/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #10520775

32KiB, 660x371, Musky.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 05:45:40 2019 No.10520775 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>10521553 >>10521805 >>10521846 >>10521906

Does quark fusion happen anywhere in the universe? Do stars way bigger than our sun do it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 14:58:49 No.10521529 Report

Quoted By: >>10521570

excellent question. I was thinking about the technological path to a quark fusion weapon the other day

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 5-13-Nuclear-Fusion.jpg, 33KiB, 711x450

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 15:09:23 No.10521553 Report

Quoted By:

>>10520775
These are some pretty bad odds, idk if any star is big enough to get that effect in any considerable amount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 15:16:36 No.10521570 Report

Quoted By: >>10521792

>>10521529
And then you woke up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:02:44 No.10521792 Report

Quoted By: >>10521798

>>10521570
I'm not saying I thought of it, just that I wondered how close humanity is to that achievement

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:03:54 No.10521798 Report

Quoted By:

>>10521792
Never going to Happen close

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:05:47 No.10521805 Report

Quoted By: >>10521837 >>10521849 >>10522658

>>10520775
define "quark fusion" ?
it sounds like nonsense to me. first of all, "fusion" normally refers to nuclear fusion, and nuclei are made of quarks, so basta. second, in particle colliders, e.g. the LHC, sometimes quarks hit eachother and turn into other stuff, usually other quarks and gluons but possibly other stuff as well. this could be called "fusion" but it obviously isn't a power source

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:21:36 No.10521837 Report

Quoted By:

>>10521805
https://youtu.be/u4RNGRyzt10?t=6m20s

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:26:16 No.10521846 Report

Quoted By:

>>10520775
There's a theoretical supernova remnant denser than a neutron star called a quark star, if its density is high enough it could go beyond the neutron rebound point and your star would have a core of quark-gluon plasma.
You can push it beyond that end up with either a star made out of strange matter, or an electroweak star that is literally burning quarks and only staving off collapse with the pressure of outgoing neutrinos.
There are a few potential candidates for quark stars, but nothing confirmed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:27:36 No.10521849 Report

Quoted By:

>>10521805
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star#Other_theorized_quark_formations

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:29:35 No.10521855 Report

Quoted By:

it happens on a molecular level inside us, thats how consciousness works the nothingness or aether and the light go back and forth, thats why energy cannot be destroyed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:47:47 No.10521896 Report

Quoted By: >>10521914 >>10521984

No but you CAN do it the other way around.

Quark fission. It actually creates a small big bang in the sense that it will create new particles very rapidly as you put more energy in it.

This is why if the "big rip" scenario is actually true once they reach the quantum scale it'll cause a big bang to happen. If that is the case then our universe itself also came into existence due to quark being ripped apart by dark energy.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO neutron_star.jpg, 20KiB, 420x240

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:51:24 No.10521906 Report

Quoted By:

>>10520775

It is believe that it might happen at the heart of some neutron stars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 17:53:51 No.10521914 Report

Quoted By: >>10521984

>>10521896
>This is why if the "big rip" scenario is actually true once they reach the quantum scale it'll cause a big bang to happen. If that is the case then our universe itself also came into existence due to quark being ripped apart by dark energy.
false. what you state assumes baryon conservation, which is not necessarily true, and even if it were true (that a big rip would produce a bunch of mesons as it tries to pull apart baryons), that still looks nothing like a big bang. for one, you end up with a universe full of mesons and hardly any baryons, which means no ordinary matter could exist. also it would just keep ripping and not stop, so that looks nothing like our universe. more fundamentally it still looks nothing like the actual big bang since the big bang had a singularity and there is no singularity in your picture

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 18:23:51 No.10521984 Report

Quoted By: >>10521991 >>10522014

>>10521914

Since there's no centre of the universe, and everything seems to be separating from each other, the singularity and the Big Bang may have happened everywhere at once.

>>10521896

Be careful. It depends on whether the splitting hadrons can keep up with the exponentially increasing dark energy. It may be that the exponential increasing dark energy leads to exponentially particle production which ends up in a new big bang. It may not be able to keep up. More likely, the Big Rip scenario is false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 18:27:52 No.10521991 Report

Quoted By: >>10522004

>>10521984
stop with the pseudoscience. first of all the big bang _did_ happen everywhere at once (or, more accurately, all of space originated at the same singularity). second, as i explained and you ignored, what you're describing looks nothing at all like the big bang. for example, as i said, you only end up with mesons like pions and kaons, and no normal baryonic matter like hydrogen or helium. it just don't work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 18:31:49 No.10522004 Report

Quoted By: >>10522011

>>10521991

Wrong anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 18:33:35 No.10522010 Report

Quoted By:

The Big Bag is better understood as a theory of the early stages of the universe, not as a theory of its origins. Without a full theory of quantum gravity/a theory of everything, it is a futile effort.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 18:33:39 No.10522011 Report

Quoted By: >>10522024

>>10522004
no, u. your argument relies on baryon number conservation, and yet you are magically trying to insist on baryogenesis (this means making new baryons) nonetheless. lrn2science

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 18:33:57 No.10522014 Report

Quoted By:

>>10521984
The big bang happened everywhere because the singularity was infinitely small. There wasn't more than one point it could have happened at.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 18:38:26 No.10522024 Report

Quoted By: >>10522077

>>10522011

No. Wrong anon. The idea is that because separating quarks only results in creating more quarks, a big rip scenario may end up creating quarks everywhere. This sort-off looks like a big bang. Since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity we can't say for sure if this how big bangs actually work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 18:54:00 No.10522077 Report

Quoted By: >>10522092

>>10522024
just making quarks doesn't give you baryons (which are made of three quarks). the process you are talking about (it's called "hadronization") only makes mesons. not baryons. your theory CAN NOT make any protons or neutrons, period

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 18:57:36 No.10522092 Report

Quoted By:

>>10522077

An idea that stems from the second possibility is that the energy of creating those new particles lowers the energy inherent to space itself, creating a bubble of vacuum decay, removing the conditions for dark energy expansion, and thus spawning a new universe with potentially foreign physics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 23:02:59 No.10522658 Report

Quoted By: >>10522676

>>10521805
Imagine offering an opinion on something that you preface by saying you dont understand to the point of incredulity while simultaneously being 5 seconds away from said information.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Apr 2019 23:09:01 No.10522676 Report

Quoted By:

>>10522658
find me in any of these sources any use of the term “quark fusion”. nobody mentioned quark stars prior to that in the thread, and if that’s what they wanted to talk about they should have said that instead of a made-up term. in particle physics, real terms like “gluon-gluon fusion” are used, so using said nonsense term is confusing

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches