PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Spitzer Looks at a Stellar Nursary



Fraser
2004-Mar-08, 06:53 PM
SUMMARY: The newly-launched Spitzer Space Telescope revealed the Henize 206 nebula, located 163,000 light-years away in the Large Magellanic Cloud. The nebula was created when a supermassive star exploded as a supernova millions of years ago. The star had shed layers of material over a long period, and with the force of the explosion, the material collected together to create new stars - the nebula has hundreds and possibly even thousands of young stars, which range in age from two to ten million years old.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-08, 07:17 PM
[Dr. Henize] flew aboard the Challenger Space Shuttle in 1985. He died in 1993 at age 66 while climbing Mount Everest.

Wow! There's a modern adventurer!


It is home to hundreds and possibly thousands of stars, ranging in age from two to 10 million years old

The article implies that this one nebula was all part of one supermassive star, and that it is now becoming hundreds to thousands of new stars. We believe that stars can't be substantially larger than about 100-150 solar masses.

I have sometimes wondered [without actually trying to calculate] what would happen if several thousand solar masses of matter began to collapse to form a single star. Intermediate mass black hole? Globular cluster? Gas and dust sprayed out as fast as it comes in? Or perhaps simply not possible to dispose of enough angular momentum for a sufficient collapse to get to fusion. Maybe Henize-206 is it.

Or maybe the observed supernova blew up into the cloud it formed out of, and the thousands of new stars are only partly the matter of the progenitor.

John LaCour
2004-Mar-08, 10:41 PM
The original supernova created a shockwave that passed through interstellar gas and dust that had been in the vicinity of the star that exploded. Not only are these thousands of stars made from the material of that original star, but also of the gas and dust that was disturbed by the supernova explosion. That is how it made thousands of stars...

Nick4
2004-Mar-10, 07:12 PM
I find that cool one stare dies as a supernova and the reamans of that stare can make hundreds or thousands of other stars it is a never ending cycal.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-11, 05:22 AM
" The nebula was created when a supermassive star exploded as a supernova millions of years ago. The star had shed layers of material over a long period, and with the force of the explosion, the material collected together to create new stars - the nebula has hundreds and possibly even thousands of young stars, which range in age from two to ten million years old."

This is really a great story, but it fails to explain how they arrived at these conclusions! :D

How did they manage to get a picture of the supermassive star exploding as a supernova millions of years ago? <_<

That&#39;s neat that the force of the explosion pushed material together to create new stars&#33; :unsure:

Did anyone see that happen? :huh:

How did they determine that these new stars are two to ten million years old? :blink:

Oliver :D

VanderL
2004-Mar-11, 08:40 AM
That&#39;s what bothers me about accretion from explosions, how can something exploding be responsible for matter accretions, I would expect that there&#39;s just a lot of mixing, dispersing (entropy?) and no accretion going on. The force of gravity is very very (extremely) weak, and normally the factor of time is invoked to help with that problem. Here there is talk about an explosion, several millions of years ago and the stars that are produced are between 2 and 10 million years old&#33; That&#39;s pushing it to say the least and Oliver you&#39;re right with your question about how we know the exact age of a star. All these "stories" just fail to explain anything, and there is no data presented just a repeat of stories that could maybe be true, but don&#39;t show any data (and computer modelling is a very dangerous tool, gigo and all that).
Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-11, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Mar 11 2004, 08:40 AM
That&#39;s what bothers me about accretion from explosions, how can something exploding be responsible for matter accretions, I would expect that there&#39;s just a lot of mixing, dispersing (entropy?) and no accretion going on. The force of gravity is very very (extremely) weak, and normally the factor of time is invoked to help with that problem. Here there is talk about an explosion, several millions of years ago and the stars that are produced are between 2 and 10 million years old&#33; That&#39;s pushing it to say the least and Oliver you&#39;re right with your question about how we know the exact age of a star. All these "stories" just fail to explain anything, and there is no data presented just a repeat of stories that could maybe be true, but don&#39;t show any data (and computer modelling is a very dangerous tool, gigo and all that).
Cheers.
Right on&#33; :D

Space science is plagued with reports by those who peer through a telescope and make up a story about what might have happened to produce the image. :(

Frequently, the stories seem inconsistent with observational and stellar time scales.

