Magma as a generator of plasma and thermonuclear fusion in the bowels of the Earth

[serguei58]

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

Edited December 19, 2020 by serguei58

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

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

 

[serguei58]

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

[Area54]

From your document:

"We believe that with the combination of the above factors and conditions in the interior of the planet, a thermonuclear fusion reaction is quite possible, capable of causing a deep-focus earthquake, the nature of which is still unknown."

The cause of deep focus earthquakes is very well established and has been for several decades. The vast majority of such earthquakes occur along subducting plates. This is one of the core observations of plate tectonics, which the soundly estsablished paradigm of Earth science.  You error here, asserting the cause is unknown, calls into question anything you may present relating to mantle geology.

You also state:

" 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.

There is a host of other faulty material in your paper, but I'd like to see your responses to these first before investing any more time on it.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Area54
Add material.

[serguei58]

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

[studiot]

1 hour ago, serguei58 said:

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 25.69 kB · 0 downloads

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.

Edited December 19, 2020 by studiot

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

 

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

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

[serguei58]

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 

Edited December 19, 2020 by serguei58

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

 Is the change in the diameter of a proton depending on the mass of an atomic particle in its orbit fantastic?

It is to me

Please explain what you mean?

Edited December 19, 2020 by studiot

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

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?  

Your proposal is more than these bits, and if there is experimental evidence that the proton radius changes, let’s have it. (Note that the differences in measured values is not evidence that the value changes. More recent results seem to have resolved this issue.)

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20191106a/full/

Quote

Yes you are kidding mister

You might want to rethink this approach.

 

[joigus]

Muons orbiting nuclei? Lifetime of a muon is 2.2 ms. That's a mighty ephemeral magma.

Edited December 19, 2020 by joigus

[serguei58]

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

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

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

Placer deposits are the result of erosion/weathering and subsequent transport and deposition to an accumulation in another location.
There are several mechanisms available.

But what does this have to do with the diamonds I referred to, particularly the Eurelia ones ?

 

Do you have any figures that allow you to openly scoff at viscosity variation in very very high viscoscity materials ?

[MigL]

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.

[studiot]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

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

Edited December 20, 2020 by studiot

[MigL]

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 ?

Edited December 20, 2020 by MigL

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

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 ?

!

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. 

 

[serguei58]

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.

[studiot]

14 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

You did not understand my article.

At last somethig you and I can agree on.

But then you have not answered one of my questions or addressed one of my points.

All your responses to me have been about other things.

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

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

Yes

24 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

and can be only a few thousand degrees, which we have in the bowels of our planet. 

This is what needs to be shown.

24 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

And do not forget about the decrease in the diameter of the proton, with the formation of mesoatoms. 

You have yet to provide a citation for this assertion 

24 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

 

This fact alone will result in a temperature drop of about 3 million degrees.

And you need to do more than assert this.

24 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

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.

!

Moderator Note

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

 

 

Quote

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

Dubious assertion. 

[serguei58]

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 +

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

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

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

[serguei58]

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.

[MigL]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

The OP is proposing muonium fusion;

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.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, serguei58 said:

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.

Muon catalysis occurring in magma has experimental confirmation?