steevey

http://wiki.answers....sitron_produced that's the post I made Otherwise, I see what your saying, but not all energy generated by the core is gamma rays. There is probably a decent percentage of a super-massive star's output energy from fusion that is energetic enough to be gamma rays, and yet there aren't any recorded super-massive stars (at least as far as I've seen) which have died in a supernova before their natural time from an iron core. Whenever there's just a star, and it's completely gone, as in there's no more star, NOT a mass ejection, there's always heavier elements and iron. You can look at any recorded supernova remnant and find iron. There might be some cases where a mass ejection is very large which dims a star and some scientists are looking for an answer as to why that happens, and they think that this might be a theory that explains why but probably isn't. And the reason I can say it "probably isn't" is because my friend who is a plasma physicist who knows all about stars had never heard of this theory before. Can you show me actual documented data-files where there's proof and the only explanation for the supernova is a pair instability reaction? In every picture of a supernova remnant that's been adjusted for us to see them in color as in our visible light spectrum, there's the color blue. What blue means in those pictures in "iron". If you can even find me an actual supernova remnant without any blue coloration, then I might consider this to be a considerable theory. But otherwise, there would have to be more supernova occurring in the universe if super-massive stars could collapse before they would in the process of fusing heavier and heavier elements, which with super-massive stars is already pretty fast.

Well if an object accelerates or decelerates, then something about the amount of energy is changing. If you give an object more energy or more of a force, whether its resisting motion or not, it can cause electrons to leap since they can receive the energy. However, with most prosaic objects, the energy is given off in the infrared spectrum or below which is why everything isn't glowing. But there are ways other than acceleration to give off light. There's the combining of opposite particles for instance.

What happens with a black hole, is it can sometimes get into very gas rich regions. A star like our sun wouldn't be much for a black hole, so quasars tend to be at the cores of galaxies, or in the presence of a super-massive star. When the gas spirals into a black hole, if its a large amount of the gas, gravity from the black hole will cause friction between the gas. Just before the gas enters the event horizon of the black hole, some of it is SO compacted as such a high velocity that it is forced upward at tremendous speeds. Other energetic particles also arise from this. When they say gravitational energy, I think most likely they are talking about the friction from the gravity compacting and heating up the gas.

I checked my own "wiki-answers" which I replied to some time ago for someone else, if that's what you mean, otherwise I checked wikipedia.org myself and did not see that on wikipedia.org. I can show you a screen shot if you'd like. If pair-instability explosions are exactly as you describe, then at most there would just be a mass ejection. If it's only a partial collapse and a drop in pressure, but it's before when the star is metal rich and it has an inert iron core, then almost as soon as gravity is starting to pull the star together and condense the core as I mentioned earlier to produce resistance, it fuses the non-metallic core to a point where the fusion process INcreases temporarily, creating a greater output of energy from fusion due to the increasing pressure and therefore the higher rate of fusion, the star would not supernova, but eventually return to their original state, or at least near to their original state gradually since the star would start to expand again and pressure would be taken off the core. You can see mass-ejections in numerous super-massive stars. If "supernova" or "hypernova" had yet more ways to occur and at an earlier stage in a star's life, we might not even be here. At the most, there's one gamma ray burst a day from any random direction in the universe, and not even all of those are from super or hypernova. We would see more explosions from the core of our galaxy, since that's where many super-massive stars are. Also @swan: I know what you mean, but the internet is not the only source of expertise.

That's not changing goal posts at all, that's saying even with clear current logic, it STILL wouldn't work. This positron thing doesn't work how you think it works. Here's what happens: Some force causes an up quark in a proton to change into a down quark. The result is the atomic number of whatever element has gone down by one. Because of the conversion, a positron, neutrino and gamma ray are emitted 6C=>5B + e+ + ve + .96 Mev. The positron will want to and probably will combine with a nearby electron, converting the electron and positron after they collide, into nothing more than electro magnetic energy.

When did I ever say antimatter could cause a supernova?

