Established Member
Simply put my theory is
Stellar fusion produces neutrino flux
neutrinos react with neutrons to form protons and electrons. Converting neutrons to protons induces fission
At the limit fission product is H
The Universe is in equilibrium with the present element abundance being the equilibrium ratio of elements in the Fission/Fusion cycle
Banned
On second thought....I am not going to dignify this with a response besides.....PROOF?Originally Posted by rodin
Last edited by Lepton; 2008-Aug-31 at 04:08 PM. Reason: damn tags...
Established Member
Why do you want me to do this? It is enough to know the Sun produces neutrino flux via fusion.
Since this seems to be a test here is one proposed reaction sequence
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=197232
Idea first proposed
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=296544
Nuclear decay is fission surely? and is shown to be responsive to solar flux with neutrino being perhaps strongest (and most logical ) contender
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.3283v1.pdf
Established Member
I did write a response to your earlier post.
In answer to PROOF may I present some new research showing solar flux modulates radioctive decay
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.3283v1.pdf
Which beggars the question can neutrinos initiate radioactive decay (fission)?
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v92/i11/e111101Neutrino-Induced Fission of Neutron-Rich Nuclei
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k56514tlx7706881/Neutrino-induced deuteron disintegration in an experiment at the Krasnoyarsk nuclear reactor
etc
Banned
Nice to see that even after I edited my post you responded to the unedited version 11 minutes later. Anyway, not a test. Just asking for proof and your diagram isn't proof of your idea. Actually, seeing how you decided to respond to a preedit 11 minutes after the edit was made, I don't expect proof since your agenda is obvious.Why do you want me to do this? It is enough to know the Sun produces neutrino flux via fusion.
Since this seems to be a test here is one proposed reaction sequence
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=197232
Idea first proposed
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=296544
Nuclear decay is fission surely? and is shown to be responsive to solar flux with neutrino being perhaps strongest (and most logical ) contender
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.3283v1.pdf
Established Member
No I responded in good faith. I only saw the edited version after hitting the post button. My reply was held up in moderation.
Perhaps some proof is in the next post still in a queue.
Banned
Yes, I see that is true now. Sorry for accusing you of having an agenda but your mentioning your response in another thread gives me an uneasy feeling about your "posting habit."
Established Member
OK no worries. Basically I support a steady-state universe rather than accelerating expansion.
edit
A reply seems to have gone missing with links to neutrino-capture induced fission
Banned
Fission-fusion is the topic you started. Now you want to swerve your own topic into a talk about a steady state universe? Can you please stick with one topic?
Order of Kilopi
I think it was mentioned in the OP.
Established Member
The Fission/Fusion cycle is my proposed mechanism by which a Steady State Universe may be maintained - Net fusion where energy is high enough,
net fission everywhere else, with the two in equilibrium. Stars move us up the periodic table but in doing so emit neutrinos pro rata. These neutrinos then degrade nucleii as they are inelastically captured (eventually). We could be approaching or are at equilibrium elemental abundance in the universe.
link supporting neutrino induced decay from a lost reply of mine
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.3283v1.pdf
link supporting neutrino induced fission
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.111101
search
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=neu...ient=firefox-a
Established Member
Rodin,
To be honest I'm not really sure what you talking about here with the Fusion/Fission cycle.
However how does you model account for the fact that there is one material that does not undergo either Fusion or Fision without the taking more enegery then the reaction gives off?
Namely, Iron. How would your model account for it?
Banned
Want to expound upon the mechanism of catching neutrinos?
Order of Kilopi
And your calculations showing the rate of capture? What exactly is the capture path?
The link supports nothing. Did you actually read the whole paper? From the paper:
My bold. The paper then goes on to recap several different ideas (One that has nothing to do with neutrinos) that are hypothisized to account for it. There is nothing in the paper that claims to actually account for the variation in decay rate with the changing distance from the sun.In summary, we have presented evidence for a correlation
between changes in nuclear decay rates and the
Earth-Sun distance. While the mechanism responsible
for this phenomenon is unknown,...
