SUPERHEAVY NUCLEI IN THE CORES OF PLANETS AND STARS

Aladar Stolmar

From the collision event structure of nuclei follows that between the nuclei of chemical elements and neutron stars there are at least three more regular groups. The neutron star group starts around 2.54e27 kg mass and could be considered that in the core inside each star one single nucleus reside. It is proposed here to consider the possibility of overlapping layers of decreasing mass super-heavy nuclei in the planets, larger moons and stars. There is a mass generation inside the heaviest nucleus – single or multiple nuclei core – with decay into lower and lower mass nuclei in boundary layers, inducing the observed in the Earth’s interior mass flows, hot plumes. The solar flares and mass ejection, the proton flux observed could be explained very well on this basis. It results in that the stellar energetic process is not fusion, but decay. The chemical composition of the solar wind and of the meteorites supports this finding.

Fine shell structure of nuclei

 In the “Return to colliding atoms” presentation [1] I report the successful use of the ancient concept of colliding elementary units to represent the nuclei of atoms of chemical elements. I was not able to calculate the rest-masses of nuclei, but I started down the path, which leads to it. So far I was able to show the correlation of collision path constructed shell system – recalculated from the rest-mass collisions in the systems – to the neutron absorption and to the abundance. There are two possible regular arrangements:

1.        the path of collisions is represented by a rotated and tilted polygon, resulting a basic number of collisions and an additional regular number of surface collisions for closed shell objects:

          (1)

2.        the number of collisions in each shell is the square of the number of elements in the polygon:

                                        (2) 

When compared to the rest-masses of corresponding nuclei both equations (1 and 2) differ somewhat from the resulting from the rest-masses collision numbers calculated by eq. (4) of Return to colliding atoms [1] presentation based on the electron rest-mass equals to 27 collisions always present. The proton is constructed of 49,576 which is 27 collisions more then the result of eq.(1) for the sixth shell (s=6) and 435 more then the result of equation (2). The alpha particle or He4 nucleus contains 196,956 collisions, which is 51 less then the result of eq. (1) and 359 more then the eq. (2) for s=7. O16 nucleus has 787,022 collisions, which is 572 more then the result of (1) and 600 more then (2) for s=8. At the closing of shell s=9 we have the Zn64 and Ni64, which differ only by 4 collisions. Ni64 has 3,145,651 and Zn64 has 3,145,655 collisions, which are 1440 and 1444 more then the result of eq. (1) and 56 and 52 less then the result of eq. (2) for s=9. On the surface of Oxygen16 we have the most abundant and stabile shell – we have large excess over both equation results.

Shell-closing  elements Z(Symbol)A

Collisions from rest-mass eq. (4) [1]

+more / -less eq.(1) rotated polygon

+more / -less eq.(2) squared polygon

Low abundance region on next shell

1H1

49,576

+27

+435

D2 less of T3+He3

2He4

196,956

-51

+359

4<A<12  or 2/3-rd

8O16

784,022

+572

+600

None, most stabile

28Ni64                   30Zn64

3,145,651               3,145,655

+1440                     +1444

-56

-52

209<A  above ¾ of the shell missing

When we had the smaller then the eq. (1) result at He4 we could not fit the A=5 and A=8 nuclei together, and very low abundance and highly unstable nuclei are in the first half – or up to 2/3-rd – of the shell. When we have the smaller then the eq.(2) nuclei at s=9 – the last quarter of the shell is missing or very unstable! Again, we have shown that the pieces fit together, the collision path representation will somehow result the rest-masses of nuclei. I just was not able to find the exact regularity of the construction of nuclei, but got very close to it. Most likely the finding of electric charge nailing structure configuration will lead to the complete understanding, which could be observed in the crystal shapes. 

Also we were able to represent on the same basis the gravitational deformation of 'space-time frame’ – in reality the increase of density of collision events due to the direction change of colliding elements – and the following from the same process Hubble redshift. Also we introduced a fit to the observed neutron star masses and radiuses in the form of Daisy-petal graph.