Except it's completely theoretical in nearly every way. Have any astronomers even found a super massive tar after it's supernova-ed without a black hole or neutron star remnant? If so, give me a link.

It's scientifically impossible that any anti-matter could ever survive in a star at all. ANY anti matter that appears is a result of some weird quantum mechanics thing, and appears of the seeming nothingness of space with another normal particle, and then the pair annihilates itself. These matter-anti-matter pairs are very small and usually can't be observed. I can prove with simple physics and some complex math that the only reason a supernova happens, is because fusion ceases. There is no longer a constant regenerating force pushing outward, only inward. Because all the matter is being compressed and pushed into each other, its like Newton's law which describes "if you push on a wall, it pushes back with the same amount of force". Since there's so much gravity and its relentless, the resistance is huge. This is also why bigger stars have bigger supernove, because there is stronger gravity to pull the core to a more dense state faster. If gradually the star increased in energy, it wouldn't supernova, it would just keep growing until it ran out of fuel anyway.

Well they are both fermions, but something has to make up an electron, and something has to be happening at least mathematically to the wave function if you combine them. Otherwise, how could you have a new wave function?

Matter in the universe was only extremely dense only when the entire universe was a single point. But, there was so much energy in that point, all the energy of the universe in fact, that it projected all matter outward as fast as it possibly could. Particles were still fairly close together and dense, but they weren't close enough together after the big bang to form stars and heavier particles right away because they were so energetic. The universe for some of its early life was hotter than anything you could have imagined, and it wasn't too dense as it was expanding at the same time into a vacuum. Particles DID fuse into some particles, but they were far to energetic and without pressure to hold them down in order to fuse into something like iron right away. A star holds these particles in a specific area though, which they can't escape, especially due to the fact that gravity is now a separate force and is holding them down, which means as all the particles are super hot, they are also forced close together, where they can fuse. What the hell? That's like never happened in the history of the universe. There's NO WAY that anti matter could last that long in a star without being destroyed to make it to a supernova. There isn't even any measurable anti-matter in the universe at all anyway. I don't know where you got that idea from. Some stars are just way more massive than the sun, there's stars literally 100 times more massive than the sun, and THEY go out with a giant bang because they are far more massive, which means gravity pulls on the core inward more, which means there will be a bigger resistance from newton's law of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" which is caused by resistances of the strong and electro-magnetic force. There is just way more energy involved in a star that massive.

It works in steps. When an electron accelerates EVER, it always only revives a specific discrete value of energy, which in turn means that it emits a discrete value of energy. So to answer your question, it depends on what type of photon hits it. I suggest you study the spectra of atoms, theres some pattern like "the frequency of the emitted light is equal to the difference in the absorbed light and which energy level an electron moves back to" or something along those lines.

Well what happens to all the quarks? Cause if I remember correctly, quarks make up both protons AND electrons, which I think there's 3 of in each, but I don't remember how many of in a neutron. If a neutron has a different amount of quarks which is less than 6, wouldn't that prove it's a new mathematical wave function entirely? But then, what happened to the other 3 quarks that were in the proton and electron that formed it? Why wouldn't they get entangled as well?

Deboglie is just the statement that an electron is a wave and some relationships between energy and an electron's position. I'm looking for the reason for it being a wave and having all these weird probability factors as well as a mathematical way to describe the combining of the wave functions of two non-identical particles. That sounds like normalization, which isn't what I'm looking for.

Are they real or are scientists still trying to determine for sure if they are there? I know it would make sense for them to be there for our current physics, but have they actually been measured and/or observed?

But a wave function is the reason why an electron is a wave, because once you observe the electron, the electron no longer acts like a wave.

