Fusion Reactions

[Zolar V]

In a Fusion Reaction on let’s say a star, the fusion is supposed to be between 2 hydrogen elements creating helium.

 

But what if in the fusion reaction there were a more elementary particles causing the fusion first forming hydrogen then proceeding to heavier elements?

 

It’s kind of a long shot I know, but if it were true it would advance fusion research.

 

The reason why I ask this is because I have noticed that all the fusion reactions use Hydrogen (isotopes) at extremely high temperatures to initiate the fusion. But if you have a lesser particle it may not require such high energy systems it would yield a much higher ratio of energy produced to energy consumed.

 

 

 

 

Not really sure where to post this...

[SH3RL0CK]

What particle could me more elementary than a single protron (hydrogen)? A quark?

 

Quarks do not normally exist by themselves and require much greater temperatures and pressures than required by fusion processes in order to even study them. Other than creating quarks from normal matter by extreme conditions, they do not exist in a free form.

[swansont]

You'd have to use pi mesons, which are quark/antiquark systems, and might allow you to form a nucleon/antinucleon pair of some sort

 

But

 

1. pi mesons are unstable, with half-lives so short it's not even worth having them committed

 

2. It would take 3, and getting 3 particles to collide at once is a lot tougher than getting 2 to do so

 

3. It's all moot, because mesons are much lighter, meaning that the reaction doesn't release energy, so what's the point?

 

The bottom line is that protons are the lightest stable baryon.

[Zolar V]

hmm i was actually thinking that maybe by the process of gravity pulling the atoms to a central point that Fission was occuring to larger particles leaving bare protons and electrons "floating" around but being drawn to the central core where they undergo fission to form hydrogen... possibly interacting with cosimic radiation at some level.

 

but i was also thinking that our atomic model might be slightly wrong. i would think that an electron could be thought of more like a blister on a ball rather than a floating object. and it gets pulled around by the opposite side of the ball being that this side is positive and the side the blister is on is neg. there could be a buffer zone between the blister and the rest of the ball were it is neutral in its charge.. thinking this way would allow there to be a more "elementary" particle as it would simply be a proton

 

but proving that would be tant amount to blasphemy to the scientific world anyways, and most likely impossible..

 

also for the first one it begs to question what about the beginning where there wernt bigger particles formed yet...

[swansont]

QED has been confirmed to an incredible degree, so there's a very small limit to how wrong our models of atomic behavior could possibly be. "Blasphemy" is the wrong word to use, just as it would be wrong to state that we take the atomic model on faith.

[Zolar V]

i actually would have to disagree with that, i think we do take alot of the scientific theories we have on faith, expecially with the ones that pertain to such tiny things where we cant directly measure them or observe their actions. for example, the first atomic model was somethings like a ball of electrons not moving but floating above the nucleus.. or something like that..

and another example would be a geocentric universe, a Flat Earth, and many others that were thought to be true.

 

and for the sake of argument.. we were technecly right on "geocentric universe and flat earth", via alternate dimensions

 

personally, i dont think the atomic model is as accurate as it could be. But then agian i unfortunatly have not undergone formal college level classes on the subject .