You said that the answer is both yes and no, a proton is hydrogen,yes and no. No, science doesn’t work like that. What is am asking is: is hydrogen different than itsnucleus. That is what I am trying to argue.So that in some sense you are right that a proton is hydrogen, yes and no.

Originally Posted by exchemist As to your question about whether a proton is hydrogen, the answer is both yes and no. If you say yes I can object it is not full grown, so not really a sheep and if you say no I can say of course it is, it is just a juvenile sheep. That is what I am trying to argue.So that in some sense you are right that a proton is hydrogen, yes and no. Note that I am not sayingthat protons cannot fuse, so in this respect your link showing proton-proton fusion is in no waycontradicting what I say. In the case of nuclear fusion, the same sort of considerations apply, except that the force attracting the protons is the strong nuclear force, rather than coulomb force that applies to electrons in an atom.

What is not obvious is what happens when an atomis not different than its nucleus, and this indeed seems to be the case with hydrogen: a proton is hydrogen.The atomic nucleus is the same matter as the whole atom. Moved. In this way fermions can fuse,they turn into bosons at fusion reaction. This is so obvious that I am rather struggling to understand the purpose of your question. If you can prove it is wrong, then it is wrong. But elemental sodium needs more than just sodium ions to form: its needs its electrons too. Again this is so obvious.We have seemingly a paradox: an atom is both different and the same as its nucleus. So I don’t say that 2 protons can’t fuse.

As you have made it up and there is no evidence to support it, the scientific method assumes you are wrong by default, if you want to be taken seriously make a testable prediction from your «model» and compare it to reality. Ok, it’s wrong. There is no mystery whatsoever about that and it has nothing to do with spin. You say thathydrogen needs its electrons to form, and this is so obvious. Originally Posted by AlexG Maybe I simply made up an idea that only bosons can fuse. Do you really think that is wise? I told you you were wrong about fermions and fusion and I have given you references to demonstrate it. You have made a (stupid) assertion, if you can’t support it you are wrong by default. Maybe I simply made up an idea that only bosons can fuse.

There is no such a theory which explains how protons overcome the Pauli exclusion principlewhen they fuse.No existing theory can explain how fermions fuse. In the case of the hydrogen molecule, there are only 2 electrons to accommodate, so they can both go into the ground state orbital so long as their spin orientations are opposed. Ok, it’s wrong. This makes it perfectly clear that 2 protons can and do fuse.So from where do you get this idea that only bosons can fuse? You seem to have simply made it up. You are struggling to understand why I am asking a question that is so obvious to you.

But, as they get close enough each electron starts to feel the electric field of the other nucleus, the shape of the potential experienced by the electrons ceases to be spherical and, lo and behold , a new set of molecular orbital states comes into being, in place of the two separate atomic states. Obviously. You did not show why my theory turning fermions into bosons is wrong. You said that the answer is both yes and no, a proton is hydrogen,yes and no. Because they certainly can fuse.Just how do they fuse, what happens to them at fusion, that is what is am modelling. Maybe I simply made up an idea that only bosons can fuse. There is no paradox, it is just a stupidly put question on your part.

You say thathydrogen needs its electrons to form, and this is so obvious. The ions of a chemical element are forms of that element. I suggest you might want to read this Wiki article about nuclear fusion:Nuclear fusion — Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNowhere does it mention anything about fermions being unable to fuse. Ok, it’s wrong. It’s already been proven wrong.

Spin is neither here nor there. This makes it perfectly clear that 2 protons can and do fuse.So from where do you get this idea that only bosons can fuse? You seem to have simply made it up.

The essential difference is their electric charge. Maybe I simply made up an idea that only bosons can fuse. You are struggling to understand why I am asking a question that is so obvious to you. Note that I am not sayingthat protons cannot fuse, so in this respect your link showing proton-proton fusion is in no waycontradicting what I say.

And elemental hydrogen needs its electrons to form. Consider how a molecule of hydrogen forms. A proton is, chemically speaking, a hydrogen ion, just as Na+ is a sodium ion. What is not obvious is what happens when an atomis not different than its nucleus, and this indeed seems to be the case with hydrogen: a proton is hydrogen.The atomic nucleus is the same matter as the whole atom. But that does not necessarily make it wrong.It should be abandoned only if it is wrong, not because I made it up. Anyway, it is wrong and you should abandon it.

If you can prove it is wrong, then it is wrong. Proton How do you think your link showing how protons fuse proves my theory wrong?It may rather prove my theory correct. I could law essay writing service uk
equally ask you «Is a lamb a sheep?». A proton is, chemically speaking, a hydrogen ion, just as Na+ is a sodium ion. The only way to tell them apart is their spin. But that does not necessarily make it wrong.It should be abandoned only if it is wrong, not because I made it up. Proton This is so obvious that I am rather struggling to understand the purpose of your question.

