of atoms. Since the 1960's or thereabouts, this principle has been ADAPTED & ADOPTED for things not envisioned by Pauli.

The road to defining, Electron degeneracy pressure, which is what Pauli Exclusion Principle is, which Wolfgang actually intended in its application

Sep 04, 2018
Albert recommended Wolfgang
The key point here in Pauli's Exclusion Principle is what Wolfgang Ernst Pauli actually intended in its application - It is not our theory it is Wolfgang Ernst Pauli's theory and no one else's, and in Wolfgang Ernst Pauli's purest form as he intended, it is not be muddied in the mire of lesser mortals, Albert recommended Wolfgang to present his theory for accolade, and its application in the science for which Wolfgang intended.

Sep 04, 2018
Joan of Arc

When a school yard bully goes about his tactics, usually with backing from his reluctant followers showers his abuse on those he thinks he can.

Till the day arrives, when his reluctant followers having left, he is the one on the receiving end.
It is not pleasant is it not Saint Jone

No comparison of Joan of Arc from days of old, who is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War, and was canonized as a Roman Catholic saint https://en.wikipe...n_of_Arc
says granville

I have forgotten. Was St. Joan of Arc martyred by the English or her own countrymen the French?
Quite a remarkable woman she was - long before feminism.

Sep 04, 2018
Fermions

In particle physics, a Fermion is a particle that follows Fermi–Dirac statistics. These particles obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Fermions include all quarks and leptons, as well as all composite particles made of an odd number of these, such as all baryons and many atoms and nuclei. Fermions can be an elementary particle, such as the electron, or it can be a composite particle, such as the proton.

Obfuscation in its application - according to the spin-statistics theorem in any reasonable relativistic quantum field theory, particles with integer spin are bosons, while particles with half-integer spin are fermions.
Particles that obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle - so what is Fermi–Dirac statistics, the plot thickens in its Obfuscation?

The question was, what is a Fermion?

Sep 04, 2018
The question was, what is a Fermion?
SO WHAT IS A FERMION – a Fermion could be Fermi–Dirac statistics, particles obeying the Pauli Exclusion Principle, a quark, a lepton, composite particles made of an odd number, an elementary particle, an a electron, a proton, particles with integer spin, particles with half-integer, a bosen... - AND ON IT GOES
And the original question was Electron Degeneracy Pressure?
Is it any wonder Pauli's Exclusion Principle is led astray!

Sep 04, 2018
Typically despicably behaviour – she should have been sentenced to remain and live her life under allegiance to the crown, as she was only 19 years of age!

On 23 May 1430, she was captured at Compiègne by the Burgundian faction, a group of French nobles allied with the English. She was later handed over to the English and put on trial by the pro-English bishop Pierre Cauchon on a variety of charges. After Cauchon declared her guilty she was burned at the stake on 30 May 1431, dying at about nineteen years of age
And then there would not have been a martyr

Sep 04, 2018
Unravelling Pauli's Exclusion Principle having shuffled off this mortal coil
jonesdave > You said nothing that made any sense, because you are too stupid to understand the science, but still feel compelled to comment on it. Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Look it up. Ask Benni - he has a terminal case of it.

Wolfgang Ernst Pauli having shuffled off this mortal coil, is missing out on the intellectual cut and thrust of jonesdave intellectual force of argument. https://en.wikipe...tal_coil

Sep 04, 2018
Fermi–Dirac statistics

In quantum statistics, a branch of physics, Fermi–Dirac statistics describe a distribution of particles over energy states in systems consisting of many identical particles that obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle. It is named after Enrico Fermi and Paul Dirac, each of whom discovered the method independently (although Fermi defined the statistics earlier than Dirac)

Arriving at the meaning of Pauli Exclusion Principle as Wolfgang originally intended.
Oh the tangled web we weave to our derivation of Wolfgang Ernst Pauli's Exclusion Principle!

Sep 04, 2018
This maginative quantum world
Is there no end to this tangled web we weave to our derivation of Wolfgang Ernst Pauli's Exclusion Principle, is Wolfgang for ever lost in those misty mist of the quantum fluctuations to remain fluctuating to what whims are the latest scientific imagination the human mind can conjure from its quantum worldly world of dreams in its escape from the realities of what it has to face every day when its wakened from its dreamily world to face this daily nonsensicality imagination of our imaginative quantum world being were lost in dreams

Sep 04, 2018
IF, as you insist, that Benni has somehow erred, then why don't you just explain what that error was, so that we can all look it up to find what, where, and how the mistake happened. It is not so hard to do if you set your mind to it. I have found no errors in Benni's comments wrt Free Neutron Decay. So why don't you give it a try, OK?
There's a good lad.


