The star model and the calculation of the bosonic core

Author: Andreev Andrey Alekseevich

   Suppose that inside the star there is a boson core, a kind of bosonic bubble. All the remaining details will be omitted. Calculating the pressure of a bosonic bubble is quite simple. The photon has a huge speed. The diameter of the star, such as our Sun, the photon will slip in 4.6 seconds. Photons do not interact with each other. Therefore, we can assume that the pressure inside the boson bubble, which is inside the star, will be the same at all points. We calculate the pressure of the bosonic bubble as a function of the energy of the bubble itself.

Pb=

γ∗34

∗M b∗c2

π∗Rb3 ;(1)

   For simplicity of understanding, we will not use mathematics that takes into account the functions of the electromagnetic field. Let us somewhere make a mistake, but not much, but clearly see the picture.

Pb - is the pressure of the bosonic core (the same throughout the entire volume of the bubble);

γ - constant of the boson core;

M b– is the mass of the bosonic core,

Rb – is the radius of the bosonic core.

   What do you need to determine in the calculations? Should we consider the bosonic core as a gravitational component? In the observed data, light is deflected in the gravitational field of the sun. The electron-positron pair has a mass. During annihilation, the mass should not disappear just like that. Let us assume that the boson core has mass M b. Otherwise, emptiness in the center of the star can not exist.

   There is one moment! So, as bosons at one point in space can be as much as desired, compared with matter (fermions), theoretically the mass concentrated at one point may not be limited by value. At the same time, it will be difficult to keep it. The large mass of the bosonic bubble is the great pressure of this bubble. There must be an equilibrium of the gravitational contraction of the star with the pressure of the bosonic bubble.

   Now we calculate the pressure of the stellar matter on the bosonic bubble. Let us assume for simplicity that the substance of the star has a density ρ (r) and depends on the depth, and P0 – is the internal pressure in the star.

Then:

P0=G∗4

3∗π∗∫

R0

Rb ρ (r )2

r2 (r−Rb )3 dr+G∗M b∗∫R0

Rb ρ (r )r2 dr ;(2)

G – is the gravitational constant,

R0 – is the radius of the star.

Thermodynamic equilibrium at P0=Pb;

then

M b=

G∗43

∗π∗∫R0

Rb ρ (r )2

r2 (r−Rb )3 dr

γ∗34

∗c2

π∗Rb3 −G∗∫

R0

Rb ρ (r )r2 dr

;(3)

but

M b<M 0;i.e

γ>⌈

G∗43

∗π∗∫R 0

R b ρ (r )2

r 2 (r−Rb )3 dr

M 0+G∗∫

R0

Rb ρ (r )r2 dr ⌉

( 34∗c2

π∗Rb3 )

; (4)

at

M 0=M b+4∗π∗∫R0

Rb

ρ (r ) r2 dr ; (5)

where M 0 – is the mass of the star.

Let's pretend that

ρ (r )=ρ0+X∗( R0−r ); (6)

X and ρ0 – is the density on the surface of the star, it is already possible to substitute from (6) programmatically.

   The set of values M b ,M 0 , R0и Rb- will characterize the general state of the star. The parameter γ - perhaps, will also somehow depend on the state of the star, but it seems only secondary. I did not take into account many aspects, including Maxwell's distribution. Based on the first degree of approximation, to assess the main possible parameters. The parameter γ is nevertheless characterized by the state of the bosonic substance, its composition, which affects the characteristics of the interaction of bosons on the boundary with fermions. This can be the characteristics of reflection from the boundary and penetration through it, depending on the energy distribution in the spectrum of the bosonic core. The calculations given above are not based on the generally accepted method of quantum interaction and calculation of its momentum

on the surface. We do not know exactly what's inside the star. Therefore, we generalize the procedure. But those who wish can evaluate this position in the classical genre themselves.

   The existence of a bosonic core is possible at a density greater than the density of a star in the radius of a bosonic bubble. Otherwise, the boson core will not hold in the center of the star.

Simulation results:

   The first three figures show a model for the Sun. In all cases of existence of a heavy bosonic core is not excluded. But the bosonic core is not supposedly large in size. Most likely, we will rely on the radius of the boson core in the range of 10-20%. If anything, then we'll recover.

 

 

    This simulation shows that there is a possibility that the boson core will be very massive and figuratively denser than the fermion filling of the star. This stabilizes it in the central part of the star.

   Let us give an example for large stars. 10 times more massive than the Sun and 100 times more.

    And for such stars there will be a model. But the question arises. In the stars, apart from the bosonic core, there may exist bosonic interlayers or fluctuations of bosonic structures, even if temporary, and simply - the boson-fermion mixture in what state?

 

   The constant of the boson nucleus Y from (1) does not change when the size of the bosonic core and other parameters of the star change. I picked her so that she does not change. Maybe it's permanent. By the results of the simulation γ 3∗10−7. If you are too lazy to write the code yourself, send an email and I'll send it to you.

This, first of all, shows that in the first approximation we were not wrong with the calculated parameters, and we are moving in the right direction.

