PDA

View Full Version : Iron Sun Discussion



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

antoniseb
2004-Mar-17, 10:14 PM
duane has done some great work looking at Dr. Manuel's claims about the Iron Sun theory, that basically says that the sun is not the same as most stars, and is a collection of mostly heavy elements with a hydrogen atmosphere. Note, most serious astronomers regard this as a crackpot theory, but Dr. Manuel is willing to take the time to try and defend it. In it's favor, it does offer something of an explanation to some isotope abundance anomalies among other things.

You can look at a number of web-sites about this theory. Pointers to them are in the previous posts in this thread. I suspect that Dr. Manuel is sincere in his belief in the theory, but in this discussion, I am hoping we can shoot it down [or prove it] without shooting at Dr. Manuel, who has demonstrated that he is a gentleman.

Previous posts in this thread can be seen in the Story Comments -> Discussion: Spitzer looks at a Stellar Nursery
http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2435 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2435)

Personally I found this discussion interesting enough that I wanted to pull it out into a properly labelled thread. Note, Josh has suggested moving this thread to Alternative Theories, and I agree it blongs there. I don't know when the move will be made.

Tiny
2004-Mar-17, 11:45 PM
Is it possible for air to go through when the Sun is burning Iron to Helium?

antoniseb
2004-Mar-18, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Tiny@Mar 17 2004, 11:45 PM
Is it possible for air to go through when the Sun is burning Iron to Helium?
I'm sorry Tiny, I have no idea what you mean.
- Is it possible for air to go through what?
- I don't think the sun ever burns Iron to Helium.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-18, 01:24 PM
Here's a link to a long article [32 pages] about an observed Iron Sun.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf...403/0403402.pdf (http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0403/0403402.pdf)

This star is a close binary 0.7 solar-mass companion to an 11 solar-mass black hole. The article guesses that the star was enveloped by the pre-supernova and spiraled in through the thin outer layers, and that the supernova happened before it coalesced into the core of the giant.

The article reports an Fe/H ratio of 0.14 +/- 0.12. Since Iron is substantially heavier than hydrogen, this means that much more of the mass of this star's atmosphere is Iron than is hydrogen.

I think this example shows that an Iron Sun is possible, but doesn't speak well for the likelyhood that our sun is one of these, as we don't have a large black hole orbiting our sun, and we don't have much iron in the sun's atmosphere.

damienpaul
2004-Mar-20, 01:34 AM
okay, this may be a silly question, but waht exactly does the sun burn iron into? if anything

Tiny
2004-Mar-20, 03:27 AM
To nickel I think, or else will be Cobalt...

antoniseb
2004-Mar-20, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Mar 20 2004, 01:34 AM
okay, this may be a silly question, but waht exactly does the sun burn iron into? if anything
Normally, Iron is the end of the line until it collapses into neutronium.

damienpaul
2004-Mar-20, 05:43 AM
okay, next silly question, what is neutronium?

VanderL
2004-Mar-20, 10:41 AM
okay, next silly question, what is neutronium?

Why do you consider this a silly question? Last time I asked that question, the answer was "nobody knows". It could be completely fanciful, and apparently can't be created in a lab. It doesn't stop people from talking about neutron stars as if neutronium exists. Neutron stars are apparently the last stop before a black hole.

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-20, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Mar 20 2004, 05:43 AM
okay, next silly question, what is neutronium?
Sorry for the slightly glib answer. My intent was to convey the idea of the material that makes up neutron stars, which is a dense soup of neutrons, protons, electrons, pions, etc, all bound gravitationally to a degree that the nuclear forces are overwhelmed.

The actual word neutronium is a science fiction term, which was actually out of place here.

VanderL
2004-Mar-20, 02:26 PM
Ok, but I would really like to know how we can be sure that matter can exist in this "neutronium" state; this soup of neutrons, protons, electrons, pions, etc. My guess is that this form of matter is the result of putting in higher numbers in the equations and see what comes rolling out, do we have any experimental evidence that matter can be compressed in this way?

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-20, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Mar 20 2004, 02:26 PM
do we have any experimental evidence that matter can be compressed in this way?
We have some indirect observational evidence. There are objects which spin around 250 times a second, and weigh about the same as the sun. If you assume that the equator on its surface is spinning at 20% the speed of light [a guess at the fastest possible spin rate], what is the space between atoms?

2e33 grams times [solar mass] 6e23 protons per gram [mole] is about 1e57 protons or neutrons.
0.2 [10 percent] * 3e10 cm/sec [speed of light] / (2pi * 250) = 4e6 cm radius.
volume = [1.33 * pi * r*r*r] is about 3e20 cubic centimeters.

This gives 3e36 nucleons per cubic centimeter.

This puts the average space between nucleons at about 6 femtometers, which is well within range of the nuclear forces. The space between normal atoms in a solid is about 20,000 times more sparse [0.1 nanometers].

More accurate, detailed, and less simplified analysis can be found on the web easily enough.

VanderL
2004-Mar-20, 05:23 PM
There are objects which spin around 250 times a second, and weigh about the same as the sun.

You mean pulsars? They are assumed to be spinning, but maybe what we see as pulses is not the result of a spinning object. It seems to me that "neutronium" (what is the proper term btw?) is needed to explain the excessive spin rates. Just suppose there is nothing spinning that fast, doesn't it follow then that there are no neutron stars? Well, I must correct this, neutron stars are entities with specific characteristics, they are real. What could be different because of our assumptions is that they're not containing any collapsed matter. So what is eliminated then, is the need for an exotic form of matter.

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-20, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Mar 20 2004, 05:23 PM
You mean pulsars? They are assumed to be spinning, but maybe what we see as pulses is not the result of a spinning object.
Yes I mean the millisecond pulsars specifically. These are the ones that are spun up to faster rates by infalling matter from a companion.

If you assume that these things are not spinning, but are sending out very regular signals by some other mechanism, I'd like to see a suggestion for the mechanism. You are still required to have the energy source for the pulse be less than a kilometer across based on the pulse time. That's a lot of energy to get out of a small space in a short time.

Also, as to neutron star size, take a look at the observations of Geminga. This is an old neutron star that is glowing with the right color and brightness to be a black-body radiator. It has an observed opitcal counterpart. Because of proper motion studies we can make a good guess as to its distance. The size determinations are pretty solid scientifically.

One last note is the question: How could a neutron star could form without taking on a high rotation rate? Our sun spins once every 27 days. How fast would it spin if the radius shrunk to 1e-5 the current radius? Note that angular momentum must be conserved.

VanderL
2004-Mar-20, 07:05 PM
If you assume that these things are not spinning, but are sending out very regular signals by some other mechanism, I'd like to see a suggestion for the mechanism.

Sorry Antoniseb, can't help you with another mechanism just yet. I wouldn't be surprised if another mechanism exists, but apart from the Electric Model (see other threads for it's discussions and debunking), I don't know of any. Doesn't mean that the spinning assumption is true though, I'd like to see better evidence then pulses (millisecond pulses because of rotation seems like a ludicrous idea to me), or some way to verify collapsed matter experimentally before I accept neutron stars as composed of "neutronium".
We're drifting away from the Iron Sun model, of which I'm still unsure why the measured isotopic ratio's must mean that there is something wrong with what we know of stellar evolution and the history of the Solar System.
Maybe it would be helpful if we compared the 2 models step by step, then maybe I'll be able to see at what point the models diverge, or if there is even anything compatible at all.

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-24, 01:24 PM
Here's another set of questions for Dr. Manuel on this Iron Sun stuff:

Are you saying the the core of the sun is:
- a white dwarf [this is the one I assume you mean]
- a neutron star
- something else

If the mass of this core is less than 0.5 solar mass, how did it form?

Do you believe that the chemical abundances in the photosphere are different than what is commonly reported by main-stream astronomers?

If not, how deep into the Sun's interior do we need to explore before we start seeing very high Iron abundances?

Is there a layer in which thermo-nuclear fusion is occuring? How far from the center is it? If not, how long can the sun maintain approximately the same luminosity? How rapidly will this be changing?

Do you believe that the density of the photosphere is different than what is commonly reported by main-stream astronomers?

If not, how do you plot the temperature and pressure along a solar radius such that the mass of the sun works out to the observed value of 2e33 grams?

Duane
2004-Mar-24, 04:52 PM
Dr manuel states:


We have little quantitative information about what the early Earth looked like.

However, measurements show that:

1. Earth accreted in layers, beginning with the formation of an iron core upon which the silicate mantle was later deposited.

2. The lower mantle surrounding that iron core never melted and retains highly volatile elements like He-3 today.

3. Earth's upper mantle melted to produce the atmosphere and crust within the first 200 My. The upper mantle stopped releasing volatile elements to the atmosphere while extinct I-129 and Pu-244 were still alive.

These measurements are summarized in ""The xenon record of extinct radioactivities in the Earth," Science 174, 1334-1336 (1971) and "The noble gas record of the terrestrial planets," Geochemical Journal 15, 245-267 (1981).

Io is much further from the Sun, where iron is a rare element. It is doubtful that its early history parallels those of the Earth and other terrestrial planets

I would add in Dr Manuel, that measurements do not support your contention that the earth accreted on an iron core, rather measurements almost universally support the premise that the earth accreted and then melted, resulting in the formation of an iron core.

Further, you have given no mechanism by which silicates formed farther out from the earth's early orbit could have migrated in to accrete on the newly formed iron core, nor have you given any explanation for the how a lack of differentation would have occurred in the aftermath of the proto-earth having been struck by a mars-sized body.

Recent measurements by Romanowicz et al at the University of California, Berkley have identified hot "superplumes" of material rising from the lower mantle (~ 2800 KM below the lithosphere) and earlier measurements also identified cooler "downplumes" in other areas of the planet.

William White at Cornell also found evidence of mantle recycling in measurements he and his team performed at the Society Islands, and this finding was reconfirmed later by Jon D. Woodhead of the Australian National University through measurements he made of the abundant oxygen isotope ratios at Pitcairn Island.

This could not be the case if the lower mantal remained undifferenciated and/or unmelted as you maintain.

There are a myriad of other studies which also support the premise that the lower mantle is melted. This must also lead to the conclusion that the lower mantle is differentiated, because it could not remain undifferentiated while melted.

Now no doubt you will again refer to your paper regarding the anomalties in the isotopes of He and Xe. Might I suggest that you instead refer to some independant findings from anyone other than you and your collaborators so that we might gain an unbiased view of your findings?

Might I also suggest that you outline a mechanism whereby the isotope readings you obtained might have arisen in the accretion method of planet formation? Or is it your position that such readings are impossible in that method?

Tiny
2004-Mar-24, 05:55 PM
Oh by the way, what is the spectral line for Iron look like?

antoniseb
2004-Mar-24, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Mar 24 2004, 01:24 PM
Are you saying the the core of the sun is:
- a white dwarf [this is the one I assume you mean]
- a neutron star
- something else
Oh! Dr. Manuel, I see in your papers that you postulate a neutron star in the sun's core [These must be at least 0.88 solar masses]. That makes the mass of the sun very difficult to get to be only 2e33 grams. Do you have a theory about the structure of the sun that accounts for this?

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-25, 03:15 PM
Thanks for all the comments and for an open discussion about evidence for and against an iron-rich Sun. :D

I received two e-mails last night asking why I had not responded.

The answer - I did not even know the site existed! Now a lot of material has accumulated and I need to start responding in a manner that will convey information clearly and concisely, despite other commitments on my time.

Physics On-Line also has a discussion about evidence for and against an iron-rich Sun and posted a lot of background information there. Am I allowed to post that link here? :blink:

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

In case it is edited out, I will go ahead today and give readers biographical information on the events (1936-1959) leading to my interest in nuclear energy and the Sun.

When you reach my ripe old age, I suspect you too will look back on life and realize you had little or no control over your life, your career choices, successes, or failures.

I "decided" to be born in 1936 when, on the other side of this globe, Francis William Aston went to Japan to observe a solar eclipse. He also presented a lecture at the University of Tokyo, which sparked the interest of an unusually talented 19 year old student named Kazuo Kuroda in nuclear energy and the Sun.

World War II followed. As a young child I was taught to hate "Japs" and "Nazis" on this side of the globe. Kazuo Kuroda completed his education on the other side and became the youngest scientist appointed to the University of Tokyo faculty. The atomic bomb ended the War. Dr. Kuroda was sent by the Japanese government to investigate the bomb site and report back the nature of this new weapon.

The US government realized that knowledge is the key to national security - - - something that has since been forgotten! We stole ("relocated") the best scientific minds in Germany and Japan and brought them to this country. One was given the Christian name "Paul" on the boat ride to this country; the rest of his name looked strange to Americans - - - Kazuo Kuroda.

Kuroda landed in San Francisco and met Glen Seaborg of Berkeley National Labs (BNL). Seaborg wanted to hire this talented young scientist, but was prevented from doing. Kuroda was Japanese, and the US government wanted a monopoly on nuclear secrets. [Only in 2002 did they learn that Kuroda carried secret Japanese plans to build an atomic bomb there!] Americans of Japanese decent had been locked up during the War. No Japanese citizen could work at BNL.

So Kuroda ended up teaching at the University of Arkansas.

Meanwhile, life had been hectic for me. I grew up like an alley cat or a weed, and did not finish high school. By accident I was admitted to Pittsburg State College in 1956. My best teacher, Jim Pauley, taught General and Physical Chemistry. He was also a graduate of the University of Arkansas and directed me there when I graduated in 1959.

That is how "I selected" one world-class scientist, Paul Kazuo Kuroda, as my mentor and another, Francis William Aston, as my academic grandfather. They, of course, directed my attention to Nuclear Energy and the Sun.

With kind regards,

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

PS - Responses to questions raised in earlier postings will depend whether or not I need to reproduce here background information given on PhysLink.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-25, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 25 2004, 03:15 PM
Physics On-Line also has a discussion about evidence for and against an iron-rich Sun and posted a lot of background information there.
OK, I've read the stuff on the Physics link, and the collection of papers.
Please correct me if I am wrong about the rough structure of the sun that you are proposing:

0-10 km -------- neutron star
10-250,000 km-- iron core
250,000 - 485,000 km -- rocky molton outer core
485,000 - 695,000 km -- hydrogen-rich atmosphere

Note, I haven't seen anything in your paper giving the depth of the rocky to iron core transition.

I have a lot of concerns about this model, but the easist to point out is the mass problem. Even assuming that the iron and rocks resist compression we get a mass of the three core components as:

neutron star ---- 1.6e33 grams [minimum mass of known neutron stars]
iron core--------- 5e32 grams [density of 8 gm/cc]
outer core ------ 1.6e33 grams [density of 4 gm/cc]

the result, 3.7e33 grams [not counting the atmosphere] is almost 2 times the mass of the sun as measured by the orbits of the planets.

I have a few other immediate concerns:
1. What helioseismology study do you site saying there is possibly a solid body in the sun at 70% of the radius? This is new to my research.

2. What is preventing the iron core from rapidly accreting onto the neutron star and becoming gravitationally crushed into neutrons?

3. How do you assume that neutrons are able to escape from the neutron star's gravity and still have 10 MeV of thermal energy that they can contribuite to their surroundings?

Duane
2004-Mar-25, 07:42 PM
Thank you for the link Oliver. You are obviously in a number of discussions regarding this theory, and that helps to explain why you have a penchant for repeating yourself! :lol: ;)

Current solar theories are based on modelling, where the result of the model must meet the current solar levels of luminosity, output and size. Has your theory been modelled, and if so, how well does the model meet the above criterion?

Regarding the solid inner body rotation found through mapping of the solar interior by helioseismology, it is suggested that the solid rotating inner body is a neutron star (your theory) or a rocky oceon (ala Peter Blachle), however it also seems that an explanation would relate to the formation of metallic hydrogen, similar to what has occurred in the lower atmosphere of Jupiter. Certainly at the range of depths mentioned for this body (roughly 1/3 to 1/5 of the solar radius below the observable surface) there is enough mass and pressure to metallisize the hydrogen.

I have done alot of reading regarding this premise but I have yet to see an answer to my questions regarding the new findings from seismic measurements by Romanowicz et al. You state that your measurements support the premise that the lower mantle is unmelted and undifferentiated, and you rely on the amount of primordial Iodine 129 and Plutonium 244 released during the intial phase of the planets formation as the basis for this premise.

The new measurements of s-wave and p-wave propagation through the lower mantle have identified so called "superplumes", regions where heated magma rising from the lower mantle contact and spread at the lithosphere, then cool and sink. It seems clear that there is active mantle recycling from the lower to the upper mantle, which would seem to suggest that the I-129 and Pu-244 from the lower mantle region must have escaped, or is escaping.

This would seem to require an explanation from you regarding the measurements you have made. Specifically, how do your measurements explain the mantle recycling?

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-25, 08:12 PM
Thanks, antonsieb, for the excellent feedback! :D

Your questions indicate an approach very different than mine. <_<

I am an experimentalist. My conclusions are based on measurements - - - measurements limited to material outside the Sun. To date the measurements do not yield the details of the solar interior listed in your table. :rolleyes:

Further, even if we knew the physical dimensions of layers inside the Sun, we do not know how to calculate density without information on temperature. :(

Measurements do not tell us the Sun&#39;s internal temperature. :blink:

In view of these uncertainities, it is intriguing that the mass you calculate for the sum of these four layers is only twice "the mass of the sun as measured by the orbits of the planets."

Since you obviously read quickly, can I ask you to scan our 2-page abstract on the Sun&#39;s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy [2001 Lunar & Planetary Science Conference]:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf

Our 4-page paper on the Internal Composition of the Sun [2002 SOHO/GONG Conference]:

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

Our 6-page paper on Superfluidity in the Solar Interior [Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2003)]:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...perfluidity.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf)

Please feel free to offer alternative explanations for the measurements reviewed in the first two short papers. The third answers the first of your other questions:

1. What helioseismology study do you site saying there is possibly a solid body in the sun at 70% of the radius? This is new to my research. Several speakers mentioned this at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference. In our third paper (above) we cite an earlier 1996 paper in Science as reference no. 22.

2. What is preventing the iron core from rapidly accreting onto the neutron star and becoming gravitationally crushed into neutrons? I do not know. None of our measurements provide that information.

3. How do you assume that neutrons are able to escape from the neutron star&#39;s gravity and still have 10 MeV of thermal energy that they can contribuite to their surroundings? None of our measurements provide this information either. I suspect that 10-22 MeV neutrons escape from the neutron star&#39;s gravity in the manner that 4.5 MeV alpha particles escape from the nucleus of U-238 - - - barrier tunnelling.

Again, thanks for your excellent comments.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Mar-25, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 25 2004, 08:12 PM
In view of these uncertainities, it is intriguing that the mass you calculate for the sum of these four layers is only twice "the mass of the sun as measured by the orbits of the planets."
It shouldn&#39;t be THAT intriguing, for one thing I didn&#39;t allow for ANY compression, but we know from earthbound experiments that the iron in the core mentioned above would compress a great deal, as would the iron-silcates in the outer core, and the atmosphere. We are probably talking about a mass of ten or twenty solar masses for the brief time before it all collapses.

I think it should take some kind of effort on your part to explain why the Iron shouldn&#39;t simply collapse onto the inner neutron star. Otherwise you are making an outrageous claim that can&#39;t be backed up with some kind of explanation.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-26, 04:08 AM
Thanks, Duane and Antoniseb, for your comments. :D

I apologize for repeating myself. :unsure:

In addition to old age, there is another likely reason I will explain below*.

You are correct, Duane, "Current solar theories are based on modelling..."

Antoniseb wants a model "to explain why the Iron shouldn&#39;t simply collapse onto the inner neutron star." :blink:

However, I make measurements, not models. The interior of the Sun reveals itself to me in measurements - - - not models. Perhaps that is what distinguishes experimentalists from astronomers. Perhaps that is why our communications are leading nowhere&#33; :unsure:

*I repeat myself asking you to address measurements. For example, over a week ago on this web site I asked the two of you to explain six experimental observations listed in our 2002 SOHO/GONG conference paper: http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

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://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://web.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 mainstream views explain that?

As I recall, you offered no explanation for any of these observations.

Regretfully, I suggest we waste no more time on this pseudo-communications. :(
Otherwise, you will probably start repeating yourself asking me to explain a model. :D

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Mar-26, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 26 2004, 04:08 AM
However, I make measurements, not models.
But you do make a model.
You are taking the measured abundances of several isotopes, and then proposing a model to explain them. This model fails against many other measurements.

A great deal of your paper space seems devoted to the Xenon issue. The paper
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf describes Xenon-1 as having elevated abundences of the middle-weight isotopes [e.g. 130 & 132 & 134] of Xenon and Xenon-2 as having somewhat elevated light and heavy isotopes [e.g. 124 & 136], plus it appears with an elevated number of trapped alpha particles. The papers discuss previous results showing that the Xenon-2 concentrations are probably the result of r-process in a supernova, but it says nothing to show that our sun must be constructed largely of fusion products from such a supernova. By showing that the Solar wind and Earth atmospheric abundences are Xe-1 and Jupiter and the carbonaceous meteroites contain Xe-2, you only show that the outer part of the protoplanteary disk ended up with different isotope ratios from the part that was highly heated by the early sun. You aren&#39;t showing that the sun is made of rocks [your model].

You give a correlation factor: The statistical probability that this agreement is fortuitous is <0.000000000000000000000000000000002. but you don&#39;t explain how it was calculated or what, precisely this non-fortuitous agreement must imply. There could be many models that might explain it.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-26, 03:33 PM
You are partially correct, antoniseb. :D

I make observation-driven conclusions. When there are no observational data, I try to avoid speculations. ;)

If you will offer explanations for the six observations posted above, I will try to come up with a more complete list of experimental observations - with no conclusions - that gradually led us to the iron-rich Sun - - - an object in which we had no initial interest.

This is not a new finding. The Sun was widely believed to be iron-rich. Development of the H-bomb and adoption of the Hydrogen-filled Sun occurred after the end of Word War II. See:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

To calculate statistical probability, antoniseb, you may want to take a table of abundances in the Sun&#39;s photosphere to a statistician. Imagine you go to the Sun, B) stick in a probe, and pull out one atom. What is the probability that atom will be Fe or O or Si or Ni or S or Mg or Ca (any one of the seven elements that make up 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites). These are all trace elements in the photosphere, so the probability of getting any one of them will be quite low. Now you repeat that process six times. Please report your results back here.

Yet the empirical mass-fractionation equation defined by isotope abundances in the solar wind,

log ( f ) = 4.56 log (H/L), where f = fractionation, H = mass of heavy particle, L = mass of light particle,

selects all seven of these trace elements out of the Sun&#39;s H-rich photosphere in a single step.

1.) Is this magic, antoniseb? Or

2.) Are elements, as well as isotopes, mass fractionated in the Sun?

Please post your answer.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Mar-26, 03:47 PM
Are elements, as well as isotopes, mass fractionated in the Sun?

The isotopes could be mass fractionated in the sun without it being made of rocks.

I will spend some of the weekend working on explanations for the six observations posted above. As well as looking at your proposed experiments for testing the valididty of the theory.

Duane
2004-Mar-26, 03:58 PM
I&#39;m sorry if I offended you Oliver with the repeating yourself crack, I meant it purely as a joke. Hard to convey humour in a forum like this. :(

Regarding the abundances of Xe1 &2 in the solar and jovian atmospheres, is it not possible that the isotopic readings you obtained arose from the makeup of the primordial cloud which coalesced to form the sun and planets? That is, could those isotopes have arisen through the enrichment of the cloud by the debris of a nearby supernova? (or supernovas?)

It is postulated that one of the triggers for the collapse of the cloud which formed the sun was a nearby supernova. Does it not seem more plausible that the measurements you obtained arose as a result of that process?

You have stated several times that the abundance of extinct I-129 and PU-244 support the premise that the upper mantle stopped releasing volitile elements only 200My after the formation of the planet, and that this also means the lower mantle remains unmelted and undifferentiated. I have pointed out new data obtained from difference sources which shows that premise to be incorrect--the mantle is not only melted throughout, it recycles&#33; Accepting that your measurements are accurate, can you come up with an explanation of how that recycling can occur and not release the primordial He3 and other volitiles?


However, I make measurements, not models. The interior of the Sun reveals itself to me in measurements - - - not models. Perhaps that is what distinguishes experimentalists from astronomers.

Ok, but how can you then state with certainty anything regarding the makeup of the sun? While your theory may help explain one anomalty, if it has not been modelled and compared to what is, then it is nothing more than an interesting oddity. This is why I asked you if you had modelled it, and also why I have asked you if you have considered the possibilty that the measurements could be explained through the generally excepted solar accretion model.


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)?


I suspect these three questions are related to the same phenomenon. The answer probably has to do with the enrichment of the primordial cloud which formed the sun by debris from nearby supernova.

The sun is 0.17 dex more metal rich than the average nearby star (Wielen, Fuchs, & Dettbarn 1996). Wielen et al. propose that the sun was born ~ 2 kpc closer to the Galactic center than its current orbital radius, where abundances were higher.


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)?


I admit this is beyond my ability to answer.

Regardless, I think that your model fails on at least two levels, the first outlined by antoniseb relating to the mass of the sun as it is today, the second by the recent measurements of the lower mantle outline by me. You have given no credible explanation for either of these two issues.

Furthermore, recent studies by Kobunicky and Stillman (1997) suggest that the supernova ejecta form a hot wind that escapes the galaxy, disperses the ejecta, and later reaccretes, avoiding local enrichment at the site of the stars&#39; deaths. Assuming their measurements to be correct, it would seem the idea of a supernova occurring and then re-accreting at the same site could not occur.

Have you seen the work of G. Parmentier et al of the University of Begium regarding cloud enrichment by Type II supernovas? Very generally, they have found that the enrichment process meets theoritical expectations for galactic halo globular cluster metallicities. This is another line of research which seems to suppport the premise of cloud enrichment by supernova debris dispersal.


Regretfully, I suggest we waste no more time on this pseudo-communications.
Otherwise, you will probably start repeating yourself asking me to explain a model.


I am sorry you feel this way Oliver. Obviously you are unable or unwilling to explain the inconsistancies that are apparent in your thesis. With respect, given the inability of your model to explain the inconsistancies, I cannot help but reach the conclusion that your model fails, and the sun is not the result of accretion of material on a supernova remnant as you have proposed.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-26, 07:21 PM
Thanks, Duane, for the message and for starting to address the six observations. :D

As promised to antoniseb, I will make a list of other experimental observations that slowly led us to the iron Sun - - - without comments or conclusions.

I am not offended, Duane. :rolleyes:

Conclusions drawn from observations do not alter what is. Future experiments, rather than personal opinions, decide the validity of conclusions. ;)

For example, the supernova that made the solar system also made, in my opinion, the “Ancient Silicate Stardust” reported in the 5 March 2004 issue of Science. Future experiments will determine if our opinions or those of the Washington Univ. group are correct. ;)

Because of the press for time, I will only reply now to your explanation of the first of six observations:

No, Duane, Xe-2 could not “have arisen through the enrichment of the cloud by the debris of a nearby supernova? (or supernovas?)”

