Sun's core vs Earth's highest temperature achieved in experiments

The Sun’s core temperature reaches approximately 15,000,000°C (27,000,000°F), driven by nuclear fusion where hydrogen nuclei combine to form helium, releasing immense energy. This process, occurring under extreme pressure and density, sustains the Sun’s heat and light output, powering life on Earth. The core’s temperature is far hotter than the Sun’s surface, which is about 5,500°C, due to gravitational compression and fusion reactions. In contrast, the highest temperature ever achieved on Earth, around 5,500,000,000,000°C (9,900,000,000,000°F), was produced in controlled experiments at facilities like CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. This extreme heat was generated by colliding heavy ions, such as lead nuclei, at near-light speeds, creating a quark-gluon plasma—a state of matter where quarks and gluons, typically bound within protons and neutrons, move freely. This temperature, vastly exceeding the Sun’s core, mimics conditions microseconds after the Big Bang, offering insights into fundamental physics. While the Sun’s core is incomprehensibly hot by everyday standards, human-engineered temperatures in particle accelerators surpass it by orders of magnitude. However, these earthly temperatures are fleeting, lasting fractions of a second in tiny volumes, unlike the Sun’s sustained, massive core heat, which has burned for billions of years. Such experiments push the boundaries of science, probing the universe’s origins.

The Sun’s core temperature reaches approximately 15,000,000°C (27,000,000°F), driven by nuclear fusion where hydrogen nuclei combine to form helium, releasing immense energy. This process, occurring under extreme pressure and density, sustains the Sun’s heat and light output, powering life on Earth. The core’s temperature is far hotter than the Sun’s surface, which is about 5,500°C, due to gravitational compression and fusion reactions. In contrast, the highest temperature ever achieved on Earth, around 5,500,000,000,000°C (9,900,000,000,000°F), was produced in controlled experiments at facilities like CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. This extreme heat was generated by colliding heavy ions, such as lead nuclei, at near-light speeds, creating a quark-gluon plasma—a state of matter where quarks and gluons, typically bound within protons and neutrons, move freely. This temperature, vastly exceeding the Sun’s core, mimics conditions microseconds after the Big Bang, offering insights into fundamental physics. While the Sun’s core is incomprehensibly hot by everyday standards, human-engineered temperatures in particle accelerators surpass it by orders of magnitude. However, these earthly temperatures are fleeting, lasting fractions of a second in tiny volumes, unlike the Sun’s sustained, massive core heat, which has burned for billions of years. Such experiments push the boundaries of science, probing the universe’s origins.

the highest temperature ever achieved on Earth, around 5,500,000,000,000°C (9,900,000,000,000°F), was produced in controlled experiments at facilities like CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. This extreme heat was generated by colliding heavy ions, such as lead nuclei, at near-light speeds, creating a quark-gluon plasma—a state of matter where quarks and gluons, typically bound within protons and neutrons, move freely. This temperature, vastly exceeding the Sun’s core, mimics conditions microseconds after the Big Bang, offering insights into fundamental physics.

Empty Space Doesn’t Exist: What happens to the mass defect is one of the most important open questions in physics. Mass defect is a universal phenomenon, present in stellar nucleosynthesis, supernovae, and countless other cosmic-scale events. Answering this question has the potential to redefine everything we currently know—or think we know—about the universe. To investigate, there is a readily available material accessible from every nuclear reactor in the world: spent nuclear fuel. This material contains a wealth of data that can reveal how nuclear energy is actually released, and what truly happens to the “missing mass” in each fission reaction. Microscopic examinations of spent fuel reveal structural and morphological changes that carry the imprint of their cause: Lattice disordering and amorphization Dense dislocation tangles and loops Micro-cracking with radial and branching patterns Irregular pores and ruptured gas bubbles Grain boundary decohesion Surface blistering Sharp elemental segregation along damage tracks Metallic nanocluster formation Localized melt-like textures Isotopic anomalies in micro-regions Ultrasonic or acoustic emissions during operation Taken together, these features suggest strong empirical evidence for a large number of micro-explosive events during the operation and consumption of fuel. These phenomena can be directly interpreted as the signatures of such micro-explosions occurring inside the material. When the missing mass is correlated with these explosive effects, one arrives at the conclusion that the mass defect undergoes rapid volumetric expansion—essentially an explosive transformation. Volumetric expansion implies a change of state, just as a solid, liquid, or conventional explosive transforms into a superheated gas before bursting. By this principle, the missing mass is converted into an ultra-thin form of matter. This leads to a profound conclusion: since the mass defect is a universal phenomenon, the entire cosmos must be permeated by this ultra-thin matter. In that light, truly empty space does not exist, and our understanding of the universe must be fundamentally rewritten. ##newphysicsproject