According to this paper, exactly at what neutrino energies does this occur? At exactly what level of fluence does the r process need to occur. What is the difference between the slow and fast outflow scenarios and how does this change what is happening with neutrino induced fission? How does this support neutrino induced fission of iron?
Established Member
@ Tensor and Lepton
Various papers cite fission being induced by solar energy neutrinos. Nuclei with mass above and below Fe undergo neutrino induced fission according to
http://www.chemistry.bnl.gov/SciandTech/SN/default.htm
Cited are Ytterbium, Gallium, Chlorine and Deuterium. The equation/mechanism for Neutrino capture Yb is given.
Therefore the principle of neutrino-induced fission of a range of nuclei is established.
A recent (2006) summary of Solar Neutrino capture experiments
The Sun is a main-sequence star at a stage of stable hydrogen
burning. It produces an intense flux of electron neutrinos
as a consequence of nuclear fusion reactions whose combined
effect is
4p → 4He + 2e+ + 2νe.http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/solarnu_s067sol.pdfThe Homestake chlorine experiment in USA uses the reaction
37Cl + νe → 37Ar + e− (threshold 814 keV). (3)
Three gallium experiments (GALLEX and GNO at Gran Sasso
in Italy and SAGE at Baksan in Russia) use the reaction
71Ga + νe → 71Ge + e− (threshold 233 keV). (4)
The produced 37Ar and 71Ge atoms are both radioactive, with
half lives (τ1/2) of 34.8 days and 11.43 days, respectively.
Note that the neutrino capture creates unstable nuclei which then decay by fission to lower mass products.
Regarding the new paper on the correlation between decay and Solar flux
While the mechanism is unknown the correlation is real. The writers are being cautious. Neutrino Flux fits with other observations. If not neutrino flux then some other fission-inducing flux is responsible.In summary, we have presented evidence for a correlation
between changes in nuclear decay rates and the
Earth-Sun distance. While the mechanism responsible
for this phenomenon is unknown,...
In conclusion
It is established that Stellar fusion produces a flux capable of inducing fission. So far it appears there is limited data on the process, and a limited range of nuclei have been observed undergoing neutrino-induced fission. However nuclei with masses ranging from that for Yb to D have been observed interacting.
Quantifying the process over the integrated universe is beyond my scope. I can only suggest that in principle we have a basis for a fission/fusion cycle
For example some capture rates may vanishingly small, but given the scale of the universe, possibly infinite, interactions will eventually occur.
Established Member
You see it is not necessary for neutrinos to directly cause fission in all elements in order to establish an equilibrium abundance of elements. Indeed Iron's relatively high abundance may indicate very high resistance to neutrino capture.How does this support neutrino induced fission of iron?
In an evenly populated infinite steady state universe no net energy should be lost or gained. The processes must be cyclic not linear. The sum of fission and fusion reactions should balance.
Order of Kilopi
It's an interesting idea (for philosophical reasons, I am attracted to the idea of a steady state universe as well). My basic question would be this: would your theory support what we see as the basic makeup of the universe, i.e. 98 percent being either hydrogen or helium?
As above, so below
Banned
Unless you wrote that paper I wonder how this is evidence in your own words?
Order of Kilopi
Steady state implies that the universe has been in existence for an infinite amount of time. Given that, then we should be at equilibrium. If so, then how come we can extract useful energy to do work within a system where entropy is at a maximum?
Last edited by Fortis; 2008-Sep-01 at 07:00 PM. Reason: to correct typos
Order of Kilopi
The principle of the Hydrogen Bomb is also established, that doesn't mean you can make one. The paper established the decay rates of all of four isotopes.
Only for two isotopes, you're up to six isotopes. Actually, I take that back. Two of those have already been mentioned in the previous paper. And I want to point out that it is only one Isotope of Gallium and Chlorine, not the major Isotope of each.
Added bold. Precisely. Which is why that particular paper is useless as support for your idea. You have no supporting evidence either way. And, to quote Turner-son, on the other forum, where you first proposed it,(in reference to those that produce that paper):"Edit: I only know one of the guys (albeit very well indeed - I haven't met the others) and if you read the associated research, you'll find their base theories also directly contradict your own.
