MigL

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The OP still hasn't posted any 'numbers' to go along with his conjecture that shows muonic fusion to be possible within the parameters of the Earth's core. IIRC, muon catalyzed fusion does allow the nucleus to be about 200 times smaller due to the reduced mass difference with the electron. However, this does NOT mean a reduction in the diameter of a proton itself; please cite evidence for this effect, if available. And, as to the source of the muons. Every time this scheme has been investigated, the required energy to produce the muons has been more than that produced by the catalyzed fusion reaction. Muon catalyzed fusion may have a 'right to life', but it will only be considered if other, mainstream approaches fail.

Don't know enough about geology, but I would have thought the stresses, strains, pressures, temperatures and gravity of classical Physics is enough to explain geological effects without resorting to quantum processes. Maybe when you present a discussable scenario, and HOW classical Physics fails, then we can discuss the need to investigate quantum processes. ( and I mean a discussable post, not a PDF, or Word document, link ) Until then, you may be proposing solutions to non-existent problems.

OK. For hydrogen nuclei ( plasma ) to have enough energy, to be able to get close enough to a separation of 10-12 mm, the nuclei have to be at a temperature of 100 MILLION deg K; about 6 times the core temperature of the Sun. Obviously, the p-p fusion cycle works ( and for more massive stars, the CNO, Bethe- Weiszaker fusion cycle ), but at temperatures close to 15 MILLION deg K for our Sun, although it could start at only 5 MILLION deg K in much smaller stars. When you consider that the Earth's core is at about 6 thousand deg K, you are still three orders of magnitude out of the ball-park. But maybe the OP is talking about some new kind of cold fusion ?

I'm trying to figure out what, exactly, fuses. Magma is composed mostly of silicates ( oxygen, sodium, magnesium, silicon, calcium, potassium and iron ). Of these, assuming you could have a plasma, iron is a dead end for fusion ( no matter how small the atoms get ? ). The lightest element which could fuse, would be oxygen, but, as that requires 1.5 BILLION deg K, I really don't see how it is even being considered in this discussion.

We didn't ask for excuses; we asked for explanations. Yes, that's the kind of site we are.

You present two postulates ... Which don't jive with accepted Physics, and with no backing evidence, and no explanation of how these postulates are manifested. Then immediately launch into an explanation of quantum spin ???? That's not how we do things. Back up your assertions.

As Swansont already pointed out, That is the incomplete Newtonian model. In the much more ( but still not fully ) complete GR model, it is the ground hitting you, as you innocently travel along a geodesic ( free fall ).

Oh, and I forgot that cranky, Scottish geology expert Ophiolite. Always wanted to have a Scotch with him, and ask him what three battles he was in sight of.

After a while you get used to people, and having them around; you almost know what hey are going to post on any particular subject. There are many people I've butted heads with, over the years. INow, Ten oz, Phi for All, and, anyone remember Overtone ? I have developed a great respect for all their opinions, and would love to have a face-to-face discussion over a beer. Some people have left, and sometimes they come back, but post infrequently, as Ten oz now does. Hopefully, when they have time, Mordred and Strange will join us again. Some are gone for good, like Imatfaal, AJB, and Dr Rocket. We are that much poorer for their absence

Ahh, but Kirchoff, and Weins, just had a set of rules. And Stefan-Boltzmann, as well as Raleigh-Jeans, didn't work, and headed for infinity at high frequencies ( UV catastrophe ). Planck was the first to accurately describe Black Body radiation … in 1900 . I wonder... The fact that we all know QM to some degree, leads us to recommend textbooks which are fairly advanced. But to a noob, a lot of material is left out ( or taken for granted as common knowledge ), leading to the confusion that prevails among people new to the subject , or the general population. While the historical approach includes knowledge which is later discarded, a fully modern view leaves a lot of gaps. Maybe a textbook which starts from basic principles, and gives a theoretical ( not historical ) foundation, before tackling advanced material is the best choice.

Congratulations ! You have discovered that all motion is relative ( I.e. relativity ) several centuries too late, In a couple of hundred more years, you might realize that our best theory says gravity isn't really a force, but a geometric distortion of space-time.

Don't confuse the arguments I choose to make with what I would like to see for a just society, Phi. Of course I admired Reagan/Thatcher and McCain. I also admired Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton. They all had their bad, and all had some good. ( even D Trump had maybe 1 % good with that whole lot of bad ) And do you see what you are doing ? Your impression of my political beliefs paints me in typical American terminology, "pre neo-con". Try to separate yourself from American political thinking. People are people; they just want what is best for them and the people they care about; if it also happens to benefit others, so much the better. By pigeon holing them as Libs/Cons, or Reps/Dems, or even elites/deplorables, you are assigning your imagined traits to them. America can be 'great again', they simply have to get past this 'us' vs 'them' attitude between two political parties.