For example, it is my understanding that not a single star formed since the telescope was developed&#33; :huh:

Yet the literature is full of stories about stars forming hither and yon. :rolleyes:

Could some of that time and energy be devoted to understanding the star in our backyard, B) where speculation might be tested against experimental observations?

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2004-Mar-11, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 11 2004, 05:21 PM
For example, it is my understanding that not a single star formed since the telescope was developed&#33;


http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1179_1.asp

BTW, I am beginning [now] to plow through your Iron Sun literature. I am starting off believing the traditional model, but I will keep an open mind to give you a fair shake.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-11, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 11 2004, 05:21 PM
...The literature is full of stories about stars forming....

Hi Dr. M.

I haven&#39;t read everything, but I have the gist of what&#39;s available through your web-site.

A few questions come to mind about your basic premise, let me start with the most basic:

Are you proposing that our sun has a neutron-star core, but that this is not the norm for G type yellow sub-dwarf stars... or are you suggesting that pretty much all stars are formed on the remains of old stars?

Guest_om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-12, 02:26 AM
Good question, "Are you proposing that our sun has a neutron-star core, but that this is not the norm for G type yellow sub-dwarf stars... or are you suggesting that pretty much all stars are formed on the remains of old stars?" :D

Answer: "Many measurements since the mid-1970s convince us the Sun: B)

1. Is iron rich (made mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca), and

2. Formed on the collapsed core of a supernova."

Those measurements have not been made on other stars or on the material orbiting them. Therefore, we can only speculate about other stars. :unsure:

My suspicion (speculation) is that other stars that are orbited closely by rocky planets also likely formed on collapsed supernova cores. :rolleyes:

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu

Duane
2004-Mar-12, 07:20 AM
Ok Oliver, it seems to me that you are promoting concepts that are a little beyond what a "backyard" astronomer can really answer. I am hoping that Tim Thomson might jump in here soon, but in the mean time, let me point out a couple of items which I find troubling in what you are saying here.

I am going to outline a number of areas where I think your premise fails. I invite you to provide arguments to counter.


Answer: "Many measurements since the mid-1970s convince us the Sun:

1. Is iron rich (made mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca), and

2. Formed on the collapsed core of a supernova."


1) The constituants you name make up less than 1% of the material of the sun. While that is "iron rich" as compared to the majority of stars whose makeup has been measured by steller physicists, it is certainly not "mostly" made up of atoms heavier than hydrogen. In fact, the sun is clearly made up of about 99.6% hydrogen, 0.3% Helium, with the rest of all other constituants making up the remaining 0.1%.

2) We are not convinced&#33; On the contrary, all stellar evolution models require that the sun use the hydrogen fusion model to account for it&#39;s current makeup, longevity and mass. A star made up of even 10% Fe that is the mass of the sun would be unable to sustain enough nuclear fusion to continue shining. In fact, the sun will never get to the point where it will convert enough of it&#39;s material to make a substancial iron core. It is simply not massive enough. There are many studies available that support the view that our sun is not massive enough to proceed past a point of stellar evolution where the fusion of helium (He) into Be8 and maybe to C will be the last gasp.

3) Formed on the collapsed core of a supernova? I must say that is the first time I have heard someone expouse that theory&#33; :rolleyes:

A supernova occurs at the end of a massive star&#39;s lifetime, when its nuclear fusion capacity can no longer counteract its gravitational pull (neutron degeneracy). The Type II supernova is more of a "rebound" effect than an explosion per se, given that the star attempts to contract against itself. It then "rebounds" thus "exploding" its built up mass out into the intersteller space around it. The remnant of this explosion is a very strange object, like a neutron star, or quark star, or black hole, all depending on the mass of the proginetor.

A Type I supernova is the result of a buildup of (mostly) hydrogen on a white dwarf by a companion star. When the buildup exceeds about 1.4 solar masses (heard of Chandra? The Chandrasekhar limit&#33; ;) ) it explodes, thus sending material out into the Intersteller Medium (ISM) and (usually) completely disrupting the star.