What the hell are you on? It has been explained to him countless times. With links. He is too stupid to understand them.


Explained to me jonesy? Hell's bells little man, you have been totally inept at comprehending the basic difference between 1/2 Life Radioactive Decay & Beta Decay Rate, you along with your selective nuanced Pop-Cosmology sites such as Wiki where you get your Pop-Cosmology fantasies about fictional things like degenerate neutron shell structure & quark theory,

Sep 04, 2018
Explained to me jonesy? Hell's bells little man, you have been totally inept at comprehending the basic difference between 1/2 Life Radioactive Decay & Beta Decay Rate, you along with your selective nuanced Pop-Cosmology sites such as Wiki where you get your Pop-Cosmology fantasies about fictional things like degenerate neutron shell structure & quark theory,


Yes, explained to you, you moron. And linked to in the scientific literature. You simply do not understand nuclear physics. Not our fault. Go read Oppenheimer. Heard of him? And then show me where neutron degeneracy has been questioned in the same literature. Doesn't exist. It is just little old D-K Benji, in his world of Walter Mittyism who thinks such things. And you have repeatedly been shown to be scientifically illiterate. So who gives a damn about your addled beliefs?

http://www.phys.h...koff.pdf

Sep 04, 2018
Hell's bells little man, you have been totally inept at comprehending the basic difference between 1/2 Life Radioactive Decay & Beta Decay Rate,


Lol. I think you'll find that it is your idiot self that doesn't understand the concept. Again this has been linked to in the scientific literature,. Any idiot that thinks half-life means that half the mass of an atom is going to disappear, quite obviously never finished high school. Or possibly even started it.


Sep 04, 2018
And linked to in the scientific literature.
......Pop-Cosmology is NOT "scientific literature", simply the fantasy of the author.

Sep 04, 2018
Unravelling Pauli's Exclusion Principle having shuffled off this mortal coil
jonesdave > You said nothing that made any sense, because you are too stupid to understand the science, but still feel compelled to comment on it. Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Look it up. Ask Benni - he has a terminal case of it.

Wolfgang Ernst Pauli having shuffled off this mortal coil, is missing out on the intellectual cut and thrust of jonesdave intellectual force of argument. https://en.wikipe...tal_coil


No, idiot, he is missing out on seeing the discovery and confirmation of the existence of neutron stars. Which can only exist because of neutron degeneracy pressure. Understand? Thought not. Another one who needs to stop commenting on stuff he has no grasp of.

Sep 04, 2018
And linked to in the scientific literature.
......Pop-Cosmology is NOT "scientific literature", simply the fantasy of the author.


Oh really, thicko? So Oppenheimer was a fantasist, yes? And hundreds of other scientists? Such as Pauli and Fermi? And who is saying they are wrong? A complete f***wit on a comments section! Lol. Go away, Benni, it must be time for your medication. Fruitloop.

Sep 04, 2018
the existence of neutron stars. Which can only exist because of neutron degeneracy pressure.
.......and until there is the discovery of a DEGENERATE NEUTRON the hypothesis for such a sub-atomic particle will forever remain a fantasy inside the whimsical fantasy world of Pop-Cosmology.

Now jonesy, get your wits about yourself & use your best Anthropology skills to isolate this vaunted DEGENERATE NEUTRON.

While your thinking about it, perhaps you could write up a short paragraph describing the orbital pairs of particles that create the shell structure of this whimsical structure called a DEGENERATE NEUTRON. I'll give you a hint here where NOT TO START the description of this SHELL, the shell of orbiting pairs is not electron pairs of opposite spins, but you probably don't know why do you?

Sep 04, 2018
Now jonesy, get your wits about yourself & use your best Anthropology skills to isolate this vaunted DEGENERATE NEUTRON.


I qualified in astronomy, f***wit. You have zero qualifications, as is obvious.
Go find me an electron, otherwise I'm calling BS on electrons. I want a piccy. Not an inference. An actual picture of an electron.
Neutron stars exist, and are proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Get over it. Or explain their detections as something else, write it up, and publish it. Otherwise, STFU you ignorant moron.


