serguei58

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, but I do recognize an asshole when I see one.

( my apologies to the rest of the membership tor my infraction and behavior )

My advice to you, do not look in the mirror and the image of the asshole will not haunt you.

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

Pouty turkeys ???
Come on, I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion.
And I'm not the one invoking advanced Physics theories to explain relatively simple geological processes.
( maybe you're trying to aggrandize your own importance by doing so )

What have you got planned next; SuperString Theory to explain the weather ?

And I had no idea that you are not only a physicist but a geologist and seismologist.  A scientist with a wide range of knowledge, for whom there is simple geology, ordinary physics, and not cunning mechanics.  Are you by any chance a hemorrhoid specialist?  Could you advise my grandfather?

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't claim to know much Physics; just have a BSC.
But my advice would be to use the KISS principle ( keep it simple, st*pid ).
Why resort to esoteric and complex explanations  ( like muon catalyzed fusion and quantum processes ) for something that can be explained with 'classical' geophysics?

And don't claim that conventional explanations have all failed, as you didn't provide a single example of failed conventional explanations.
Not only that, but your proposal doesn't offer any explanations either; it is simply a 'guess', and you expect others to work out the details to make it 'fly'.

I came to this forum to meet not only professionals, but also people with whom it is pleasant to talk, and I found pouty turkeys who are bursting with a sense of their own importance, like you.

16 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Then you need to get your geological statements correct.

You still have not addressed a single one of my points or questions.

This is now the third time of asking for those answers.

 

Is it your normal practice on joining someone else's grouping to immediately defy their rules?

List your questions.  For example:
1....
2 ...
3 ...

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Then break it down into individual steps, because you are introducing multiple hypotheses, each of which needs to be examined. There’s way too much to discuss in a single thread.

Example 1: muonic hydrogen fusion is difficult to show even under laboratory conditions, where you are forming muonium with a minimum number of parasitic reactions and can exert maximum control over the conditions. You need to show this can happen out in nature, either by a detailed assessment of the factors that affect it, or by showing it actually happens (as with Oklo for fission)

More detail everywhere. Saying some physical process releases power does not in any way guarantee enough energy will be available for some specific nuclear reaction. A Terawatt sounds big, but Avogadro’s number is also big. Very big.

It seems that bureaucrats have gathered here considering my dissertation for awarding me an academic degree.  Prove that, prove it ... .. Gentlemen, I repeat once again, I have put the work here so that you people who know physics can give an overall assessment of my work, point out possible errors and advise some other scientific schemes when implementing my idea  ...  If you do not understand what we are talking about, then how to show this work to geophysicists who do not have deep knowledge of the physical processes described by me ?????

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can provide the evidence requested.

Ladies and gentlemen,
  I wrote this article and posted it on your forum with one purpose - to test my hypothesis on the possibility of determining the source of mysterious deep-focus earthquakes.  I'm not going to dispute anything, I'm trying to get your advice and your opinion on the possibility of such a process in the depths of our planet.

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

You’re speaking of this as if it’s been observed. Provide experimental evidence of it.

What can I answer you?  You probably think that my article was written in order to mislead you.  Experiments with WDM are well known in the plasma research world and there are many good works on this topic.  As Jesus said: Knock and they will open to you, or in your case - seek and you will be happy.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not what I asked. I asked about muon catalysis. 

The main problem I see is you are assuming that you can daisy-chain multiple phenomena together because the descriptions use similar wording. Such as one instance of forming a plasma, and some other process requiring a plasma. But the circumstances are not identical, so they can’t be blindly equated. Fusing muonium in a plasma doesn’t mean the same will happen with aluminum dioxide.

Each step you link in your proposal is a speculation unto itself. 

What are you laughing at?  Fusing muonium in plasma doesn’t mean the same will happen with aluminum dioxide???????????  Quite the opposite, the first condensed plasma (WDM) is obtained from aluminum dioxide (or other minerals, rock, magma), and already the plasma (WDM) synthesizes muons during expansion.  It is the scattering of the plasma that causes the appearance of muons, that is, the process is determined by the energetics of the process.  The energetics of the process the first not the composition of matter.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

OK, in rocks. Same question.

 

Yes.  Condensed plasma was produced by impacting a shock wave on aluminum dioxide Al₂O₃

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

Under what conditions? Are these conditions even remotely similar to what you propose?

 

Under what conditions? Are these conditions even remotely similar to what you propose?   - ~ 2a_μ = 2h² / m_μe² ~ 5⋅10⁻¹³m. 

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Without any supporting evidence.
There is just as much supporting evidence for microscopic Black Holes, orbiting within the diameter of the Earth.
IOW, zero.

It’s strange that you don’t know that before you build a model, you need to come up with its idea, design, and method of implementation.  Sorry.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Muon catalysis occurring in magma has experimental confirmation?

Why are you clinging to magma?  Muons arise from the scattering of plasma, which was obtained in many laboratories around the world by the high-energy impact on many substances, including minerals and rocks.  And magma is not included in this list?  Magma only gives impetus to the process.

