Most Thorough Model

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:13 pm

johnm33 wrote:I have another probably stupid question for Charles, looking at the image on your page 7909 of the suns layers, is it possible that the inner layers are suffused with hydrogen ions packed into a matrix of the other elements?

I'd be beyond the limits of my understanding of supercritical fluids if I tried to answer to that. ;) It probably isn't as simple as I'm making it sound. The basic idea that I'm using is that once compressed into the closest packed arrangement, yet above the critical temperature, all of it becomes fluid, and then the heavier atoms sink to the bottom. But that is surely naive. In the Earth's crust, below the Moho the matter is compacted to the point that the crystal lattices break down, and the matter loses its rigidity. We can see plenty of evidence of plasticity in the folded layers of rock that subsequently found their way to the surface. We can also see crystals that don't normally form at the surface. For example, graphite can get compressed into diamonds. If there is a mix of elements present, chemicals can form, which required extreme pressure. So what's the closest packed arrangement when a variety of elements are present? Is it all of one kind of element at one level, and then all of another at the next level? Or are there smaller elements nestled in the voids left by the closest packed arrangement of larger elements? In other words, imagine an orthogonal arrangement of iron atoms, in perfectly aligned rows & columns. Perhaps the Coulomb force between iron ions won't let the rows or columns get compacted anymore. But on the diagonal, there will be some empty space that could get filled in with hydrogen or helium. So once the iron gets compacted, there won't be any force to expel the hydrogen or helium from the mix, and it will just stay there.

What kind of "chemicals" might be present at such extreme pressures? What would the properties of those "chemicals" be (e.g., wave transmission speeds, thermal and electrical conductivities, etc.)? Would any of those crystal lattices persist if brought to the surface? All very interesting questions. ;) Perhaps somebody knows the answers, but we don't have the lab data to confirm any of it, and QM certainly won't help -- only a physical model can predict physical properties. ;)

But I think that the extreme temperatures probably present inside the Sun will keep stirring up the mix, which will let gravity have more of an effect than it would at lower temperatures.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby johnm33 » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:26 pm

Thank's Charles, I was looking through this guys work and thinking of the implications. http://hydrogen-future.com/en/list-c-la ... ng-en.html
johnm33
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:22 am

...................................................... COMETS

Charles has a paper on Comets now at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=17286 . I don't know if it's new or not. He explains that comets are likely not eroding by speeding through the IPM, but the sheath around the comet protects it from such erosion. He doesn't seem to discuss jets here, but I think he did discuss them in the forum thread, called "67P, why erosion from the neck?" Here are his main posts on that thread.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15443&start=15#p102348
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15443&start=30#p102359
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15443&start=30#p102470
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15443&start=45#p102748
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15443&start=60#p102766
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15443&start=60#p102785
He discussed comet jets here a little: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=15374&start=135#p102786
and here a little more: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15443&start=45#p102748
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri May 10, 2019 12:16 pm

STAR FORMATION, FILAMENTS, SUPERNOVAS

This is a recent exchange between Charles and me.

Lloyd: Your paper [on Filaments at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482 ] says:

"[The present model {Charles' model of star formation} explicitly allows the formation of one large star, or two small stars of roughly the same size, leaving any other combination as the rare exception, which is consistent with the statistics.] Our Sun might be an example of the former case (i.e., one large star instead of two small ones), having no binary companion, and being 2~3 times larger than most binaries."

Have you read up yet on how much variation there is in the sizes of the single large stars as well as how much variation there is among binaries? If there's not much variation, I'm curious about why imploding filaments would apparently be of only a certain size range. Have you had time to give tha[t] any thought yet?

It looks like the range for large stars is 2 to 3 times the size of binaries. So is there also a range for binaries?
L = 2B to 3B.
If B1 = 1, then L1 = 2B1 to 3B1;
If B2 = 2, then L2 = 4B2 to 6B2;
So, if B = 1 to 2, then L = 2 to 6; [I think L1 = L2]
2 NOT= 2 to 3 x 2;
Therefore, B NOT= >1; B = 1.
Is that correct? It suggests that binaries have very little range in size, or that L = 2B to 3B is inaccurate. Am I right?


Charles' papers on Astrophysics and Geophysics are at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031

Charles: There isn't a whole lot more that can be said for now, given the poverty of the available data. The masses of stars in the standard model are estimated by their luminosity, but that's within the framework of how the standard model thinks the luminosity is being generated. So it's very theory-dependent, and they'll tell you that blue giants can be hundreds of times larger than our Sun, because they can't explain the greater luminosity coming from a star the same size.

I reject the supposed correlation between luminosity and mass, because of the implications. If the source of the photons is nuclear fusion in the core of the star, which produces gamma rays, then we have to explain why we don't see the gamma rays — rather we see blackbody radiation. The standard model asserts that the gamma rays are getting redshifted by a long series of absorptions and re-emissions as the light propagates out from the core. But then a larger star, with more mass overlying the core to absorb and re-emit photons, would be redder, not bluer. So once again the predictions of the standard model are opposite the observations, and the mass~luminosity relationship has to be tossed.

Binaries give us a little more data, since they formed at the same time, and thus are at the same stage in their evolutions, and at least they can be compared to each other, revealing the strong preference for like-sized siblings. And typically being dimmer, they don't get into the extremes of the standard model when trying to explain giant stars. So saying that binaries tend to have roughly 1/3 the mass of the Sun seems to be considerably less theory-dependent than saying that a blue giant can be hundreds of times larger. And solitary stars such as our Sun that are in the same luminosity range tend to be in the same mass range as the binaries, suggesting that for dimmer stars, there is indeed a preference for a certain size. But that's where the data-paved road ends, and the trail-blazing begins. ;)

I believe that there is in fact an upper limit to the size of a main sequence star, being something like 1.4 solar masses. I think that above that limit, the star is heavy enough for a runaway thermonuclear explosion, resulting in a Type 1a supernova [which destroys itself - LK].

There might also be a lower limit. If I'm right, it takes a lot of energy to overpower the hydrostatic pressure developed during the implosion, such that the matter is forced into an electrostatic configuration that can keep the thing organized (i.e., the current-free double-layers). Analogously, it takes a lot of energy to ram two atoms together to fuse them into a heavier atom, since the Coulomb barrier has to be overcome. With not enough energy, the atoms just bounce off of the Coulomb barrier. With too much energy, the atoms annihilate each other. But with just enough, the Coulomb barrier is overcome, but without destroying the nuclei, and a larger atom is formed by the strong nuclear force that takes over at close ranges. Likewise in stellar formation the hydrostatic equilbrium has to be overcome to pack the matter into a star that's denser than it has a Newtonian right to be. With not enough energy, the dusty plasma just bounces off of the hydrostatic equilibrium, and expands back to its original dimensions. With too much energy, the matter blows through the hydrostatic equilibrium and the Coulomb barrier, and starts fusing heavy elements, which releases too much energy, and the whole thing explodes. But with just enough energy, the matter can get past the hydrostatic equilibrium and get the current-free double-layers set up, but without too much fusion in the core. So maybe the workable range for a main sequence star is between 1.4 solar masses and 1/3.

As you know, I have a different model for "exotic" stars, such as the so-called black holes, neutron stars, quasars, etc. These are characterized by non-blackbody radiation, and sometimes they emit observable polar jets. I have these as toroidal plasmoids, with a ring current establishing a solenoidal magnetic field that keeps the whole thing organized [such a ring current is visible in X-ray light at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=16754 - LK]. I'm currently trying to figure out what the expected limits might be, if any, for those stars. There won't be any upper limit due to gravitational loading, since the toroid distributes the matter all of the way around the annulus, meaning that G will never amount to much in that configuration. But there might be a lower limit, in that it will take an extremely energetic implosion to get the charge separation within the imploding filaments required by my "natural tokamak" model.

Interestingly, the sizes of some "natural tokamak" candidates are within an order of magnitude of each other. This includes Mira, the Egg Nebula, and the recently published findings on the "black hole" at the center of M87. Mira has the radius of Pluto's orbit around the Sun, while the Egg Nebula and M87 are roughly ten times larger. Maybe the preference for the same size reveals physical limits, or maybe it's just a statistical preference, without distinct limits at the upper or lower end, but with a likelihood of more stuff in the middle of the range.

Cheers!
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4405
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests