In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 27 Mar 2019 01:15:00 -0400: Hi, [snip] >First. Holmlid has deminstated that ultra dense matter can produce decay of >nucleons.
I don't think he has. I think he has demonstrated that laser pulses in ultra dense matter can accelerate charged particles to energies high enough to create an entire menagerie of particles, much as is commonly seen in normal accelerator driven particle collisions. This is the "Occam's razor" explanation. >This generates lots of energy. Not necessarily. If you look at his experiments, I think you will find that the net energy output in the form of exotic particles is much less than the laser input energy. Furthermore, I think he indirectly admits as much, in so far as he doesn't claim that the process itself produces energy, but rather that the muons could catalyze fusion reactions according to well known principles. >In other words, Ultra dense matter >may be a source of energy. Possibly indirectly, and possibly even through the reduction in electron orbital sizes. I.e. an electron that is closer to the nucleus should release potential energy, some of which may end up in the environment. > >Next. this compression produced by gravity is sufficient to produce >pressure to compress hydrogen, metal, metal compounds, hydrids, and water, >to reach the 2.000.000 bar level. This is the level of pressure needed to >reach the pressure level where ultra dense matter is formed. Yes. > >Finally, the quantum nature of the ultra dense matter can withstand energy >production up to 90,000F and retain the capacity to generate energy through >nucleon decay. "Generate" appears to be a conclusion drawn from the previous probably erroneous assumption. >This type matter is rugged enough to survive and supports >geologic activity inside celestial bodies. Geologic activity is driven by heat. That heat requires energy production. See above. > >Therefore, ultra dense matter could produce the energy that maintains >geological activity within frozen planets and smaller bodies. See above. > >For example the large moon of Pluto, Charon shows signs of geological >activity, > >https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/craters-on-pluto-suggest-kuiper-belt-ate-its-smaller-bodies/ > >Regardless of where they looked, the same general trend was apparent: there >weren't enough small craters. Above about 10km across, the rate of >cratering is about what you'd expect for a smooth distribution of impactor >sizes (meaning you expect fewer big objects). But below 10km, things drop >rather dramatically. I'm not sure Charon is big enough to produce the kind of pressures you talk about. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