This process is very well understood, and mathematically modelled in many papers. ;)

Surely you are not suggesting our sun has a neutron star heart? :lol:


Those measurements have not been made on other stars or on the material orbiting them. Therefore, we can only speculate about other stars

Yes they have&#33; Spectroscopy has been around since at least 1854 when first outlined by Kirchoff and Bunsen. The fancy do-dad on the Martian rovers is called a Mossbauer spectrometer. You&#39;re a chemist, surely you are aware of the Mossbauer Spectroscopy Group. :huh:

Not only has the spectroscopy of many hundreds (or thousands) of stars been taken and deeply analized, so have the proto-planetary disks of several tens of stars, and the atmosphere of a couple of planets of other stars. None of these measurements support at all your contention that stars are "mostly iron". <_<


For example, it is my understanding that not a single star formed since the telescope was developed&#33;*


Well again, this is true to a point, but also very very misleading. The time it takes for a intersteller cloud of gas to collapse into a proto-star is on a timescale of hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. So no, I guess it is true that we haven&#39;t seen any stars "pop" into existance.

Having said that, we see stars from a very early stage (T-Tauri stars) and some, in fact, that are even earlier--they haven&#39;t even escaped the gas cloud they were formed in. A Bok Globule is clearly a region of densely compacted gas that is in the process of forming new stars. Spitzer has already confirmed a few.


How did they manage to get a picture of the supermassive star exploding as a supernova millions of years ago?*


The answer, of course, is that they didn&#39;t. What they have instead is the remnant, the bubble in the ISM that arose as a result of the supernova explosion. Our own solar system appears to be imbedded in such a bubble, and they are obvious all around us. Look at the remains of The Crab or Cygna or Cassiopea, or any of hundreds of other catalogued remnants.


That&#39;s neat that the force of the explosion pushed material together to create new stars&#33;*

Did anyone see that happen?*


This suggests a deep lack of understanding of the distances and timescales we are talking about. The gaseous clouds we are talking about extend for 10&#39;s or even hundreds of light years&#33; It is not an instantaneous production, it is one that lasts millions of years.

When a supernova explodes, it sends its material out into the ISM at supersonic speeds. The material eventually reaches material that was already shed from the star in mass expulsions (there are many methods of this, our own sun sheds mass daily in the solar wind), colliding with that material and heating it. This process also causes the material to be "pushed togeather", compressing it and causing it to begin the process of collapse. The same thing happens to other ISM material already there including clouds of undifferenciated hydrogen. Add a supernova coming from the opposite direction, and the compression will occur even faster--maybe as short as 100&#39;s of thousands of years. We see it happening all around us&#33;


How did they determine that these new stars are two to ten million years old?*

Simple old boy&#33; Stellar physics. The evolution of most stars is well laid out in the Hertzberg-Russell diagram. Look it up, it will lead you to all kinds of calculations on stellar evolution.

I look forward to your rebuttals :)

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-12, 08:33 PM
Thanks, Duane, for your comments on the discussions: :D

1. “Water Once Drenched Regions of Mars"
http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...view=getnewpost (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2375&view=getnewpost)

2. “Spitzer Looks at a Stellar Nursary"

Measurements over the past four decades show that these two seemingly unrelated topics are, in fact, closely related: :rolleyes:

The Earth and the Sun both formed in layers of different composition (heterogeneous accretion).

1. The Earth first formed an iron core by accreting iron-rich material produced near the core of a supernova. This collection of iron-meteorite-like material then acted as the accretion site for silicates (stone meteorites) that formed further away from the Sun. The most concise summary of these observations is given in “The noble gas record of the terrestrial planets”, Geochemical Journal, volume 15, pp. 245-267 (1981). [Since a pdf or ps file of this manuscript is not yet available, pertinent observations are summarized below*.] ;)

2. The Sun grew as supernova debris fell back on the collapsed supernova core (a neutron star). The most concise summary of these observations is given in "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conference: Local and Global Helioseismology (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESA Publications Division, SP-517,
Noordwijk, The Netherlands, Feb 2003) pp. 345-348. :P

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

The first set of observations may eventually be included in textbooks on Geology. Likewise, the second set of observations may later be included in textbooks on Astronomy/Astrophysics.

Although observations in research publications may be “beyond what a ‘backyard’ astronomer can really answer”, Duane, you and I will be talking past each other and wasting readers’ time if you refer to textbooks to buttress your arguments instead of addressing recent findings.