   There was one indisputable fact. The shell of the bosonic core must let the photons pass both in one direction and in the other direction. With low stellar activity, there will be a low level of photons entering the boson core. This can lead to a decrease in its size and, as a result, to complete disappearance. So the size of the boson core directly depends on the activity of the star, as well as on the properties of the fermion-boson boundary.

   It is intuitively clear that beyond the boundaries of the boson core there is a fairly active medium from the fermion-bosonic mixture. Can a clearly defined boundary and does not exist? In the future it is necessary to calculate the drift of photons through the mass of the substance of the star to its surface, to take the luminosity parameter and calculate the physics of the fermion-boson mixture near the nucleus.

   With such a model, one must take into account magnetism, the possibility of formation of structures inside the core from antimatter. Immediately the simplest structure - a magnetron from positrons - suggests itself. A peculiar giant ball lightning in the center of the star, only from positrons. A photon at an energy greater than 1024 keV in a strong magnetic field decays into an electron-positron pair. It turns out that the surface charge of the star must be slightly charged negatively, because of the excess of electrons. Interest will be caused by the behavior of the charged surface of the sun. The scope of the sphere is huge. Interaction in different points of this sphere will not be instantaneous (take into account the speed of light). There will be powerful

surface currents, which in turn will create chaotic sources of magnetic field. In this situation, you need to think about this:

1. How does the internal positively charged magnetron interact with the negatively charged star surface?

2. How much is this interaction great and how does it change at the stages of the evolution of the star?

3. Can it happen that the interstellar matter in the universe has a negative charge, and the star is positive?

   It is difficult in this model to predict the stage-by-stage production of heavy elements. Their percentage relative to hydrogen and helium is negligible. Why is there so little in the universe of supernovae? If the supernova explosion were part of the evolution of the star, then there would be much more, very much. At the same time, there would be much more heavy elements in the universe than now. How and from what did the comet matter, asteroids, planets form? It seems that everything is clear. The protoplanetary cloud, the flash of a new cloud, remains a planetary substance. And where did it come from? Maybe it was before the birth of the universe? Then what is this - the birth of the universe? What kind of process has this happened, that we do not take into account the being of the universe before its supposedly birth? Some questions. Well, as you thought. The main thing is to ask the right question and get the right answer.

   We ask the question of the lack of symmetry between substance and antimatter, and we do not ask a more important question - why do elementary particles have a strictly defined mass? My position in understanding this is simple. Elementary particles have no structure, they are a special type of excitation of vacuum clusters. My theory of vacuum and the structure of clusters explains the structure of elementary particles, the properties of photons and electromagnetic radiation. It is partly wave and corpuscular. This theory, which I will write about in the next publication, explains in its own way the absolute magnitude of the speed of light. The theory of vacuum and cluster structure explains the main types of interaction - gravity and electromagnetism. But I think so, that explains. In truth, this is at the level of intuition. Any new idea is difficult to implement alone. It's easy to make a serious mistake.

   In conclusion, I want to say that the process of destroying the star and the birth of heavy elements in my model is quite understandable. It's simple. What is a fermion-boson mixture is protons, neutrons, electrons and photons. Percentage of their ratio, we do not know. But in different layers of the star it is different. Imagine that the shell of the star collapsed, and the bosonic core ceased to exist. The dense plasma high-temperature structure under enormous pressure and in a huge volume around the existing bosonic core suddenly sharply began to cool down. What will this condensate represent? What will be its chemical composition? In addition, all this mass collapses onto a magnetron from positrons. There is a powerful annihilation explosion. The process is quick and straightforward. Helium can also form under normal conditions. I note that the sun of heavy elements is less than 2%.

P.S.

1. The explosion of a star is not possible by itself in the course of evolution.

2. The assumption of the presence of a boson core at the center of the star gives grounds for assuming the possibility of forming in the center of the star a structure of antimatter. It can be a simple magnetron of positrons, or a more complex structure.

3. The cause of a supernova explosion can only be interference from outside:

- the collision of a star with a large space object,

- Strong deformation of the star in the gravitational field of an external object,

- a sharp change in the values of the indices of the main constants (comes from the vacuum model of space that I develop), which can cause multiple creation of supernovae in a separate sector of the universe.

These processes violate the integrity of the fermionic shell. Bozons for a few seconds or tens of seconds leave the center of the star in the gap, and the star at the same time collapses on the central part of antimatter. The ejection of bosonic matter from the center of the star can take place in different ways in each case.

4. If, after a re-explosion, the fermionic shell has irradiated irrevocably, then in place of the star remains an object of antimatter with a very frisky dynamics, perhaps a magnetron from positrons.

5. If, after a re-explosion, the fermionic shell is again formed, a new boson core will form inside the newly reconstituted star.

6. There is another option, when the scattered stellar matter forms a new star paired with a magnetron.

7. Old stars flash, swell and pulsate due to the presence of a magnetron structure in the center of the boson core from antimatter, possibly from positrons, until such time as the antimatter inside the star is fully annoyed. The reason for this behavior is the weak bosonic core inside the star.

8. Could the reason for the variability of cepheids partly lie in these processes?

9. Very old stars just smolder. Their future is eternal.

10. In my model, the existence of black holes is impossible.

https://vk.com/selengaspb