So here you ( and others ) are. Your typical news ( available to all )is polarized, either 'left' or 'right'. You have Trump supporting, people on the right complaining that MSNBC and CNN just hate Trump, and have since his inauguration. And you have Trump hating, people on the left claiming FOX news is just a lying mouthpiece of the Republican party. You have a country where 45% of eligible voters will vote Republican, no matter what idiot they run, and another 45% of eligible voters will vote Democrat no matter what the issues. They have always voted that way and will continue to do so; only a small percentage of the electorate, in 'swing' states actually decide who will be President. You have people on either left or right, hating the other side more and more, as politicians ratchet up the rhetoric, and blame everything on the supporting electorate; never themselves. So much so, that political rallies and protests have become dangerous to attend, and people, afraid for their lives, run over others ( or at least, that is the excuse they use ) for the second time now. You guys are neck deep in this sh*t, live it every day, and it colors the way you see, and live, life. Yet two outsiders who have no 'skin in the game', JC and I, often get accused of not being equitable, and being partial to one side. By no means are we trying to compare/equate the two sides, Republican and Democrat, but simply pointing out that neither side are 'angels'. And, I can easily decide which is 'better' for the people, while also recognizing the 'faults' of the 'better' side. While you guys, being so deep in it, either can't see the problems of your side, or choose to ignore it. Not judging, simply presenting my observations.

It comes as no surprise that you need to ask the question. ( you may need to ask the same about Mathematics )

Ooops ! I still stand by the rest of my opinion expressed in my last post.

When I heard the news I got nostalgic and put on a blu-ray of James Bond's 1995 Goldeneye ( with Pierce Brosnan ). Famke Janssen looked delicious in that, and Aracebo, spectacular.

Hind sight is 20/20. WHY they were disillusioned with Government ( and H Clinton in particular ) does not really matter. Even if those reasons were not factual, or non-existant, they should have been addressed, and people reassured, not dismissed as complaining deplorables ( there were no qualifiers when she said it, Zap ). I was an H Clinton supporter, and some simple considerations for all citizens may have spared us the last 4 years.

M Planck's successful Black Body Radiation law, was derived in 1900, after many unsuccessful ( UV catastrophe ) ones ( since 1860 ? ). But I see where you are going with this. The teaching of QM has always been approached historically, and always starts with M Planck's desperate 'guess' at a minimum discrete energy for a charged oscillator in a cavity, after many previous unsuccessful attempts. It is then followed by the Bohr atom, Shrodinger, Heisenberg and maybe some Dirac. Perhaps it is time for a change, so the student doesn't pick up unnecessary baggage along the way, such as the Bohr atom.

Maybe not important to you, but it certainly was to many people in 2016, who felt that the 'status quo' Government of career politicians, like H Clinton, didn't care about their concerns. D Trump got elected by appealing to those people, by promising to do things differently, and 'draining the swamp' of career politicians and civil servants who were in politics for themselves. The fact that a lot of citizens felt their representative Government wasn't addressing their concerns/needs is literally what disenfranchised means. The denial, or deprivation, of some right or privilege, such as the right to a representative Government. The fact that D Trump turned out to be a jackass, and played those people to suit his own agenda, and has led to even more people becoming disillusioned with politicians, is a different matter altogether.

Sorry I wasn't clear swansont. I was referring to the 2016 election, and why I mentioned to H Clinton, who famously called them "deplorables".

On top of the expert opinions above, I will add my two cents ... The modern picture of a fundamental quantum particle is a point surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles, which grow more and more massive/energetic as you reduce separation. These 'extra' particles add to mass, charge, etc. of fundamental particles, and is their 'effects' that are stripped away in the renormalization of any QFT. A proton is not fundamental, but is composed of quarks, which are; and the quarks are in close proximity. The way Physicist 'dismantle' a proton, is by smashing it at high energies against another particle, and seeing what 'comes out'. High energy protons collisions produce quite a few particles. Even at its lowest energy, a proton is over 98% binding energy; this energy alone is enough to 'produce' a couple of hundred quark/ anti-quark pairs. And there have been scattering experiments done which confirm that a proton acts like a 'bag' full of particles. ( not zillions and zillions )

By 'common folk' I meant people who have become disenfranchised with our political system, career Politicians, and the way government does business. These are the people who, overwhelmingly voted for D Trump, expecting a change, and that he would actually 'drain the swamp'. Boy, were they wrong !

Keeping in mind that 'curvature' is apparent in the geometric model, but not necessarily in reality … It is possible to include Electromagnetism in a 5 dimensional extension of GR, and was first done by Theodore Kaluza and Oskar Klein ( see Kaluza-Klein theory ) in a manner that produces standard GR and Maxwell's equations for the EM field. However, as Joigus points out, This remains a strictly classical theory, and does not take the HUP into consideration. So unless you can figure out a way to make the metric 'fuzzy' ( as the HUP does with observables like position and momentum ), this does not yield a good model at quantum scales. If, on the other hand, you mean do the fields produce 'curvature', of course, the answer is yes. Any field has an energy density, and this necessarily implies space-time curvature due to that energy density. ( fields are mathematical constructs, and so is their energy density distribution, leading to a mathematical curvature, which seems to describe reality quite accurately, as per the first line of this post ).

There will always be people who take advantage of other people, so we will always have the TeleEvangelists, the Jim Jones, and the Donald Trumps. Placing the blame with the "people who are not very educated, not very sophisticated thinkers, and too trusting for their own good" is what got H Clinton in trouble and led to the D Trump Presidency. Those people are voters too If the elitist, career politicians who are " very educated, very sophisticated thinkers" would address the needs of common folks, some of whom are not, we wouldn't be in this situation. Government is responsible to ALL of its voters/citizens, no matter how trusting they are.

So... Assume I don't know the area of a rectangle. The computer spits out two sentences. 1 - Bite an apple. 2 - Multiply length time width. I try both. If I don't know what area is, how do I know the area of a rectangle is not an apple with a bite taken out of it ?? If I know that area is length times width already, why would I need to run this idiotic program in the first place ????