To avoid this, I suggest you go to the above pdf or ps file and address the observations. (The answers will not be in textbooks):

1. Why were there two distinct types of xenon, Xe-1 and Xe-2, at the birth of the solar system [Figure 1]? <_<

2. Why did primordial Helium accompany Xe-2 (strange xenon) and not Xe-1 (normal xenon) when meteorites formed [Figure 2]? <_<

3. Why does the Jupiter’s He-rich atmosphere contain Xe-2 (strange xenon) (p. 346)? <_<
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

4. Why are light mass (L) isotopes in the solar wind enriched relative to heavy mass (H) isotopes by a common fractionation factor (f), where log (f) = 4.56 log (H/L) [This is shown in Figure 5 and discussed on pp. 346-347.]? <_<

5. When the above empirical equation is applied to elements in the photosphere, why does it indicate that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca, the same elements as that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites (p. 347)? <_<

6. The statistical probability that this agreement is fortuitous is <0.000000000000000000000000000000002. How do you explain that? <_<

Textbooks, e.g., "the sun is clearly made up of about 99.6% hydrogen, 0.3% Helium, with the rest of all other constituants making up the remaining 0.1%", have not yet addressed these findings.

You may also want to consider pertinent observations on the formation of the Earth and the evolution of its atmosphere (below).

I look forward to your replies.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
http://www.umr.edu/~om

*The Geochemistry Division of NSF funded our study of the “Early History of the Earth and the Evolution of Its Atmosphere.” Our measurements and those of others showed that:

1. The upper mantle melted to form the crust and release volatiles exhaustively to the atmosphere in the first 200 My, before extinct I-129 and Pu-244 decayed away.

2. The crust continued to release radiogenic gases to the atmosphere for 2,500 My.

3. The lower mantle surrounding the Earth’s iron core did not melt. It remained primitive and undifferentialed. It retains all but the most mobile volatile elements.

4. Helium is very mobile. That is why primordial He-3 leaking from the lower mantle is now found with radiogenic Ar-40, xenon-129, and xenon-136 from the upper mantle in mid-ocean ridge basalts (MORB) and carbon dioxide well gas.

VanderL
2004-Mar-13, 05:58 PM
Great discussion, this is the best way to understand what it&#39;s about; discussion with the proposer of the new model. Duane, there was also talk about this Iron Sun hypothesis in another thread http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2128 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2128) including the comments of Tim Thompson.
Cheers.

Duane
2004-Mar-16, 08:01 PM
Thanks for that VanderL, I have also reviewed a couple of other topics, followed a number of links from different people and discussed the iron-sun model with anyone who would answer my email queries.

I have to say I have learned a lot over the last week regarding nuclear physics and the fusion based sun model that is almost universally accepted by physicists, nuclear physicists, solar investigators and theorists, in fact, basically the scientific community as a whole.

One of the repeating themes I see is the idea that the solar model currently accepted as "most probably correct" has developed as a result of a combination of theoritical modelling versus direct observationover the course of the last century or more. Most of the people who answered my questions have stated clearly that the current theories for the evolution and current state of the sun meet the observational, theoritical and experimental data that has been obtained over the last century from a host of sources. In fact, the model works so well that predictions of solar activity can be made even for areas of the sun that are currently out of our direct view, and for other stars.

In fact, most of the people I really pestered for answers so scoffed at the notion of an iron or steller remnant core for the sun, they suggested I inform the "crank" who is proposing this model that he shouold go back to school to retake subjects ranging from high school physics to mathematics.

I should also note that Dr Manuel is well known and respected, although he is also recognized as the main proponant for this theory (no slight intended to Drs Sawa or Seaborg, among others).

Be that as it may, I have some answers and a number of questions for you Oliver. It seems clear to me now that alot of the comments you have made on this and other threads are intended specifically to allow you to promote your pet theory, a theory that has been consistantly and roundly rejected by the bulk of scientists who have looked at it.

I want to first state that I am not a physicist by any means, nor is my background related to studies of stellar evolution of any kind, our sun included. I have a passing interest in these things only as it relates to my interest in geology and planetary geology. While there is necessarily some overlap into atmosheric evolution of the various planets, I do not hold myself out to be an expert on these things. In fact, I don&#39;t hold myself out to be an expert in geology either.

I am going to comment on each of the points raised by Oliver to the best of my understanding, keeping it clearly in mind that my understanding of the physics and chemistry involved is rooted in my highschool studies of these two topics. If there is anyone who cares to provide actual formulas or mathematical proofs to my layman&#39;s terminology, by all means please jump in.