Nuclear type shell structure series

The introduced fine shell structure is built from polygons with sides of n=3*2i and the first regular stabile object was found at the shell number calculated from the same formula with I=1, or at the shell number six. Considering the found limitation for the nuclear type objects around 6 solar masses it is reasonable to expect the same formula to result in a series of regular shell numbers where the nuclear type objects are expected to exist. The resulting shell numbers are 6, 12, 24, 48 and 96 for the start of the series. We saw at the chemical elements – starting at shell 6 – that almost four shells – up to the ¾ of shell number 10 – produced the known elements. It makes understandable that the about 2.54e27 kg mass for the 96 shells neutron star and star core nucleus is just the smallest possible and the same series extends to the 6 solar masses largest possible neutron star. It just six shells more, or at the shell number 102, because the mass increases four fold from shell to the next shell. Yes, the observed Bose-Einstein Condensate is nothing else, but twelve-shells series nuclear material, super-heavy elements. If exposed to the normal environment on the surface of Earth, it decays into the chemical elements it was produced from.

Evidence of decaying super-heavy nuclei

 The increased density of collisions inside the stars and planets makes it necessary to consider the generation of additional collision path systems or their parts, increase of mass of the cores of stars and planets. The stars are known of intense energy radiation rates and our Sun shows remarkable stability despite that. There is evidence that the Sun shines the same way for over millions or could be even billions of years, losing 4.4e9 kg/s just for the radiated EM photons! This observed stability necessitates the generation of the mass inside the Sun, which our collision model predicted.

Our planet, the Earth shows the signs of continuous growing. The new floors of oceans – not matched by loss of area in collision zones – amounting to the distance between Africa and South-America again requires a explanation of mass generation in the cores of planets. The collision system is everything – the return to the old colliding atoms – provides these explanations. There has to be a mass generation in the cores of stars and planets. The subsequent migration/convection toward the surface cause the leaving of high collision density regions which allowed for the stability of super-heavy nuclei and decay into lower shell number nuclei; ultimately, at the surface reaching the lowest shell number state, what we call chemical elements. It explains the observation of naked nuclei in the solar spectrum, the very highly ionized, essentially stripped all of its electrons nuclei. Obviously, this is how a new nucleus from decay emerges: naked. Interestingly the same provides an explanation for the mass ejection processes and the associated with it proton and electron flux observations: the initial form was neutron, the side product of decay, which happened close to the surface of Sun. After decay during the travel from the place of generation to the Earth we observe a proton flux and electron flux, but at the place of generation it was neutron, which made it possible to escape from the Sun.

The similarities and differences in the chemical compositions of stars could be understood on the basis of different and similar super-heavy element compositions, providing the means of element creations. Yes the more likely outcome of decay is a more regular arrangement of collision paths, explaining the abundance of elements and its relation to the shell structure. And yes, the decay of super-heavy nuclei is the source for the energy generation observed in the stars. Not a fusion of not present Hydrogen, which does not fuse as the so-called standard model alleges, but decay of super-heavy nuclei into chemical elements.

The core of the Earth is not iron, but a structure of super-heavy nuclei. I suspect that there is a single 48 shells series core nucleus, surrounded by shells of 24 and 12 shells series element shells. The observed two layers are indicative of this structure. The very core nucleus is small enough to remain undetected.

The supernovae explosions are caused by the overgrow of the core neutron star of a star and subsequent sudden separation and intense decay of 48, 24 and 12 shells series of super-heavy nuclei layers. The triggering event is shown by this graph of neutron star mass and radius:

After the mass of the core neutron star reaches 4.2 solar masses (shell 101-102) the radius decreases with mass increase. It causes a separation of the 48 shells series layer of elements from the single nucleus core element. It in turn causes a decrease in the collision density in the boundary layer, triggering a drop on the lower curve with an intense g-ray burst, amounting to about 4 solar masses. The radiation pressure further pushes away the already separating and decaying layers, blowing them away. The intense reduction of collision density intensifies the decay, causing the observed radiation intensity curves of Supernovae. Even the shapes copy the initial nuclear shape, for which here is the Cat’s Eye nebula.

 

Conclusions

It is shown here that the consideration of the possibility of overlapping layers of decreasing mass super-heavy nuclei in the planets, larger moons and stars explain our observations much better than any other attempt. There is a mass generation inside the heaviest nucleus – single or multiple nuclei core – with decay into lower and lower mass nuclei in boundary layers, inducing the observed in the Earth’s interior mass flows, hot plumes. The solar flares and mass ejection, the proton flux observed could be explained very well on this basis. It results in that the stellar energetic process is not fusion, but decay. The chemical composition of the solar wind and of the meteorites supports this finding, and the brightest evidence are the supernovae events.

references

[1]         Return to colliding atoms, Aladar Stolmar 2002 Physics Congress Proceedings FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF NATURAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING  http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/2002en.asp