Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
Alot of hypotheticals there again SJ...
I'm familiar with the 'gravity' being hypothesized mechanism for the existance of this process. Zwicky coined it up not more than a year after the discovery of the neutron.
My comparisons were between empirical nuclear physics and hypothesis, in response to Marks comments on empirical verification required for competing models.
|
Alex,
Hypothesis and theory are based on observation/experiment. Hypothesis is not invented to support theory. My explanation of gravity in this context is a case in point.
It is based on two pieces of observation.
(1) Neutron stars do exist.
(2) Neutron stars last longer than 15 minutes.
Now if gravity plays no role (or doesn't exist) for neutron stars (which can't exist long term without gravity anyway) then we have a very serious problem in explaining the whole concept of nucleur fusion in stellar cores. The KE of nuclei due to the stellar temperature of the core is not enough to sustain long term nucleur fusion. Fusion also occurs through the conversion of gravitational potential energy into KE.
Quote:
You are right with a neutron and the 15 minute decay.... lets take a look at the other proposed neutron matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutronium
Only one of them really exists... (the first one)
|
Free neutrons only exist in neutron stars because the matter is degenerate. If neutron matter is not degenerate there is nothing preventing the neutron star from collapsing into a black hole.
Quote:
|
mainstream sets the bar high for competing models to provide empirical evidence, just seems to me consensus can coin up as many terms as it wants without equal empericism. 'Strange matter' cmon...
|
Once again it's not the case of inventing terms or hypothesis to support theory. Strange matter is a theoretical outcome of Quantum Chromodynamics.
Antimatter strange nuclei have been recently discovered at the RHIC.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41917
Regards
Steven