Measurements over the past four decades show that these two seemingly unrelated topics are, in fact, closely related:


Well ok, I will give you this one. It is mostly agreed that both models are intending to show the formation of the sun and it&#39;s planets arose out of the same material. In the "classical" model, the material is the cloud of dust and gas which came togeather as a result of graitational contraction to form the sun-planets grouping, in the iron core model, the material arose during a supernova explosion.


The Earth and the Sun both formed in layers of different composition (heterogeneous accretion).


This is mostly rejected. The majority of scientists feels that the accretion of material started with the collapse of a cloud of material which achieved a density high enough in the center of the cloud to ignite hydrogen fusion.

This is a well understood equation, using only gravity as the catalist and the pressure of accreting material as the source. This equation in and of itself brings the idea of an iron-core star into question.

Furthermore, it is reasonably certain that the Earth has differentiated both in the core and throughout the mantel. Seismic wave studies by a number of different people have revealed the interior of the Earth in great detail, and in all of those studies there is NOTHING suggesting that
the Earth&#39;s lower mantle remained primitive and undifferentiated as you state in your post under Water once drenched regions of Mars (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2375&st=30). While there is some disagreement regarding the makeup of the lower core, and there is even evidence that there is a "stiff" layer between the lower mantel and upper core, none of that leads to the conclusion the mantel is undifferentiated.

More recent studies have even suggested that hot plumes of material which give rise to the shield volcanoe formations like Hawaii arise from this lower mantel zone, and that the plumes may even be responsible for material recycling between the lower and upper mantel.

Furthermore your suggestion that the mantel is undifferentiated cannot account for the convection cells seen throughout the mantel. The transport of heat from the lower core through different levels of the mantel to the surface requires that the lower mantel be viscous. In a viscous material, heavier elements will sink to the bottom. Once again, there is evidence of a "stiffer" region between the upper core and lower mantel, which supports the theory that the heavier elements of the melted and differentiated lower mantel have sunk and accumulated.

I asked you this question already
am wondering how your findings correlate to the proposed impact of a Mars-sized body with the proto-earth, which created the earth-moon system? If such a large impact occurred, how could the lower mantle have escaped strong differentation? but you ignored it. I put it to you again, and would also add in, if you feel that such an impact did not occur, how do you account for the findings of scientists who have studied the rocks brought back from the Moon? Furthermore, why does the moon not also have a large iron core?


The Earth first formed an iron core by accreting iron-rich material produced near the core of a supernova.

Where do you come up with this premise? There is no evidence to support your contention that the earth first formed an iron core, on the contrary the evidence of several lines of research suggest the the iron core arose as a result of differentation. The very makeup of the planet supports differentation thoughout the entire planet, with each layer from the crust to the mid-lower mantel following the exact progression of differentation that would be expected on a planetary body this size. Why would that differentation stop below that point? (We have great knowledge of the Earth&#39;s upper to mid layers because of the release of lava from several volcanoes, again including Hawaii. Below this zone, our knowledge is much more rudimentary).

Is it not that case that this statement (which you present as fact when it is not) is one of the linchpins of the iron-sun theory? Furthermore, and as you state, we have nothing to directly confirm the makeup of the iron core, other than it is primarily iron and nickel with some small amount of other elements. If the Earth build up on an iron core, how did it melt? And agreeing the iron core is melted, the how could the lower mantel not also melt? And if the lower mantel is melted, how could it not differentiate? This simply does not make sense&#33;


This collection of iron-meteorite-like material then acted as the accretion site for silicates (stone meteorites) that formed further away from the Sun.

Ok, leaving the last bit for a minute, explain how the iron core would attract the silicates from further out? Furthermore, how would the silicates form in the first place? If they do form, what prevents them from accreting to the size where the pressure of their formation causes them to melt? Where is the sun during all of this?


The Sun grew as supernova debris fell back on the collapsed supernova core (a neutron star).

Ok, if debris is falling back onto the sun after the supernova explosion, how could an Earth-size iron object form in the first place? How can you account for the reverasal of momentum imparted to the blown-away debris in the first place?

How can you account for the measured number of neutrinos that come out of the sun, if it&#39;s core is a neutron remnant or made of iron ?