1. Xe-2 is trapped in carbon grains of “normal” isotopic composition. <_<

2. Essentially all primordial He and Ne accompanied Xe-2, not Xe-1. <_<

The near-by supernova would have to inject into the solar system essentially all primordial He and Ne, Xe 2, and carbon of “normal” isotopic composition. :P

The link of primordial He and Ne with Xe-2 was noted in our debate with the University of Chicago group (Ed Anders) in the mid-1970s [“Strange Xenon, Extinct Superheavy Elements, and the Solar Neutrino Puzzle”, Science, vol. 195, 208-210 (1977)].

The link of Xe-2 with primordial He, C and Ne also contradicts Anders’ suggestion that Xe-2 might be a fission product of extinct superheavy elements - a popular opinion in the mid-1970s. :blink:

Finally, Duane, I hope you and other readers will have time to review the historical record of opinions about the composition of the Sun before we move on to the next five observations. See:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

Again, Duane, thanks for your comments. :D

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-26, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Mar 26 2004, 03:47 PM
The isotopes could be mass fractionated in the sun without it being made of rocks.

I will spend some of the weekend working on explanations for the six observations posted above.* As well as looking at your proposed experiments for testing the valididty of the theory.
Thanks, antoniseb. :D

I did not suggest the Sun is made of rocks. However, if the isotopes are mass fractionated at the solar surface, so the light mass (L) isotopes are enriched relative to the heavy mass (H) isotopes by a common fractionation factor ( f ),

log ( f ) = 4.56 log (H / L),

then the interior of the Sun likely consists of elements that make up common rocks, metals, and meteorites.

A geologist concluded that these elements in the Sun might arrange themselves into rock-like structures to explain the rigid rotation of the Sun below the tachocline.

Thanks also, antoniseb, for agreeing to work on explanations for the six observations while I work on a more complete list of observations (without conclusions) since 1960 that gradually led us to the iron Sun.

With kind regards,

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

Duane
2004-Mar-26, 09:22 PM
No, Duane, Xe-2 could not “have arisen through the enrichment of the cloud by the debris of a nearby supernova? (or supernovas?)”

1. Xe-2 is trapped in carbon grains of “normal” isotopic composition.

2. Essentially all primordial He and Ne accompanied Xe-2, not Xe-1.

The near-by supernova would have to inject into the solar system essentially all primordial He and Ne, Xe 2, and carbon of “normal” isotopic composition.


Regarding the trapping of Xe2, I note that A.V. Fisenko and L.F. Semjonova of the Vernadsky Institute in Russia addressed the formation (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC99/pdf/1090.pdf) of this element in carbon, suggesting it is, in fact, the result of the shockwave arising from a supernova explosion.

It is noted by Donald Clayton and Mark Liesing at Clemson University that there is a lack of 57Fe/56Fe in the solar system as measured by the Compton observatory, suggesting the cloud which formed the solar system was enriched by the introduction of Fe by way of a nearby supernova explosion. It seems to follow that if the Fe could have been introduced this way, then the introduction of post-supernova 57Co, 12C/13C and 16O/18O could also be expected. This could also have resulted in the Xe2 arrival carried in the C grains as introduced by the shockwave.

I don&#39;t understand why you think the supernova would have had to also introduce all of the primordial He, C & Ne. These are not elements given to decay, so their gradual buildup in the pre-accretion cloud could have arisen over the course of eons.

I am now going to read your link, I&#39;ll be back&#33; B)

Duane
2004-Mar-26, 10:27 PM
I have read your paper, and have a couple of quick comments.

You conclude by stating that the neutrino flux is too low to support the conclusion that it arises solely by hydrogen fusion. This has now been answered and the neutrino flux does match the rate expected through hydrogen fusion.

Dr Robert Loss of Curtin University in Australia and his team have done experiments to calculate the formation of exotic Xe (XeH, XeL, XeHL, 129Xe, 131Xe) through a number of processes, finding that the implantation of Xe2 is best explained as arising as a result of C-shell shock during supernova events.

Your research supports the proposition that alot of the material making up the solar system underwent change consistant with a supernova explosion. I think that there is heavy agreement that this is a correct assumption.

Where you fall down is your suggestion that the sun re-accreted on the extinct core of a supernova. Your evidence does not support that premise, and all of the observational and experimental evidence I have been able to locate, excepting your own papers, agrees that this premise is unlikely.

You have been unable (or maybe unwilling) to answer some very basic questions regarding your theory, instead mostly answering the questions with questions. You have not directly addressed most of the questions asked, picking and replying only to those questions which can be answered in a way to support your theory. Even in those cases, you reassert your own papers as the answer. This is a circular argument by any definition.

I want to thank you though, Dr Manuel, as you have caused me to learn more about the formation of our solar system than I ever thought I would. The fact that my learning curve has simply lead me to the conclusion that your premise is unsupported is beside the point.

Tim Thompson
2004-Mar-27, 01:03 AM
I have a problem with all of this iron sun stuff.

The standard models for stellar structure & evolution are based on pretty straight forward physics. While by no means perfect, they are remarkably successful at reproducing even the fine details of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (http://www.tim-thompson.com/hr.html). That requires some fidelity between observation & theory. In application to the sun, this standard theory has worked quite well, relying as it does on the direct observation of the sun. More to the point, helioseismology is capable of recovering solar internal structure (it&#39;s the same basic idea as seismic tomography, used so well on Earth). So the standard picture of the sun is based on direct observations of the sun.

On the other hand, the iron sun hypothesis has nothing to do with looking at the sun. So far as I know, it is entirely based on the isotope ratios in meteorites. The connection between those ratios and the sun is tenuous to say the least, and therefore the iron sun hypothesis seems indirect & circumstantial at best.

So, I wonder, why should an hypothesis based on indirect, circumstantial evidence be preferred over a competing hypothesis, based on direct observation? If you want to know what the solar interior looks like, shouldn&#39;t you just look at the sun?

As for the neutrinos, Dr. Manuel is behind the times. There was a solar neutrino problem, but there is not one anymore. We now know that the sun produces the full flux of neutrinos that standard theory predicts, and that full flux has been observed, as the results from Sudbury (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/) & Super-Kamiokande (http://www.phys.washington.edu/~superk/) show. Furthermore, evidence from the KAMLAND (http://kamland.lbl.gov/) experiments indicate oscillation in reactor produced neutrinos, so there is laboratory experience to support both the theory & observation of solar neutrinos (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html).

I don&#39;t see any problem with standard solar models that requires a radical solution. I don&#39;t see the connection between meteorite isotope ratios and the solar interior. And I don&#39;t see why an indirect, circumstantial argument should be favored over one that is direct and non-circumstantial.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-27, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Mar 27 2004, 01:03 AM
I have a problem with all of this iron sun stuff.

........., the iron sun hypothesis has nothing to do with looking at the sun. So far as I know, it is entirely based on the isotope ratios in meteorites. The connection between those ratios and the sun is tenuous to say the least, and therefore the iron sun hypothesis seems indirect & circumstantial at best.

So, I wonder, why should an hypothesis based on indirect, circumstantial evidence be preferred over a competing hypothesis, based on direct observation? If you want to know what the solar interior looks like, shouldn&#39;t you just look at the sun?
Thanks, Tim, for your comments. :D

I am sorry my postings left the impression the iron Sun is "entirely based on the isotope ratios in meteorites." That is not the case.

Measurements on meteorites, the Earth, and the Moon provided early clues that the solar system condensed from fresh debris of a single supernova. ;)

That will become clear after I complete and post a list of observations since 1960, when I started making studying the abundance of isotopes in the solar system.

For example, there were many short-lived radioactive isotopes present when these objects formed. Certain light elements were closely linked with specific isotopes of heavy elements - - - like Xe, Ba, Nd, Sm - - - made by different nuclear reactions in different regions of the parent star. Isotope ratios of oxygen differ in various classes of meteorites. Etc.

Elements implanted from the Sun into the surfaces of lunar samples revealed a systematic enrichment (E) of light mass (L) isotopes coming from the Sun&#39;s surface relative to the heavy mass (H) isotopes:

log (E) = 4.56 log (H / L )

When this empirical equation is applied to the elemental composition of the Sun&#39;s surface, as determined by line spectra, it indicates that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca - - - the same elements that comprise meteorites and the rocky planets close to the Sun.

Variations in the abundance of elements and isotopes in the solar wind and in solar flares later confirmed that energetic solar events disrupt the mass fractionation process that covers the surface of the quiet Sun with light elements and light isotopes.

Until I get time to complete and post the long list of observations, Tim, I encourage you and other readers to check the papers referenced in our paper "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conference: Local and Global Helioseismology, The Present and Future (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003) 27 October - 1 November, 2002, Big Bear Lake, California, USA.

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

Again, Tim, thanks for your comments. I will address the latest solution to the solar neutrino puzzle later. Our paper on this subject is posted on my web page.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Mar-27, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 26 2004, 07:42 PM
Thanks also, antoniseb, for agreeing to work on explanations for the six observations while I work on a more complete list of observations (without conclusions) since 1960 that gradually led us to the iron Sun.
Isotope ratios are a major clue that will go a long way toward unravelling the story of how the solar system was formed, and presumably how other solar systems form. As duane has noted, I am thankful for getting pushed towards this bit of astro-science. I had some exposure to it in 1976, but not since then. Thanks Dr. Manuel

Your six observations listed in this forum are somewhat imprecisely expressed statements about isotope ratios. I mean this as no slight. Having read your papers and others, there is some greater precision in some of your expressions of these observations elsewhere. However, going forward is a fairly big task, and I&#39;m not readily finding the specifics of experimtal results. For example, I&#39;m interested in knowing the specific abundences of each individual Xenon isotope in the various samples, not merely some loosely defined Xe-1 and Xe-2 composites. I believe that each isotope has its own independent history of creation, and that it doesn&#39;t make much sense to group them first, and then draw conclusions. For example, there was a lot of discussion of Xenon-129 which is the decay product of I-129 with a half-life of about 15 million years, yet the strange Xenon papers you pointed to delt with ratios of Xe-130 and Xe-124, not Xe-129. So, on the specifics, I need more data than I am finding so far. Note to readers: Some Xe-129 was directly formed during the supernova explosion, but it would not have been trapped in a particle. Chemically bound Iodine that later decayed into Xenon [a noble gas] can be trapped this way.

Here is the URL for a general review of isotope ratios in the solar system that I am starting with. It seems to have been written about 1997 or 1998. I expect that there is something more current out there now.
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/genesis/DocumentA.html

Dr. Manuel, please let me know if you think this document has obvious errors.

You&#39;re big conclusion [which I don&#39;t recall ever seeing explicitly stated] seems to rest on the conclusion that isotopic mass fractionation seen in the photosphere can be extrapolated exponentially toward the center of the sun. The origin of the elements, and isotope ratios is a big field of study with lots of data, so I may be best off trying to start on this narrow area, and expand out later.

In the end, what I would be suggesting to you will assume mostly the current model of how the solar system formed, based on what we are seeing with the formation of new stars and disks. I will be inventing nothing new. You can tell me what you challenge in these models.

For the record, here is a simple statement of the model I am talking about [this does not include statements about your observations, it is only a framework for discussion]:
- A cloud of of Hydrogen falls into the galaxy [perhaps through galaxy collision, or perhaps it was winds blown out from earlier hot star formation regions]
- A star forming region is created as the cloud collides with clouds already in the galaxy&#39;s disk.
- Several large stars are initially created, and explode within a few million years, still within the star forming nebula.
- Pressure from these explosions causes condensations which result in some smaller stars to form including our sun.
- Sun and disk collapse from the compressed medium, which includes some blast debris from the original supernavae but is mostly proto-galactic hydrogen.
- Planetoid formation is underway as the sun turns on.
- The hot new sun evaporates away light elements in the inner solar system that is not already gravitationally bound to a planet.
- The sun settles into life as a main-sequence G2 sub-dwarf and the planets form and eject loose comets.
- People evolve and measure the isotope ratios.

Below are some initial stabs at your observations.

BTW, What are the isotopic abundences in &#39;ordinary meteorites&#39;? Harkin&#39;s 1917 paper seens like a quaint source to use. Is there something more recent? Perhaps something that includes chondrite meteors? Something that includes an isotope by isotope correlation?

Observation number 1 Why are there two types of Xenon? I don&#39;t think even your cited evidence says there were two types. There is a continuum of types.

Observation number 2 Why does He-3 [and Neon-10] accompany Xe-2 but not Xe-1. Perhaps these lighter gasses were driven out by heat closer to the sun.

Observation number 3 Why does Jupiter&#39;s atmosphere contain Xe-2? because it is further from the heat of the sun.

Observation number 4 Why are lighter isotopes of the same elements more common in solar wind than in the photosphere in relation to the heavier isotopes according to an exponential formula? Note: almost all solar wind is protons. What does this tell you the sun is made of? Aside from this what is the mechanism that drives solar wind? I haven&#39;t looked at how the standard solar model explains it, but I can imagine that a complex magnetic process might successfully do some sorting in favor of the lighter nuclei.

Observation number 5 Extrapolate this exponential formula to conclude an Iron interior to the sun. See, this is the core of your thesis, but it is never really explained in detail, even in your papers. Are you applying this fomula in a way that says deeper down you&#39;ll have more fractionation? The evidence cited doesn&#39;t seem to show any need conclude that there is more of the heavier elements lower down, even if there&#39;s more of the heavier isotopes within an element.

Observation number 6, statistical probability I did your experiment :rolleyes: , and came up with Hydrogen with all six atoms. [That place is HOT, I hope I don&#39;t get asbestos poisoning]. I thought something was wrong so I repeated the experiment a few times, and eventually got an He4. My point is that your 2e-33 chance of coincidence looks wrong.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-28, 02:35 AM
Here&#39;s a quick update:

The space probe Genesis has been out collecting a large volume of solar wind, and will return the sample this autumn. Within a year we should see what will be by far the most accurate measurement of the isotope ratios in the solar wind.

These results may well have a major impact on Dr. Manuel&#39;s Iron Sun theory.

BTW, the science papers attached to this site seem to have reasonable answers for most of his observations.

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/genesis/

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-28, 05:46 AM
Whoa&#33; Please slow down, antoniseb. :D

This site is moving too fast. Skimming the surface of many different issues faster than I can respond.

I have other responsibilities - graduate students, papers and a book to write, a wife and children, conferences to attend, etc. - and I need time to prepare a well documented list of the observations that drove this paradigm shift. :(

You appropriately posted this web string under Alternative Theories. Of course, the Iron Sun is in conflict with mainstream views. That’s why it is posted under Alternative Theories.

Instead of citing mainstream views as evidence against the Iron Sun, let’s slow down and review the measurements that steadily led us away from the idea that the solar system formed out of a mix of material from multiple stellar sources, with the overall composition of the Sun’s photosphere (91% H and 9% He).

You will be as amazed as I was by the direction these measurements take us. :blink:

They offer new insight into the origin of iron-nickel meteorites, disparate planetary structures, and chemical gradients across the planetary system. ;)

We may not all arrive at the same conclusion, particularly regarding the internal composition of the Sun, but let’s enjoy the journey together. :D

So give me time to collect my wits and post the observations for us to consider together. The surprising destination my colleagues, students and I reached is here:

http://www.TheSunIsIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

With kind regards,

Oliver :D

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

BTW, I have know Don Burnett, the Principal Investigator on the Genesis mission, for decades and have also corresponded with many other members of that team. I look forward to their new measurements.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-28, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 28 2004, 05:46 AM
This site is moving too fast. Skimming the surface of many different issues faster than I can respond.
Sure, take your time. I&#39;ve asked for some information which may be difficult to summerize or collect, and I&#39;d like to see it in its best light.

NeilFiertel
2004-Mar-29, 06:17 AM
I ENCOUNTERED DR. MANUEL&#39;S INTERESTING AND WELL DOCUMENTED CONCEPTS REGARDING THE ORIGINS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM AND THE PRESENT DAY SUN SEVERAL YEARS PREVIOUSLY AND HAVE HAD AN ONGOING EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIM SINCE I INITIATED CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIM. I HAVE READ WITH INTEREST HIS MANY ARTICLES AND I MIGHT ADD MY VERY STRONG RATIONAL SUPPORT FOR HIS CONCEPTS HAS GROWN SINCE THEN. THERE ARE SIMPLY TOO MANY CONFLICTS TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF SOLAR ORIGINS FROM THE EVIDENCE FOUND IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM TO SUPPORT THE STANDARD THEORY OF SOLAR EVOLUTION FOR OUR PARTICULAR SYSTEM THOUGH THE STANDARD AND GENERAL SOLAR EVOLUTIONARY THEORY MAY VERY WELL HOLD FOR MOST OTHER SYSTEMS. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE INNER PLANETS ARE CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE OUTER PLANETS AND THE ISOTOPIC CONSTITUENTS AS DETERMINED BY SPECTRAL ANALYSIS AND ON SITE EVIDENCE ( THE JUPITER PROBE BEING FIRST TO MIND) POINT OUT THEORETICAL DISCREPANCIES WITH EVEN AND ODD NUMBERED ISOTOPES THAT PRECLUDE THE STANDARD EVOLUTIONARY MODEL. I SUGGEST THAT RATHER THAN DISMISS DR. MANUEL&#39;S CONCEPTS ONE OUGHT TO FIRST READ AS I HAVE HIS MANY PAPERS ON THE SUBJECT. THEY ARE COMPLEX BUT ONE CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE CLEARLY SOME IRREFUTABLE DATA THAT BACKS HIS CLAIMS IF ONE IS NOT BLINDED BY A KIND OF ARISTOTLEAN LOGIC THAT DEMANDS THAT IF A MAJORITY SAY IT IS WRONG THAN IT IS WRONG&#33; THAT KIND OF ARGUMENT IS NOT SCIENCE FOR IT WERE, WE WOULD STILL BE LIVING ON A FLAT EARTH. MARTIAN MATERIAL WHICH LANDED ON THIS PLANET SUBSTANTIATE PARTICULAR ISOTOPIC COMPOSITIONS THAT ARGUE IN FAVOUR OF A HIGH FE STATE ON THE SUN AS WELL AS SUPPORT THAT THE ISOTOPIC ORIGINS OF THE INNER AND OUTER SOLAR AREAS AS DISPARATE. THE SOLAR WIND IS SO HIGHLY ENRICHED IN FE THAT THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION FOR ITS PRESENCE OTHER THAN THAT ITS CORE SOURCE OF THE SUN IS IN FACT HIGHLY FERROUS. THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE INNER FERROUS/SILICACEOUS PLANETS AND THE OUTER GASEOUS PLANETS CAN BE CLEARLY INTERPRETED AS THE RESULT OF A SECONDARY COALESCENCE OF SOLAR MATERIAL AFTER A SUPERNOVA EVENT WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE PREVIOUS SUN FALLING BACK OR REMAINING AS THE MEDIUM SIZED HIGH IRON CONTAINING CORE AS ITS REMAINDER. THE CONTENT OF THE INNER PLANETS AND THE RESIDUAL MATERIAL IN THE INNER REGIONS BETWEEN JUPITER AND MERCURY...THE BELT OF PLANETESMALS AND METEORIC MATERIAL AS WELL AS THE FOUR INNER PLANETS AND MOONS DEMONSTRATE A VERY DISTINCT DIFFERENCE FROM THE LIGHT ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION AND, LIKELY, CORE-LESS GAS GIANTS SUCH AS JUPITER, SATURN, NEPTUNE AND URANUS. THERE IS ANOTHER SOMEWHAT MORE SUBTLE DISCREPANCY WITH RESPECT TO THE SOLAR COMPOSITION WHICH REALLY THROWS THE STANDARD MODEL INTO A KIND OF DISREPUTE WHICH IS THAT THE THEORETICAL MODEL OF SOLAR ENERGY PRODUCTION SHOULD RESULT IN THE RELEASE OF LARGE NUMBERS OF NEUTRINOS WHICH TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS NOT BEEN EVIDENCED IN SPITE OF COMPLEX METHODOLOGIES TO MEASURE THEM. THE SUDBURY CANADA NEUTRINO COMPLEX WHICH SHOULD HAVE FOUND A CERTAIN NUMBER OF NEUTRINOS DID, IN FACT, NOT FIND THE EXPECTED NUMBER BY A LARGE FACTOR. THERE IS CLEARLY SOMETHING AMISS HERE AND THIS COUPLED WITH THE SOLAR WIND, THE DISPARITY OF ISOTOPIC DISTRIBUTION AND SO FORTH MAKE ME WONDER WHY THERE IS SUCH A HOT REJECTION OUT OF HAND OF DR. MANUEL&#39;S CONSIDERATION. I FEEL AS AN OUTSIDER TO THIS SPECIALISED FIELD THAT THERE ARE PHDs TO PROTECT, RESEARCH GRANTS TO SUPPLANT AND REPUTATIONS TO UPHOLD. THIS IS A COMMON HUMAN TRAIT AND SADLY, SUCH REASONS HAVE SULLIED SCIENCE IN THE PAST AND THE PRESENT WORLD IS NO DIFFERENT REALLY THAN THE TIME OF GALILEO. IN THE END, I SUSPECT THAT DR. MANUEL WILL BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF FUTURE RESEARCH AS A PIONEER RATHER THAN AN ALTERNATIVE TO PRESENT BELIEFS...I USE THE WORD BELIEFS FOR GOOD REASON. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE GENERAL SOLAR MODEL AT ALL&#33;&#33;&#33; IT IS AS UNSUBSTANTIATED AS SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES THAT ALSO HOLD SWAY BUT ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY BASED. AT LEAST DR. MANUEL HAS PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY ON HIS SIDE, SAMPLES OF METEORITES, ISOTOPIC EVIDENCE, THEORETICAL PREDICTIONS OF JUST THOSE EVEN ORDERED ISOTOPES, THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN INNER AND OUTER PLANETS, SOLAR WIND CONSTITUENTS...THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND WHAT DO WE HAVE ON THE OTHER SIDE? A DECIDED LACK OF NEUTRINOS...OOPS THAT GOES ON DR. MANUEL&#39;S SIDE OF THE BALANCE...SORRY. I CANNOT THINK OFF HAND OF ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS THE STANDARD MODEL FOR OUR SOLAR SYSTEM, THANK YOU. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT IT DOES NOT REFLECT OTHER SYSTEMS BUT OUR PARTICULAR SOLAR SYSTEM SEEMS TO BE A FAIRLY RARE FLUKE ...A SOLAR SYSTEM CREATED IN TWO DISTINCT STAGES...ONE OF THE STANDARD MODEL AND BILLIONS OF YEARS LATER AND AFTER A SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION AND DISPERSION OF HYPERSONIC EXPANDING CLOUDS, THE CONDENSATION AND ACCRETION OF REMAINDERS OF THE SOLAR CORE, OF IRON AND SILICATES, NICKEL AND COBALT AND SO FORTH INTO THE INNER PLANETS. WHAT IS SO VERY TERRIBLE ABOUT SUCH A CONCEPT? HOW DOES IT INTERFERE WITH THE UNIVERSE? WHY SHOULD IT TROUBLE THE STANDARD MODEL? WHAT ABOUT THOSE PESKY NEUTRINOS? OH YES, ONE OTHER POINT COMES TO MIND...THE DISCOVERY OF MANY EXTRA SOLAR PLANETS BUT ONLY ONE SYSTEM SO FAR RESEMBLES IN ANY WAY OUR SOLAR SYSTEM...BARELY. PERHAPS, OURS REALLY IS A FLUKE AND THUS, RARE. IN A UNIVERSE OF INFINITIES, THERE ARE MANY OTHERS, NO DOUBT, ALSO WITH IRON RICH SUNS WHOSE FIRES ARE NO LONGER ENRICHED BY HYDROGEN FUSION. DR. MANUEL SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR POINTING OUT THAT SCIENCE IS ALWAYS MUTATING AND ALWAYS ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN OR PROVE WHAT UP TO THAT POINT HAS BEEN INEXPLICABLE. JUST BECAUSE ARISTOTLE CLAIMED THAT A HORSE HAD X NUMBERS OF TEETH...THAT DID NOT MAKE IT TRUE. IT MADE IT A TRUISM. A SCIENTIST HAS NO NEED OF HABITUAL KNOWLEDGE. A TRUE SCIENTIST LOOKS AT THE EVIDENCE...AND COUNTS THE TEETH&#33; YOURS TRULY NEIL FIERTEL

VanderL
2004-Mar-29, 08:37 AM
Hello Neil,
thanks for this overview, for me it reads more easily and helps me understand the detailed isotope discussions up to now. What makes you say that the Sudbury experiment (and Kamland) resulted in the detection of too few neutrino&#39;s; what about the neutrino oscillations that have been trumpeted as proof that the Sun works exactly the way the Standard Model predicts? Did I miss something, or do you think that oscillations don&#39;t occur?

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-29, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by NeilFiertel@Mar 29 2004, 06:17 AM
DR. MANUEL SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR POINTING OUT THAT SCIENCE IS ALWAYS MUTATING AND ALWAYS ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN OR PROVE WHAT UP TO THAT POINT HAS BEEN INEXPLICABLE.
On this point we agree&#33; Dr. Manuel has advanced our study of the isotope abundance data, and presented an interesting model of how to interpret it.

Neil, I do take some exception to being characterized as someone who rejected Dr. Manuel&#39;s ideas out of hand, and did not read his many papers. I took the time to read his works.

This forum thread sounds confrontational, but it also represents an effort to find the ways that the Iron Sun theory still explains things that the more commonly held model does not. As you pointed out, science mutates. In this case that means some old arguments against the common model of the creation or current state of the solar system no longer apply [e.g. solar neutrino count].

In the matter of fairness we are also looking at things that the common model seems to explain, but which Dr. Manuel&#39;s theory does not [e.g. the mass of the sun]. There is very little published about what the Iron Sun theory doesn&#39;t explain, because Dr. Manuel has no incentive to do it, and mainstream astronomers reject his model out of hand. I think here, we&#39;ve done something new, learned a lot, and given Dr. Manuel a receptive forum.

----------------------

As a side thing:


THERE ARE PHDs

I see that your terminal CAN type lower case letters. Would you be willing to make your future posts more readible by using the more customary mixed case format and using paragraphs? Thanks in advance.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-29, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Mar 29 2004, 08:37 AM
What makes you say that the Sudbury experiment (and Kamland) resulted in the detection of too few neutrino&#39;s; what about the neutrino oscillations that have been trumpeted as proof that the Sun works exactly the way the Standard Model predicts? Did I miss something, or do you think that oscillations don&#39;t occur?

There is much confusion about solar neutrino measurements. :D

Without having time to re-read these reports, let me give a quick overview from memory:

The number of solar neutrinos observed in various detectors (1960-2000) varied from about 33% to 67% of the number predicted. B)

Summaries often rounded these off and said 50% of the expected number were observed.

The "Solar Neutrino Puzzle" has been solved (temporarily, it turned out) many times. <_<

The SNO (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory) reports about 35% of the expected number of neutrinos coming from the Sun.

They also report another signal, whose direction is not known, that is approximately twice as large. <_<

They conclude that 1/3 of the solar neutrinos produced actually arrive at Earth. 2/3 "oscillate" into other forms of neutrinos on their journey here. This is the latest solution to the "Solar Neutrino Puzzle". :blink:

The iron-rich model of the Sun predicts that the number of solar neutrinos produced will be <38% of the number predicted by the standard model of a hydrogen-filled Sun.

Thus, we suspect that this latest solution to the "Solar Neutrino Puzzle" may be temporary. Neutrinos may not, in fact, oscillate.

See http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2004/om-so...ar-neutrino.pdf (http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2004/om-solar-neutrino.pdf)

With kind regards,

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

PS - I hope to find time to respond to some of the other postings later today.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-29, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Mar 29 2004, 12:10 PM
I took the time to read his works.

In the matter of fairness we are also looking at things that the common model seems to explain, but which Dr. Manuel&#39;s theory does not [e.g. the mass of the sun].
Thanks, antoniseb, for your message. :D

You say, "I took the time to read his works."

Yes, but you sometimes respond too quickly - before you understand.

Years of planning go into a measurement; months (sometimes years) go into interpreting the results and writing the report.

I went, for example, to a Professor of Math and Statistics to figure out how to calculate the probability that an equation defined by isotope ratios ratios in the solar wind would by chance select from the photosphere the same seven even-numbered elements that comprise 99% of the matarial in ordinary meteorites. The answer is <2e-33

You did not understand the calculation and responded with "My point is that your 2e-33 chance of coincidence looks wrong."

Now you suggest that my theory does not account for the mass of the Sun.

Really, antoniseb, do you think the mass of the Sun was unknown to Fred Hoyle and all the others who thought the Sun was iron-rich until after the end of World War II?

Please, antoniseb, slow down. Take the time to study.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Mar-29, 10:45 PM
I have slowed down on this thread for now. I can&#39;t really say much more until I see some more data.

Concerning your criticisms in your last post:

Years of planning go into a measurement; months (sometimes years) go into interpreting the results and writing the report.
Yes, I respect that, and that is part of why I am enjoying this thread. Thanks for your years of effort.

Yes, but you sometimes respond too quickly - before you understand.
In most cases, if I do that, I am looking for a clarification, so as to more quickly understand what you mean. If the irony of a comment doesn&#39;t come through as a request for clarity, it is my fault as a communicator. Sorry.

I went, for example, to a Professor of Math and Statistics... 99% of the matarial in ordinary meteorites. The answer is <2e-33
I support your conclusion that there is probably a connection between the element abundances in the solar wind and the abundances in Harkin&#39;s common meteorites. That being said, I believe that what exactly you were giving the probability of was never clearly stated in this thread.
Had you said something along the lines of "The heavy elements, which collectively make up a few parts per million of the solar wind, and photosphere are the same elements that make up 99% of the matarial in stony [or iron... which is it?] meteorites" That might have conveyed the idea without obfuscating it with a number in a hard-to-read format.
It would have been better still if you had been able to explicitly say that the element abundances [and perhaps isotope abundances] matched too, but your statement just expressed it collectively, which certainly weakens the conclusion. Then again, the uncertainties in the abundences in the solar wind are great enough, and the abundances in meteorites varied enough that you couldn&#39;t really make a strong claim that way.

do you think the mass of the Sun was unknown to Fred Hoyle and all the others
Actually, I also have a great deal of respect for Fred Hoyle et. al. but we must remember that they did astronomy during an era when a number within two powers of ten was considered poor but acceptable. Our new age of precision astronomy is ruling out a lot of ideas we used to have, such as Hoyle&#39;s "Steady State Universe".

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-29, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Mar 29 2004, 10:45 PM

I went, for example, to a Professor of Math and Statistics...* 99% of the matarial in ordinary meteorites. The answer is <2e-33
I support your conclusion that there is probably a connection between the element abundances in the solar wind and the abundances in Harkin&#39;s common meteorites. That being said, I believe that what exactly you were giving the probability of was never clearly stated in this thread.
Had you said something along the lines of "The heavy elements, which collectively make up a few parts per million of the solar wind, and photosphere are the same elements that make up 99 percent stony meteorites" That might have conveyed the idea without obfuscating it with a number in a hard-to-read format.
It would have been better still if you had been able to explicitly say that the element abundances [and perhaps isotope abundances] matched too, but your statement just expressed it collectively, which certainly weakens the conclusion. Then again, the uncertainties in the abundences in the solar wind are great enough, and the abundances in meteorites varied enough that you couldn&#39;t really make a strong claim that way.
Thanks, antoniseb. :D

I appreciate that you are serving as moderator and posting several messages most days. ;)

My communication skills are admitedly weak. :blink:

Do we now agree on the following?

When the empirical equation defined by fractionation ( f ) across isotopes in the solar wind is applied to the elemental abundance pattern in the photosphere, it suggests that the solar interior consists mostly of seven heavy elements, which collectively make up a few parts per million of the solar wind and photosphere, but make up 99 percent of stony meteorites.

The probability that this agreement is fortuitous is 2e-33.

With kind regards,

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

Littlemews
2004-Mar-30, 12:25 AM
If this theory is ture, does that mean the Sun is more massive than we know beofre?

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-30, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Littlemews@Mar 30 2004, 12:25 AM
If this theory is true, does that mean the Sun is more massive than we knew before?
No, Littlemews, the mass of the Sun is well known. :D

We know a lot about the surface of the Sun too, Littlemews, but nobody knows much about its interior. ;)

There are, of course solar models, some based on absolutely absurd assumptions. <_<

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-30, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by NeilFiertel@Mar 29 2004, 06:17 AM
WHAT IS SO VERY TERRIBLE ABOUT SUCH A CONCEPT? HOW DOES IT INTERFERE WITH THE UNIVERSE? WHY SHOULD IT TROUBLE THE STANDARD MODEL? WHAT ABOUT THOSE PESKY NEUTRINOS? OH YES, ONE OTHER POINT COMES TO MIND...THE DISCOVERY OF MANY EXTRA SOLAR PLANETS BUT ONLY ONE SYSTEM SO FAR RESEMBLES IN ANY WAY OUR SOLAR SYSTEM...BARELY.

DR. MANUEL SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR POINTING OUT THAT SCIENCE IS ALWAYS MUTATING AND ALWAYS ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN OR PROVE WHAT UP TO THAT POINT HAS BEEN INEXPLICABLE.

JUST BECAUSE ARISTOTLE CLAIMED THAT A HORSE HAD X NUMBERS OF TEETH...THAT DID NOT MAKE IT TRUE. IT MADE IT A TRUISM. A SCIENTIST HAS NO NEED OF HABITUAL KNOWLEDGE. A TRUE SCIENTIST LOOKS AT THE EVIDENCE...AND COUNTS THE TEETH&#33; YOURS TRULY NEIL FIERTEL
Thanks, Neil, for your comments, your support, and your kindness&#33; :D

When Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I first presented (1976 AGU meeting in Washington, DC, about 28 years ago) the idea that the solar system formed directly from the debris of a supernova, two well-known astrophysicists in the audience (from Harvard and the University of Chicago) told us:

1. Supernovae always explode isotropically, in all directions, not axially. <_<

2. It is impossible to form a planetary system from supernova debris. <_<

However these truism, like the number of teeth in Aristotle&#39;s horse, did not fit later observations: ;)

1. The Hubble telescope found that many stars explode axially. :P

2. The first planetary system found beyond our own was rocky, Earth-like planets orbiting a pulsar (collapsed supernova core). No other extra-solar planets so closely resemble Earth&#33; :P

Science is always mutating. It was before I was born; it will continue after I am gone. But observations seldom shake the faith of those inclined to believe otherwise. :blink:

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-30, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Mar 29 2004, 10:45 PM
Actually, I also have a great deal of respect for Fred Hoyle et. al. but we must remember that they did astronomy during an era when a number within two powers of ten was considered poor but acceptable. Our new age of precision astronomy is ruling out a lot of ideas we used to have, such as Hoyle&#39;s "Steady State Universe".
Interesting, antoniseb. :D

I think "our new age of precision astronomy" is an illusion marketed by modelers of astronomy. But solar astronomy is now subject to measurements and must therefore, like the other sciences, always mutate.

It is interesting that you assign Fred Hoyle to an earlier era, prior to "precision astronomy."

In his autobiography, "Home is Where the Wind Blows", Fred Hoyle takes credit for the currently popular model of a hydrogen-filled Sun. He reports that he, Sir Eddington, and others believed the Sun was iron-rich until after the end of World War II.

Fred Hoyle expresses amazement at the ease with which this mutation in science occurred. Perhaps opponents realized that, unlike the number of teeth in Aristotle&#39;s horse, the interior of the Sun was not accessible for observation. What measurement in the mid-1940s would tell if it were iron, hydrogen, or plum pudding?

It turned out, antoniseb, that line spectra told us the composition of the solar surface and isotope measurements from the Apollo mission told us how severely this material was fractionated.

That is why we are having this discussion on the Iron Sun.

With kind regards,

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

PS - I have not finished the list of mutation-inducing observations after 1960, but I have background information on major mutations in science, including Fred Hoyle, up to the start of the space age. Can I go ahead and post those?

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-30, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Duane@Mar 26 2004, 09:22 PM
Regarding the trapping of Xe2, I note that A.V. Fisenko and L.F. Semjonova of the Vernadsky Institute in Russia addressed the formation (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC99/pdf/1090.pdf) of this element in carbon, suggesting it is, in fact, the result of the shockwave arising from a supernova explosion.
Thanks for pointing out the Russian report, Duane. :D

It is a little difficult to understand because of the Russian-> English translation, but basicly it confirms:
1.) The association of excess Xe-136 with light elements, in this case the isotopically normal carbon that comprises diamonds in the Allende meteorite. ;)
2.) The fact that a supernova made the excess Xe-136 by rapid neutron capture in a supernova. ;)

These were two of the reasons we cited in our 1977 Science paper for rejecting Anders&#39; hypothesis that the excess Xe-136 came from fission of a superheavy element. :rolleyes:

The Russians do not mention that the Galileo mission found excess Xe-136 with abundant light elements in the atmosphere of Jupiter.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

Are you suggesting Jupiter contains a record of this supernova shockwave?

Analyses of meteorites show that Te, Ba, Nd and Sm also have excesses of the isotopes made by rapid neutron capture - - - in the same sites that contain excess Xe-136. ;)

Unfortunately the Galileo spacecraft could not penetrate to a depth to see if Te, Ba, Nd and Sm in Jupiter also contain excess isotopes from rapid neutron capture. :blink:

I suspect it does.

With kind regards,

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

VanderL
2004-Mar-30, 03:50 PM
Hello Oliver,

As Tim Thompson pointed out

As for the neutrinos, Dr. Manuel is behind the times. There was a solar neutrino problem, but there is not one anymore. We now know that the sun produces the full flux of neutrinos that standard theory predicts, and that full flux has been observed, as the results from Sudbury & Super-Kamiokande show. Furthermore, evidence from the KAMLAND experiments indicate oscillation in reactor produced neutrinos, so there is laboratory experience to support both the theory & observation of solar neutrinos.


There is reason to believe that neutrino oscillation exists (shown experimentally on Earth, KamLAND), although there is of course no direct measurement possible to show that:
1. Neutrino&#39;s are produced in the Sun&#39;s core that
2. subsequently change to another flavor
3. and can be detected on Earth, without oscillating back towards the original flavor

If we presume that oscillations don&#39;t exist, we need to explain the KamLAND experiment and then there is a major problem with the Standard Solar Model and the Iron Sun model can be true.
If we suppose that oscillations do exist, can both models be correct?

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-Mar-30, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 30 2004, 06:58 AM
PS - I have not finished the list of mutation-inducing observations after 1960, but I have background information on major mutations in science, including Fred Hoyle, up to the start of the space age. Can I go ahead and post those?
Sure&#33; by all means, post them in the style and sequence you think would best communicate your message.

abyssalroamer
2004-Mar-30, 05:09 PM
I don&#39;t think "mutation" is a good analogy to be using. An organism mutates after it exists as a discreet and unique entity. The ideas in science and the crucial epiphanies are part of a process that never pauses long enough to be defined, except with very broad fuzzy strokes. Very few people who have shaken up the sciences see that the result of their paradigm shift is the be all-end all of that science. Not even for a moment. We linger at some points because the next step is shrouded in darkness, but the prevailing explanation is not taken as a discreet truth, only a foothold in the ongoing process. The public, and text books, and armchair gurus have the luxury of making moments in the process unique. There is nothing in anything I have done in science, that has stood still long enough for me to sigh with contentment. What confounds us all the more is the very things that the sciences are trying to describe are changing. They may be mutating, but the science isn&#39;t.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-30, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by abyssalroamer@Mar 30 2004, 05:09 PM
I don&#39;t think "mutation" is a good analogy to be using. An organism mutates after it exists as a discreet and unique entity. The ideas in science and the crucial epiphanies are part of a process that never pauses long enough to be defined, except with very broad fuzzy strokes. Very few people who have shaken up the sciences see that the result of their paradigm shift is the be all-end all of that science. Not even for a moment. We linger at some points because the next step is shrouded in darkness, but the prevailing explanation is not taken as a discreet truth, only a foothold in the ongoing process. The public, and text books, and armchair gurus have the luxury of making moments in the process unique. There is nothing in anything I have done in science, that has stood still long enough for me to sigh with contentment. What confounds us all the more is the very things that the sciences are trying to describe are changing. They may be mutating, but the science isn&#39;t.
I agree, abyssalroamer, that no paradigm shift is the end-all of that science. :D

Mutations seem to be an on-going process, perhaps occuring more rapidley in some areas of science than in large living organisms. :D

However, simple bacteria mutate rapidly in response to new antibiotics.
John Reynolds developed a new mass spectrometer in 1956 that would later:
1.) Confirm major parts of the B2FH 1957 paper on element synthesis in stars, and
2.) Point to parts of the B2FH paper that might need modification.

To the young, the concept of a hydrogen-filled Sun seems like an organism that has existed as a discreet and unique entity. But it too is "only a foothold in the ongoing process."

It is, of course, difficult to see mutations over a short time period. Tomorrow I will post changes (mutations) in scientific opinions during the 1800s and early 1900s that are relevant to this discussion on the Sun.

With kind regards,

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

Tim Thompson
2004-Mar-31, 02:27 AM
On Solar Neutrinos

There is a more complete discussion of this on my web page; Solar Fusion & Neutrinos (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html). For now a simple sketch will have to do. The original experiments were unable to distinguish which neutrinos detected had come from which anticipated fusion reaction. The total observed was about 1/3 of the expected total, if the sun were powered by nuclear fusion. At the time, this was a serious problem, since no other energy source for the sun seemed available. But later generations of neutrino detector were able to make that distinction, and the neutrino problem became the neutrino problems, plural; detectors which should have detected the same number of neutrinos didn&#39;t, and the energy spectrum was altered from theoretical expectation as well, aside from the old problem of too few neutrinos.

The attempt to solve the problem came down to a contest between the astrophysical solution (changing the model for the solar interior), and the particle physics solution (changing the behavior of neutrinos). Helioseismology provided solid confirmation that the astrophysical models of the solar interior were correct, to the best of our ability to observe. Meanwhile, the MSW effect in particle physics provided a theoretical solution from the particle physics family. Neutrinos, if they had a non-zero rest mass (contrary to standard particle physics models), could "oscillate" from one kind to another, in the presence of mass, or in a vacuum. All of the neutrino detectors were designed to see only electron neutrinos, since they were the only kind generated inside the sun. If solar neutrinos did oscillate, then detectors sensitive to the other kinds of neutrinos, and in the anticipated energy range, had to be put in service, in an effort to observe directly, the missing neutrinos. If they were observed, then the theory of neutrino oscillation would be consistent with observation. If they were not observed, then the search would have to continue, for a solution to the neutrino problem.

The current status of the investigations is quite impressive. The detected flux of p-p neutrinos (those from the proton-proton fusion reaction that is the main source of solar energy) is 1.02 ± 0.03 of the theoretical value, a strong match. This is the most important result, since the pp reaction is the sun&#39;s main driving force in standard theory. For beryllium-7 neutrinos, the factor is about 0.91, but with very large uncertainties, and likewise for boron-8, which is about 0.88 ± 0.27 (see What do we (not) know theoretically about solar neutrino fluxes? (http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402114), J.N. Bahcall & M.H. Pinsonneault, Physical Review Letters 92(12): paper no. 121301, 26 March 2004).

The standard theory is quite consistent with these observations, especially in the case of pp neutrinos, where the match is essentially exact, with small uncertainty. The side reactions, involving beryllium & boron, still present issues because of the large experimental uncertainties, which makes it hard to argue one way or another based on these data. Although, one can point out that the beryllium & boron data do not obviously contradict the standard model.

Furthermore, it&#39;s not just the numbers that add up. The detectors are sensitive to the direction the neutrinos come from, and that direction is now known to correlate with the solar elevation angle (the "day-night" asymmetry). And the total flux is now known to be correlated to the Earth-sun distance, a seasonal signal induced by the eccentricity of Earth&#39;s orbit around the sun. Both of these correlations with Earth-sun motion show that the neutrinos are indeed solar neutrinos, and not neutrinos from some other source, which just happen to coincidently add up to theoretical expectations from the sun (see Precise measurement of the solar neutrino day-night and seasonal variation in Super-Kamiokande-I (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRVDAQ000069000001011104000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes), M.B. Smy, et al., Physical Review D 69, 011104, January 1, 2004).

So, the bottom line at the moment, as far as the standard theory is concerned, looks like this: Observed pp neutrino flux = theoretically expected flux
Observed 7Be neutrino flux = theoretically expected flux (large uncertainty)
Observed 8B neutrino flux <= theoreticalty expected flux (large iuncertainty)
Signal correlates with solar zenith angle
Signal correlates with Earth-sun distance

Now ...

OM: The iron-rich model of the Sun predicts that the number of solar neutrinos produced will be <38% of the number predicted by the standard model of a hydrogen-filled Sun. Thus, we suspect that this latest solution to the "Solar Neutrino Puzzle" may be temporary. Neutrinos may not, in fact, oscillate. See http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2004/om-so...ar-neutrino.pdf

I am going to assume that the "<38%" applies to pp neutrinos, because the iron sun hypothesis holds that the sun is powered mostly by neutron emission in the core, and not by pp fusion. If that is so, then the evident observation of 100% of the expected neutrinos seems to be a significant problem to deal with. One cannot simply dismiss the whole thing with "we think they are wrong", and leave it at that.

As for the paper, I have read it.The conclusion reads as follows (where "ssm" is the standard solar model): If the ssm is correct, there is a clear deficit of solar neutrinos and the neutral current observed in the SNO experiment likely originates in the Sun. If the new solar model is correct, the solar neutrinos detected seem to represent the bulk (>87%) of those produced in the Sun and the neutral current observed in the SNO experiment is likely of non-solar origin.

Despite the title, the short paper does not even mention solar neutrinos, except as quoted here in the conclusion. So all I can say is that the reported results certainly contradict the statement that there is a "clear deficit of solar neutrinos" if the standard model is correct. Furthermore, correlation with solar direction & distance makes it hard for the neutrinos to be of non-solar origin, even if the standard model is dead wrong. And this all means that not only is there a standard model to deal with, but quite independently, there are experimental data to deal with.

I would say that, since the neutrinos are there, the hypothesis which says they are not there, is the one most likely to be wrong, and that&#39;s the "iron sun" hypothesis. I can&#39;t think of any physical reason for accepting isotope fractionation as being more diagnostic of the solar interior, than the solar neutrinos.

And I will add one more comment. The solution to the solar neutrino problem, as it now stands, has indeed overthrown a major, standard theory. Not the astrophysical theory of the sun, but the particle theory of neutrinos, which had firmly held that neutrinos did not have a non-zero rest mass. The neutrino oscillation theory forces the contrary, that all neutrinos have a non-zero rest mass. So those who favor bringing down standard theories can take heart.

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-31, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Mar 31 2004, 02:27 AM
As for the paper, I have read it.* The conclusion reads as follows (where "ssm" is the standard solar model): If the ssm is correct, there is a clear deficit of solar neutrinos and the neutral current observed in the SNO experiment likely originates in the Sun.* If the new solar model is correct, the solar neutrinos detected seem to represent the bulk (>87%) of those produced in the Sun and the neutral current observed in the SNO experiment is likely of non-solar origin.

Despite the title, the short paper does not even mention solar neutrinos, except as quoted here in the conclusion.* So all I can say is that the reported results certainly contradict the statement that there is a "clear deficit of solar neutrinos" if the standard model is correct.*
Thanks, Tim, for your comments. :D

You are quite right. The paper should have said "solar electron neutrinos" instead of "solar neutrinos."

You obviously know a lot about neutrinos. In fact, your comments and your web site remind me of John Bahcall&#39;s. ;)

He too was convinced the solar neutrino puzzle had been solved and additional measurements were not needed. I asked about using the Homestake Mine (where Cl-37 was first used to detect neutrino coming from the Sun) to look for the Cl-35 capture of low-energy anti-neutrinos coming from neutron decay in the Sun&#39;s core.

Cl-35 + anti-neutrino -> S-35 (87 day)

I understand the Homestake Mine is now being flooded. So I went to the IV INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NON-ACCELERATOR NEW PHYSICS, in Dubna, RUSSIA last year to try to persuade others to use Cl-35 as a detector to test the model of an iron-rich Sun. My overheads are available on-line:

http://nanp.dubna.ru/talks/manuel.pdf

For the sake of readers, Tim, can we agree that measurements find about 1/3 of the number of "solar electron neutrinos" that are being produced if the standard solar model is correct?

We may have to disagree on the value of isotope versus neutrino measurements. Isotopes are more massive and easier to measure, in my opinion, but I may have a genetic bias, leading back to Francis Aston, John Reynolds, and Paul Kuroda. . :rolleyes:

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Mar-31, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Mar 30 2004, 04:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Mar 30 2004, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Mar 30 2004, 06:58 AM
PS - I have not finished the list of mutation-inducing observations after 1960, but I have background information on major mutations in science, including Fred Hoyle, up to the start of the space age. Can I go ahead and post those?
Sure&#33; by all means, post them in the style and sequence you think would best communicate your message.[/b][/quote]
Major Mutations in the Science of Element Synthesis and Stellar Energy (1815-1959)

Science is a dynamic, exciting frontier - - - always evolving. The search for truth is part of the spiritual journey of life, ideally available for all to enjoy. It involves opening the horse’s mouth and counting his teeth, as Neil Fiertel notes in this web string, rather than passively accepting popular teachings as proverbs or truisms. Here is a brief outline of major events in 1815-1959 that guided the evolution of science in the field I was to enter in 1960, when I started studying the abundance of isotopes in samples of the solar system.

1. William Prout (1815) noted that the atomic weights of elements known at the time were integer multiples of the atomic weight of hydrogen. He hypothesized that the atoms of other elements are groupings of various numbers of hydrogen atoms. This set the stage for the concept of hydrogen fusion to make other elements.

2. Albert Einstein (1905) suggested that mass and energy are different manifestations of the same thing, E = mc2. Solar luminosity, the atomic bomb, nuclear reactors, and the hydrogen bomb are modern examples of mass conversion into energy. For example:

4 H-1 (m = 4.0313 amu) -> He-4 (m = 4.0026 amu) + E = mc2 = 26.734 MeV

Only a tiny traction of mass is converted to energy - - - about 0.7 % in the above fusion reaction; about 0.1% in fission of heavy elements in Atomic bombs and nuclear reactors.

3. Francis Aston (1913) noted that the exception to Prout&#39;s hypothesis, illustrated by neon, might indicate the presence of atoms of different weight, i.e., isotopes. He showed the atomic weight of neon was lighter after diffusing through clay pipe walls. Aston later developed the mass spectrograph, precisely measured the masses of isotopes, and expressed the results in terms of tiny deviations from Prout’s hypothesis – Aston’s nuclear packing fraction, (f):

f = [M (mass) – A (mass number)]/ A (mass number)

For H-1, f = + 0.007825
For He-4, f = + 0.0026
For C-12, f = 0.000000
For O-16, f = - 0.005085
For Fe-56, f = - 0.006506

4. William Harkings (1917) used wet chemical analyses of 443 meteorites to show that:

1.) Even-numbered elements are more abundant than odd numbered ones.
2.) Seven even-numbered elements comprise 99% of the material in meteorites.
3.) Element synthesis generated more material as even-numbered elements, perhaps “because the odd numbered elements are less stable”

5. Kazuo Kuroda (1936), a 19-year old student, was excited by Aston’s lecture at the University of Tokyo and decided to study nuclear and solar energy and the origin of the chemical elements. After being relocated to the U.S., he predicted the occurrence of natural chain reactions in uranium minerals in the remote past [J. Chem. Phys 25, 781-782 (1956)]. The French Atomic Energy Commission finally confirmed the existence of this once unpopular concept [M. Neuilly, et al. Acad. Sci. C. R. 275, 1847-1849 (1972)].

6. Edward Teller and others (1943) showed that hydrogen fusion converts the largest fraction of mass into energy, E = mc2. Similar research on the use of fission and fusion for weapons was underway in other countries during World War II.

7. Fred Hoyle notes that the model of an iron-rich Sun was suddenly abandoned, with little or no debate, after World War II in favor of his suggestion of a hydrogen filled Sun

8. John Reynolds (1956) reported a new high sensitivity mass spectro-meter for isotope measurements [Rev. Sci. Instruments 27, 928-934 (1956)]. This would later reveal fresh, unmixed debris from stellar element synthesis in meteorites and planets, confirming most of the B2FH paper and showing a possible error in the last paragraph (below).

9. Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge, William Fowler and Fred Hoyle -B2FH (1957) showed that all isotopes of the elements could be made in their observed proportions in a star initially containing only hydrogen. They suggested eight different types of stellar nuclear reactions that might reasonably occur in different stages of stellar evolution, up to and including a terminal supernova explosion.

1.) Hydrogen burning
2.) Helium burning
3.) Alpha process
4.) e-process (equilibrium)
5.) s-process (slow neutron capture)
6.) r-process (rapid neutron capture)
7.) p-process (rapid proton capture or neutron evaporation)
8.) x-process (to make loosely bound nuclei of D, Li, B and Be)

To fit the elemental abundance of the Sun’s photosphere, they assumed the products of stellar nucleosynthesis were ejected into the interstellar medium and re-distributed on a cosmic scale [“Synthesis of elements in stars” Rev. Mod. Physics 29, 547-650 (1957)].
--------------------
Prelude to 1960:

The onion-skin model of a pre-supernova star (astronomy textbooks) illustrates the end of stellar evolution.

Heavy elements (like Te, Xe, Ba, Nd and Sm - made during stellar evolution by the s-process) may exist in all layers of the star.

Light elements, like H, He, and C, exist only in the outer stellar layers. They cannot exist in the deep interior of the star, where elevated temperatures quickly fuse together nuclei with a small positive charge to make heavier elements like S, Fe, and Ni.

In the supernova explosion, neutrons and protons are rapidly added to nuclei in some regions of the star. This may produce a link between isotope abundances of heavy elements - like Te, Xe, Ba, Nd and Sm - with elemental abundances of light elements - like H, He, and C.
--------------------

Thanks, antoniseb, for allowing me to post this background information here. :D

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Mar-31, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 31 2004, 02:48 PM
Thanks, antoniseb, for allowing me to post this background information here.
Two quick things:
1. It&#39;s not that I&#39;m allowing you to post here, I have no say in the matter. I encourage you to post this information here as its made for a very interesting thread of discussion.
2. Thanks for a nice summary of 1815-1960 in this field. This looks like a nice basis to provide useful terminology for the things you&#39;ll present later.

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-01, 02:53 AM
More on Solar Neutrinos

OM (with reference to John Bahcall (http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/)): He too was convinced the solar neutrino puzzle had been solved and additional measurements were not needed. ...

Let us not get too carried away. Certainly Bahcall thinks that the solar neutrino problem is solved, or pretty close to it. But he certainly never suggested that "additional measurements were not needed", nor would any sane scientist at this point.

OM: For the sake of readers, Tim, can we agree that measurements find about 1/3 of the number of "solar electron neutrinos" that are being produced if the standard solar model is correct?

Not when phrashed that way. It is in fact very important to discriminate between neutrinos that are generated by the 3 different mechanisms: (1) proton-proton fusion, (2) boron fusion (proton in, neutrino & beryllium-7 out), and (3) beryllium decay (beryllium-7 decays to beryllium-8, emitting a neutrino; the unstable beryllium-8 falls apart into 2 alpha particles really fast).

If I do this image thing correctly, you should now see a jpeg image that shows why this is important (if it screws up, try this: http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/SNviewgraphs/I...sexperiment.jpg (http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/SNviewgraphs/Introduction/theoryvsexperiment.jpg) ). It&#39;s an updated version of the diagram on my webpage, which I guess I&#39;ll have to fix someday soon.

http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/SNviewgraphs/Introduction/theoryvsexperiment.jpg

The chart shows the results of the 5 kinds of neutrino detection experiments. Note that the 3rd bar graph from the left, which combines SAGE, GALLEX & GNO, can be interpreted as seeing all of the pp fusion neutrinos, and few or none of the others. If so, then this experiment is seeing 100% of at least one class of solar electron neutrino, not 1/3, and it makes a difference that they are pp neutrinos, since the pp fusion reaction is the chief energy producer in the standard model. Granted that it&#39;s a matter of interpretation, but since the other experiments are not sensitive to pp neutrinos, and show a clear deficit of B & Be neutrinos, it&#39;s not an unreasonable interpretation, I think.

That said, I am willing to agree that the experiments are clearly detecting a deficit in B & Be neutrinos, ranging from 1/3 to 1/2 (roughly). But I am not willing to agree that there was ever a significant deficit in pp electron neutrinos.

OM: We may have to disagree on the value of isotope versus neutrino measurements. Isotopes are more massive and easier to measure, in my opinion, ...

I don&#39;t doubt that they are easier to measure. But my point is a causal or physcial connection. Neutrinos, as hard as they are to measure, carry the compensating reward that they are diagnostic of the real-time, physical state of the solar interior. But the isotope ratio measurements, even if all entirely correct, have no evident logical connection to the solar interior, that I can see.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-01, 04:29 AM
Thank you, Tim, for the message and for pointing out my error. :D

You are quite right, it was very wrong for me to report my impression of John Bahcall&#39;s reply when I asked him in 2002 about the possibility of using the Homestake Mine to detect low-energy anti-neutrinos from neutron decay in the Sun. Mea culpa.

I have since found his message (15 June 2002). His response was not positive, but the phrase you quote - "additional measurements were not needed" - is not a quote from John Bahcall&#39;s message to me.

To avoid confusing the readers with unnecessary details of solar neutrino measurements, I will try to summarize the John Bahcall diagram that you posted. Please correct me if I&#39;m wrong.

Reading from left to right across this diagram of solar electron neutrino measurements (i.e., excluding only the bar graphs on the far right), the percent of solar electron neutrinos detected (if the standard solar model is correct) is:
33% (Cl in the Homestake Mine)
48% (Super K detector)
55% (Kamioka detector)
55% (SAGE detector)
55% (GALLEX + GNO detectors)
35% (SNO detector)

The smallest statistical error is on the last number (35%). Although you and I cannot agree on wording for a summary of these measurements, I am confident readers can come to their own conclusion about the utility of neutrino measurements from these results.

With kind regards,

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

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-02, 03:36 AM
Comments on Elemental Abundances in the Sun

The bottom line is that astronomers & astrophysicists abandoned the early models of the sun, in favor of the mostly hydrogen models, because they could never reconcile the mostly heavy element models with the observed brightness of the sun. It was customary to think that the sun was made out of the same stuff as the planets, but there was no physical reason for doing so.

A star is a delicate balancing act. Outward pressure from the high internal temperature tries to blow the star apart, while the inward pressure due to gravity tries to smash the star inot, a thimble. The resulting equilibrium configuration is what we call a star. The inward pressure is fixed by the mass of the star, which usually does not significantly change even over long periods of time (for main sequence stars). But the internal temperature can & does change; if it goes up, the star expands, and if it goes down, the star contracts. This kind of thermal instability is the root cause for pulsations in some classes of variable star.

If the interior of a star is dominated by heavy element atoms, then the core temperature must be high. That in turn means the star must be bright. The sun is too dim, given its mass, if it is to be made out of heavy elements. So, there must be a lot of hydrogen. By the time that Eddington wrote his landmark book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521337089/qid=1080872248/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9845863-7778524?v=glance&s=books) (1926, revised in 1930; I have the old Dover reprint of the 1930 edition), it was already understood by Eddington that the old models were not physically tenable. He notes in his book, that a mixture of 15 hydrogen atoms to one iron atom, would suffice to balance Capella (section 169), and that about half of that relative abundance of hydrogen would do for the Sun.

Eddington continued to study the problem, and in 1932 he published a paper on the hydrogen content of the stars (The hydrogen content of the stars (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1932MNRAS..92..471E&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f04786), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 92, p.471-481, April 1932). In solving for the hydrogen abundance inside a star, he had discovered that there was more than one solution. On page 472 of that paper, Eddington tells us the following: "For each star there are two solutions - two possible proportions of hydrogen consistent with the observed luminosity. In one solution the star is chiefly hydrogen (about 99½ percent) with only a trace of other elements. The other solution, which rightly or wrongly I have asumed to be the more probable, gives approximately 33 percent hydrogen in the Sun, Capella, Algol and Krueger 60.". His comment is noteworthy for the fact that he offers no fundamental, physical reason for favoring the 33 percent option. He did it because it was the custom of the time, not because he had a good reason. And he did realize even then, that a star could be as much as 99½% hydrogen.

There was much work on this problem during the 30&#39;s & 40&#39;s, and it was Henry Norris Russell who finally made the determination that the sun & stars had to be dominated by hydrogen, in his paper On the Composition of the Sun&#39;s Atmosphere (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929ApJ....70...11R&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f00022), Astrophysical Journal, vol. 70, p.11-82, July 1929. This paper is worth noting because Prof. Manuel offers a quote from thsi paper in his own Solar Abundance of Elements (http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/solarabundance2001.pdf) (a PDF file, which has surprisingly little to say about the title subject). Prof. Manual tells us that the hydrogen rich model was adopted, despite Russell&#39;s comment that "The calculated abundance of hydrogen in the sun&#39;s atmosphere is almost incredibly great" (p. 70). However, if we read on, we see that Russell nonetheless adopts the incredibly great abundance. Indeed, after noting other objections to the various attempts to model the sun, he points out that they all go away, if only we assume that the sun really consists mainly of hydrogen (p. 71). He concludes in the abstract that the relative abundances in the solar atmosphere (by volume) for hydrogen, helium, oxygen, "metallic vapors" (i.e., everything else), and free electrons are in the proportions 60:2:2:1:0.8, respectively.

By 1931 Russell offers the opinion that, "Hydrogen is so abundant in the atmospheres of the stars that one might expect it to be abundant all through them. If present in suitable proportion it migth remove the serious discrepency between the &#39;physical&#39; and &#39;astronomical&#39; values of the absorption coefficient." (Notes on the constitution of the stars (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1931MNRAS..91..951R&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f00022), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 91, p.951-966, June 1931). So we can see the move in that direction already in 1931, and it continued so through the 1930&#39;s

So I&#39;m out of typing time & have to go. My point here is that the early astrophysicists knew quite well that the "mostly heavy elements" model for the sun presented real problems that they could not reconcile with observation. They adopted the now standard mostly hydrogen (and helium) model because it solved that problem. So, if one wants to champion a return to the "mostly heavy elements" model, one must come up with a solution, an explanation for the low temperature & brightness of the sun.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-02, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Apr 2 2004, 03:36 AM
Eddington continued to study the problem, and in 1932 ....... Eddington tells us the following: "For each star there are two solutions - two possible proportions of hydrogen consistent with the observed luminosity. In one solution the star is chiefly hydrogen (about 99½ percent) with only a trace of other elements. The other solution, which rightly or wrongly I have asumed to be the more probable, gives approximately 33 percent hydrogen in the Sun, Capella, Algol and Krueger 60.".

His comment is noteworthy for the fact that he offers no fundamental, physical reason for favoring the 33 percent option. He did it because it was the custom of the time, not because he had a good reason. And he did realize even then, that a star could be as much as 99½% hydrogen.

By 1931 Russell offers the opinion that, "Hydrogen is so abundant in the atmospheres of the stars that one might expect it to be abundant all through them. If present in suitable proportion it migth remove the serious discrepency between the &#39;physical&#39; and &#39;astronomical&#39; values of the absorption coefficient." So we can see the move in that direction already in 1931, and it continued so through the 1930&#39;s.
Thank you, Tim, for your comments and the quotes from Eddington and Russell in the early 1930s. :D

Those will be help readers understand the history of solar models. ;)

Later measurements convinced us the model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is obsolete. :blink:
http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

I will be posting those post-B2FH measurements here. :rolleyes:

In the interest of fairness, I think the main spokesman for the hydrogen-filled Sun, John Bahcall, should be invited to consider the results and participate in the discussion.

Do you want to do that, or do you want me to? :unsure:

With kind regards,

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

VanderL
2004-Apr-02, 04:31 PM
I don&#39;t care who of you would do that but by all means, if he is willing to share his comments let him join the forum. Great idea Oliver,

Cheers.

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-02, 08:47 PM
OM: In the interest of fairness, I think the main spokesman for the hydrogen-filled Sun, John Bahcall, should be invited to consider the results and participate in the discussion.

I have no problem asking him.

Additional comments on the history of stellar/solar physics

But I do want to complete my thoughts on stellar evolution, a subject I have been interested in for a long time.

In the beginning, there were two big problems understanding the sun (and by proxy, the other stars). One was the source of energy that keeps the sun going, and the other was the "opacity discrepency". The third big problem, the solar neutrino problem, came along much later.

The energy source problem has its roots in the knowledge from geology that the Earth is a very old place (billions of years, and not merely millions). But physicists could not come up with a source that would last that long. The old idea that the source of solar energy was gravitational collapse was studied by Lord Kelvin (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Thomson.html) in the late 1800&#39;s and early 1900&#39;s, but his derived maximum ages for the sun were all too short. However, it was known to Eddington (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Eddington.html), who mentions it in his 1926 book, that if one could plow 4 protons together to make helium, that would be a long lasting source of energy. He, and later authors, tacitly assumed that was the source. But it was not convincingly demonstrated that this could happen in nature until Hans Bethe (http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1967/bethe-bio.html) published his landmark papers on CNO & PP fusion (The Formation of Deuterons by Proton Combination (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v54/i4/p248_1?qid=857616ca612ff56f&qseq=9&show=10), H.A. Bethe & C.L. Critchfield, Physical Review 54(4): 248–254, 15 August 1938; Energy Production in Stars (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v55/i1/p103_1?qid=857616ca612ff56f&qseq=5&show=10), H.A. Bethe, Physical Review 55(1); 103, 1 January 1939, a 1-page preview of the coming paper, and Energy Production in Stars (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v55/i5/p434_1?qid=857616ca612ff56f&qseq=3&show=10), H.A. Bethe, Physical Review 55(5): 434–456, 1 March 1939).

It was Bethe&#39;s work that there was a physical basis for fusion as the energy source for stars, and essentially solved the problem of where the sun got its energy.

The opacity discrepency problem was noted also by Eddington in 1926. It was by then already known that there was a strict mass to luminosity relationship for all main sequence stars. That fact allows one to determine the opacity of the stellar interior, as it is the moderator of the observed surface luminosity. This is called the "astronomical opacity". On the other hand, scientists knew how to calculate opacities, at least in a simplified manner, which they called the "physical opacity". The two opacities were not the same. This conflict meant that either the opacity calculations were wrong, or the solar model (the "mostly heavy elements" model) was wrong; they could not both be true. Eddington & others assumed that their opacity calculations were wrong, so they went about working out the wrinkles, assuming that the solar model was correct. Eventually, they were obliged to admit that they did know how to calculate opacities, and the solar model was just wrong (Eddington alluded to this in 1929 when he spoke of the two solutions to the problem, one being a sun that was 99½% hydrogen). The only big wrinkle was that Eddington ignored helium. Bengt Stromgren (http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/BruceMedalists/Stromgren/) later showed that a hydrogen - helium mix worked better (On the Helium and Hydrogen Content of the Interior of the Stars (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1938ApJ....87..520S&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f07359), Astrophysical Journal 87: 520-534, June 1938). The problem was solved by abandoning the unworkable heavy element model, in favor of the hydrogen - helium model. It is noteworthy that in the course of solving this problem, the then "standard solar model" was in fact overthrown.

Energy production by fusion means that neutrinos (http://cupp.oulu.fi/neutrino//) should be emitted. Unlike photons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon), which may take a million years to get from the solar core to the solar photosphere, neutrinos zip right out to Earth. So they can provide a real time look at the solar core. And detecting them can prove that fusion really is the source of solar energy. So off went the experimentalists to observe neutrinos (a non-trivial task to say the least). The history is recounted briefly on my Solar Fusion & Neutrinos webpage (http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html).. Suffice to say here that the number of neutrinos detected fell far short of the number expected. Either (a) the neutrino detector folks didn&#39;t know how to detect neutrinos correctly, or (b) the particle physicists did not understand neutrinos as well as they thought, or &copy; the solar physicists didn&#39;t understand the sun as well as they thought (shades of the opacity problem, when the standard solar model of the day fell). All 3 possibilites were wide open, and all 3 communities of scientists rushed off to prove that the other two were wrong.

The neutrino detector folks rushed off and proved that they could detect neutrinos properly. They built more detectors, and like good experimentalists everywhere, they gave the theorists an even bigger headache. Not only was the total count still short, but it was also skewed, showing a distorted energy spectrum. If nothing else, they proved that the problem was a real, physical problem, and not just one related to observational technique.

The solar physics folks rushed off and verified their models for the solar interior. They were able to conform to the solar & stellar surface luminosities, and helioseismology nailed down the density of the solar interior, as a function of depth, allowing retreival of pressure - temperature profiles (a method similar to that used by geophysicists to study the Earth&#39;s interior & atmosphere).

The particle physicists rushed off and invented an imaginative but controversial solution to the problem. By endowing the supposedly rest-massless neutrino with a non-zero rest mass, it was permitted to "oscillate" from one type to another. Since the sun only produces electron neutrinos, this could explain the shortfall in the detectors, which detected only electron neutrinos. If the neutrino detector folks could detect other kinds of neutrino, and add them all up, they could show whether or not this solution worked.

And that&#39;s what the neutrino detector folks rushed off and did. They detected all 3 kinds of neutrino, added them all up, and got 100% of the total number of electron neutrinos that solar theory anticipated. Furthermore, the correlation with solar direction & distance showed that the neutrinos were really solar, and not some outside contamination that fortuitously adds up to the right number.

This time, the standard solar model survived, and the standard physics of neutrinos failed. Endowing them with mass, and allowing them to oscillate is a major change to the standard model of particle physics. So a standard model did fall, it just wasn&#39;t the one for the sun this time.

So there you have it. If we are going to take a big step backwards, and return to the "mostly heavy elements" model for the sun, problems need to be solved. Can you really get neutrons to come off a neutron core, and provide enough energy to keep the sun going? And what about the old opacity problem? It&#39;s not going anywhere, and is independent of the energy source problem. How can you make the heavy element model recreate the observed luminosity, a test it has already failed? And what about the neutrinos? It certainly looks like the sun is making all of the neutrinos it is supposed to make, but in a heavy element model, it&#39;s not supposed to do that.

But why adopt a new model anyway? I can&#39;t see any reason to even consider it. After all, it is based on the unwarranted assumption that isotope ratios & elemental abundances seen in meteorites can be extrapolated down to the solar core, which certainly looks like a long stretch to me. The fact that we already know the model won&#39;t work just makes things that much worse for it, I think. Why replace a model that does work, with one that has already failed? That&#39;s the real question to answer.

Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-02, 10:57 PM
Thanks, Tim, for agreeing to invite John Bahcall to participate, and thank you VanderL for endorsing the idea. :D

Thanks also, Tim, for the excellent review of a major scientific puzzle - What makes the Sun shine?

Please be assured, Tim, we did not lightly arrive at a new solar model. :unsure:

Measurement after measurement had convinced us by 1983 that the Sun was mostly iron and formed on a collapsed supernova core. :rolleyes:

Then, without a ready supply of hydrogen, we faced the same old dilemma - What makes the Sun shine? :blink:

Finally, by plotting all the masses of all the isotopes, we finally arrived at a reasonable solution in 2000&#33;

Anyway, I will be posting the results of measurement after measurement, and I hope you can get John Bahcall to address these results.

Again, Tim, thanks for your excellent comments.

With kind regards,

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

Duane
2004-Apr-06, 04:41 PM
Are you suggesting Jupiter contains a record of this supernova shockwave?


No, I am saying that there is strong evidence to support the premise that the material which formed the pre-solar nebulae was heavily enriched by the accumulated material of nearby supernova events, and the isotope readings you have noted more likely reflect that enrichment than the reaccretion of material upon a supernova remnant.

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-06, 04:51 PM
I did invite Bahcall (http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/) to join the crowd, but not surprisingly, he declined.

I did find a table of standard solar abundances (http://tlusty.gsfc.nasa.gov/Tlusty2002/solar-abun.html), based on a 1998 paper by Grevesse & Sauval (Standard Solar Composition, N. Grevesse & A.J. Sauval, Space Science Reviews 85: 161-174, August 1998, the paper is not available online without a subscription). The table in the paper is a bit more precise than the one in the link, but the differences are not relevant to our level of discussion. This is the solar abundance table currently used by researchers on solar models. There are fairly strong contraints on the internal opacity of the sun by helioseismology, particularly the location of the boundary between the radiative region, and the convective region of the sun (that boundary is called the tachocline). Recent studies show that even small changes in the abundances produce changes in the location of the tachocline that can make the proposed new abundances incompatible with helioseismology observations (i.e., Constraining solar abundances using helioseismology (http://cul.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403485), Sarbani Basu & A.M. Antlia, accepted for publication, Astrophysical Journal Letters, should be in the May 1 issue).

As for the opacities, some can be measured in high temperature experiments, but for the most part they are calculated from the applied physics of quantum mechanics and radiative transfer. The standard used by researchers, aside from the Grevesse & Sauval abundances, are the OPAL project (http://www-phys.llnl.gov/Research/OPAL/opal.html) opacities, calculated by a group at the Physics and Advanced Technologies Directorate (http://www-phys.llnl.gov/) of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (http://www.llnl.gov/).

So I think I&#39;ve about run out of things to say without getting repetitious. I don&#39;t see that Bahcall&#39;s arguments would have been much different than mine, or much better, since a lot of it is his work anyway. I don&#39;t think the iron sun hypothesis has a future, and I think there are strong physical arguments to support my position. But as usual, time & science will tell.

antoniseb
2004-Apr-06, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Apr 6 2004, 04:51 PM
So I think I&#39;ve about run out of things to say without getting repetitious. I don&#39;t see that Bahcall&#39;s arguments would have been much different than mine, or much better, since a lot of it is his work anyway.
I agree. Thanks Tim for your clear presentations of modern stellar structure theory.

At the moment we are waiting for Dr. Manuel to add his second chapter in the history of observations that led to the new Iron Sun theory. Without more information supporting Iron Sun, I am very much in the dark as to what could support the theory against the evidence presented so far in favor of the more commonly used Hydrogen Sun model.

I look forard to seeing it.

Duane
2004-Apr-06, 06:05 PM
A quick summary of the argument so far.

We all agree that Dr Manuel raises some interesting points and has discovered some measurements that seem to require further investigation, however most of us also agree that we do not see that his findings offer clear support for a premise that the sun has an iron or neutron core.

As T Thompson has pointed out, the iron-sun theory was well accepted into the 40&#39;s, until a number of observations suggested that there were problems with that model. Those same problems still seem to exist for the model proposed by Dr Manuel.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. From what I have been able to glean out of our several lines of discussions, Dr Manuel is relying on a handlful of isotopic measurements that seem out of place for the currently accepted solar model to propose that that model should be abandoned in favour of his interpretation that the measurements support an iron-rich core for the sun.

He then goes on to premise that the iron-richness of the sun is the direct result of a supernova remnant, a neutron star, reaccreting enough material to reignite as a long-lived G-type sub-dwarf star, and goes on to premise that the planets of this star also accreted from the blown-off material of the original pregenitor.

Part of his proof for this secondary premise is his belief that the Earth&#39;s mantle remains "unmelted and undifferentiated" and that the noble gas measurements of the terrestrial planets evidence some strange abundances. (I have to admit, I don&#39;t see how these measurements support his primary hypothesis)

Dr Manuel can point to no models which support his theory that the sun could survive for 4.6Gy as a remnant, he can offer no explanation for how the material accreting on the neutron star would not collapse under the gravity of the neutron core, he has not given any explanation to the opacity problems which lead to the abandonment of the iron-sun hypothesis in the first place, he has not responded to questions and/or findings regarding the melted and differentiated lower mantle, he can&#39;t explain the lack of an iron core in the moon, and finally, his argument on the abundance of solar generated neutrinoes has been answered.

Have I missed anything?

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-06, 08:38 PM
Thanks, antoniseb, Tim and Duane, for your comments. Please be patient and consider the following measurements and observations since 1960. :D

I regret that leading proponents of the standard solar model and those who would rescue it from these "Space Age Findings" - - - by the addition of alien material to the solar system from a multitude of imaginary nearby stars (supernovae, red giants, etc.) - - - choose not to participate in this public discussion.

Perhaps my long delay in posting the "Space Age Findings" (1960-present) is to blame. :unsure:

These research results are listed below, as a sequel to our posting on the earlier evolution of ideas in Element Synthesis and Stellar Energy (1815 - 1959).

Please communicate these results with the experts and encourage them to come forward and address the list of measurements and observations that created so much consternation in the space science community. ;)

Like almost everyone involved in isotope measurements, I initially accepted the model of cosmological synthesis of the elements and the classic nebular model that an ordinary, well-mixed interstellar cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium formed the solar system.**I experienced first hand the confusion and acrimony of the space age, as measurement after measurement on isotopes in the solar system yielded results none of us expected. :blink:
**
The early solar system was highly radioactive&#33; Short-lived isotopes and their decay products are “atomic clocks”*that deny i) the time we had assumed between element synthesis and the formation of solids, and ii) the time needed for geochemical differentiation.

Measurements confirm basic features of B2FH [Rev. Mod. Physics 29, 547-650 (1957)].**Here is a more complete listing of major observations, without conclusions.

II. Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-Present)

1. Decay products of many short-lived isotopes are observed in meteorites that formed at the birth of the solar system, e.g.:
82 Myr Pu-244 [J. Geophys. Res. 70 (1965) 700],
17 Myr I-129 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 8],
6.5 Myr Pd-107 [Geophys. Res. Lett. 5 (1978) 1079],
3.7 Myr Mn-53 [Geophys. Res. Lett. 12 (1985) 645],
0.7 Myr Al-26 [Nature 251 (1974) 495],
0.1 Myr Ca-41 [Ap. J. Lett. 431 (1994) L67],
. . . .
8 day I-131 [Ap. J. 463 (1996) 344],
78 hr Te-132 [Ap. J. 463 (1996) 344], etc.

2. Decay products of extinct Pu-244 and I-129 are seen in the Earth&#39;s atmosphere and in the Earth&#39;s depleted upper mantle with highly radiogenic Ar-40 and He-4 [Science 174 (1971) 1334; Nature 303 (1983) 762].**Less radiogenic gases (more non-radioactive gases, like He-3, Ar-36, and Xe-130) are observed in other mantle samples, perhaps from an un-depleted lower mantle that surrounds Earth’s iron core [Geochem. J. 15 (1981) 245; Nature 303 (1983) 762].**See related observations 6 & 7 below.

3. The mass spectrum of Pu-244 decay products in meteorites fits that measured from a laboratory sample of Pu-244**[Science 172 (1971) 837].**Pu-244 can only be made by the r-process in a supernova explosion [Rev. Mod. Physics 29 (1957) 547].*
*
4. The amount of Pu-244 observed in meteorites, the Earth, Moon, and meteorites dates the explosion of a supernova 5 Gyr ago, at the birth of the solar system [Naturwissenschaften 85 (1998) 180].

5.**Products of different B2FH nucleosynthesis reactions [Rev. Mod. Physics 29 (1957) 547] are seen in different meteorite minerals and planets:

a. Measurements show bulk Xe in carbonaceous chondrites, AVCC Xe [Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 351-354 (1960); Nature 240 (1972) 99] has excess heavy and light isotopes made by the r-process and p-process of B2FH in a supernova explosion [Rev. Mod. Physics 29 (1957) 547].

b. Characteristic levels of mono-isotopic O-16 are observed in six different types of meteorites and planets [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 30 (1976) 10].

c. Excess light and/or heavy isotopes of Kr, Te, Xe, Ba, Nd and Sm made by the r- and p-processes are observed in some meteorite minerals [Nature 240 (1972) 99; Science 190 (1975) 1251; Ap. J. 220 (1978) L15; Geophys. Lett. 5 (1978) 599; Nature 277 (1979) 615; Nature 391 (1998) 261].**These isotopes, like extinct Pu 244, are made in the terminal supernova explosion.
****
d. Excess middle isotopes of Kr, Sr, Xe, Ba, Nd, Sm and perhaps Te are seen in other meteorite minerals [Science 201 (1978) 51; Nature 277 (1979) 615; Nature 332 (1988) 700; Ap. J. 353 (1990) L57; Lunar Planet. Sci. XXI (1990) 920; Ap. J. 382 (1991) L47],**These isotopes are made as a star slowly evolves, before it reaches the supernova stage [Rev. Mod. Physics 29 (1957) 547].

e. Together, observations c. and d. above mean that “mirror-image” isotope anomaly patterns, complementary excesses and deficits of the same isotope, are seen in various parts of the solar system [Nature 277 (1979) 615; Origin and Evolution of the Elements (Cambridge University Press, 1993) 518-527].

f. Primordial He and Ne are only seen in meteorite minerals with excess Xe isotopes made by the r- and p-processes**[Science 195 (1977) 208; Meteoritics 15 (1980) 117].

g. The Galileo mission observed the same r-products in Xe of Jupiter’s He-rich atmosphere, as predicted earlier [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209].**The raw xenon isotope data are available on-line at: http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

h. On the other hand, the measured abundance of Xe isotopes in troilite (FeS) inclusions of meteorites are like those in Mars, the Earth, and the Sun [Nature 299 (1982) 807; Lunar Planet. Sci. XXVII (1996) 738a; Geochem. J. 30 (1996) 17; Chinese Sci. Bull. 42 (1997) 752].

i. Measurements reveal unusual abundances of isotopes of many other elements in these earliest condensates. e.g., in the silicon carbide which formed within 1-2 Myr after a supernova - - - when the Al-26/Al-27 ratio was as high as 0.6 [Ap. J. 394 (1992) L43]

6. The decay products of extinct I-129 and Pd-107 observed in iron meteorites are at levels comparable to those in the most primitive stone meteorites [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 6 (1968) 113; Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 43 (1979) 843; Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 54, 1729 (1990)].**This leaves too little time for geochemical differentiation.

7. Molybdenum isotopes made by the r-, p- and s-processes of nucleosynthesis are observed incompletely mixed, in carbonaceous meteorites as well as in massive iron meteorites [Qi-Lu, Doctoral Thesis, University of Tokyo (1991); Meteoritics & Planet. Sci. 33 (1998) A99; Nature 415 (2002) 881-883].**This observation rules out melting and geochemical separation of a primordial element pool to make iron meteorites.

8. Analyses of meteorites revealed excess heavy isotopes from mass fractionation, entangled with decay products of extinct isotopes and unmixed products of nucleosynthesis [Nature 227 (1970) 1113; Z. Naturforsch. 26a (1971) 1980; Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 12 (1971) 282; Geophys. Res. Lett. 4 (1977) 299; Lunar Planet. Sci. XI, Part 3 (1980) 971; Nature 319 (1986) 576].**It is not known if the fractionation occurred in the solar system or in the parent star(s) that produced our elements.

9. Elements departing the surface of the Sun in the solar wind are observed to be enriched in light mass**isotopes (L) relative to the heavy mass ones (H) by a common mass fractionation factor (F).**Empirically the fractionation in the solar wind is [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209]:

**********************log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L)

10. This equation (defined by isotope measurements on elements in the solar wind) and the abundance pattern of elements at the solar surface (determined by line spectra measurements) indicates that the interior of the Sun consists almost entirely of seven elements seen only at the part-per-million level in the photosphere - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209].*
*
11. Analyses show these seven elements comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites [J. Am Chem. Soc. 39 (1917) 856].**The probability (P) that this agreement is meaningless (fortuitous) is P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002&#33;&#33;

12. The above empirical equation and line spectra from the photosphere show the two most abundant isotopes in the Sun to be Fe-56, the decay product of "doubly magic" Ni-56, and "doubly magic" O-16 [J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem 251 (2002) 381]. Nuclear stability determines the abundance of elements in the interior of the Sun.

13. Heavy elements and heavy isotopes of individual elements are observed to be more abundant in material departing the surface of the Sun in flares and eruptions [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111; Proc. ACS Sym.: Origin Elements in Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum, 2000) 279].

14. Earth-like planets were observed orbiting a collapsed supernova core, pulsar 1257+12, in the first extra-solar planetary system discovered [Nature 355 (1992) 145; Science 264 (1994) 538].**Earth-like planets have not been observed orbiting other stars.

15. Solar magnetic fields that caused the violent solar eruptions observed in the fall of 2003 may arise from high concentrations of iron in the Sun [J. Fusion Energy 21 (2003) 193]. A news report on this is available on-line at:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/solarscience-03zl.html

Please encourage others - especially proponents of i) the standard solar model and ii) injections of alien material from nearby stars - to read and comment on these observations over the past 45 years. :rolleyes: They merit more than a "quick fix".

Separately, ad hoc explanations have been proposed for each observation, but collectively they tell a totally unexpected story about our place in the universe, the birth of the solar system, the origin of its elements, and the composition of the Sun.

Thank you for taking the time to read, consider, and comment on these observations.**The remaining puzzle, "What Makes the Sun Shine?" will be addressed in a later posting on the source of luminosity in an iron-rich Sun.

With kind regards,

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

VanderL
2004-Apr-06, 09:31 PM
I have nothing to add to the isotopic measurements discussion, but I am interested to hear what experts think. What makes the Sun shine will hopefully bring this topic into focus (at least for me).
There is one remark that I can&#39;t help responding to

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That&#39;s just plain nonsense, all claims and all evidence should be treated equally; scientifically.

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-Apr-07, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 6 2004, 08:38 PM
9. Elements departing the surface of the Sun in the solar wind are observed to be enriched in light mass isotopes (L) relative to the heavy mass ones (H) by a common mass fractionation factor (F). Empirically the fractionation in the solar wind is [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209]:

log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L)

10. This equation (defined by isotope measurements on elements in the solar wind) and the abundance pattern of elements at the solar surface (determined by line spectra measurements) indicates that the interior of the Sun consists almost entirely of seven elements seen only at the part-per-million level in the photosphere - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209].

12. The above empirical equation and line spectra from the photosphere show the two most abundant isotopes in the Sun to be Fe-56, the decay product of "doubly magic" Ni-56, and "doubly magic" O-16 [J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem 251 (2002) 381]. Nuclear stability determines the abundance of elements in the interior of the Sun.
Thanks Dr. Manuel,

The items you mention 1 through 9 seem to merely put constraints on the amount of time between the supernova blast that caused the collapse of the proto-solar nebula and the formation of solid materials that accreted into the planets and asteroids.

Everything in your position seems to hinge on item number 10, which I would like to see some clarification of. The formula shows the isotopic fractionation, but there is no factor of the formula associated with depth in the sun, or any other such thing. Yet somehow, without any explanation there is a leap claiming, this formula as the proof, that the sun must be mostly Iron and Nickel.

So, how exactly does this formula indicate that the sun&#39;s interior composition is mostly Iron?

Also concerning # 13:


13. Heavy elements and heavy isotopes of individual elements are observed to be more abundant in material departing the surface of the Sun in flares and eruptions [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111; Proc. ACS Sym.: Origin Elements in Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum, 2000) 279].
I&#39;d like to know what fraction of the atoms in solar flares are hydrogen and helium. Seems like it&#39;s about 100%. It is interesting that the isotope ratios in flares seem to be different than in solar wind, but I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve explained how that implies an Iron interior.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-07, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Apr 6 2004, 09:31 PM
There is one remark that I can&#39;t help responding to

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That&#39;s just plain nonsense, all claims and all evidence should be treated equally; scientifically.

Thanks, VdL, for pointing this out. :D

Let me advise all participants, especially young ones:

1. Read, study and think before you post anything here.
2. What you say here, may remain here, as a permanent record. ;)

We cannot get input from leading proponents of the standard solar model and those claiming evidence of alien material injected into the solar system from imaginary nearby stars. They recognize the dangers and have important reputations to protect&#33;

Please, everyone be careful what you say here.

That includes everyone, antoniseb. Don Reames reports [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111] in a massive solar flare successively heavier elements are enriched by factors of 10, 100, 1000 times their value at the solar surface&#33;

Differences of opinion are unimportant. What is needed, as Aston noted, is "more, more, and yet more measurements."

While we are on this topic, I encourage everyone to participate in discussing the upcoming return of samples from the Sun by the Genesis mission. That discussion site is:

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...opic=2755&st=0& (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2755&st=0&)

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-07, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 7 2004, 02:06 PM
Please, everyone be careful what you say here.
OK, now I&#39;m confused. Are you [Dr. Manuel] saying that you won&#39;t supply the requested clarification about the use of the fractionation formula because any statement you make here can be proven wrong by more measurements?

Also, are you saying that because Tim Thompson and not John Bahcall has represented the Hydrogen Sun side of the science that you don&#39;t think its a fair debate?

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-07, 03:28 PM
Thanks, Antoniseb, :D

I said neither of those things.

The first is untrue.
The second may have some element of truth.

What do you think?

Wouldn&#39;t it be better if leading proponents of

i) the standard solar model, and
ii) injections of alien material from a multiplicity of imaginary near-by stars

were here, defending their claims?

A useful scientific debate requires time for everyone to read and carefully consider experimantal results.

Certainly you, as moderator, may feel obliged to respond frequently, antoniseb. ;) On the other hand, my old age and multiple years of scientific research suggest that in science, "haste makes waste." So let&#39;s not rush to judgement on experimental results collected over the past 45 years&#33;

"Shooting from the hip", without taking time to study experimantal results and reflect on their many possible meanings, is a sure way to destroy one&#39;s reputation in the scientific community. Eventually that may also prove true in web strings.

So I am asking you and others to:

i) encourage authoritative opponents of the iron-rich Sun to participate,
ii) slow down and study the experimantal data before responding, and
ii) ask leading proponents of the Standard Solar Model if you can convey their comment on the 15 observations posted above.

Thanks, antoniseb, for allowing an open discussion on these issues.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-07, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 7 2004, 03:28 PM
my old age and multiple years of scientific research suggest that in science, "haste makes waste." So let&#39;s not rush to judgement on experimental results collected over the past 45 years&#33;
In my request for a clarification, I am not asking for new research, or a new analysis of the data. I am only asking for some indication of what you say you have already shown. There is no rush, but certainly, if you used this formula to draw a conclusion, you can explain how without further research.

If this thread has introduced new factors to be taken into account, which bring on the need for further research, I&#39;m sure the other people on this thread would like to know about that too.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-07, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Apr 7 2004, 12:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Apr 7 2004, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Apr 6 2004, 08:38 PM
9. Elements departing the surface of the Sun in the solar wind are observed to be enriched in light mass isotopes (L) relative to the heavy mass ones (H) by a common mass fractionation factor (F). Empirically the fractionation in the solar wind is [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209]:

log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L)

10. This equation (defined by isotope measurements on elements in the solar wind) and the abundance pattern of elements at the solar surface (determined by line spectra measurements) indicates that the interior of the Sun consists almost entirely of seven elements seen only at the part-per-million level in the photosphere - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209].

12. The above empirical equation and line spectra from the photosphere show the two most abundant isotopes in the Sun to be Fe-56, the decay product of "doubly magic" Ni-56, and "doubly magic" O-16 [J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem 251 (2002) 381]. Nuclear stability determines the abundance of elements in the interior of the Sun.
Thanks Dr. Manuel,

1. The items you mention 1 through 9 seem to merely put constraints on the amount of time between the supernova blast that caused the collapse of the proto-solar nebula and the formation of solid materials that accreted into the planets and asteroids.

2. Everything in your position seems to hinge on item number 10, which I would like to see some clarification of. The formula shows the isotopic fractionation, but there is no factor of the formula associated with depth in the sun, or any other such thing. Yet somehow, without any explanation there is a leap claiming, this formula as the proof, that the sun must be mostly Iron and Nickel.

So, how exactly does this formula indicate that the sun&#39;s interior composition is mostly Iron?

3. Also concerning # 13:


13. Heavy elements and heavy isotopes of individual elements are observed to be more abundant in material departing the surface of the Sun in flares and eruptions [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111; Proc. ACS Sym.: Origin Elements in Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum, 2000) 279].
I&#39;d like to know what fraction of the atoms in solar flares are hydrogen and helium. Seems like it&#39;s about 100%. It is interesting that the isotope ratios in flares seem to be different than in solar wind, but I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve explained how that implies an Iron interior.[/b][/quote]
Come on, antoniseb, slow down&#33; :D

This is not a debating society. There are no short-cuts on the path toward truth.<_<

1. By 1961, Fowler, Greenstein and Hoyle realized that 10e8 years was not enough time to allow galactic mixing between the end of element synthesis and formation of the solar system.

Later measurements reduced this further, to almost zero and certainly no more that 10e6 years&#33;

You can&#39;t simply skip over observations 1-9 and assume a representative sample of the galaxy formed the solar system anyway - - - from an imaginary interstellar cloud of H and He. ;)

2. Here you quote observations 9, 10 and 12. You skip 11, and then accuse me of a "leap claiming, this formula as the proof, that the sun must be mostly Iron and Nickel."

Read 11 yourself and tell us how you explain the statistical support for our conclusion, antoniseb.

3. Read the report of Don Reames&#39; measurement with the Wind spacecraft [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111] and then tell us if still believe the elemental composition of solar flares is like the solar surface.

Again, antoniseb, I appreciate your kindness in posting this topic for open discussion. But please slow down&#33;

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-07, 06:38 PM
Sorry, antoniseb, :D

I&#39;m old and grouchy. :angry:

I should have posted this simple scenario of events that seems to fit all of the 15 observations.

http://www.ballofiron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

Please accept my apologies.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-07, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 7 2004, 06:38 PM
I should have posted this simple scenario of events that seems to fit all of the 15 observations.
I&#39;ve seen this diagram in several of your papers, but it doesn&#39;t tell me anything about going from te observed fractionation in the photosphere [which well matches the Fractionation equation] to an assumption of an Iron/Nickel core to the sun. This is the clarification I&#39;ve been looking for.

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-07, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 7 2004, 02:06 PM
Please, everyone be careful what you say here.

That includes everyone, antoniseb. Don Reames reports [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111] in a massive solar flare successively heavier elements are enriched by factors of 10, 100, 1000 times their value at the solar surface&#33;


Careful indeed. Reames did not report heavy element enrichment with respect to the solar surface, but rather with respect to the solar corona. Furthermore, he reports only on elements that are heavier than iron, which does not bear directly on the abundances of lighter elements, unless one simply assumes a consistent trend. And, furthermore, Reames did not observe the coronal abundances he compares with, but rather derived them from adjusted meteoric abundances. This last point means that his abundances are not strictly independent from the meteorite data, and so could not be used to imply an agreement with them in any case. I did not see any mention of surface or photospheric abundances in the paper. The paper is available in PDF format by following the link to Reames&#39; homepage.



Abundances of trans-iron elements in solar energetic particle events
D.V. Reames (http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~reames/)
Astrophysical Journal 540(2): L111-L114, Part 2, September 10, 2000
ABSTRACT: We report the first comprehensive observation of the abundances of heavy elements of atomic number Z in the range 34<=Z<=82 in solar energetic particle (SEP) events as observed on the Wind spacecraft (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/wind/). In large gradual SEP events, abundances of the element groups 34<=Z<=40, 50<=Z<=56, and 70<=Z<=82, relative to Fe, are similar to corresponding coronal abundances within a factor of ~2 and vary little with time during the events. However, in sharp contrast, abundances of these ions from impulsive flares increase dramatically with Z so that abundances of Fe, 34<=Z<=40, and 50<=Z<=56, relative to O, are seen at ~10, ~100, and ~1000 times their coronal values, respectively.

VanderL
2004-Apr-07, 09:17 PM
I&#39;m not sure that the Iron Sun model is the only way to explain all the isotopic anomalies. Maybe it would be an idea to directly compare the anomalies with the models. Oliver, I know you have tried exhaustively to get the point across, but it is difficult for me to visualise where and when the Standard model fails to explain the isotopic abundances that are found. And that makes it difficult to see the reason why you have proposed the Iron Sun model, a sentiment I think Antoniseb and others are trying to express.
You are right that it takes time to digest all the information, for some (me for instance) more so than others. I hope you can "talk us through" the different steps, because the model and the data they are based upon certainly justify a thorough discussion. Pity that Bahcall declined to participate, although I think the exchange so far is helpful for understanding where the problems are.

Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-07, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 7 2004, 07:31 PM
I&#39;ve seen this diagram in several of your papers, but it doesn&#39;t tell me anything about going from te observed fractionation in the photosphere [which well matches the Fractionation equation] to an assumption of an Iron/Nickel core to the sun. This is the clarification I&#39;ve been looking for.

Sorry, antoniseb, for failing to understand your question. :D

Do you remember the familar plot of "photospheric", "solar", or "cosmic" abundance of the elements versus mass number, A?

Abundance drops off very steeply as A increases, antoniseb, exponentially until the region around A =50-60, where the familar "iron-nickel peak" emerges.

The abundance of isotopes in the solar wind suggest a possible reason for this.

Measurements on the solar wind reveal a systematic enrichment of light mass isotopes (L) relative to heavy mass ones (H) by a common mass fractionation factor (F).

The empirical fractionation equation is:

* * * * * * * *log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L)

This is an exponential function, like the equation that defines radioactive decay.

If you plot F versus mass number, A, you will see that it follows the same trend seen in the "solar" abundance pattern.

But there is no "iron-nickel peak" in this function. That is observed&#33; It remains, and becomes even more pronounced after correcting for mass fractionation.

This is what leads to the conclusion of a Iron/Nickel core to the sun.

For illustrative purposes, let L = 1 for H-1 and calculate how much this fractionation equation tells us H-1 is enriched relative to other major species.

H-1/He-4, enriched by
4.56 log (4) = 556
H-1/C-12, enriched by
4.56 log (12) = 83,000
H-1/O-16, enriched by
4.56 log (16) = 310,000
H-1/Ne-20, enriched by
4.56 log (20) = 860,000
H-1/Mg-24, enriched by
4.56 log (24) = 2,000,000
H-1/Si-28, enriched by
4.56 log (28) = 4,000,000
H-1/Fe-56, enriched by
4.56 log (56) = 94,000,000
etc.

I encourage readers to get out their favorite table of the "solar abundance of the elements" and use the fractionation equation to see what the internal composition of the Sun really is. ;)

Again, Antoniseb, I apologize for not understanding your question.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-08, 01:26 PM
Hi Dr. Manuel,

I am looking for more clarifications, which I&#39;ll try to ask one at a time:

In this diagram:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/fig7.htm

What assumptions cause you to treat Hydrogen and Helium, which were not created in a star or supernova shock front, the same as the other elements in terms of predicted abundence after your proposed de-fractionation calculation? Hydrogen&#39;s M/A ratio is very high because it is simply one proton with no neutron. The isotope selection presumes some synthesis process, but Hydrogen never underwent this in a star. I&#39;ve seen nothing in your papers that demands that it have its abundance calculated in the same way as the metals.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-08, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Apr 7 2004, 09:17 PM
Oliver, I know you have tried exhaustively to get the point across, but it is difficult for me to visualise where and when the Standard model fails to explain the isotopic abundances that are found. ....... I hope you can "talk us through" the different steps, because the model and the data they are based upon certainly justify a thorough discussion.

Pity that Bahcall declined to participate, although I think the exchange so far is helpful for understanding where the problems are.
Thanks, VanderL. :D

Your comments and suggestions are appreciated.

I want to communicate the evidence for an iron Sun. I also recognize that communications is not one of my strengths.

Thus, I doubt if I can "talk anyone through this."

One of my colleagues has a sign posted: "Learning is not a spectator sport." ;)

To understand the reasons that forced this paradigm change, readers will have to invest time and effort to read, study, ponder (meditate), and calculate.

This is sort of like noting that 2nd and 3rd grade students cannot be "talked through" the process of multiplication. Only those who actively participate will learn.

Readers who take a Table of "Solar" Abundances (e.g., from Aller, Suess, Urey, Cameron, Anders, Grevesse, or even the table at the back of B2FH) and use the fractionation equation

* * * * * * * *log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L)

to correct these surface abundances will understand one of the reasons why we conclude that the Sun is composed mostly of Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca.

They may not agree with our conclusion, but they will understand our reason for concluding this might be true.

That fractionation equation was first published in 1983. We actually published papers suggesting the interior of the Sun was iron-rich debris from a supernova as early as 1975.

Those who seek to understand that reasoning may want to take the time to graph and calculate the correlation coefficient for measured values of He-4/Xe-132 versus Xe-136/Xe-132 in mineral separates of the Allende meteorite [Science 190 (1975) 1251]:

Xe-136/Xe-132 He-4/Xe-132
000000.338-------6,230
000000.338-------7,010
000000.354------11,200
000000.354------13,900
000000.461------40,100
000000.477------47,400
000000.583------83,300
(Please excuse the extra zeros and dashes needed for spacing.)

Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I pondered over this totally unexpected link between primordial He-4 and excess Xe-136 from the r-process of nucleosynthesis for hours, days, weeks - - - before presenting our conclusion at the 1976 AGU meeting in April of 1976.

There may be, VanderL, unfortunately no way to convey that information by talking.

With kind regards,

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

PS - Active participation and study by readers will also encourage John Bahcall and proponents of alien material injected into the early solar system to join this discussion.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-09, 02:22 PM
Dear Readers, :D

First I want to thank all of you for having patience with me as I try to learn to communicate.

Before answering antoniseb&#39;s latest question, let&#39;s review:

I. The Historical Review on Element Synthesis and Solar Energy (To-1959)

i) Prout, Einstein, Aston, etc. showed that H-fusion is a reasonable and likely source of stellar energy.

ii) B2FH showed that the abundance of all isotopes of all elements can be explained by a set of 8 different nuclear reactions as a H-rich star goes through various stages of stellar evolution, beginning with H-fusion and ending with violent, rapid nuclear reactions in a terminal supernova (SN) explosion.

iii) Supernova debris is highly evolved nuclear matter, consisting mostly of the isotopes of Fe, Ni, O, Si, etc.

iv) B2FH wanted to explain the Hydrogen/Helium-rich material in Suess and Urey&#39;s "Solar" Abundance Table. B2FH therefore assumed the final SN debris was injected into the interstellar medium and mixed with other material in the galaxy before the solar system formed.

v) The review ended with a forecast that future measurements would confirm many features of B2FH, but not not galactic mixing of the SN debris before the solar system formed.

II. Space Age Observations (1960-present) is a summary of 15 Observations that

i) Confirmed many features of B2FH.

ii) Forced a paradigm change in the "Solar" Abundance Table.

III. What Makes the Iron-Rich Sun Shine (2000-present) will be the next chapter.

Our conclusion from the 15 observations in Section II is summarized below:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/fig7.htm

I am happy to assist readers willing to study the 15 observations and propose other plausible explanations. So let&#39;s begin with antoniseb&#39;s comment:


Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 8 2004, 01:26 PM
Hi Dr. Manuel,

I am looking for more clarifications, which I&#39;ll try to ask one at a time:

In this diagram:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/fig7.htm

What assumptions cause you to treat Hydrogen and Helium, which were not created in a star or supernova shock front, the same as the other elements in terms of predicted abundence after your proposed de-fractionation calculation? Hydrogen&#39;s M/A ratio is very high because it is simply one proton with no neutron. The isotope selection presumes some synthesis process, but Hydrogen never underwent this in a star. I&#39;ve seen nothing in your papers that demands that it have its abundance calculated in the same way as the metals.

Thanks, antoniseb, for your question.

You are mixing subject matter that will be discussed - - - (Values of M/A will be discussed in III. What Makes the Sun Shine?) - - - with the topic of Solar Abundance of the Elements. These are un-related.

We do not treat H and He any differently than any other element, e.g., Si and Fe.

We simply apply the mass fractionation equation, as determined by isotope ratios in the solar wind, to the abundance of all elements (H, He, .... Si, .... Fe, ....) at the solar surface, as determined by line spectra.

We do not treat H and He any differently than any other element.

With kind regards,

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

PS - I hope some readers have plotted the observed correlation of He-4 with Xe-136 and will share with readers other plausible explanations for that observation.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-09, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Apr 7 2004, 09:12 PM


Abundances of trans-iron elements in solar energetic particle events
D.V. Reames (http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~reames/)
Astrophysical Journal 540(2): L111-L114, Part 2, September 10, 2000
ABSTRACT: We report the first comprehensive observation of the abundances of heavy elements of atomic number Z in the range 34<=Z<=82 in solar energetic particle (SEP) events as observed on the Wind spacecraft (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/wind/). In large gradual SEP events, abundances of the element groups 34<=Z<=40, 50<=Z<=56, and 70<=Z<=82, relative to Fe, are similar to corresponding coronal abundances within a factor of ~2 and vary little with time during the events. However, in sharp contrast, abundances of these ions from impulsive flares increase dramatically with Z so that abundances of Fe, 34<=Z<=40, and 50<=Z<=56, relative to O, are seen at ~10, ~100, and ~1000 times their coronal values, respectively.

Thank you, Tim, for posting Don Reames&#39; abstract from Astrophys. J. 540 (2000) L111. :D

It is great to have Dr. Reames solar flare data here.

As you know, Tim, seventeen years earlier we reported a systematic enrichment of light mass isotopes (L) relative to heavy mass ones (H) in the solar wind and concluded that mass fractionation (F) enriches lighter elements and the lighter isotopes of each element at the solar surface.

The observed isotope fractionation (F) [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209] is:

* * * * * * * *log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L)

Isotopes are less mass fractionated in solar flares (heavy isotopes are more abundant). Reames&#39; discovery - - - that heavy elements are more abundant in an impulsive solar flare - - - is one of the 15 Space Age Observations cited as confirming mass fractionation in the Sun.

Don Reames reports the abundance by atomic number (Z), rather than mass, but we can estimate mass values from his data:

......(Z).........(H/L)...Enrichment
........8...........1.0..........=1.0
.......26..........3.5......... ~10
.....34-50.......5.3.........~100
.....50-56.......8.0........~1000

Do you agree, Tim, that the excess heavy elements that Dr. Reames&#39; observed in impulsive solar flares looks like mass fractionation?

Or do you have a better explanation for the observations?

With kind regards,

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

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-10, 05:13 AM
OM: Do you agree, Tim, that the excess heavy elements that Dr. Reames&#39; observed in impulsive solar flares looks like mass fractionation?


It looks like it could be mass fractionation. It also looks like it could be charge fractionation. There is considerable evidence in fact that it is, because the fractionation seems to be correlated with the first ionization potential for the atoms (hence the monicker "FIP effect"). Vol 85, issue 1-2 of Space Science Reviews (1998) is devoted to the sun, and has 3 papers in it relevant to the issue: FIP Fractionation: Theory, Jean-Claude Hénoux, pp 215-226, FIP Effect in the Solar Upper Atmosphere: Spectroscopic Results U. Feldman, pp. 227-240, and Constraints on the FIP Mechanisms from Solar Wind Abundance DataJ. Geiss, pp. 241-252. Feldman points out that the coronal composition above coronal holes (and in the high speed solar wind) is nearly the same as the photosphere. The fractionation occurs in the slow speed solar wind, where the elements with a low first ionization potential are enhanced by a factor of 4-5, compared to the photosphere. So is it mass or charge fractionation? If it&#39;s mass fractionation, how does the fact that it occurs only in the slow solar wind affect the hypothesis that the solar interior is dominated by heavy elements?

I also don&#39;t see that the enhancements reported by Reames (which were compared to the corona, not the photosphere) are as specified by your equation; how do you do 4.56 log (8.0) and get anything close to 1000?

OM: ii) Forced a paradigm change in the "Solar" Abundance Table.

The historical review offered is very inaccurate, this statement being perhaps the chief offender, as it is entirely false. As I have already shown, it was already known in the 1920&#39;s, long before the Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler & Hoyle paper (BBFH) was published, that the "heavy element" model of the sun would not work. By the time that Chandrasekhar published his work on stellar evolution in 1939, when he concentrated on computing the internal opacities, this was well established. In fact, the correct history is quite the reverse, It was the "paradigm shift" towards a mostly hydrogen model that allowed BBFH to argue sensibly that elements could be synthesized in stars. Hoyle was opposed to big bang cosmology, which at the time presumed that all of the heavy elements were created in the bang. He hoped that by proving stellar nucleosynthesis, he could undercut big bang cosmology by showing it was not needed to explain the existence of heavy elements. Had they not already thought the stars were mostly hydrogen, they would never have bothered to try, since it would have been a pointless exercise.

OM: Readers who take a Table of "Solar" Abundances (e.g., from Aller, Suess, Urey, Cameron, Anders, Grevesse, or even the table at the back of B2FH) and use the fractionation equation

log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L)

to correct these surface abundances will understand one of the reasons why we conclude that the Sun is composed mostly of Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca.

The tables of solar abundances are the observed abundances in the photosphere. Why do the numebrs need to be "corrected"? What&#39;s wrong with the observations? And if the observations are wrong, why do all the observers always observe the same wrong thing?