Mass and Energy Are Distinct, Not Interchangeable: The fate of the mass defect remains one of the most unresolved questions in physics. In every nuclear process—stellar nucleosynthesis, supernova explosions, or reactor fission—a portion of mass disappears. Its destination has profound implications for our understanding of matter, energy, and the fabric of the universe. Spent nuclear fuel offers a unique laboratory for investigating this puzzle. Far from being inert waste, it preserves microscopic evidence of what occurs during fission. Detailed examinations reveal a consistent suite of features: lattice disordering, dense dislocation tangles, radial and branching micro-cracks, ruptured gas bubbles, grain boundary decohesion, surface blistering, metallic nanocluster formation, localized melt-like textures, isotopic anomalies, and even acoustic emissions recorded during reactor operation. Taken together, these features indicate that nuclear fuel undergoes repeated micro-explosive events at the atomic scale. When correlated with the missing mass, the evidence suggests that the defect does not simply transform into “energy” in the conventional sense. Instead, it expands volumetrically—an explosive change of state into an ultra-thin, previously unrecognized form of matter. If the mass defect consistently behaves in this way, the consequences extend to cosmology itself. Empty space cannot exist; the universe must be saturated with this hidden matter. This interpretation directly challenges Einstein’s mass–energy equivalence principle, suggesting instead that mass and energy are not equivalent but distinct. Recognizing this distinction may require a fundamental rewriting of modern physics. #newphysicsproject

What if nuclear masses could be explained without any adjustable parameters? For decades, nuclear physics has relied on semi-empirical formulas (such as Weizsäcker’s). They describe nuclear binding energies with remarkable accuracy… but only at the cost of coefficients fitted to experimental data. In other words: these models describe, but they do not explain. 👉 With the Theory of the Wave Universe (TUO), we propose a radically different approach: Each term of the binding energy formula (volume, surface, Coulomb, asymmetry, pairing) is derived directly from fundamental constants and from a vibrational invariant of the vacuum. No empirical parameters. No a posteriori fitting. Predictions become fully falsifiable. 🔬 Results: For stable nuclei such as calcium (⁴⁰–⁴⁸Ca) and nickel (⁵⁸–⁶⁴Ni), deviations from experimental masses are typically below 0.3 MeV per nucleon. For exotic isotopes such as ⁶⁰Ca or ⁷⁸Ni, TUO provides direct predictions, testable by upcoming nuclear physics experiments. Larger deviations for very light or very heavy nuclei point toward expected refinements (compactness, deformation), confirming the robustness of the approach. > But the stakes go far beyond nuclear physics: By describing binding as a vibrational resonance of the vacuum, TUO opens a path to connect microscopic quantum physics (spins, fields, coherence) and macroscopic gravitation. 💡 In short: TUO does not replace the Standard Model—it extends it, just as relativity extended Newton. It offers a more fundamental vision: masses are not fitted, they emerge from a universal dynamics of the vacuum. #Physics #Research #Innovation #TUO #NuclearPhysics #Science

Abstract Einstein's theory of relativity can not explain ... 1. Movement principles of the fastspinning pulsars, 2. Nuclear Fusion , 3. Wave - Particle Duality as Kinetic Energy Against and In Direction of Motion 4. the 4th Maxwell's equation, 5. Lorentz equals without the help of SpaceTime, 6.Confinement of quarks 7. Great Table of Elementary Particles 8. Spectral line Hα 9. Neutrino Oscillations 10. Form of the interference field must be non-linear. 11.Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field must be asymmetrical. 12.Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values: Kinetic energy against direction of motion as wave Tkin ad = mc2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c)/(1+v/c)] Kinetic energy in direction of motion as particle Tkin id = mc2 [ln|1-v/c|+ (v/c)/(1-v/c)]

Abstract Einstein's theory of relativity can not explain ... 1. Movement principles of the fastspinning pulsars, 2. Nuclear Fusion , 3. Wave - Particle Duality as Kinetic Energy Against and In Direction of Motion 4. the 4th Maxwell's equation, 5. Lorentz equals without the help of SpaceTime, 6.Confinement of quarks 7. Great Table of Elementary Particles 8. Spectral line Hα 9. Neutrino Oscillations 10. Form of the interference field must be non-linear. 11.Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field must be asymmetrical. 12.Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values: Kinetic energy against direction of motion as wave Tkin ad = mc2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c)/(1+v/c)] Kinetic energy in direction of motion as particle Tkin id = mc2 [ln|1-v/c|+ (v/c)/(1-v/c)]

Abstract Einstein's theory of relativity can not explain ... 1. Movement principles of the fastspinning pulsars, 2. Nuclear Fusion , 3. Wave - Particle Duality as Kinetic Energy Against and In Direction of Motion 4. the 4th Maxwell's equation, 5. Lorentz equals without the help of SpaceTime, 6.Confinement of quarks 7. Great Table of Elementary Particles 8. Spectral line Hα 9. Neutrino Oscillations 10. Form of the interference field must be non-linear. 11.Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field must be asymmetrical. 12.Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values: Kinetic energy against direction of motion as wave Tkin ad = mc2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c)/(1+v/c)] Kinetic energy in direction of motion as particle Tkin id = mc2 [ln|1-v/c|+ (v/c)/(1-v/c)]

Almost ten years after ATOMKI researchers reported an unexpected anomaly in beryllium nuclear transitions, the mystery of the “X17” particle remains unsolved. The hypothetical light boson, of about 17 MeV, would lie in the little-explored frontier of low-energy physics beyond the Standard Model. Two new results now point in opposite directions: ➤ MEG II (Paul Scherrer Institute) detects no sign of X17. ➤ PADME (INFN Frascati), on the other hand, reports a modest excess around the predicted mass. For theorists, X17 is an awkward fit: neither a dark photon, nor an axion, nor any known bound state matches easily. The case is controversial, to say the least! Read the full story for free in our new CERN Courier! https://lnkd.in/eczc26rm