Scientists using the standard solar model of hydrogen to helium fusion have been able to effectively map the sun, allowing them to predict the formation and location of sunspots occuring on the opposite side. Low and behold iof those sunspots didn&#39;t rotate into view at the exact time and location as was predicted by the models. How can you explain that, using your iron core model?

Furthermore, they have used this same technique on other stars, and low and behold, they discovered and measured the starspots that had been predicted. Again, how can your model account for that?

Coming back to the accretion, just how does a star form around such an object? According to a number of calulations regarding neutron stars, their gravitational pull and magnetic field would be enormous. So where are they in our sun?

Is it your contention that all stars arise this way? If so, where are they? If not, why is the sun the only one?

There are some 100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. So why don&#39;t we see the effects of billions of supernovas? There have been neutron stars found in the remnants of supernovas all around us. Why don&#39;t they show any sign of accretion as is predicted by the iron sun model?

Hubble has taken some very clear and detailed images of the Crab supernova remnant, showing material moving away from the neutron star in the centre of the remnant at supersonic velocities--fast enough, they could measure the motion over a period of weeks&#33; How does accretion occur in such a system?

It seems to me that the current steller evolution model, while not perfect, answers far more questions regarding our star then the iron core model. Using the predictions arising from helioseismology, if the sun had an iron core, there is no possible way that the formation and location of sunspots derived from the current steller model would be correct. Explain that descrepancy please.


Although observations in research publications may be “beyond what a ‘backyard’ astronomer can really answer”, Duane, you and I will be talking past each other and wasting readers’ time if you refer to textbooks to buttress your arguments instead of addressing recent findings.


Umm, mine are recent. You are using measurements derived from experiments conducted in the 70&#39;s. Furthermore your main link is to a paper that was written before the raw data of the Gallileo probe had been calibrated, and before other measurements and data confirmed that the probe landed in an analomous area of Jupiter known as a "hotspot".

Furthermore, your material does not reference recent findings regarding the supernova in the Large Megellanic Cloud, observations of the material ejected by the Crab supernova by Hubble and others, the finding of magnetars, the discovery of extrasolar planets and the measurements of their atmospheres, the discovery of a "strange" star, the mathematical revisions to the stellar model which predicted the existance of the magnetars and strange stars, or a host of other recent data. Maybe instead of clinging to a proposal that has been thoroughly and consistantly discredited, you ought to spend some time explaining how your findings of the outgassing of noble gasses can be accounted for in the steller model that is universally accepted as being the most reasonable and likely explanation. Who knows, it might even lead to some insights into the process that haven&#39;t been considered to date.


The first set of observations may eventually be included in textbooks on Geology. Likewise, the second set of observations may later be included in textbooks on Astronomy/Astrophysics.


Not until they have been subjected to peer review and experiment. So far, they have been largely discredited, so I wouldn&#39;t throw out the current books just yet.


Textbooks, e.g., "the sun is clearly made up of about 99.6% hydrogen, 0.3% Helium, with the rest of all other constituants making up the remaining 0.1%", have not yet addressed these findings.


Okay I really have to disagree with this comment. The conclusions which arose from your quoted findings were considered and mostly rejected. As such, they don&#39;t belong in a textbook--well at least a scientific one. This is not a new theory, and every observation and prediction that has been made where a comparison between the two models has been done, have consistantly favoured the fusion model of steller evolution. In fact, I was unable to find ANY prediction from the iron sun model that was supported by observation.

I do not pretend to have an answer for the anomalties you have raised, but I strongly disagree with your conclusion that the findings somehow support the iron-sun model over the fusion model. They may be an oddity, but the explanation for the oddity will no doubt come from better understandings of the current model, and the refinements those better understandings make to the model.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-17, 03:32 PM
Thanks, Duane, for your interest in this subject, for checking the literature, and for sharing your conclusions. :D

For the sake of brevity, I will limit this reply to three points:

1. My answer was unfortunately unclear about forming the Moon by the impact of an object with the early Earth . :unsure:

I apologize. That is an attractive idea and may, as you note, explain the orbit of the Moon around the Earth and the absence of an iron lunar core. ;)

Another possibility is that the Moon started accreting later, after most of the iron had been captured by the cores of the protoplanets in this region. <_<

The Moon is about 1% of the mass of the Earth. It seems plausible to me that it was ejected from Earth during the first 0.2 Gy, when about 17% of the Earth degassed to form the crust and the atmosphere. :rolleyes:

2. You say "it is reasonably certain that the Earth has differentiated both in the core and throughout the mantel." :D

I disagree. Extinct I-129 was still alive when the mantle cooled. We found the decay products of extinct I-129 in the upper mantle in 1971 [Science, as I recall] and that finding was confirmed in labs around the world (Berlekey, Tokyo, Paris, etc.). In 1981, we reported that primordail He-3 leaking from the undifferentiated lower accompanies this radiogenic Xe-129 in MORBasalts and carbon dioxide gases. Later, Claude Allegre&#39;s group (Institut de Physique du Globe De Paris) published essentially the same conclusion. :)

3. I agree that the fusion-based Sun model "is almost universally accepted by physicists, nuclear physicists, solar investigators and theorists, in fact, basically the scientific community as a whole." That does not, however, explain any of the experimental observations listed in my last message.

I regret that you were instead asked to "inform the &#39;crank&#39; who is proposing this model that he should go back to school to retake subjects ranging from high school physics to mathematics."

Name-calling does not substitute for reasoned answers. Treading the path of the majority is not necessarily the way to truth, Duane. As the late J. Krishnamurti said: "Truth is a pathless land".

Michael Crichton [the author of Jurassic Park (1991), Sphere (1987), and The Andromeda Strain (1969), and the creator and executive producer of the hit television drama ER] addressed this at Cal Tech last year:
- - - - -
“Let&#39;s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it&#39;s consensus, it isn&#39;t science. If it&#39;s science, it isn&#39;t consensus. Period.”

--Michael Crichton, The Caltech Michelin Lecture, 17 January 2003
******* http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmc/b.../biography.html (http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmc/biography.html)

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Duane
2004-Mar-17, 04:44 PM
Thank you for your kind reply Dr Manuel :)

I hope I was clear in stating that I do not believe you or your theory deserve the label "crank" as I believe that your findings and observations deserve consideration and debate.

Rather I am challenging your conclusions and the evidence you present in support of those conclusions.

If I have followed the debate correctly, you are essentially relying on a few anomalous findings regarding the noble gas concentrations in the outgassed atmospheres of the three terrestrial planets and oddities in especially the Xenon isotopes in the outer atmosphere of the sun and Jupiter&#39;s atmosphere to support your contention that the current fusion model of the sun and stars should be abandoned in favour of the theory that the sun&#39;s current state is the result of the accretion of material on the cinder left by a supernova explosion.

Again assuming I have followed the debate correctly, there is no observational evidence from 50 or more years of dedicated solar research that supports the theory. Furthermore, observations of the cosmos around also provides no evidence which supports the theory.

I would like to see your responces to the various specific questions regarding the theory that I have laid out here. It seems to me that if your theory cannot explain away the problems with the observational evidence, then the theory either needs to be revised or abandoned.

Regardless, I thank you Oliver for trying to explain a complex concept to an obvious amature :)

antoniseb
2004-Mar-17, 07:18 PM
I&#39;ve mostly kept off this thread, but I&#39;d like to thank duane for a large amount of effort to understand this work, which is a very large divergence from the accepted models. I&#39;m sure Dr. Manuel is quite accustomed to being likened to a crank by now, and hasn&#39;t been offended by any statements that identify his theory as outside the main-stream from this generally polite forum.

For my part, I&#39;ve seen very little in his documents which actually makes reasonable predicitions of testable and measurable quanities, such as neutrino output, isotopic abundances in the solar photosphere and planets and comets, structure of the earth and moon, energy output of the sun, etc.

I also think that it is a sign of the mountebanke to use arguments such as "no star has been observed to form since the invention of the telescope", but this was covered in a previous post in this thread. Dr. Manuel also seems to imply that we haven&#39;t measured other stars in ways that make it possible to compare them to our sun. We have, and avoidance of this data is really a peril to the strength of his thesis.

It seems pretty unlikely that there could have been enough supernovae of exactly the same size to have resulted in the creation of as many G-type yellow sub-dwarfs as we see in the sky. Further, the continuum of stellar types suggests that if the G-types have small neutron stars in their cores, so must all other main-sequence stars. I just can&#39;t account for that in any plausible model of the universe.

Further, now that we are starting to see back further into the history of the universe, we should be seeing an epoch in which there are enough supernovae happening to account for all this. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that z=1 spiral galaxies should be having about 10 supernovae per year each, but this is a thousand times higher than the observed number.

Concerning the isotopic abundances of Xenon and Iodine, I seem to recall seeing these explained away fairly successfully as evidence that our primordial cloud was infused with debris from three or more distinct supernovae, roughly 8, 6.5, and 5 Gyears ago. Dr. Manuel makes no mention of, or effort to refute this conclusion.

To me this has been a fun discussion, similar to the flat-earth or Brahean debates of recent times. One very positive thing that Dr. Manuel has done is form a hypothesis that requires some knowledge of the subject to refute, and is an interesting exercise for the student [or self-improving] astronomer. Thank-you Dr. Manuel.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-17, 08:52 PM
Thanks A & D for the comments. :D

I fear nothing has been resolved by our postings, and tomorrow I may have to start jury duty. <_<

You are right on two counts, A: ;)
I too appreciate all the effort Duane put into this.
I am not offended by statements that my theory is outside mainstream; I could make no contribution to science if I simply adopted all the mainstream ideas.

Several postings back I asked how these mainstream views explain six experimental observations listed in our paper at the 2002 SOHO/GONG conference:
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

1. Why were there two distinct types of xenon, Xe-1 and Xe-2, at the birth of the solar system [Figure 1]?

2. Why did primordial Helium accompany Xe-2 (strange xenon) and not Xe-1 (normal xenon) when meteorites formed [Figure 2]?

3. Why does the Jupiter&#39;s He-rich atmosphere contain Xe-2 (strange xenon) (p. 346)?
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf

4. Why are light mass (L) isotopes in the solar wind enriched relative to heavy mass (H) isotopes by a common fractionation factor (f), where log (f) = 4.56 log (H/L) [This is shown in Figure 5 and discussed on pp. 346-347.]?

5. When the above empirical equation is applied to elements in the photosphere, why does it indicate that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca, the same elements as that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites (p. 347)?

6. The statistical probability that this agreement is fortuitous is <0.000000000000000000000000000000002. How do mainstream views explain that?

If I am tied up with jury duty, please go ahead and research and post your replies here.

By the way, A, observation #5 was predicted in papers we published in 1981 and 1983. Many of our papers end with reasonable predictions of testable and measurable quantities. See, for example, on my web page the overheads or the paper presented last year in Dubna, Russia on the need to measure low energy anti-neutrinos coming from the Sun.

With kind regards,
Oliver :D
http://www.umr.edu/~om

VanderL
2004-Mar-17, 08:59 PM
Concerning the isotopic abundances of Xenon and Iodine, I seem to recall seeing these explained away fairly successfully as evidence that our primordial cloud was infused with debris from three or more distinct supernovae, roughly 8, 6.5, and 5 Gyears ago. Dr. Manuel makes no mention of, or effort to refute this conclusion.


I&#39;m not impressed by this explaining away of conflicting data by hypothetical occurrances several Gyears ago, that cannot be verified. I think the strange data are not satifactorily explained and the Iron Sun hypothesis is just one way to make sense of the data. I thank both Duane and Oliver to discuss this topic in detail, I hope there is some more discussion on how our Solar System compares to the "exosystems" that have been found thus far, and how our Sun compares to other stars.

Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-18, 03:32 AM
CORRECTION: By the way, A, observation #3 was predicted in papers we published in 1981 and 1983. - om

om@umr.edu
2004-May-18, 12:50 PM
The discussion continues at:

1. Physics & Astronomy Discussion Forum at PhysicsLink.com

"An Iron Core for the Sun?"

http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/v...m=18&Topic=2421 (http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=2421)

2. Universe Today Forum

"Iron Sun Discussion"

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2544 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544)

Summary & Conclusions

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...ic=2544&st=240& (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=240&)

See also "Is Iron Causing All the Flares?"

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=1216 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1216)

Hope to see you there&#33;

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Deep_Eye
2004-Jun-01, 03:15 PM
What are Gy&#39;s and My&#39;s?

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-02, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by Deep_Eye@Jun 1 2004, 03:15 PM
What are Gy&#39;s and My&#39;s?
Sorry about the short-hand.

My = Million year = 10^6 year

Gy = Billion year = 10^9 year

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om