Sep 04, 2018
Piccy's
Benni you're the one who's supposed to ask for these piccy's, what has happened all of sudden, or are my eye's deceiving me or is that st jones asking for a piccy!
He's claiming he's qualified in astronomy but does that include piccy's!


Sep 04, 2018
Piccy's
Benni you're the one who's supposed to ask for these piccy's, what has happened all of sudden, or are my eye's deceiving me or is that st jones asking for a piccy!
He's claiming he's qualified in astronomy but does that include piccy's!



It was irony, you prawn! Nobody has ever seen an electron. Do they exist? Yes, they must do from observation. Does neutron degeneracy exist? Yes, it has to from observation. Not to mention theory.

Sep 04, 2018
Picture of a neutron star

http://hubblesite...on-stars

Stony Brook astronomers Walter and L.D. Matthews reported the optical identification of the star using the Hubble telescope.



Sep 04, 2018
Nobody has ever seen an electron but we believe in fairies!
It was irony, you prawn! Nobody has ever seen an electron. Do they exist? Yes, they must do from observation. Does neutron degeneracy exist? Yes, it has to from observation. Not to mention theory.

Nobody has seen an electron but they must exist, Does neutron degeneracy exist it has to from observation, Interesting choice of words.
Why do we believe in electrons, but not in fairies? https://web.eecs....ies.html
Nice to get are definitions back on a proper footing again in the world of the Cottingley world of fairies

Sep 04, 2018
See what I mean about clear cut definitions, an unobserved electron was not part of a clear cut definition neither was - it must exist, yes it has to - as that is discussing my maybe's

After all that has been said were only discussing maybe's

Sep 04, 2018
Does neutron degeneracy exist?


Yes, it has to from observation.
......now you're telling us there is "observation" evidence? OK, what is the "observation" evidence of a degenerate neutron?

Not to mention theory.
.......oh, well tell us about that as well. I asked you above, but you failed a presentation of the "theory", so here's another request, describe in your own words what the shell structure of a degenerate neutron is in about as many words as I described above the electron shell structure of an atom. Here's your big chance to show the readers how much smarter you are than I am with my D-K, go for it:

Sep 04, 2018
Once again the truth is not what it seems

Wavelength is related to the amount of energy a particle has. For photons, velocity is same for all wavelengths, photons based on their energy/wavelength as either gamma, x-ray, visible or radio wave etc.
Electrons wavelength is related to velocity. Slow moving electrons will have longer wavelengths. Accelerate those same electrons and their wavelength will decrease. As an example, if you accelerate an electron with ~30k Volts, it will have a wavelength shorter than visible light

Once again the truth is not what it seems
A high energy electron has by virtue of it short wavelength has the ability to image a low energy electron, because there comes a point when the energy producing a short wave length is smaller than the size of the low energy electron

Sep 04, 2018
> 434 "Walter and S.J. Wolk (Stony Brook) and R. Neuhaeuser (Max-Plack-Institut fuer Extraterrestrische Physik) surmised that it was likely to be a neutron star, a hot, dense stellar corpse with a six-mile radius."

"surmised that it was likely": Weasel words if ever such an explanation could be put to ink.........Hey, he's screaming it in your face, WE"RE TAKING A WILD-ASS GUESS HERE. How about more than just a faint dot proving this is simply not a common white dwarf much larger in size than the 6 mile radius they clicked from off the prescribed size radii for neutron stars, 2 miles.

How do they know it's not 1000 miles in diameter? 2000? Maybe they should prove what the size is before simply declaring it with no evidence for it's size, they did this because they simply WANT this to be a neutron star.

Pop-Cosmology........weasel words in action.

