II. THE ENERGY SOURCE FOR AN IRON-RICH, STRATIFIED SUN
On the mass scale of ordinary nuclear matter, i.e., for A !!300 amu, the interplay of repulsive and attractive interactions between nucleons  results in the following observations: [Skip all but d.]
d.) A halo cloud of neutrons extending beyond the charge radius in light, neutron-rich nuclei, e.g., the two-neutron cloud at the surface of 11Li outside the core nucleus of 9Li ;
[* There's some more from an online book that I posted to my site at: http://sci2.lefora.com/2010/09/06/3-3/#post1]
III. THE NUCLEAR CYCLE THAT POWERS THE COSMOS
Galaxy Collisions Produce Neutron Stars
Thus, the occurrence of a neutron star in the core of the Sun, in its precursor, and in other ordinary stars [3-9] implies that:
a.) Stellar explosions may expose, but do not necessarily produce, the neutron stars that are seen in stellar debris; and
b.) Neutron stars at the centers of ordinary stars were not made one-at-a-time in SN explosions but were more abundantly made in higher energy fragmentation events that produced our galaxy, probably in a high density region associated with active galactic nuclei (AGN), quasars, or massive neutron stars.
- The origin of these high-density, energetic regions of space is not well known, e.g. [15, 33], but the link between high density and high cosmic activity suggests that gravitational collapse generates massive cosmic objects that are powered by repulsive interactions between neutrons.
[Frequent Galaxy Interactions]
A recent review on galactic collisions notes that “transient galaxy dynamics”, the recurrent collisions and mergers of galaxies, has replaced the classical view that galactic structures formed early in the universe and were followed by slow stellar evolution and the steady build-up of heavy elements .
- Collisions or mergers of galaxies are highly prevalent, with ~1 in 10 of known galaxies engaged in some stage of physical interaction with another galaxy, and nearly all cohesively-formed galaxies, especially spirals, having experienced at least one collision in their lifetime.
- “Galactic collisions involve a tremendous amount of energy. . . . . the collision energy is of order 1053 J. This is equivalent to about 108-9 supernovae, . . .” [reference 33, p. 6]. (Harutyunian  notes that the compact nuclear objects produced by such high-energy events display many of the properties seen in ordinary nuclear matter, including the more rapid decay (shorter half-lives) of the more energetic nuclei .)
- Collisions are highly disruptive to all components of the galaxies, including the nucleus, and astronomers observe the collisional energy in many puzzling forms - quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers (AGN).
[Supermassive Objects Formation]
The extreme turbulence of active galactic nuclei (AGN) suggests the interactive presence of massive gravitational concentrations, possibly black holes  or super-massive neutron stars that fragment [10-15] into the multiple neutron stars that then serve as formation sites of new stars.
- Struck notes in the abstract of his review paper that “Galactic collisions may trigger the formation of a large fraction of all the stars ever formed, and play a key role in fueling active galactic nuclei” [reference 33, p. 1]. Matter is ejected from the massive object in the galaxy core in the form of jets, perhaps caused by an ultra-dense form of baryonic matter  in neutron stars or Bose-Einstein condensation of iron-rich, zero-spin material into a super-fluid, superconductor [24, 36] surrounding the galaxy core.
- Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations confirmed the hierarchical link suggested by Arp  between collisional systems and quasi-stellar objects - quasars. Quasars are frequently seen grouped, in pairs or more, across active galaxies, and are physically linked to the central galaxy by matter bridges. Isophote patterns indicate that the direction of motion of the quasars is away from their host galaxy, thereby stretching and weakening the matter bridge until the quasar separates completely. The implication is certain—quasars are physical ejecta from AGN, and become nuclei of nascent galaxies. The HST sightings “. . . provide direct evidence that some, and the implication that most, of the quasar hosts are collisional systems” [reference 33, p. 105].
- AGN, quasars, and neutron stars are highly prevalent, observable phenomena in all parts of the known universe. They have two significant properties in common: Exceptionally high specific gravity and the generation of copious amounts of “surplus” energy. In view of the repulsive forces recently identified between neutrons [3-5] and the frequency and products of galactic collisions , we conclude that neutron repulsion is the main energy source for the products of gravitational collapse.
Neutron-rich stellar objects produced by gravitational collapse exhibit many of the features that are observed in ordinary nuclei:
a.) Spontaneous neutron-emission from a central neutron star sustains luminosity and the outflow of hydrogen from the Sun and other ordinary stars;
b.) As a neutron star ages and loses mass, changes in the potential energy per neutron may cause instabilities due to geometric changes in the packing of neutrons (See the cyclic changes in values of M/A vs. A on the right side of Fig. 3 at Z/A = 0);
c.) Spontaneous fission may fragment super-heavy neutron stars into binaries or multiple neutron stars, analogous to the spontaneous fission of super-heavy elements; and
d.) Sequential fragmentation of massive neutron stars by emission of smaller neutron stars may resemble the sequential chain of alpha-emissions in the decay of U and Th nuclei into nuclei of Pb and He.
- The nuclear cycle that powers the cosmos may not require the production of matter in an initial “Big Bang” or the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted in 1913  between atomic and planetary structures extends to the similarity Harutyunian recently found  between nuclear and stellar structures.
The recent finding  of a massive neutron star (CXO J164710.2-455216) in the Westerlund 1 star cluster where a black hole was expected observationally reinforces our doubts about the collapse of neutron stars into black holes. Finally it should be noted that the elevated levels of 136Xe, an r-product of nucleosynthesis seen by the Gaileo probe into Jupiter , lend credence to Herndon’s suggestion  that natural fission reactors  may be a source of heat in the giant outer planets.
Re: Strengths and weaknesses of various EU solar models.
Postby Reality Check » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:20 pm- Orrery wrote: The internally powered nuclear fusion model doesn't predict the correct number of observed neutrinos. Only the surface fusion z-pinch model predicts the observed neutrinos.
- The internally powered nuclear fusion model does predict the correct number of observed neutrinos.
- A surface fusion z-pinch model could match the observed neutrinos but cannot explain the lack of gamma radiation from that surface fusion. Having the fusion at the center of the Sun does explain the lack of gamma radiation.
[W]hat has made you ignore the discovery of neutrino oscillation in 2001 and the verification of it since then?
- ETA: Neutrino oscillation observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_o ... servations) include solar neutrino oscillation, atmospheric neutrino oscillation, reactor neutrino oscillation and beam neutrino oscillation experiments.
- ETA2: FYI, the fusion process from H to 3He produces 3 gamma rays for each 3He isotope produced. Two are from a positron annihilating with an electron and have an energy of 0.511 MeV. The other is a 5.49 MeV gamma ray.
He said: Keep in mind that in a BIrkeland solar model, the rigid SURFACE is actually UNDER the photosphere and most of the fusion processes created in z-pinches in the "atmosphere" of the sun would occur UNDER the surface of the photosphere, but ABOVE the rigid surface. It's possible in other words that a lot of fusion occurs near the surface of a Birkeland solar model, but gamma rays are typically absorbed by the plasma between that surface and the surface of the photosphere. In other words, you wouldn't expect to observe but a tiny fraction of a gamma rays produced in z-pinches of the solar atmosphere of a Birkeland model, whereas you WOULD expect to see them in ... a Juergens solar model (I would think).
As for gamma rays, if the Earth's atmosphere can shield us from gamma rays, I don't see why thousands of miles of solar atmosphere wouldn't absorb the radiation from solar fusion where Thornhill places it, just beneath the visible surface. (Maybe I'll ask Wal for his comments.)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests