Online discussion of neutron repulsion energy
Dear Oliver, friends,
I’m an interested observer of this discussion, and look at it through the lens of physics (oh how I envy chemists that freedom to practice their art without strictures of meta-geometrical topology that afflict extra-terrestrial physics. Imagine if we tried to discuss chemical reactions in varying space curvatures).
For some years now, Oliver and I have collaborated on a Solar System model that aligns with conventional chemistry and physics rather than opposes them. Thus, we have an explosive progenitor in the form of an iron-rich supernova. Isotope sequences put that event at ~4.5GYA. That much is empirically verifiable, and is no longer controversial in the mainstream. What happens next is where physics and consensus depart each other.
How could the SN debris settle and accrete gravitationally so that the lightest element known, H, forms the nucleus of the nascent Solar System? How does iron float on hydrogen? It is clear, short of resorting to metaphysics, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the basics of the Standard Solar Model, and that our spectral analysis of the photosphere cannot be representative of what lies beneath.
And that, in my view, is why we’re looking at other processes besides predominantly H fusion to satisfy the Sun’s energy requirements. The proposal of n-repulsion should be seen against the background of a physically sound, fundamentally secure solar model. That is the mistake that Eddington and Bethe fell prey to: They let their theory of energy production in stars dictate the chemical composition of stars, instead of the other way around.
All the best for Christmas and the New Year, however you choose to celebrate them.
With kind regards
Hilton
Subscribe to blog feed.
About the Author:
May 2nd, 2010 at 14:49 pm
Dear Hilton,
Congratulations on this beautiful web site! I just came across it.
Nuclear rest mass data for the 3,000 different types of atoms that comprise the entire visible universe unambiguously show that the neutron-neutron interaction is repulsive [1-5].
Communicating that empirical fact has been a challenge.
Neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers neutron stars, including the one at the core of the Sun. Neutron repulsion keeps the neutron in an excited energy state until it finally manages to penetrate the gravitational barrier:
a.) => n + ~12 MeV
The neutron quickly decays the a proton/electron pair in about 10 minutes:
b.) n => H+ + e- + ~1 MeV
Protons are accelerated upward by powerful magnetic fields. On the upward journey, most protons are fused into He-4 nuclei:
c.) 4 H+ + 2 e- => He-4 + 2 e+ + 2 v + ~27 MeV
Protons that survive the upward journey are discharged from the Sun in the Solar Wind:
d) Each year, 3 x 10^43 H+ depart in the Solar Wind
In summary, reaction a.) generates 60% of solar luminosity. Reaction b.) generates 5% of solar luminosity. Reaction c.) generates 35% of solar luminosity and 100% of solar neutrinos. Reaction d.) generates 100% of the Solar Wind hydrogen that pours from the surface of the Sun as the solar contribution toward filling interstellar space with this neutron decay product.
We are now making a few videos on “Nellie the Neutron” and “New Clear Science” to try to communicate more clearly the idea of neutron repulsion as the source of nuclear energy in the cores of galaxies and stars.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
REFERENCES
1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).
2. “Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity”, J. Radioanalytical & Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002).
3. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).
4. “Superfluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2003).
5. “Isotopes tell origin and operation of the Sun”, Proceedings of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference (Moncao, Portugal, 23-25 June 2005) AIP Conference Proceedings 822, 206-225 (2006).
May 2nd, 2010 at 15:13 pm
Thank you very much for your comments, Oliver. Nothing sybolises for me more the iniquity of the way science is practiced these days than that Al Gore got a Nobel Prize and you didn’t!
Best wishes
Hilton