Sep 04, 2018
RX J1856.5-3754 is thought to have formed in a supernova explosion of its companion star about one million years ago and is moving at 108 km/s across the sky. It was discovered in 1992, and observations in 1996 confirmed that it is a neutron star, the closest to Earth discovered.
It was originally thought to be about 150–200 light-years away, further observations using the Chandra X-ray Observatory in 2002 indicate that its distance is greater—about 400 light-years.
RX J1856 is one of the Magnificent Seven, a group of young neutron stars at distances between 652 and 1630 light years of Earth https://en.wikipe...6.5-3754

At 1500Lyr what it smallest angular resolution possible, is it 6miles in diameter at 1500Lyr

Sep 04, 2018
Electrons wavelength is related to velocity. Slow moving electrons will have longer wavelengths. Accelerate those same electrons and their wavelength will decrease. As an example, if you accelerate an electron with ~30k Volts, it will have a wavelength shorter than visible light


> granDy: Maybe the particle that makes up jonesy's shell structure of a degenerate neutron has a velocity SO HIGH that wavelength is so short it can NEVER be detected? Maybe we shouldn't put ideas like this into his head, he's just as likely to come back & glom onto the suggestion & take it seriously.

First let's see if he ever gets back to us describing what the degenerate neutron shell structure is. After he makes a stab at that, I'll really rock his fantasy world with a logical followup question that I want to keep secret until he's committed himself to the first part of the trap & fallen into it.

Sep 04, 2018
There's more than enough to keep Freud occupied, while I study Dr. Seuss's - The cat in the hat and his invisible cat!

Sep 04, 2018
Benni. The data you need is in the article. I'm not sure how to help you with your struggle with basic reading comprehension and remedial maths, you seem incapable of even the most basic learning tasks. Is it because your life is so filled with bile, hate and spitefulness towards those of us who have achieved something with our lives? Is there no room left for anything new in that closed off thing you still call a mind? As always Benni, you have my heartfelt pity for the ruin that is your life. Goodnight.

Sep 04, 2018
Benni. The data you need is in the article.
No it isn't, there's ZERO data in the article determining how they came to the conclusion this is simply not a white dwarf. If you think there is, then Copy & Paste it here here for me to read, but you won't.


Sep 04, 2018
Typically despicably behaviour – she should have been sentenced to remain and live her life under allegiance to the crown, as she was only 19 years of age!

On 23 May 1430, she was captured at Compiègne by the Burgundian faction, a group of French nobles allied with the English. She was later handed over to the English and put on trial by the pro-English bishop Pierre Cauchon on a variety of charges. After Cauchon declared her guilty she was burned at the stake on 30 May 1431, dying at about nineteen years of age
And then there would not have been a martyr


Thanks granville
So there WAS collusion between the English and at least one faction of the treasonous French. It is sad that they had put to death such a young woman who had, indeed, been a patriot.

Sep 04, 2018
Benni. Sad, so very sad, it's there, you just can't comprehend it. As I said bile, hate and spitefulness. It's rotted your mind and left you screaming your invective on here for a decade now? For what? Your life is so appallingly without hope or joy or love that this is what you have filled it with? Every score of one you and your sock puppets give me simply confirms what we know to be the truth you and I. You are dead inside.

Sep 04, 2018
Picture of a neutron star

http://hubblesite...on-stars

Stony Brook astronomers Walter and L.D. Matthews reported the optical identification of the star using the Hubble telescope.




The Hubble site article is from 09 Nov. 2000. The only photo on the page shows a line of trajectory with 3 blobs representing the "neutron star" as it moves across interstellar space. There is no optical photo in that article to represent the star as it supposedly appears, therefore, the article doesn't contain enough information.
Perhaps a more current article/photo is available from the Hubble site?

Sep 04, 2018
So many trolls and so little time.

Inertial confinement is a fact. Hirsch-Farnsworth fusors are used as neutron sources in hundreds if not thousands of labs across the world.

Gravity makes for a nice inertial confinement. It's, you know, kinda obvious. And stuff.

We done here?

Sep 04, 2018
@ Benni

It appears that 434a (aka thegrossofotto1923) is drawing on my use of the term, "invective" to harass you with a bit of pseudo-psychology to make you atone for your remaining firm wrt scientific knowledge.

On another note, I find the term, "Degenerate Neutron Star" amusing, almost like describing a Degenerate Hollywood Star, of which there are many. If they had considered the naming of it with a bit more thought/finesse, they might have chosen "Degenerative" instead.

Sep 04, 2018
@Lenni's got a sock puppet.

Sep 04, 2018
@Lenni's got a sock puppet.
says Da

Really now. And how would you know this? And who is this Lenni person?

Sep 04, 2018
From what I have read of your past posts, you attempt to remove commenters that you disagree with by writing Code in the form of song lyrics. Isn't that right?

LOL I love reading old physorg articles and the old comments - it is clearly informative.