I will also add that it simply cannot be ignored that all we know (or think we know) about fundamental physics, absolutely rules out a heavy element model for the solar interior. Therefore, if we are to take seriously such a model, there must be some reference as to why the standard physics has failed. Absent that, and absent any indication of any real, physical connection between the sun and the proposed empirical formula, I am at a loss to understand why such a model should be seriously considered.

I will be gone for several days on business, so y&#39;all have fun in my absence,.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-10, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 7 2004, 12:54 PM
The items you mention 1 through 9 seem to merely put constraints on the amount of time between the supernova blast that caused the collapse of the proto-solar nebula and the formation of solid materials that accreted into the planets and asteroids.
Sorry to be so slow, antoniseb, in responding. :D

To facilitate our discussion, antoniseb, I underlined the part of your message with which I disagree.

Item 1 constrains the amount of time between the supernova blast and the formation of solid materials that accreted to form planets and asteroids. It clearly shows there was not time for the (Fe,Ni,O,Si,S)-rich supernova products to be injected back into, and mixed with, the (H,He)-rich interstellar medium.

Item 2 shows that these SN-decay products were in the Earth, - - - not just in some exotic interstellar grains trapped in meteorites - - - and their decay products show that the Earth&#39;s iron core and its primitive lower mantle formed as layers, not by geochemical differentiation.

Items 6 & 7 show that iron meteorites - - - the parent material of the Earth&#39;s core - - - are also primitive condensate from chemically layered SN debris, not iron that was melted and separated from other elements.

Items 3 & 4 show that a supernova occurred 5 billion years ago, at the birth of the solar system, and Pu-244 produced in that explosion left decay products that match those measured in a laboratory sample of man-made Pu-244.

Item 5 shows that isotopes of the same element - - - if made at different times or different regions of the parent star - - - were still unmixed when solids condensed. The parent star was chemically layered prior to the supernova, and these different chemical layers of the parent star condensed and trapped different isotopes of the same element.

For example the middle isotopes of Ba, Nd and Sm that were made by slow neutron capture, are trapped in different minerals than the heavy isotopes that were made by rapid neutron capture. The s-products of Ba, Nd, and Sm are observed together in some meteorite inclusions. The r-products of Ba, Nd, and Sm are observed together in other meteorite inclusions.

The link between chemical composition and certain isotopes is also observed in planets of different chemical composition.

Item 8 shows that the parent material of the solar system was mass fractionated. We do not yet know where that fractionation occurred, but fractionation is known to occur in essentially every object in the solar system, except in the imaginary homogeneous Sun.

These observations do not merely put constraints on the amount of time between the supernova blast and the formation of solid materials that accreted into the planets and asteroids.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-10, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 10 2004, 01:10 PM
Item 1 constrains the amount of time between the supernova blast and the formation of solid materials that accreted to form planets and asteroids. It clearly shows there was not time for the (Fe,Ni,O,Si,S)-rich supernova products to be injected back into, and mixed with, the (H,He)-rich interstellar medium.
Hi Dr. Manuel, just looking at item one for the moment:

You can wave your hands saying that there was not enough time, but the current model is that the sun was formed out of the same nebula that a massive star formed in first, and its explosion precipitated the collapse of the sun&#39;s portion of the nebula. This didn&#39;t need to take more than a hundred thousand years. There was plenty of time for this to happen. Look at the creation of new open clusters for what processes are thought to have created our own system.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-11, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Apr 10 2004, 08:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Apr 10 2004, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Apr 10 2004, 01:10 PM
Item 1 constrains the amount of time between the supernova blast and the formation of solid materials that accreted to form planets and asteroids. It clearly shows there was not time for the (Fe,Ni,O,Si,S)-rich supernova products to be injected back into, and mixed with, the (H,He)-rich interstellar medium.
Hi Dr. Manuel, just looking at item one for the moment:

You can wave your hands saying that there was not enough time, but the current model is that the sun was formed out of the same nebula that a massive star formed in first, and its explosion precipitated the collapse of the sun&#39;s portion of the nebula. This didn&#39;t need to take more than a hundred thousand years. There was plenty of time for this to happen. Look at the creation of new open clusters for what processes are thought to have created our own system.[/b][/quote]
Happy Easter, Tim and antoniseb&#33; :D

Here is a quote from the Bible that illustrates how science really works, "Now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully." Saint Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 13:12 (NRSV).

Sadly you two are trying to defend here the ad hoc and individually unlikely explanations that others proposed for tiny pieces of the long list of observations that collectively show the solar system formed in this manner:

http://www.BallOfIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

In 1975, Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I were indeed peering through a mirror, dimly when we first proposed this scenario for the formation of the solar system.

Look at the dates of the measurements cited for the15 Major Space Age Observations.

Those post-1975 observations simply confirmed the validity of:

http://www.BallOfIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

I do not have time now to respond to the two observations you two responded to most recently, but I will do so soon.

Meanwhile, Happy Easter&#33;

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-11, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 11 2004, 12:56 PM
Meanwhile, Happy Easter&#33;
Yes Happy Easter. Joy and rebirth all around&#33;

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-12, 03:18 PM
Thank you, Tim and antoniseb, for your efforts to defend the model of a hydrogen filled Sun. :D

Earlier, I told you that “Like almost everyone involved in isotope measurements, I initially accepted the model of cosmological synthesis of the elements and the classic nebular model that an ordinary, well-mixed interstellar cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium formed the solar system.**I experienced first hand the confusion and acrimony of the space age, as measurement after measurement on isotopes in the solar system yielded results none of us expected.”
**
“The early solar system was highly radioactive&#33; Short-lived isotopes and their decay products are “atomic clocks”*that deny
i) the time we had assumed between element synthesis and the formation of solids, and
ii) the time needed for geochemical differentiation.”

Unfortunately leading scientists overlooked some observations for decades and ignored one interpretation of the 15 Space Age Observations.

They were, like Tim, convinced that “fundamental physics, absolutely rules out a heavy element model for the solar interior.”

Instead of an open and frank discussion of the data as they were acquired (1960-present), this view was considered unthinkable for four decades.

Not surprisingly, that view now appears as something radical and ill-conceived.

Scientific leaders now hide from the fray leaving you two to defend their positions.

That isn’t fair to either of you. You simply do not have the background training to address the observations they selectively chose to ignore.

For example in his last message, Tim writes, “It looks like it could be mass fractionation. It also looks like it could be charge fractionation ..... the fractionation seems to be correlated with the first ionization potential for the atoms (hence the monicker "FIP effect").”

Yes, Tim, the date support your first statement, but Don Reames does not mention the possibility of simple mass fractionation in the Sun.

If H = mass of heavier particle and L = mass of lighter particles, his data show the following trend:

.(Z).........(H/L)...Enrichment
...8...........1.0..........=1.0
..26..........3.5......... ~10
34-50..4.9-5.7......~100
50-56..7.4-8.6.....~1000

You are therefore right, Tim, to conclude that Reames could be seeing simple mass fractionation. But you then refute that possibility in your final conclusion:

“I will also add that it simply cannot be ignored that all we know (or think we know) about fundamental physics, absolutely rules out a heavy element model for the solar interior.”

Don Reames’ data do not support your second statement, Tim, that “the fractionation seems to be correlated with the first ionization potential”, FIP. The values of FIP are compared with the enrichments below:

.(Z).........(FIP)...Enrichment
...8...........1.0..........=1.0
..26..........0.6......... ~10
34-50..0.3-1.0......~100
50-56..0.3-0.8.....~1000

One might arbitrarily select elements from Z = 34-40 and from Z = 50-56 so the values of FIP would correlate with enrichments, Tim, but the raw data show no clear correlation between enrichments and values of FIP.

Likewise antoniseb says “...... the current model is that the sun was formed out of the same nebula that a massive star formed in first, and its explosion precipitated the collapse of the sun&#39;s portion of the nebula.”

How does this explosion of a nearby star explain the close link of primordial He-4 with excess Xe-136 from the r-process in meteorites?

He-4/Xe-132 Xe-136/Xe-132

-----6,230-------000000.338
---- 7,010-------000000.338
----11,200------000000.354
----13,900------000000.354
----40,100------000000.461
----47,400------000000.477
----83,300------000000.583

How could material ejected from a supernova maintain He-4 and Xe-136 so tightly together that they would exhibit a 99+% correlation?

When the proponents of this nearby supernova model have not addressed the above correlation of He-4 with Xe-136, is it fair to ask antoniseb to do so?

Values of FIPs for He-4 and Xe-136 differ by a factor of 2, and values of their masses differ by a factor of 34&#33;

Xe-136 is highly enriched in some meteorite minerals, depleted in others. How does a nearby supernova explain these “mirror image” isotopic anomalies seen for example in Te, Xe, Ba, Nd, Sm, Nd (Depletions and excesses of the same isotope)?

Why are r-products from the supernova accompanied by isotopically normal He, Ne and C?

Does antoniseb think this nearby supernova produced the r-products in Jupiter, in the Earth, in iron meteorites? What about 8% of Xe-136 in the Sun, as Pepin suggests?

Where is the remnant of this supernova?

Did this supernova produce six levels of monoisotopic O-16 that are characteristic of six different types of meteorites and planets [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 30 (1976) 10]?

As noted earlier, separate “ad hoc explanations have been proposed for each observation, but collectively they tell a totally unexpected story about our place in the universe, the birth of the solar system, the origin of its elements, and the composition of the Sun.

I have taken the time to respond here to two of a multitude of ad hoc explanations proposed for each of 15 Space Age Observations over the past 45 years. I cannot meet my other responsibilities and continue to write such detailed responses.

This week Yashmeet Singh and I will be preparing to present a paper, “Evidence of an Iron-Rich Solar Interior and a Neutron-Rich Solar Core” at the Mid-America Regional Astrophysics Conference on Saturday afternoon at the Linda Hall Library in Kansas City. If you are in the area, I invite you to attend.

"What Makes the Sun Shine?" will be addressed in a posting next week on the source of luminosity in an iron-rich Sun.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-12, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 12 2004, 03:18 PM
This week Yashmeet Singh and I will be preparing to present a paper, “Evidence of an Iron-Rich Solar Interior and a Neutron-Rich Solar Core” at the Mid-America Regional Astrophysics Conference on Saturday afternoon at the Linda Hall Library in Kansas City. If you are in the area, I invite you to attend.
Sadly, I can&#39;t travel this weekend, and budget would normally forbid such an excursion, but thank-you.


Does antoniseb think this nearby supernova produced the r-products in Jupiter, in the Earth, in iron meteorites?
Yes. I think it is likely that several Supernova have contributed matter to our system. If several supernova blew a cloud [superbubble] out of the galaxy [similar to more recent observations of starburst regions elsewhere] in the early star forming era 8 Gyears ago, and it collided with a cloud in the disk again 5 Gyears ago [toward the peak of the rapid star forming period] we could certainly have a mixture of sources, including primordial hydrogen, helium, and lithium, rapid-process nuclei, slow-process nuclei, and fusion products.


Where is the remnant of this supernova?
Even without a Supernova kick, it did start flying away 5 billion years [and 25 galactic orbits] ago. There&#39;s no reason to expect it to be nearby. If it has no companion, there&#39;s little likelyhood of seeing it.


"What Makes the Sun Shine?" will be addressed in a posting next week on the source of luminosity in an iron-rich Sun.
I look forward to it.

Just as a side question, what fraction of the main-sequence stars in the galaxy do you think shine like the sun and have neutron stars and half a solar mass of Iron inside them? If we start detecting rocky planets around most nearby stars in a decade or so, will that be a problem for the Iron Sun theory?

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-13, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 12 2004, 05:05 PM

Where is the remnant of this supernova?
Even without a Supernova kick, it did start flying away 5 billion years [and 25 galactic orbits] ago. There&#39;s no reason to expect it to be nearby. If it has no companion, there&#39;s little likelyhood of seeing it.

Thanks, antoniseb. :D

There was a news story a couple of years ago about a "lonely neutron star".

As I recall, it was a rare find to see a lonely neutron star streaking through space.

The story said the parent star was probably part of a binary star system, and the neutron star was probably thrown from the rest of the SN-debris by this "sling shot" action.

However, neutron stars are massive and occupy tiny volumes (density = 10e15 that of ordinary matter). They are usually seen near the center of supernova debris.

It thus seems unlikely that a Supernova kick caused a neutron star to start flying away from the solar system 5 billion years ago. :unsure:

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-13, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 13 2004, 02:38 AM
However, neutron stars are massive and occupy tiny volumes (density = 10e15 that of ordinary matter). They are usually seen near the center of supernova debris.

It thus seems unlikely that a Supernova kick caused a neutron star to start flying away from the solar system 5 billion years ago.
There are quite a few neutron stars that are not binaries. The Crab Pulsar is an example, as is the Vela Pulsar. However, these are relatively new supernovae and are still close to their debris, and quite hot. Geminga is also relatively new, but not as new as these. Where is Geminga&#39;s debris? Is it the Gum nebula?

In all three of these cases, and in fact in every known case of a supernova debris nebula and a neutron star, the neutron star has a velocity relative to the debris field. This velocity is typically about 100 km/sec, but has been much higher in some cases. The Crab pulsar is too recent to be far off-center. The Vela pulsar is clearly off-center, and Geminga is way off-center.

At 100 km/sec the neutron star or black hole that is the remnant from the event that triggered the collapse of the proto-solar nebula five billion years ago would be 1.5e19 km away from us [1,600,000 light years] if we weren&#39;t all travelling around the same galactic center. Still, it shows that it could be nearly anywhere in the galaxy by now.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-13, 02:09 PM
Thanks, antoniseb. :D

I will try to find the news story about the "lonely neutron star". I believe it says this was the only known example of a "naked" neutron star streaking through space.

Another surprise was the luminosity of this "naked" neutron star. That observations will be considered when we discuss "What Makes the Iron-Rich Sun Shine?"

Another issue, "How Can the Sun Maintain Mass Separation?", is automatically resolved in the solution to "What Makes the Iron-Rich Sun Shine?"

I also need to find a reference to the discrepance between the number of neutron stars observed versus the number expected. As I recall, the ratio (observed)/(expected) is very, very small.

That may help us decide, antoniseb, if the accretion of ordinary atomic matter back onto neutron stars is unusual.

Again, antoniseb, I deeply appreciate your kindness in posting this discussion in the forum of Universe Today. I will try to assist the effort by adding a link to the discussion on my web page.

With kind regards,

Oliver

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-13, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 13 2004, 02:09 PM
I also need to find a reference to the discrepance between the number of neutron stars observed versus the number expected. As I recall, the ratio (observed)/(expected) is very, very small.
Hi Dr. Manuel,

I&#39;ll keep this light because I know you&#39;re prepping for a lecture, and I want it to be as good as you can make it.

For a long time I have been studying papers on neutron stars with a special eye towards population and visibility. I have not seen anything credible saying there are too few neutron stars observed. Keep in mind that the pulsing-lifetime of a pulsar that doesn&#39;t get spun up by matter accreting from another star is much less than a million years. If a new one gets formed every 400 years in our galaxy, and if only five percent are oriented so that we see the beam, we should only see a few dozen of them.

I&#39;ll be interested in seeing the source [that claims there are too few observed] when you post it, but as I said above, take your time, don&#39;t cut into the talk-prep this week.


this was the only known example of a "naked" neutron star streaking through space.
That is probably Geminga. There&#39;s quite a bit published about observations of this object and its presumed optical couterpart. It will be hard to reconcile the Geminga observations with your theory without claiming either that the object is an anomoly or that the measurements are wrong.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-13, 09:14 PM
For a long time I have been studying papers on neutron stars with a special eye towards population and visibility. I have not seen anything credible saying there are too few neutron stars observed.

I&#39;ll be interested in seeing the source [that claims there are too few observed] when you post it, but as I said above, take your time, don&#39;t cut into the talk-prep this week.

It will be hard to reconcile the Geminga observations with your theory without claiming either that the object is an anomoly or that the measurements are wrong.
You may be right, antoniseb. :D

I am pressed for time, but your comments merit a reply.

Walter, Wolk and Neuhaeuser reported the discovery of an isolated neutron star in 1996 [Nature 279 (1996) 233] .

Here are a few pertinent quotes from the first paragraph of their paper,

"Our Galaxy should contain between a hundred million and a billion neutron stars; .......Only about 600 pulsars are known ......... How many old neutron stars exist is unknown, but based on the above numbers, about 2,000 isolated ones (not in binary systems) should be detectable ..... To date, however, evidence for only one has been presented ..... it also highlights the significant problem of accounting for the absence of others that should be visible.”

Readers may also want to read the 2000 ESO press release on Geminga:

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2...0/pr-19-00.html (http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/pr-19-00.html)

Sorry, antoniseb, I do not have time to explain in more detail.

Far from presenting problems for the model of an iron-Sun, these observations on Geminga were cited as evidence in support of the iron-Sun.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-13, 10:42 PM
You are invited to hear and discuss
The Sun&#39;s Iron-Rich Interior and Neutron-Rich Core
The Mid-America Regional Astrophysics Conference
Linda Hall Library
Kansas City, MO.

That will be next
Saturday afternoon
April 16, 2004.

We hope to be there by 10:00 am to distribute reprints of papers and respond to questions.

Linda Hall Library, one of the largest scientific libraries, is located at 5109 Cherry Street, Kansas City, Missouri--in the heart of the campus of the University of Missouri at Kansas City.

The Linda Hall Library’s web site is:
http://www.lhl.lib.mo.us/

We will review evidence that the solar system:

1. Formed directly from fresh, highly radioactive supernova debris [Science 195 (1977) 208],

2. Inherited from this parent star the chemical gradients presently seen across its planetary system and within the interior of the Earth [Geochemical Journal 15 (1981) 245], and

3. Continued to operate as an energy source triggered by neutron-emission from the collapsed SN-core on which the Sun formed [J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197].

http://www.ballofiron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg
**
I hope to see you there&#33;

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-14, 03:59 PM
Dear Antoniseb, :rolleyes:

I was disappointed at the contrast between your last posting:

"For a long time I have been studying papers on neutron stars with a special eye towards population and visibility. I have not seen anything credible saying there are too few neutron stars observed."

and the first paragraph of the paper by Walter, Wolk and Neuhaeuser reporting their landmark discovery of the isolated neutron star [Nature 279 (1996) 233]:

"Our Galaxy should contain between a hundred million and a billion neutron stars; .......Only about 600 pulsars are known ......... How many old neutron stars exist is unknown, but based on the above numbers, about 2,000 isolated ones (not in binary systems) should be detectable ..... To date, however, evidence for only one has been presented ..... it also highlights the significant problem of accounting for the absence of others that should be visible.” :unsure:

Please, antoniseb, slow down. You are a moderator. You do not have to be an authority on every topic.

Nothing is accomplished by a dialog with those who, like Tim, know absolutely that “fundamental physics, absolutely rules out a heavy element model for the solar interior.”

It would be much more productive if you use your time and your position as "moderator" to invite leading scientists to comment on our conclusions from:

II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present), a summary of 45 years of measurements and observations that convince us:

"The early solar system formed directly from the highly radioactive, unmixed debris of a single supernova&#33; The Sun formed on the collapsed supernova core and is iron-rich, like planets close to the Sun. Unmixed isotopes made by different processes of nucleosynthesis and values of the (Daughter/Parent) ratio from the decay of short-lived isotopes -

Rule Out:

i) Galactic mixing between element synthesis and the formation of planetary solids,

ii) Mixing of elements from the inner and outer regions of the solar system, and

iii) Separation into iron-rich planets close to the Sun and gaseous planets of hydrogen, helium and carbon far away."

These conclusions are further confirmed by linked variations observed between isotopes and elements in meteorite minerals and planets:

Isotopes....................Elements

.Xe-136..............Primordial He, C, Ne

Normal Xe.................Fe, Ni, S

..O-16......Six types of meteorites/planets

....etc...............................etc.

You might start, antoniseb, by inviting Dr. David Hathaway, a group leader of solar physics for NASA, to comment on our conclusions from II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present).

Dr. Hathaway told a UPI reporter this is "crackpot science"
http://web.umr.edu/~om/upinewsstory.html
He should be invited to share the basis for his conclusion.

I have e-mail addresses for Dr. Hathaway, as well as many other experts, e.g., Dr. John Bahcall (standard solar model), Dr. Ernst Zinner at Washington University (isotope anomalies and interstellar grains in meteorites), Dr. Al Cameron at Harvard/U. of Arizona (injections from a nearby supernova), Al&#39;s former student, Dr. David Arnett (Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis), etc.

Please try, antoniseb, to get input from some of these leading authorities on our conclusions from

II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present)

before we move on to

III. What Makes the Iron-Rich Sun Shine?

Again, antoniseb, I appreciate your kindness in maintaining this open discussion about the iron Sun.

With kind regards,

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

Duane
2004-Apr-14, 04:14 PM
Oliver, you keep calling antoniseb a moderator when he is not. His comments and opinions are his own and have arisen during the course of this discussion.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-14, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Duane@Apr 14 2004, 04:14 PM
Oliver, you keep calling antoniseb a moderator when he is not. His comments and opinions are his own and have arisen during the course of this discussion.
Thanks, Duane, for your comments. :D

I assume antoniseb himself will reply.

He certainly seemed to be acting as moderator since this story was moved here from Story Comments -> Discussion: Spitzer looks at a Stellar Nursery

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2435

Here is a slightly corrected quote from antoniseb&#39;s first posting here:

"duane has done some great work looking at Dr. Manuel&#39;s claims about the Iron Sun theory, that basically says that the sun is not the same as most stars, and is a collection of mostly heavy elements with a hydrogen atmosphere.

Note, most serious astronomers regard this as a crackpot theory, but Dr. Manuel is willing to take the time to try and defend it. In it&#39;s favor, it does offer something of an explanation to some isotope abundance anomalies among other things.

You can look at a number of web-sites about this theory. Pointers to them are in the previous posts in this thread.

I suspect that Dr. Manuel is sincere in his belief in the theory, but in this discussion, I am hoping we can shoot it down [or prove it] without shooting at Dr. Manuel, who has demonstrated that he is a gentleman.

Previous posts in this thread can be seen in the Story Comments -> Discussion: Spitzer looks at a Stellar Nursery
http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2435

Personally I found this discussion interesting enough that I wanted to pull it out into a properly labelled thread. Note, Josh has suggested moving this thread to Alternative Theories, and I agree it belongs there. I don&#39;t know when the move will be made."

For emphasis, I made a section of the last paragraph bold.

The moderator - - - whether you, duane, antoniseb, or whoever - - - should invite Dr. Hathaway (solar physics), Dr. John Bahcall (solar neutrinos and standard solar model), Dr. Ernst Zinner (isotope anomalies and interstellar grains in meteorites), Dr. Al Cameron (injections of alien material from a nearby supernova), or Al&#39;s former student, Dr. David Arnett (Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis) to address the results posted in

II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present), a summary of 45 years of measurements and observations.

Let&#39;s try to bring some closure to this phase before moving on to the discussion of

III. What Makes the Iron-Rich Sun Shine?

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-14, 07:56 PM
You might start, antoniseb, by inviting Dr. David Hathaway

Hi Dr. Manuel. My goal was for this to be an interesting conversation with the people on the UT forum. It was a very lucky thing that Tim joined in. I do not plan to take time out to invite experts in the field to join this thread. Clearly Dr. Bahcall has opted out. My previous interactions with Dr. Zinner have indicated that he believes he&#39;s too short on time for such a chat. They are, of course, welcome to join in. Invite them yourself if you like.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-15, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 14 2004, 07:56 PM

You might start, antoniseb, by inviting Dr. David Hathaway

Hi Dr. Manuel. My goal was for this to be an interesting conversation with the people on the UT forum. It was a very lucky thing that Tim joined in. I do not plan to take time out to invite experts in the field to join this thread. Clearly Dr. Bahcall has opted out. My previous interactions with Dr. Zinner have indicated that he believes he&#39;s too short on time for such a chat. They are, of course, welcome to join in. Invite them yourself if you like.
Thanks, antoniseb. :D

After reading your post, I looked up e-mail addresses for Dr. David Hathaway, Dr. John Bahcall, Dr. Ernst Zinner, Dr. A.G.W. Cameron, and Dr. David Arnett.

I really want UT readers to have comments from these gentlemen on:

II. The 15 Space Age Observations (1960-present), a summary of 45 years of measurements and observations that convince us:

1. The early solar system formed directly from the highly radioactive, unmixed debris of a single supernova&#33;

2. The Sun formed on the collapsed supernova core and is iron-rich, like planets close to the Sun.

3. Unmixed isotopes made by different processes of nucleosynthesis and values of the (Daughter/Parent) ratios from the decay of short-lived isotopes

Rule Out:

i) Galactic mixing between element synthesis and the formation of planetary solids,

ii) Mixing of elements from the inner and outer regions of the solar system, and

iii) Separation into iron-rich planets close to the Sun and gaseous planets of hydrogen, helium and carbon far away."

But I realize the futility of writing and trying to force them to participate.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can&#39;t make him drink."

Everything happens in God&#39;s time, not mine.

So let&#39;s just keep the discussion going. Perhaps it will, like salt fed to a horse, encourage an eventual drink from the fountain.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-15, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 15 2004, 03:10 AM
So let&#39;s just keep the discussion going.
I am delighted to keep the discussion going as long as issues continue to be cleared up. I am waiting for your synopsis [or notes & slides for] your What Makes the Sun Shine lecture. After we&#39;ve looked them over, I expect to go back through the thread and look for questions we&#39;ve asked you which haven&#39;t been answered yet [there&#39;s a few].

As much as we&#39;ve cleared things up there&#39;s still quite a few places where you are using terms, or assuming processes which I think could be stated more explicitly.

Duane
2004-Apr-15, 03:08 PM
I see antoniseb has replied, but I thought I would just add a comment to this:


He certainly seemed to be acting as moderator since this story was moved here from Story Comments -> Discussion: Spitzer looks at a Stellar Nursery

He didn&#39;t actually move the topic Oliver, he started a new thread to try to put all the different discussions under 1 heading. (Well I assume that was his intention&#33; :unsure: )

We had discussions going under 3 or 4 different threads, so his idea to pull it all togeather here was a good one, don&#39;t you agree? ;)

It would be nice to see some responce from experts in the field, however busy they may be. It is unfortunant that only us amatures seem interested enough in your theory to debate it&#33;

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-15, 03:33 PM
Thanks, Duane. :D

Many of The 15 Space Age Observations have been overlooked for decades.

You can lead a horse to water, but ..... :P

So let&#39;s just keep feeding the horse salt. ;)

Eventually, he will be compelled to come to the fountain of observations&#33; :blink:

Thanks, to everyone - - - you, antoniseb, Tim and other Universe Today readers for pouring out salt.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
http://www.TheSunIsIron.com

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-16, 07:08 PM
Returned from recent travels & travails (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=travail&x=8&y=14), I find myself with a few points for the Prof, et alia (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=et+alia&x=19&y=14) to consider.
Not even one of the 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) that we are asked to consider is actually an observation of the sun. Does not that weaken the idea that they can be used to determine the internal structure of the sun?

Many more than 15 MSAO, these looking directly at the sun, are inconsistent with the iron sun hypothesis. Does that not weaken the iron sun hypothesis?