After the shock waves from the big bang. The universe is still pretty close together at this point after the big-bang, and most of the gas can come into contact with one another, like one giant solar system. So, remnant shock waves can pass through nearly all the gas, since its still dense enough, and these shock waves cause the denser and collapse gas to bump into each other and form lumps, which then over time grow and begin to attract more amounts of gas. It's more just that once the star got massive or dense enough, it wants to collapse, but it can't because of heat pushing outward. So after heat stops pushing outward, all that's left is gravity wanting to pull everything in. The core starts to contract, but because of the strong force and electro-magnetic force, when the core contracts, all the atoms try to push against it once they are forced close enough together, and as the other gas collapses into the core, it feels the shock-waves of that strong force/electro-magnetic force resistance, and is thrown outward. But non the less, gravity continues to pull the core together closer and closer, and any remaining gas would be pulled to the core and then blasted away by more shock-waves. A supernova is actually repeated explosions, but the core is so massive, and there's so much energy involved, that it happens really fast, as a series of gas collapsing into the core and getting pushes out as the core tries to resist gravity's pull.

So your telling me the double slit experiment was magic? Cause otherwise the double slit experiment proves wave functions are real things which are a part of elementary particles. How else could single electrons at a time form an interference pattern?

uh no The universe was WAY WAY WAY too hot to even form the most basic of elements at first, and there certainly wasn't stars right away to make iron.

So then you can have a magnetic monopole?

So if I have a proton and an electron, and they fuse to form a neutron, what happens to the prior wave functions? Is there some conservation of wave function law? Is there a mathematical process that shows how the wave function of two opposite charged particles change into one new wave function?

What's wrong with a pure positive moving charge?

how do I delete this?

Here's what's going on. A star forms, it has a large mass. Because of it's large mass, it compresses the core, and after that happens, the core is dense enough to fuse hydrogen atoms and helium. After time, the star becomes more dense, but more energy is released when fusion occurs and there is gravity to pull matter inwards, so the star grows. But, eventually, once a star fuses elements in the core into iron, the core becomes too dense and requires too much pressure for fusion. At this point, there is nothing more to generate outward heat in the star, which is now has a way more dense core. And because there is no more heat pushing outward, the only main force left is gravity. The center starts to condense, however, because of some laws of density and Newton's laws, when the core condenses past a certain point, it creates a tremendous resistance force to collapsing, a little like pushing down a spring and then letting it go. However, the core is too dense to itself get flung outward, so instead, shock waves travel through the outer gas of the star, and send that gas flying at millions of miles per hour, leaving only the core to collapse under gravity. It isn't that gravity decreases at all, it's that after a certain point, there's no longer any force to balance or counteract gravity. If the star isn't massive enough, there won't be enough gravitational force to collapse it into a black hole, but the core will get so dense, that atoms will become so close together and dense, that all the protons and electrons fuse to form neutrons, and any left over electrons are forced outward if the force is great enough, or form a super-ultra dense liquid of electrons to leave small cracks ion the neutron star. If it's not massive enough to do that, it will form a white dwarf, which is dense, but not dense enough to be formed of only neutrons. If it's too heavy for the strong force of neutrons, then the material will collapse even further, and after that point, there is no known cause for the material to stop collapsing, so condenses to such a small point, that it severely warps the fabric of space time as to not allow even light to escape. Scientists call this a singularity. It's unclear whether the singularity actually stopped decreasing in size and density at some point, but my logic is a singularity has to stop somewhere, otherwise it's gravitational pull would be exponentially stronger with every second that passes, which means block holes would not just be at the center of our galaxy, but be as big as our galaxy, and would continue to grow. Some scientists just think that a singularity just phases out of existence because its too small, but I think that's silly because otherwise, what's warping the fabric of space-time? It can't be a hole in the fabric of space time because as some math and simulations predict, there couldn't be gravity, since there would be no fabric to warp if it was a hole into nothingness.

Couldn't I just make something out of pure electrons or protons? I'm sure there's some force in the universe that can do that, There's stuff thats made out of only neutrons and its still being held together. Otherwise more classically, I understand that when you cut a magnet, the left over pieces will have north and south poles, but why always every time? And what would it take to make a monopole?

Well according to thermodynamics, everything will eventually just become entropy, and then that's it. Perhaps everything will first get devoured by black holes, or most of everything, and then if Stephen Hawking is right, those black holes will "evaporate", leaving behind only entropy.