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

On the contrary.
Nature ,or the laws of Physics, tend towards lowest energy use.

The answer is much simpler than you might think.  It simply means that nature has no other way to solve such a problem.

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

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.

1. A decrease in the size of a nucleus by a factor of 200 already makes it possible to start a thermonuclear reaction, regardless of the size of the proton.
2. Nature has no concept of energy benefit, if for mankind it plays a huge role, then nature does not care. You yourself confirmed this with the words: The synthesis catalyzed by muons may have a "right to life", but it will be considered only if other, basic approaches will fail.  Nature does, nature does not sort out the possibilities based on their benefits.
3. Have you heard anything about the Uranium blanket, which nature can use to cover the resulting thermonuclear reaction?

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

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.

The fact of the matter is that trying to apply the laws of mechanics and simple physical laws to the calculations of stresses in the earth's crust, geophysicists have not achieved success in their works, which they have produced many thousands.  To date, the results are zero!  Not a single scientific prediction of earthquakes for the entire existence of geophysics by all geophysicists of the world!  No one!  This means that the chosen direction of search leads to a dead end.  New approaches and ideas are needed.  So I offered my own approach to the existing problem.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

I already posted a link to more recent report regarding this issue, and nothing about the research suggests the proton changes size. 

When other experimenters confirm the new data, then we'll talk.  But, even without this 10% of the proton diameter, muon catalysis has the right to life, as confirmed by practice.

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to post the details you wish to discuss.

You need to stop posting speculations in main part of the forum. If you can’t find it in a textbook - the whole model, not just selected parts - it belongs here.

 

You will not find my hypothesis in the textbook.  I express it on the basis of fundamental knowledge accumulated by humanity and have already been tested in practice.  That is, the hypothesis has a scientific and proven foundation, therefore it has the right to be in the main part of the forum.  Just before me, no one thought in the direction I indicated.

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes

This is what needs to be shown.

You have yet to provide a citation for this assertion 

And you need to do more than assert this.

!

Moderator Note

I didn’t read it at all. I reiterate: You need to post whatever you wish to discuss. 

 

 

Dubious assertion. 

1.      Pohl R. Antognini A. Nez F. et.al. The size of the proton.Nature 466, 213–216 (2010). doi:10.1038/nature09250pmid:20613837

2.      Beyer A. Maisenbacher L. Matveev A. The Rydberg constant and proton size from atomic hydrogen. Science  06 Oct 2017 

The composition of magma does not affect the passage of a thermonuclear reaction. 

Dubious assertion. 

And you should not doubt that the formation of muons does not depend on the composition of the magma, they are formed like this:e- + e + → µ- + µ +

Abstract

At the moment, there are several hypotheses in geophysics that explain especially dangerous processes of the earth's crust movements - sudden outbursts of rocks and gas from a rock mass from the point of view of classical physics. Despite the fact that various macroscopic systems can be accurately described using classical mechanics and electrodynamics, a real mechanism and a working model of this phenomenon cannot be built. Consequently, to develop a model of sudden outbursts of rocks and gas, it is necessary to apply new approaches and methods, different from the description of macroscopic systems. This article describes a quantum version of the process of the ejection of rocks from a rock mass. In particular, we described the mechanism of the Coulomb explosion that occurs in the rocks of the earth's crust with a sharp change in rock pressure and built a model of the sudden release of rocks and gases. In our opinion, the quantum processes described by us can be sources not only of sudden outbursts and rockslide but also sources of more formidable phenomena - earthquakes and volcanic explosions.

Quantum mechanism of earthquakes.docx

4 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

The OP is proposing muonium fusion;

— — — 

in such a conjecture the OP should be able to discuss the points raised in the several responses above (temperature required, available density of protons, rates of formation, limitations of the muon lifetime, etc., and not just a handwave of lots energy being released in “hydraulic shock”  

These issues, and more, are why this is in speculations. 

 

I explain briefly.  You're right, the lifetime of a muon is about 2.2 microseconds.  Each muon, "running" in search of suitable deuterons and tritons with which to contact. This can take from ten thousand picoseconds to the very death of the muon. But if the muon managed to form a molecular ion, then the start of a thermonuclear reaction will depend on the average distance between the triton and the deuteron, and in the case of a distance sufficient for the fusion of nuclei, the start of the reaction will take place in less than half a picosecond after the formation of a muonic molecular ion, which is only 5e-7 microsecond.  This has been known for a long time, since the 1950s of the last century, for example, Jackson, J.D.  (1957).  "Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions between hydrogen isotopes by μ −- Mesons".  Physical Review.  106 (2): 330. Bibcode: 1957PhRv..106..330J.  doi: 10.1103 / PhysRev.106.330

With regard to the process temperature.  You understand that due to the fact that during muon catalysis the distance between the nuclei decreases significantly, the required temperature also decreases significantly and can be only a few thousand degrees, which we have in the bowels of our planet.  And do not forget about the decrease in the diameter of the proton, with the formation of mesoatoms.  This fact alone will result in a temperature drop of about 3 million degrees.