According to Prof. Manuel, the MSAO of the solar atmosphere are all wrong, and need to be "corrected" according to his formula. So what is wrong, really, with all of the MSAO of the solar atmosphere, and why is it that only Prof. Manuel&#39;s MSAO are right, and everybody else&#39;s are wrong?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-Apr-17, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 13 2004, 10:42 PM
That will be next
Saturday afternoon
April 16, 2004
Uh Oh, is this lecture on the 16th [yesterday] or on Saturday [today]?

Either way, I hope it goes well for you.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-17, 10:50 AM
Thanks, antoniseb, for reminding me
to remind readers in the Kansas City area:

Today, Saturday afternoon, April 17, 2004.

We will review evidence that the solar system:

1. Formed directly from fresh, highly radioactive supernova debris [Science 195 (1977) 208],

2. Inherited from this parent star the chemical gradients presently seen across its planetary system and within the interior of the Earth [Geochemical Journal 15 (1981) 245], and

3. Continued to operate as an energy source triggered by neutron-emission from the collapsed SN-core on which the Sun formed [J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197].

http://www.ballofiron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

Linda Hall Library
5109 Cherry Street
Kansas City, Missouri

--on the U-Missouri at Kansas City

The Linda Hall Library’s web site is

http://www.lhl.lib.mo.us/

I&#39;m leaving now.
**
I hope to see you there&#33;

With kind regards,

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

damienpaul
2004-Apr-17, 03:21 PM
Sorry, I could not make it, as i was on the other side of the planet playing civilisation III... :lol:

Duane
2004-Apr-17, 07:00 PM
Here is an observation from a newsarticle about a 100KM wide comet seen falling into it&#39;s star:


Five sets of observations taken at intervals of 5 to 10 days during October and November 2003 indicated that the stellar light was absorbed by clouds of hydrogen and helium surrounding the star as well as by emissions from these clouds.


Clouds of H & He, which are slightly enriched by heavier metals to about 1% of their total volume, within which are seen newly formed stars. The stars range from about 6Sm (Sm = solar mass) to 1Sm with no evidence of accretion on any supernova remnants.

JonofNJ
2004-Apr-18, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Mar 20 2004, 01:34 AM
okay, this may be a silly question, but waht exactly does the sun burn iron into? if anything
Iron is the heaviest element a star fuses,heavier ones are produced by supernovas

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-19, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Apr 16 2004, 07:08 PM
Returned from recent travels & travails (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=travail&x=8&y=14),* I find myself with a few points for the Prof, et alia (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=et+alia&x=19&y=14) to consider.





Not even one of the 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) that we are asked to consider is actually an observation of the sun. Does not that weaken the idea that they can be used to determine the internal structure of the sun?






Many more than 15 MSAO, these looking directly at the sun, are inconsistent with the iron sun hypothesis. Does that not weaken the iron sun hypothesis?






According to Prof. Manuel, the MSAO of the solar atmosphere are all wrong, and need to be "corrected" according to his formula. So what is wrong, really, with all of the MSAO of the solar atmosphere, and why is it that only Prof. Manuel&#39;s MSAO are right, and everybody else&#39;s are wrong?






Inquiring minds want to know.
Cheers.
Welcome back, Tim, from recent travels & travails (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=travail&x=8&y=14). :D

Your comments from "Inquiring minds" remind me of yesterday&#39;s sermon on the views expressed by doubting Thomas, "Except I shall see in his hands . . . . , and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." ;)

No observation can force "Inquiring minds" to change their personal opinions, Tim, but they may wish to consider the following: Not even one of the 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) that we are asked to consider is actually an observation of the sun. Does not that weaken the idea that they can be used to determine the internal structure of the sun?
Observations 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) concern direct observations on material coming from the Sun. Don Reames [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111] may be surprised if informed that the Wind Spacecraft measurements on material departing the Sun were not "actually an observation of the sun." Many more than 15 MSAO, these looking directly at the sun, are inconsistent with the iron sun hypothesis. Does that not weaken the iron sun hypothesis?
Are you pulling our leg, Tim? A multitude of observations looking directly at the surface of the Earth, are also inconsistent with the iron-rich Earth hypothesis. According to Prof. Manuel, the MSAO of the solar atmosphere are all wrong, and need to be "corrected" according to his formula. So what is wrong, really, with all of the MSAO of the solar atmosphere, and why is it that only Prof. Manuel&#39;s MSAO are right, and everybody else&#39;s are wrong?
You are, Tim&#33; :P Neither the Earth&#39;s nor the Sun&#39;s atmosphere needs to be "corrected". The Sun is mostly Hydrogen and Helium. Earth is mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen. Apples are red on the inside, too&#33;

Bless you, Tim, for speaking on behalf of the "Inquiring minds" that want to know. :rolleyes:

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-19, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 19 2004, 01:01 PM
"Inquiring minds" ... want to know.
So, how did the lecture go? Can you post the slides and notes? What, in your considered opinion, makes the sun shine?

Scarla O'
2004-Apr-19, 02:23 PM
I&#39;m very much enjoying this discussion and my knowledge of some of the issues involved is increasing considerably as a result of this debate - thankyou to all involved.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-19, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Apr 19 2004, 02:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ Apr 19 2004, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Apr 19 2004, 01:01 PM
"Inquiring minds" ... want to know.
So, how did the lecture go? Can you post the slides and notes? What, in your considered opinion, makes the sun shine? [/b][/quote]
Thanks, antoniseb, for the message. :D

In my opinion, the lecture went very well:

Many students picked up papers to study.

I asked them to participate in the on-line discussions here at Universe Today or at PhysicsLink.com

http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/v...srow=31&erow=40 (http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=2421&srow=31&erow=40)

Aston&#39;s nuclear packing fraction explains what makes the Sun shine. In fact, these data show the source of energy released:

..i) By fission of heavy elements.

.ii) By fusion of light elements.

iii) By the iron-rich Sun.

I hope to post the experimental data for all 2,850 known isotopes later today or tomorrow.

Inquiring minds will want time to study these results in detail.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-19, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Scarla O&#39;@Apr 19 2004, 02:23 PM
I&#39;m very much enjoying this discussion and my knowledge of some of the issues involved is increasing considerably as a result of this debate - thank you to all involved.
Welcome, Scarla O&#39; :D

If you can print a pdf file, you may want to study a recent review on "The Standard Solar Model vs. Experimental Observations".

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/beyond2002.pdf

I will be happy to try to answer any questions.

Again, Scarla &#39;O, welcome&#33; Your active participation will benefit everyone.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://umr.edu/~om

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-19, 11:43 PM
OM: (Posted on Apr 19 2004): Neither the Earth&#39;s nor the Sun&#39;s atmosphere needs to be "corrected".

Well, I am only relying on what you have said yourself:

OM: (Posted April 8, 2004 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=84), emphasis mine): Readers who take a Table of "Solar" Abundances (e.g., from Aller, Suess, Urey, Cameron, Anders, Grevesse, or even the table at the back of B2FH) and use the fractionation equation log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L) to correct these surface abundances will understand one of the reasons why we conclude that the Sun is composed mostly of Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca.

So, if you didn&#39;t actually mean what you actually said, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what, exactly, you really did/do mean?

OM: Are you pulling our leg, Tim? A multitude of observations looking directly at the surface of the Earth, are also inconsistent with the iron-rich Earth hypothesis

Actually, no they aren&#39;t. All one needs to do is follow the lead Archimedes set a few thousand years ago. The average density of the crust is 2.7 gm/cm^3, whereas the average density of the entire Earth is 5.5 gm/cm^3. This simple observation clearly establishes the presence of higher density material inside the Earth. It will not, by itself, show what that material is, or how it is distributed, but it does set us on the path of looking for a dense core. And, since Earth is a "solid" body, one cannot build a high density core out of elements of low atomic mass. Hence, a core of higher atomic mass elements is required. All one needs is a little physics.

Now, the density of material in the photosphere, derived from spectroscopy, is roughly 2x10^-7 gm/cm^3. But, the overall density of the sun is a mere 1.4 gm/cm^3, much less even than the crust of Earth. One hardly needs to appeal the dense iron to create an overall density that is hardly greater than water. The gas laws & radiative transfer handle that problem just fine. Hence, a look at the photosphere, and a little physics, quickly leads to the conclusion that the core of the sun is not likley made of heavy elements.

OM: Don Reames [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111] may be surprised if informed that the Wind Spacecraft measurements on material departing the Sun were not "actually an observation of the sun."

Actually, since Reames in fact did not look at the sun, I rather doubt that he would object to someone saying that he was not observing the sun. And I am quite certain that he would not suggest that his results were relevant to the specific details of the deep solar interior.

But this does lead me to another question. you cite Reames a lot, but I cannot see how his results are even relevant to the issue. Why do you think they are relevant? Specifically, what does the Reames result show, that is consistent with your hypothesis?

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-20, 03:00 PM
I apologize, Tim, for mistakenly believing you were joking. :D

Now it seems you really want to convince readers that all 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) are consistent with a Hydrogen-filled Sun made from an interstellar cloud.

Okay, Tim, but that will require disciplined effort by both of us.

The 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) represent 45 years of highly disciplined effort by the space scientists responsible for the Apollo, Wind, Galileo, Ulysses spacecrafts, and many of the world&#39;s leading scientists, their graduate students, technicians, and postdocs working in labs here on Earth - - - probably at least 10,000 man-years @ 20 years education = 200,000 education man-years.

I personally spent most of my career on these studies and recently invested many hours perparing the list for Universe Today readers. As noted earlier, the 15 Major Space Age Observations (MSAO) merit more than a "quick fix".

The findings confirmed many features of B2FH [Rev. Mod. Physics 29, 547-650 (1957)], but not mixing of supernova debris back into the interstellar medium.

The early solar system was highly radioactive&#33;

Short-lived isotopes and their decay products are “atomic clocks”*that deny the time:

.i) Assumed between element synthesis and the formation of the solar system.

ii) Assumed for geochemical differentiation in the solar system.

Please share your explanation for the first observation, Tim, and then I will respond.

Then we will move on to the second, until we consider together all these findings one-at-a-time.

To help readers follow the discussion, I have reproduced the 15 Major Space Age Observations below:
=================
II. Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-Present)

1. Decay products of many short-lived isotopes are observed in meteorites that formed at the birth of the solar system, e.g.:
82 Myr Pu-244 [J. Geophys. Res. 70 (1965) 700],
17 Myr I-129 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 8],
6.5 Myr Pd-107 [Geophys. Res. Lett. 5 (1978) 1079],
3.7 Myr Mn-53 [Geophys. Res. Lett. 12 (1985) 645],
0.7 Myr Al-26 [Nature 251 (1974) 495],
0.1 Myr Ca-41 [Ap. J. Lett. 431 (1994) L67],
. . . .
8 day I-131 [Ap. J. 463 (1996) 344],
78 hr Te-132 [Ap. J. 463 (1996) 344], etc.

2. Decay products of extinct Pu-244 and I-129 are seen in the Earth&#39;s atmosphere and in the Earth&#39;s depleted upper mantle with highly radiogenic Ar-40 and He-4 [Science 174 (1971) 1334; Nature 303 (1983) 762].**Less radiogenic gases (more non-radioactive gases, like He-3, Ar-36, and Xe-130) are observed in other mantle samples, perhaps from an un-depleted lower mantle that surrounds Earth’s iron core [Geochem. J. 15 (1981) 245; Nature 303 (1983) 762].**See related observations 6 & 7 below.

3. The mass spectrum of Pu-244 decay products in meteorites fits that measured from a laboratory sample of Pu-244**[Science 172 (1971) 837].**Pu-244 can only be made by the r-process in a supernova explosion [Rev. Mod. Physics 29 (1957) 547].*
*
4. The amount of Pu-244 observed in meteorites, the Earth, Moon, and meteorites dates the explosion of a supernova 5 Gyr ago, at the birth of the solar system [Naturwissenschaften 85 (1998) 180].

5.**Products of different B2FH nucleosynthesis reactions [Rev. Mod. Physics 29 (1957) 547] are seen in different meteorite minerals and planets:

a. Measurements show bulk Xe in carbonaceous chondrites, AVCC Xe [Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 351-354 (1960); Nature 240 (1972) 99] has excess heavy and light isotopes made by the r-process and p-process of B2FH in a supernova explosion [Rev. Mod. Physics 29 (1957) 547].

b. Characteristic levels of mono-isotopic O-16 are observed in six different types of meteorites and planets [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 30 (1976) 10].

c. Excess light and/or heavy isotopes of Kr, Te, Xe, Ba, Nd and Sm made by the r- and p-processes are observed in some meteorite minerals [Nature 240 (1972) 99; Science 190 (1975) 1251; Ap. J. 220 (1978) L15; Geophys. Lett. 5 (1978) 599; Nature 277 (1979) 615; Nature 391 (1998) 261].**These isotopes, like extinct Pu 244, are made in the terminal supernova explosion.
****
d. Excess middle isotopes of Kr, Sr, Xe, Ba, Nd, Sm and perhaps Te are seen in other meteorite minerals [Science 201 (1978) 51; Nature 277 (1979) 615; Nature 332 (1988) 700; Ap. J. 353 (1990) L57; Lunar Planet. Sci. XXI (1990) 920; Ap. J. 382 (1991) L47],**These isotopes are made as a star slowly evolves, before it reaches the supernova stage [Rev. Mod. Physics 29 (1957) 547].

e. Together, observations c. and d. above mean that “mirror-image” isotope anomaly patterns, complementary excesses and deficits of the same isotope, are seen in various parts of the solar system [Nature 277 (1979) 615; Origin and Evolution of the Elements (Cambridge University Press, 1993) 518-527].

f. Primordial He and Ne are only seen in meteorite minerals with excess Xe isotopes made by the r- and p-processes**[Science 195 (1977) 208; Meteoritics 15 (1980) 117].

g. The Galileo mission observed the same r-products in Xe of Jupiter’s He-rich atmosphere, as predicted earlier [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209].**The raw xenon isotope data are available on-line at: http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

h. On the other hand, the measured abundance of Xe isotopes in troilite (FeS) inclusions of meteorites are like those in Mars, the Earth, and the Sun [Nature 299 (1982) 807; Lunar Planet. Sci. XXVII (1996) 738a; Geochem. J. 30 (1996) 17; Chinese Sci. Bull. 42 (1997) 752].

i. Measurements reveal unusual abundances of isotopes of many other elements in these earliest condensates. e.g., in the silicon carbide which formed within 1-2 Myr after a supernova - - - when the Al-26/Al-27 ratio was as high as 0.6 [Ap. J. 394 (1992) L43]

6. The decay products of extinct I-129 and Pd-107 observed in iron meteorites are at levels comparable to those in the most primitive stone meteorites [Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 6 (1968) 113; Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 43 (1979) 843; Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 54, 1729 (1990)].**This leaves too little time for geochemical differentiation.

7. Molybdenum isotopes made by the r-, p- and s-processes of nucleosynthesis are observed incompletely mixed, in carbonaceous meteorites as well as in massive iron meteorites [Qi-Lu, Doctoral Thesis, University of Tokyo (1991); Meteoritics & Planet. Sci. 33 (1998) A99; Nature 415 (2002) 881-883].**This observation rules out melting and geochemical separation of a primordial element pool to make iron meteorites.

8. Analyses of meteorites revealed excess heavy isotopes from mass fractionation, entangled with decay products of extinct isotopes and unmixed products of nucleosynthesis [Nature 227 (1970) 1113; Z. Naturforsch. 26a (1971) 1980; Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 12 (1971) 282; Geophys. Res. Lett. 4 (1977) 299; Lunar Planet. Sci. XI, Part 3 (1980) 971; Nature 319 (1986) 576].**It is not known if the fractionation occurred in the solar system or in the parent star(s) that produced our elements.

9. Elements departing the surface of the Sun in the solar wind are observed to be enriched in light mass**isotopes (L) relative to the heavy mass ones (H) by a common mass fractionation factor (F).**Empirically the fractionation in the solar wind is [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209]:

**********************log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L)

10. This equation (defined by isotope measurements on elements in the solar wind) and the abundance pattern of elements at the solar surface (determined by line spectra measurements) indicates that the interior of the Sun consists almost entirely of seven elements seen only at the part-per-million level in the photosphere - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209].*
*
11. Analyses show these seven elements comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites [J. Am Chem. Soc. 39 (1917) 856].**The probability (P) that this agreement is meaningless (fortuitous) is
P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002&#33;&#33;

12. The above empirical equation and line spectra from the photosphere show the two most abundant isotopes in the Sun to be Fe-56, the decay product of "doubly magic" Ni-56, and "doubly magic" O-16 [J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem 251 (2002) 381]. Nuclear stability determines the abundance of elements in the interior of the Sun.

13. Heavy elements and heavy isotopes of individual elements are observed to be more abundant in material departing the surface of the Sun in flares and eruptions [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111; Proc. ACS Sym.: Origin Elements in Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum, 2000) 279].

14. Earth-like planets were observed orbiting a collapsed supernova core, pulsar 1257+12, in the first extra-solar planetary system discovered [Nature 355 (1992) 145; Science 264 (1994) 538].**Earth-like planets have not been observed orbiting other stars.

15. Solar magnetic fields that caused the violent solar eruptions observed in the fall of 2003 may arise from high concentrations of iron in the Sun [J. Fusion Energy 21 (2003) 193]. A news report on this is available on-line at:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/solarscience-03zl.html
=================
In the next posting Tim will explain the presence of all the radioactive isotopes listed in observation #1 despite mixing of supernova debris back into the interstellar medium:

1. Decay products of many short-lived isotopes are observed in meteorites that formed at the birth of the solar system, e.g.:
82 Myr Pu-244 [J. Geophys. Res. 70 (1965) 700],
17 Myr I-129 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 8],
6.5 Myr Pd-107 [Geophys. Res. Lett. 5 (1978) 1079],
3.7 Myr Mn-53 [Geophys. Res. Lett. 12 (1985) 645],
0.7 Myr Al-26 [Nature 251 (1974) 495],
0.1 Myr Ca-41 [Ap. J. Lett. 431 (1994) L67],
. . . .
8 day I-131 [Ap. J. 463 (1996) 344],
78 hr Te-132 [Ap. J. 463 (1996) 344], etc.

With kind regards,

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

Sp1ke
2004-Apr-20, 03:46 PM
Solar magnetic fields that caused the violent solar eruptions observed in the fall of 2003 may arise from high concentrations of iron in the Sun [J. Fusion Energy 21 (2003) 193].

I&#39;m not sure why you call this a "Major Space Age Observation". As I read it, it is a proposal rather than an observation i.e. you are saying the observed phenomenon may arise from iron, not that something has been observed that confirms the hypothesis.
:huh:

Duane
2004-Apr-20, 05:17 PM
Oliver, with respect sir, you have again answered a question with a question.

Tim asked you specifically:


you cite Reames a lot, but I cannot see how his results are even relevant to the issue. Why do you think they are relevant? Specifically, what does the Reames result show, that is consistent with your hypothesis?

Your answer is:


Please share your explanation for the first observation, Tim, and then I will respond.


Please answer the question you have been asked. If you want, you can then pose a new question for discussion.

Frankly, for me at least, your continual avoidance of direct answers to questions posed to you is what leads me to believe that your theory is unsupportable.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-20, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Duane@Apr 20 2004, 05:17 PM
Oliver, with respect sir, you have again answered a question with a question.

Tim asked you specifically:


you cite Reames a lot, but I cannot see how his results are even relevant to the issue. Why do you think they are relevant? Specifically, what does the Reames result show, that is consistent with your hypothesis?

Your answer is:


Please share your explanation for the first observation, Tim, and then I will respond.


Please answer the question you have been asked. If you want, you can then pose a new question for discussion.

Frankly, for me at least, your continual avoidance of direct answers to questions posed to you is what leads me to believe that your theory is unsupportable.
Thanks, Duane, for your comments. :D

I quoted Don Reames as one reference for the discovery that "Heavy elements and heavy isotopes of individual elements are observed to be more abundant in material departing the surface of the Sun in flares and eruptions [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111; Proc. ACS Sym.: Origin Elements in Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum, 2000) 279]."

If Tim disagrees with that statement, he should say so.

But let&#39;s not delay his explanation for the observations posted here long before his question, beginning with observation #1:

1. Decay products of many short-lived isotopes are observed in meteorites that formed at the birth of the solar system, e.g.:

82 Myr Pu-244 [J. Geophys. Res. 70 (1965) 700],
17 Myr I-129 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 8],
6.5 Myr Pd-107 [Geophys. Res. Lett. 5 (1978) 1079],
3.7 Myr Mn-53 [Geophys. Res. Lett. 12 (1985) 645],
0.7 Myr Al-26 [Nature 251 (1974) 495],
0.1 Myr Ca-41 [Ap. J. Lett. 431 (1994) L67],
. . . .
8 day I-131 [Ap. J. 463 (1996) 344],
78 hr Te-132 [Ap. J. 463 (1996) 344], etc.

With kind regards,

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

Duane
2004-Apr-20, 07:36 PM
Ok, but that doesn&#39;t answer the question. Pardon me for paraphrasing Tim, but he has asked you Oliver, what is it in those measurements that is consistant with your theory that the sun&#39;s interior has an iron rich core?

Or put differently, why do you suggest that the measurements taken by Reames offer evidence that the sun has an iron rich core?

Or another way, what part of the Reames measurements support your theory of an iron-rich core for the sun?

Simply restating the measurements does not answer the question&#33; <_<


If Tim disagrees with that statement, he should say so.


I don&#39;t see anything that suggests Tim disagrees with the statement that Reams measurements revealed that individual elements seen departing the solar surface in flares and eruptions have more abundant heavy isotopes. Rather, Tim is asking how those measurements offer support of your premise that the sun has an iron rich core.

Sorry, I can&#39;t think of any more ways to ask this question. :unsure:

VanderL
2004-Apr-20, 08:50 PM
I don&#39;t see anything that suggests Tim disagrees with the statement that Reams measurements revealed that individual elements seen departing the solar surface in flares and eruptions have more abundant heavy isotopes. Rather, Tim is asking how those measurements offer support of your premise that the sun has an iron rich core.

Just for my understanding, this measurement that during flares more heavy isotopes can be found in the solar wind, could mean several things:
1. heavy isotopes are formed during solar flares,
2. already formed heavy isotopes are more strongly released into the solar wind by charge or mass fractionation.
If the heavy isotopes are already formed and just "waiting" for flares to become accelerated, they could be released from the surface, or from below the surface. The surface abundancies are known I presume, so there is the possibility that they are released from below the surface. That would leave open the question where they were formed, or where this "pool" of elements is located.

These are probably things that were already explained a few times in earlier posts, but it would help me understand where the differences for the different models are.

Cheers.

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-21, 12:02 AM
OM: In the next posting Tim will explain the presence of all the radioactive isotopes listed in observation #1 despite mixing of supernova debris back into the interstellar medium

I have no idea what the explanation is. So what? Does that mean that by default, your theory must be correct? Does your theory have no merit of its own, on which it can stand, independent of my personal ability to explain anything? If so, what exactly is that merit?

As regards the 15 space age observations, they are, each and every one, totally irrelevant to the issue. I say this because there is no line of physical reasoning that connects the observation to the theory. Take, for instance, your observation #1, that I have no explanation for. What is the physics that connects that observation to the argument that the solar interior is iron rich?

In any scientific endeavor, there should always be a line of reasoning, an inference from observation. You should be able to show how your observation, combined with physics based reasoning, leads to your conclusion. If you cannot, then your hypothesis is without merit. If you can, then we need to compare the confidence level of that explanation against the confidence level of 80 years of hard physics research that has shown the sun cannot have an iron rich interior, and decide where the problem lies. Either the current standard theory is wrong, or the iron sun hypothesis is wrong. It is a matter of quite simple reasoning to realize that if the iron sun hypothesis is to be accepted, one must also have at least a vague understanding of where physics has failed, in the construction of the standard model. This you have consistently failed to address at all.

In fact, back on March 25 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=22), you said yourself that your data say nothing about how the neutrons actually manage to supply the energy to make the sun shine, and that your data say nothing about why the neutron core does not render the sun gravitationally unstable to collapse. So by your own admission, your own observations have limited relevance at least, since they provide no clues as to how one can get around the strong physical arguments already posed against the iron sun hypothesis.

In short, constantly repeating some list of observations is an exercise in futility for everyone. You have to get down to the business of explaining why we should ignore the fact that generations of physicists have already rejected your hypothesis, or, explain why they are all wrong. It is not up to me to answer questions that are not relevant, it&#39;s up to you to make some argument in favor of your own hypothesis.

Duane
2004-Apr-21, 04:19 AM
I cannot overstate my agreement with Tim&#39;s comments. Dr Manuel consistantly avoids answering direct questions related to observational, experimental and theoritical divergence from his hypothesis, instead continually repeating some set of anomalous measurements as if it is some type of holy grail. The numbers presented naked, without interpretation or explanation, are meaningless.

The argumant in favour of your theory goes like this:

Q) Why does the sun not collapse under it&#39;s own gravity if the core is a neutron star? OM Well, look at these numbers.

Q) Why does the earth show clear evidence of melting throughout and differentation? OM Well, look at these numbers.

Q) How does your model explain the current theory of neutrino flux? OM Well, look at these numbers.

Q How do your measurements compare to the current observations of the sun from such instruments as the RHESSI (http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/) spacecraft? OM Well, look at these numbers.

Etc etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum

I say again--based on all of the evidence I have been able to locate on this subject, Dr Manuel&#39;s hypothesis that the sun contains an iron rich or neutron core fails.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-21, 05:34 AM
Duane, Tim, and other readers, :D

I fear I have failed to communicate again.

Probably it was a mistake to post 45 years of measurements and observations here at one time (6 April) - - - studies that yielded results none of us expected.

Specialists involved in these studies had 45 years to contemplate and digest the findings as they came in. It is unfair to expect UT readers to grasp all the interconnections we saw and lived with during the 45 year period.

For example, let&#39;s consider some of the observations we had before Reames&#39; measurements in order to answer Duane&#39;s question: "why do you suggest that the measurements taken by Reames offer evidence that the sun has an iron rich core?"

1. In 1977 the totally unexpected link observed between primordial He and Xe-136, led us to hypothesize that a supernova produced the entire solar system and "the iron cores of the inner planets, the iron meteorites, and the core of the Sun" [Science 195 (1977) p. 209].

2. By 1983 measurements on elements in the solar wind revealed an enrichment of light mass*isotopes (L) relative to the heavy mass ones (H) by a common mass fractionation factor (F).**Empirically the fractionation in the solar wind is [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209]:

*******************log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L)

This empirical equation, defined by isotope measurements on elements in the solar wind, and the abundance pattern of elements at the solar surface, determined by line spectra measurements, provided additional evidence that:

i) The interior of the Sun is iron-rich.
ii) Lighter particles are enriched at the solar surface.
iii) The Sun is made mostly of seven elements seen only at the part-per-million level in the photosphere - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209].*
*
3. A few years later, a statistical analysis of the above results and the finding that Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca also comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites [J. Am Chem. Soc. 39 (1917) 856] concluded that the probability (P) this agreement is meaningless (fortuitous) is

P < 0.00000000000000000000000000000002&#33;

This left little doubt - the Sun is iron-rich.