Because they certainly can fuse.Just how do they fuse, what happens to them at fusion, that is what is am modelling. But elemental sodium needs more than just sodium ions to form: its needs its electrons too. So I don’t say that 2 protons can’t fuse.

Just as with electrons in a molecule or atom, being in opposite spin orientations provides a way for the 2 protons to avoid occupying the same state in the new nucleus. (Actually though a positron is ejected, turning one proton into a neutron). Perhaps these things are not so obvious after all even to you.It seems that hydrogen has spin 1, because its spin can be obtained by combining the spins of two fermions,a proton and an electron.And at the same time, the nucleus , a proton has spin 1/2.So it seems that it is the concept called spin which distinguishes the proton and hydrogen.A proton is hydrogen. Perhaps these things are not so obvious after all even to you.It seems that hydrogen has spin 1, because its spin can be obtained by combining the spins of two fermions,a proton and an electron.And at the same time, the nucleus , a proton has spin 1/2.So it seems that it is the concept called spin which distinguishes the proton and hydrogen.A proton is hydrogen.

Proton How do you think your link showing how protons fuse proves my theory wrong?It may rather prove my theory correct. Originally Posted by exchemist As to your question about whether a proton is hydrogen, the answer is both yes and no. You did not show why my theory turning fermions into bosons is wrong.

You seem to think the fusionreaction is understood, but it is not. MODERATOR NOTE : This thread deals with a personal theory, and hence doesn’t belong into the main physics section. My patience is running out. I suggest you might want to read this Wiki article about nuclear fusion:Nuclear fusion — Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNowhere does it mention anything about fermions being unable to fuse. Originally Posted by AlexG It’s already been proven wrong. You seem to think the fusionreaction is understood, but it is not.

In the case of nuclear fusion, the same sort of considerations apply, except that the force attracting the protons is the strong nuclear force, rather than coulomb force that applies to electrons in an atom. Originally Posted by Hot Then Thot Originally Posted by exchemist You personally may find it «natural to think» that in order to fuse, two particles should try to occupy the same state, but that does not mean that they have to do so. Also, read here about stellar fusion: Nuclear fusion — Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSee the section on the proton-proton chain reaction. Both electrons are in the same atomic state as the two atoms come together. Just as with electrons in a molecule or atom, being in opposite spin orientations provides a way for the 2 protons to avoid occupying the same state in the new nucleus. (Actually though a positron is ejected, turning one proton into a neutron). In this way fermions can fuse,they turn into bosons at fusion reaction. Again this is so obvious.We have seemingly a paradox: an atom is both different and the same as its nucleus. But that does not necessarily make it wrong.It should be abandoned only if it is wrong, not because I made it up. There is no such a theory which explains how protons overcome the Pauli exclusion principlewhen they fuse.No existing theory can explain how fermions fuse.

You have to get it into your head that there is no violation of the Exclusion Principle in this process. What is am asking is: is hydrogen different than itsnucleus. Crackpot gambit #102 «Prove me wrong». I said that an atom is different thanits nucleus, so that this is also obvious to me. Originally Posted by Hot Then Thot Originally Posted by AlexG Maybe I simply made up an idea that only bosons can fuse.

Originally Posted by Hot Then Thot Originally Posted by AlexG It’s already been proven wrong. Also, read here about stellar fusion: Nuclear fusion — Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSee the section on the proton-proton chain reaction. The only way to tell them apart is their spin. But that does not necessarily make it wrong.It should be abandoned only if it is wrong, not because I made it up.My theory, my model of atom, explains how a fermion can turn into a boson. In the case of the hydrogen molecule, there are only 2 electrons to accommodate, so they can both go into the ground state orbital so long as their spin orientations are opposed. Just saying it is wrong does not make it wrong. Anyway, it is wrong and you should abandon it. And elemental hydrogen needs its electrons to form.

You have the audacity to say you are «modelling» the mechanism of nuclear fusion, when you have quite plainly not bothered to read and understand the current theory of it. I said that an atom is different thanits nucleus, so that this is also obvious to me. The electrons then occupy these, obeying Pauli’s Exclusion Principle because they are fermions. A proton has an electric charge.

Just saying it is wrong does not make it wrong. An atom of hydrogen is electrically neutral. But that does not necessarily make it wrong.It should be abandoned only if it is wrong, not because I made it up.My theory, my model of atom, explains how a fermion can turn into a boson.