Apparently, I incomprehensibly described the whole process in the article if you ask such simple questions.  Or have you read my work inattentively.  It seems to me that the moderator needs to move my article to the section on nuclear physics.

10 hours ago, studiot said:

Interesting question although isn't there hydrogen about in/from water and hydroxides ? +1

You did not understand my article.  The composition of magma does not affect the passage of a thermonuclear reaction.  Magma initiates the whole process due to the energy of water hammer, high pressure and temperature.  It is these parameters that provide the formation of condensed plasma, which generates muons upon expansion.  The circuit works like this:formation of a shock wave in the bowels of the earth → formation of WDM → expansion of plasma → formation of muons → formation of mesoatoms → reduction of proton radii → μCF → thermonuclear explosion → earthquake.

22 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you for your summary, it enables proper discussion to proceed.  +1

I think there are three separate things involved here.

Firstly the proposed fusion reactions/processes.
I am not competent to assess these so I hope someone with better knowledge will comment further on these.

Secondly the proposed geological results of such a process, suppose it was in action.

We must ask the question how does your explanation stack up against more conventional explanations.

1) The Carpathian deep earthquakes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040195108002473?via%3Dihub

 

2) Ultra deep diamond formation and subduction zones.

Kimberly is not the only non subduction boundary place these are found.
But how long do you think it takes for diamonds to form, and then be brought nearer the surface?
Other finds have been in Brazil, Australia, and Africa, but all on the subducting margins beneath the ancient continent of Gondwana.

3) So whilst there may be legs in your process, is it necessary?  That does not dismiss the process, just that it may yet be shown to be one of several.

The spatial extent of the high stress zone that corresponds to the seismically active zone is realistically represented when we assume that viscosity decreases by at least an order of magnitude across the lithosphere....Who will believe that the viscosity of the mantle will decrease by an order of magnitude?  Judging by their words, they themselves doubt it.  Is it possible to believe someone if he declares: let us assume that this is so, then it will be so, and if we admit it, then it will not be so.

2.Yes, you are right, diamonds are found not only in Kimberlite pipes, but also in placer deposits.  Where do you think placer deposits come from?  I suggest, when kimberlite pipes are destroyed

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

Find me this model in a textbook, showing that it’s mainstream science, and I will.

Is the movement of magma through channels in the body of the Earth not covered in the scientific literature?  Is the change in the diameter of a proton depending on the mass of an atomic particle in its orbit fantastic?  Yes you are kidding mister. 

1.      Pohl R. Antognini A. Nez F. et.al. The size of the proton.Nature 466, 213–216 (2010). doi:10.1038/nature09250pmid:20613837

2.      Beyer A. Maisenbacher L. Matveev A. The Rydberg constant and proton size from atomic hydrogen. Science  06 Oct 2017 

All hypotheses for deep focus earthquakes are based on the presence of subduction zones.  But the deep-focus earthquakes that occurred in the Carpathians proved that this is not so.  There are no subduction zones even close in the Carpathians.  This means that all hypotheses based on this position are pseudoscientific.

28 minutes ago, Area54 said:

 

" Diamonds are known to form in magma."

No, they are not known to form in magma. If you think they do you should have no problem providing a citation.

 

Diamonds are mined in the Kimberlite pipes, which are the vents of extinct volcanoes.  Hence the question, where do they come from there?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to post an abstract and whatever you wish to discuss. 

 

It would be nice if you could move my toрic to the section Earth Science

The idea behind this article is the work of physicists on the study of the properties of warm dense matter (WDM) and thermonuclear fusion based on the reaction of muon-catalyzed melting (μCF). According to our calculations, when the magma moves through the magma channel, hydraulic shocks occur, reaching the power of several Terawatts, which is enough to “ignite” WDM. With the subsequent mandatory expansion of WDM, a collision of electrons and positrons with the formation of muons will occur according to the well-known scheme: e- + e + → µ- + µ +. "Born" muons will replace electrons in atoms with the formation of mesoatoms. Since the Bohr radius is inversely proportional to the mass of the particle moving around the atomic nucleus, and the muon mass m_μ = 206.7 m_e is approximately 200 times greater than the electron mass, the size of the newly formed atom orbital will be ~ 200 times smaller than the electron one. Plus, replacing electrons with muons will leads to a decrease in the diameter of protons by ~ 10%. These facts will allow the atoms to approach to a distance less than two mesoatomic units [(~ 2a_μ = 2h² / m_μe² ~ 5⋅10⁻¹³m.) - 10%], which will lead to the start of the classical reaction μCF, to the fusion of atomic nuclei and the start of the reaction natural thermonuclear fusion, the energy of which may well be the source of mysterious deep-focus earthquakes.

Magma as a generator of plasma and thermonuclear fusion.docx

Gentlemen, for your judgments, I present my article on the role of magma in earthquake processes:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3738328

Magma as a generator of plasma and thermonuclear fusion.docx