And so? nuclei with masses from tritium to Rg(111) have been observed to undergo radioactivity. That doesn't mean all of the the masses of all the isotopes do.
I suggest you read the rules. If you propose it, it is up to you to defend it. If you can't defend it, as seems since you claim it's beyond your scope, then it's up to you to retract it.
And from the limited sample, some capture rates may not exist at all, which means, you have no basis to claim that neutrino capture will "eventually" reduce everything to H (which you've already modified with you concession on iron interactions).
And why no answer to this? After all, it should be in the paper, right? Or, as I suspect, you simply saw the title and abstract and didn't really read the paper due to not having actual access to it?According to this paper, exactly at what neutrino energies does this occur? At exactly what level of fluence does the r process need to occur. What is the difference between the slow and fast outflow scenarios and how does this change what is happening with neutrino induced fission? How does this support neutrino induced fission of iron?
Order of Kilopi
I doubt that that's true. My assumption would be that if the universe is infinite in scale, and infinite in time, then it would take an infinite amount of time for it to reach equilibrium. Wouldn't it constantly be approaching ever closer to equilibrium, but be unable to reach it?
As above, so below
Established Member
Re Neutrino-induced fission. Answering the critics re quantifying.
If the universe is infinite and (as we know) has neutrino flux then neutrino-induced fission may occur so rarely that it has not been observed (yet) in most nuclei. Or it may be that the neutrino flux closer to mass-intensive galactic centres is much more energetic and nucleus-destructive.
What I am suggesting is stellar fusion releases a flux (eg or ie neutrinos) which is a force for fission per se, and that net/net there is a balanced fission/fusion cycle. Perhaps calling it a theory is over-egging the pudding. It is an idea. If you think not worthy of consideration or development you may close the thread.
Order of Kilopi
The thermodynamics of an infinite system isn't really a problem. In fact when studying phase transitions it is important to take the "thermodynamic limit" whereby you let the size of your system tend to infinity.
Even if infinity still worries you, surely you would have expected that you would have expected finite sized patches to be as close to equilibrium as you might wish.
Established Member
Internet is impossibly slow today so I may not post again until tomorrow.
Here are the main objections to SST together with my comments
Yes but perhaps previous SST models have not accounted for large nucleus degradation by flux-induced fission. Perhaps the He nucleus, like Iron, is particularly resistant to such fission.1) SSM does not easily account for the high helium abundance of the Universe, some 25% by mass (see above).
Yes but how is distance measured? Using red shift? There are other possibilities for redshift that do not involve the superluminal expansion of space, whatever that means2)...In the 1960's, there was already strong evidence that quasars and radio galaxies were more frequent at large distances and earlier times (see above), and this was sufficient to sink the SSM in most astronomers' opinion.
I believe I have read ATM theories that suggest otherwise.3) Finally, classic SSM cannot easily account for the precisely thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
http://www.counterbalance.net/cq-fab/stead-frame.html
Banned
Why? Show the math or some valid reason for making this assumption.
Established Member
Because it exists in relative abundance I suggest it must be somewhat immune to decay. After all it is forged in a stellar furnace
Established Member
...which makes me wonder if fission is not going on in a star core while fusion is on the surface. Replenishing hydrogen perhaps? The neutrino flux must radiate inwards as well as out...
Established Member
Show me a visualisation for expanding space to back up this mathematical construct. You can't because it is as logical as a pottery model of Klein's bottle
....or the MAD POIUYT
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=...=1&sa=N&tab=wi
Last edited by rodin; 2008-Sep-05 at 10:01 PM. Reason: Wi6ne o6n key5board (see what i mea6n)
Banned
Your optical illusion is irrelevant. Mathematics can describe that illusion in its truer nature which dispels the illusion.
Instead of playing a trick and beating around the bush- why not simply answer the question? It takes less work and time and saves you posts to just do it right the first time.
Banned
That is an argument from personal incredulity not a valid scientific reason.
Posting Permissions