4. In the 1990s, measurements revealed that light mass (L) isotopes are less enriched relative to heavy mass (H) isotopes in solar flares than in the solar wind. This observation was interpreted as evidence that energetic events at the solar surface disrupt mass fractionation and bring solar flare elements up, "from deeper within the sun." [Proc. ACS Sym.: Origin Elements in Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum, 2000) p. 282].

5. In 2000, Don Reames reported an enrichment of trans-iron elements ejected by an impulsive solar eruption [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111].

If H = mass of heavier particle and
if L = mass of lighter particles, then
Reames data show the following trend:

.(Z).........(H/L)...Enrichment
...8...........1.0..........=1.0
..26..........3.5......... ~10
34-40..4.9-5.7......~100
50-56..7.4-8.6.....~1000

So, to answer Duane&#39;s question: "why do you suggest that the measurements taken by Reames offer evidence that the sun has an iron rich core?"

The answer is that Don Reames data show excess heavy elements in solar flares, as expected if solar flares bring elements up, "from deeper within the sun." [Proc. ACS Sym.: Origin Elements in Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum, 2000) p. 282].

That is why I was delighted with Reames&#39; new finding&#33;

I will try to avoid such a communications error in posting information on
III. What Makes The Iron Sun Shine?

Tomorrow I will go ahead and post the raw data (Aston&#39;s nuclear packing fractions) that explains the source of energy for fission, fusion, and luminosity of an iron-rich Sun.

That will give readers time to ponder and digest the basic nuclear data that explain the source of solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and the solar wind.

Again, Duane, thanks for re-phrasing the question until I finally understood it.

With kind regards,

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

Scarla O'
2004-Apr-21, 11:12 AM
I apologise if this question is over-simplistic or if it has been covered here before - but are both models equally capable of accounting for the distribution of the heavier elements within the solar system?

If the solar system were the result of the slow coalescence of material surely the heavier elements would be found furthest from the centre of the solar system?

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-21, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Scarla O&#39;@Apr 21 2004, 11:12 AM
I apologise if this question is over-simplistic or if it has been covered here before - but are both models equally capable of accounting for the distribution of the heavier elements within the solar system?

If the solar system were the result of the slow coalescence of material surely the heavier elements would be found furthest from the centre of the solar system?
Thanks, Scarla O&#39; for your question. :D

Dr. Neil Fiertel addressed this issue here on March 29,

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...opic=2544&st=30 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=30)

Here&#39;s a small portion (without all the caps),

1. "The facts are that the inner planets are clearly differentiated from the outer planets and the isotopic constituents as determined by spectral analysis and on site evidence (the Jupiter probe being first to mind) point out theoretical discrepancies . . . that preclude the standard evolutionary model."

2. "One ought to first read as I have his many papers on the subject. They are complex but one can see that there are clearly some irrefutable data that backs his claim. . ."

3. "The discrepancy between the inner ferrous-silicaceous planets and the outer gaseous planets can be clearly interpreted as the result of a secondary coalescence of solar material after a supernova event . . ."

4. "The content of the inner planets . . . demonstrate a very distinct difference from the light elemental composition and, likely core-less gas giants such as Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus."

My inability to communicate has contributed to the confusion about this matter.

Please try to find the site on Universe Today where someone recently posted a drawing of The Galactic Bubble surrounding the Sun. That may also be helpful.

With kind regards,

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

Scarla O'
2004-Apr-21, 01:52 PM
Thanks for your reply Oliver - that&#39;s helpful, I should have read that post before but all those capitals put me off ;)

I think this is the picture you refer to?

http://spacsun.rice.edu/~twg/gif/bublmap.gif

It certainly gives the impression that we are situated if not at the epicentre, then very close to the epicentre of a supernova explosion doesn&#39;t it?

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-21, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Duane@Apr 21 2004, 04:19 AM
I cannot overstate my agreement with Tim&#39;s comments. Dr Manuel consistantly avoids answering direct questions related to observational, experimental and theoritical divergence from his hypothesis, instead continually repeating some set of anomalous measurements as if it is some type of holy grail. The numbers presented naked, without interpretation or explanation, are meaningless.

The argumant in favour of your theory goes like this:

Q) Why does the sun not collapse under it&#39;s own gravity if the core is a neutron star? OM Well, look at these numbers.

Q) Why does the earth show clear evidence of melting throughout and differentation? OM Well, look at these numbers.

Q) How does your model explain the current theory of neutrino flux? OM Well, look at these numbers.

Q How do your measurements compare to the current observations of the sun from such instruments as the RHESSI (http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/) spacecraft? OM Well, look at these numbers.

Etc etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum

I say again--based on all of the evidence I have been able to locate on this subject, Dr Manuel&#39;s hypothesis that the sun contains an iron rich or neutron core fails.
Thank you for the message, Duane. :D

I think it identifies a basic communications problem.

You and I have different strengths and weaknesses. That makes communications difficult.

I am very weak in verbal skills. In 1956 I was admitted to college on the basis of tests showing that I was good at math but extremely weak in verbal skills. Later tests revealed that I had essentially no space perception.

Undoubtedly guided by those strengths and weaknesses, I majored in math and chemistry as an undergraduate. In graduate and post-graduate studies I worked in nuclear chemistry and isotope analysis (mass spectrometry).

In 1964 I joined the faculty at the Missouri School of Mines (now the University of Missouri-Rolla). Engineering, physical sciences and mathematics dominated the campus then, and remain today as primary campus strengths.

Most of our research results are numbers. Most of my reasoning is quantitative. It is baffling to me that anyone could look at The 15 Major Space Age Observations and doubt that:

1. The early solar system was highly radioactive&#33;

2. These "atomic clocks" deny the time

i) Assumed between element synthesis and formation of the solar system, and

ii) Assumed for geochemical differentiation to form different types of planets and their internal layers.

The first time interval is required in order to mix supernova products back into an interstellar cloud before forming the Hydrogen-filled Sun. The second time interval is required to separate chemicals from this imaginary interstellar cloud into different types of planets and chemical layers.

Yet measurements of decay products of short-lived elements conclusively show instead that there was little or no time:

i) Between element synthesis and formation of the solar system.

ii) To separate elements into different types of planets and chemical layers.

Furthermore, many, many observations (e.g., #7) show that isotopes made in different stellar regions never mixed.

So in my opinion, Duane, the first seven (7) observations listed in The 15 Major Space Age Observations rule out the imaginary interstellar cloud needed to form a Hydrogen-filled Sun.

The remaining observations simply confirm that the Sun is in fact iron-rich, like the planetary material closest to it.

Our inability to communicate is illustrated by your opposing conclusion that "--based on all of the evidence I have been able to locate on this subject, Dr Manuel&#39;s hypothesis that the sun contains an iron rich or neutron core fails."

The evidence for a neutron core will be presented later, in
III. What Makes The Iron Sun Shine?

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
http://www.TheSunIsIron.com

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-21, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Scarla O&#39;@Apr 21 2004, 01:52 PM
Thanks for your reply Oliver - that&#39;s helpful, I should have read that post before but all those capitals put me off ;)

I think this is the picture you refer to?

http://spacsun.rice.edu/~twg/gif/bublmap.gif

It certainly gives the impression that we are situated if not at the epicentre, then very close to the epicentre of a supernova explosion doesn&#39;t it?
Thanks, Scarla O&#39; :D

Yes, that&#39;s the drawing.

I usually overlook anything not defined by numbers, but that picture may help communicate to those with different talents.

There is another beautiful picture I will try to post, "The Cradle of the Nuclides". This shows values of Aston&#39;s nuclear packing fraction for all 2,850 isotopes known today.

If I can get it, that picture may also help communicate about the Sun&#39;s luminosity.

Thanks again, Scarla O&#39;.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
http://www.BallOfIron.com

Scarla O'
2004-Apr-21, 03:54 PM
Hi Oliver,

You mention in one of your papers the need for further measurements to test for the presence of a high density solar core - helioseismology, gravitational-field-gradient studies of the sun etc.

Do you know if any of these avenues of research are currently being explored?

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-21, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Scarla O&#39;@Apr 21 2004, 03:54 PM
Hi Oliver,

You mention in one of your papers the need for further measurements to test for the presence of a high density solar core - helioseismology, gravitational-field-gradient studies of the sun etc.

Do you know if any of these avenues of research are currently being explored?
Hi, Scarla O&#39; :D

I do everything possible to encourage tests of the model, Scarla O&#39;.

I know of two possible measurements. Both are "hush-hush", reflecting the sad state of modern science [a search for fame and funds rather than truth].

1. The Sun&#39;s Quardapole Moment

In 2001 I spoke at the institution where Galileo taught, near Palermo, Sicily. Over coffee during a break I mentioned the need for measurements to determine if there is a high density solar core to a geophysicist.

The atmosphere became very tense. Sitting at the same table was a NASA scientist with whom the geophysicist had been secretly planning measurements of the Sun&#39;s quardapole moment to test the presence of a high density solar core. Both seemed to think the other had violated confidentiality and told me of their secret plan.

I have communicated with the geophysicist since then, but I have been unable to learn anything more about the status of their experiment.

2. Cl-35 Detectors

In 2002 Dr. R. Ganapathy and I did the calculations and showed that anti-neutrinos emitted during neutron decay could be detected by capture on Cl-35:

Cl-35 + anti-neutrino -> S-35 (87-day half-life)

The best detector would have been the Homestake Mine. It contains three times more Cl-35 than Cl-37 (used to detect solar neutrinos via Cl-37 + neutrino -> Ar-37).

When that effort failed, we contacted producers of table salt from underground mines and determined that natural underground deposits of NaCl might be used for the experiment.

To encourage the measurement, I attended international conferences on non-accelerator physics in Oulu, Finland, in Dubna, Russia, and in Venice, Italy. I have personally spoken with many of those studying solar neutrinos.

Presently research funds from DOE are pouring into measurements to show that neutrinos oscillate. Those popular "findings" may not withstand the test of time, but I suspect a bright young scientist will soon report measurements on S-35 from the capture of anti-neutrinos on Cl-35.

3. Others

I have also communicated with geophysicists world-wide about possible detection of the Sun&#39;s internal structure by gravity anomalies or by influences on the Earth&#39;s magnetosphere. A solar physicists I know, Carl Rouse, has for many years interpreted solar data, including helioseismology data, as evidence of an iron-rich solar core.

4. You Can Help

Talk with others - especially young scientists - about the evidence for an iron-rich Sun. Washington bureaucrats and Ivy-League scientists will see that measurements are made if enough people start asking about evidence for an iron Sun.

Remind them the Sun:

i) Comprises over 99.8% of the mass of the solar system.

ii) Serves as a model for other stars in the cosmos.

iii) Is the only star close enough for detailed study.

Thanks again, Scarla O&#39;, for your comments.

With kind regards,

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

gooodcop
2004-Apr-21, 05:33 PM
Wow Oliver,

Evidence of an iron sun? TOO KEWLLLL&#33;

Sally

gooodcop
2004-Apr-21, 05:38 PM
~~~~~~~~Both are "hush-hush", reflecting the sad state of modern science [a search for fame and funds rather than truth

Oliver,
what you said is so sad and true. Our society should use ALL the resources of its people&#39;s intelligence (not just the technically elite which Im not, however I was asked to be in Who&#39;s Who&#33;) to make science go FORWARD. Not the elite handful should we rely on and that&#39;s all about how knowledge gets corrupted.

There ought to be a law, that all humans have a right to understand their planet and universe, and that coveting that knowledge is a crime. It would be ethically correct.

And that knowledge is free for ALL and something we share. Imagine the leaps we could take if we stopped letting a handful of "think tankers" direct NASA and our futures. Its too limited and yes very much centered around greed and pride. Let the scientist publish his secret idea to insure his credit; but none of this sitting on ideas and slowing the understanding of space and our own planet, etc.

Yup, I still have on my rose colored glasses and refuse to take them off no matter how ugly things before me get. :)

gooodcop
2004-Apr-21, 05:50 PM
~~~~~Most of our research results are numbers. Most of my reasoning is quantitative. It is baffling to me that anyone could look at The 15 Major Space Age Observations and doubt that:

1. The early solar system was highly radioactive&#33;
~~~~

How can anyone disbelieve that the earth was highly radioactive, when we know everything (including dinosaurs) was mammoth sized? When we see Chernobyl&#39;s forest (help here, what&#39;s the name)...with branches enlarging from 2cm to 6cm like mutants???

And why is it so hard to picture asteroids coming from a volcanic sun when they look like lava? :)

Oliver, how do I move my cake in the oven plumping/supernova theory over to this section where it "belongs"? Thanks

Sally

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-21, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by exhale@Apr 21 2004, 05:38 PM
~~~Both are "hush-hush", reflecting the sad state of modern science [a search for fame and funds rather than truth]

Oliver,
what you said is so sad and true. Our society should use ALL the resources of its people&#39;s intelligence (not just the technically elite which Im not, however I was asked to be in Who&#39;s Who&#33;) to make science go FORWARD. Not the elite handful should we rely on and that&#39;s all about how knowledge gets corrupted.

Yup, I still have on my rose colored glasses and refuse to take them off no matter how ugly things before me get. :)
Thanks, Sally. :D

I agree with your sentiments, Sally, but keep on those rose colored glasses&#33; :)

We cannot change the world, but we can each sweep our side of the street and thus reduce the world&#39;s conflicts.

Hang in there, Sally&#33; ;)

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
http://www.TheSunIsIron.com

antoniseb
2004-Apr-21, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by exhale@Apr 21 2004, 05:50 PM
how do I move my cake in the oven plumping/supernova theory over to this section where it "belongs"?
I have created a new thread in this section for your cake in the oven plumping/supernova theory. It might be good for you to repost the copyrighted material there that you posted in the Other Stories section. I can&#39;t do that because it is copyrighted, but you can. I think it makes a good introduction to the topic.

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-22, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 21 2004, 05:34 AM
5. In 2000, Don Reames reported an enrichment of trans-iron elements ejected by an impulsive solar eruption [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111].

If H = mass of heavier particle and
if L = mass of lighter particles, then
Reames data show the following trend:

.(Z).........(H/L)...Enrichment
...8...........1.0..........=1.0
..26..........3.5......... ~10
34-50..4.9-5.7......~100
50-56..7.4-8.6.....~1000

So, to answer Duane&#39;s question: "why do you suggest that the measurements taken by Reames offer evidence that the sun has an iron rich core?"

The answer is that Don Reames data show excess heavy elements in solar flares, as expected if solar flares bring elements up, "from deeper within the sun." [Proc. ACS Sym.: Origin Elements in Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum, 2000) p. 282].

That is why I was delighted with Reames&#39; new finding&#33;

The third line in Manuel&#39;s table should read "34-40", not "34-50"; Reames did not present any data in the range 40-50.

Now, one might ask, enrichment relative to what? The answer is relative to coronal oxygen, and not photospheric hydrogen. In the photosphere, the O/H ratio is about 0.000676, but in the corona the O/H ratio is highly variable, ranging from ~0.00035 down to ~0.00008. Let&#39;s just call it 0.0002, for lack of a better number. So, if O/H is ~0.0002, and X/O is ~1000, then X/H = (O/H)(X/O) = (0.0002)(1000) = 0.2, making the heaviest elements still less abundant than hydrogen, by about a factor of 5. Likewise, the 34-30 mass range abundance, relative to hydrogen is ~0.02, and Fe/H must be ~0.002, all relative to hydrogen in the corona. This is still an enhancement over photospheric abundances, where, for instance, Fe/H = ~ 0.000032, but it does not look to me like dramatic evidence for a "mostly iron" sun. Indeed, if anything, since what we actually see is an increased enhancement of trans-iron elements, why not a "mostly heavier than iron" sun, which certainly fits the observation better?

Meanwhile, what&#39;s wrong with Reames&#39; own explanation?

Reames (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000ApJ...540L.111R&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f18991) (P. L114): For impulsive events, enhancements in (50<=Z<=56)/O of ~100 and (Z>=50)/O of ~1000, relative to coronal abundances, dramatically continue the progression of heavy element enhancements above Fe. Qualitatively, this progression seems to argue for a cascading wave model of resonant stochastic acceleration in flares (e.g., Miller & Reames, 1996 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996AIPC..374..450M&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f18991)). In this model, waves not absorbed by species at the lowest value of Q/A continue to cascade to increasingly high wavenumbers, where they resonate with ions of higher gyrofrequency (higher Q/A) until they are eventually absorbed on He or H. The highest Z ions with the lowest initial Q are most strongly enhanced before they eventually become ionized later when the bulk plasma is heated (Reames et al., 1994 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1994ApJS...90..649R&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f18991); Reames 1999 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999SSRv...90..413R&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f18991)).

In short, the heavier ions are favorably accelerated (and therefore more abundant), because of a resonance between the ion gyrofrequency and the Alfven waves. Why is this less likely than the scenario where material is dredged up from beneath the photosphere? After all, in the dredging up scenario you have to assume that the material is there to dredge up, there is no observation of that material. However, the resonant acceleration model works with well established physics (i.e., Ng, Reames & Tylka, 2003 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2003ApJ...591..461N&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f18991)), and takes place entirely above the photosphere, where it is amenable to observation (i.e., Tylka et al., 2002 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2002ApJ...581L.119T&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f18991)).

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-22, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Apr 21 2004, 12:02 AM
OM: In the next posting Tim will explain the presence of all the radioactive isotopes listed in observation #1 despite mixing of supernova debris back into the interstellar medium

I have no idea what the explanation is. So what? Does that mean that by default, your theory must be correct? Does your theory have no merit of its own, on which it can stand, independent of my personal ability to explain anything? If so, what exactly is that merit?


Hi, everyone. :D

Before moving on to III. What Makes The Iron Sun Shine?, I must respond to Tim&#39;s comments on observation #1 in the list of The 15 Major Space Age Observations.

Of course, another&#39;s inability to explain the observations does not mean that by default, my theory must be correct.

However, the first seven (7) observations leave little doubt that:

1. The early solar system was highly radioactive&#33;

2. Parent/daughter ratios of short-lived isotopes in meteorites and planets act as "atomic clocks" that rule out the time assumed in the standard model for

i) Supernova products to be mixed back into an interstellar cloud before forming the solar system.

ii) Elements to be separated back out of that imaginary interstellar cloud to form different types of planets and their major chemical layers.

3. A multitude of observations (e.g., #5a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i, #7) in fact show that isotopes made in different stellar regions never mixed.

Returning to III. What Makes The Iron Sun Shine?, I will try not to overwhelm readers by posting a large number of observations here at one time.

In fact, it took me 25 years (1975-2000) to realize that Francis William Aston&#39;s nuclear packing fraction ( f ) provides the answer to this question, as well as to the source of energy for:

i) Fission of heavy elements in atomic bombs and nuclear reactors, and

ii) Fusion of light elements in hydrogen bombs.*
*
Aston made precise measurements of the masses of isotopes and expressed his results in terms of tiny deviations from Prout’s hypothesis that Aston called the nuclear packing fraction, ( f ):

( f ) = [M (mass) – A (mass number)]/ A (mass number),
or ( f ) = [M/A] - 1

For the neutron, f = +0.008665
For H-1...........,* f = + 0.007825
For He-4.........,* f = + 0.0026
For C-12.........,* f =****0.000000
For O-16.........,* f = - 0.005085
For Fe-56........,* f = - 0.006506

Precise masses are now known for 2,850 isotopes.* In 2000 when we finally plotted values of f or M/A, potential energy per nucleon, for each isotope as a function of (Z/A), the charge to mass ratio, and then sorted by values of A, "The Cradle of the Nuclides" was revealed*:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/summary/cradle.pdf

This is a 3-D plot of potential energy per nucleon, M/A, versus charge density, Z/A, versus atomic mass number, A, for all 2,850 currently known isotopes of the elements [Nuclear Wallet Cards, 6th edition (Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Nuclear Data Center, Upton, NY, 2000) 74 pp.]. The vertical axis is identical to f + 1, where f = Aston’s nuclear packing fraction = (M–A)/A. Systematic properties of these 2,850 nuclides explain not only What Makes The Iron Sun Shine, but also the source of solar neutrinos and solar-wind protons pouring from the Sun&#39;s surface.

"The Cradle of the Nuclides" is not yet published in any textbook, but I expect it will eventually be included in all basic textbooks on chemistry, physics and astronomy.**It was first published on the cover of the Proceedings of the ACS Symposium, "Origin of Elements in the Solar System", that Glen Seaborg and I organized in 1999.**The publisher, Kluwer/Plenum has the book listed at:

http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-306-46562-0

Readers of Universe Today are asked to to study carefully "The Cradle of the Nuclides". A pdf file is available at:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/summary/cradle.pdf

I would like to respond to questions about the Cradle before we use that to explain the source of luminosity in an iron-rich Sun.

With kind regards,

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

*PS - "The Cradle of the Nuclides" is one of the serendipitous discoveries that have suddenly been revealed, like a bolt of lightening. Such sudden insights are to me, as gifts unexpectedly bestowed.

My mentor, Paul Kazuo Kuroda, was in ill health when "The Cradle of the Nuclides" was revealed. A copy was mailed to him under the caption, "The Universe Is In Good Hands".

Whether or not the Cradle has any spiritual message is immaterial. It certainly looks like two cupped hands together, holding all of the ordinary atomic matter in the universe.

antoniseb
2004-Apr-22, 10:12 AM
"The Cradle of the Nuclides" is not yet published in any textbook

This forum is a mixed audience in terms of background, and I think your choice to begin with the binding energy of the isotopes is a good one.

I don&#39;t think any of us have a quibble with the binding energy of the nuclei. This Cradle diagram as such may not have been shown as-is in any text-book yet, but the general shape of it, based on less complete collections of the isotopes has been around for decades. The textbook in my first nuclear physics course was published back in the late sixties and showed a similar diagram.

Everyone should notice the very steep drop in energy from Hydrogen or neutron down to Helium. There is no other place on this chart where a reaction, or series of reactions, can release this much energy. If I understand your argument correctly, you don&#39;t propose that most stars have some other energy source than this. You are arguing that our sun is a fairly rare case.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-22, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 22 2004, 10:12 AM
I don&#39;t think any of us have a quibble with the binding energy of the nuclei. This Cradle diagram as such may not have been shown as-is in any text-book yet, but the general shape of it, based on less complete collections of the isotopes has been around for decades. The textbook in my first nuclear physics course was published back in the late sixties and showed a similar diagram.

Everyone should notice the very steep drop in energy from Hydrogen or neutron down to Helium. There is no other place on this chart where a reaction, or series of reactions, can release this much energy. If I understand your argument correctly, you don&#39;t propose that most stars have some other energy source than this. You are arguing that our sun is a fairly rare case.
Thanks, antoniseb, for your comments. :D

Two brief replies:

1. You are right, antoniseb, the concept of nuclear binding energy has been around for many decades. It is in freshman level textbooks of chemistry, for example.

However, the Cradle is a novel 3-dimensional plot of reduced nuclear variables of state. From my own limited reading and from the responses of reviewers, editors, and readers when the 3-D Cradle of the Nuclides was first published, I doubt that you will find "the general shape" of the Cradle of the Nuclides in any textbooks published prior to:
i) The Proceedings of the ACS Symposium, "Origin of Elements in the Solar System", that Glen Seaborg and I organized in 1999
http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-306-46562-0

ii) "The Sun&#39;s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy", 32nd Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, Abstract #1041, Houston TX, March 12-16, 2001
http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf

iii) "Attraction and Repulsion of Nucleons: Sources of Stellar Energy", J. Fusion Energy 19 (2001) pp. 93-98
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

I spent many hours studying the binding energy diagrams published in textbooks earlier, searching in vain for an explanation of energy coming from the Sun. It isn&#39;t there, antoniseb.


2. I have not said that "our sun is a fairly rare case."

Our Sun is unique in that it is close enough for detailed study. As you will see, those measurements show that H-fusion is not the source of energy in the Sun.

As you know, the Sun is widely used as the model of other stars in the cosmos. It is therefore important that we spend our efforts trying to make certain we understand this star, before trying to extrapolate to other stars that are less accessible for measurements.

With kind regards,

Oliver :rolleyes:
http://www.TheSunIsIron.com

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-22, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Tim Thompson+Apr 22 2004, 01:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim Thompson &#064; Apr 22 2004, 01:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Apr 21 2004, 05:34 AM
5. In 2000, Don Reames reported an enrichment of trans-iron elements ejected by an impulsive solar eruption [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111].

If H = mass of heavier particle and
if L = mass of lighter particles, then
Reames data show the following trend:

.(Z).........(H/L)...Enrichment
...8...........1.0..........=1.0
..26..........3.5......... ~10
34-40..4.9-5.7......~100
50-56..7.4-8.6.....~1000

So, to answer Duane&#39;s question: "why do you suggest that the measurements taken by Reames offer evidence that the sun has an iron rich core?"

The answer is that Don Reames data show excess heavy elements in solar flares, as expected if solar flares bring elements up, "from deeper within the sun."* [Proc. ACS Sym.: Origin Elements in Solar System (Kluwer-Plenum, 2000) p. 282].

That is why I was delighted with Reames&#39; new finding&#33;

The third line in Manuel&#39;s table should read "34-40", not "34-50"; Reames did not present any data in the range 40-50. (CORRECTED)

Meanwhile, what&#39;s wrong with Reames&#39; own explanation?

..... the progression of heavy element enhancements above Fe ..... seems to argue for a cascading wave model of resonant stochastic acceleration in flares [/b][/quote]
Thanks, Tim, for pointing out the typo. :D

I will correct that.

In view of all the other evidence of solar mass fractionation cited in my posting, but not included in yours:

1. Simple mass-dependent fractionation

seems a more likely explanation for the progression of heavy element enhancements above Fe, rather than

2. A cascading wave model of resonant stochastic acceleration in flares.

As I mentioned earlier, there are ad hoc explanations for each of The 15 Major Space Age Observations but collectively they show that the solar system formed directly from supernova debris.

http://www.BallOfIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

Leaving a Local Bubble in our galaxy that looks like this:

http://spacsun.rice.edu/~twg/gif/bublmap.gif

I hope we can now leave II. The 15 Major Space Age Observations and move to III. What Makes The Iron Sun Shine?, beginning with comments on The Cradle of the Nuclides:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/summary/cradle.pdf

With kind regards,

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

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-22, 07:03 PM
OM: As I mentioned earlier, there are ad hoc explanations for each of The 15 Major Space Age Observations but collectively they show that the solar system formed directly from supernova debris.

I do not dispute this and never have. I simply do not know whether or not it is true. However, I do dispute that this fact has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not the sun has an iron core. The argument is a logical non-sequiter

OM: Our Sun is unique in that it is close enough for detailed study. As you will see, those measurements show that H-fusion is not the source of energy in the Sun.

This I also dispute, it is also a logical non-sequiter. In both cases, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. The 15 major space-age observations are entirely irrelevant, and the observation that the solar system formed from a single supernova debris has no logical connection to the premise that the sun has an iron core. I do not dispute the facts in evidence. I dispute the existence of a logical connection between those facts and the premise that the sun has an iron core. I also point out, repeatedly, that the facts obtained by actually observing the sun (and I reiterate that none of the 15 major space age observations in evidence is an observtion of the sun), strongly argue against an iron core.

I simply see no reason to prefer a logical non-sequiter over physics.

antoniseb
2004-Apr-22, 07:14 PM
Hi Dr. Manuel,

Here&#39;s a quick question for you while I await your next posting on why the Iron Sun shines:

How long do you think it will be before the material in the Crab Nebula stops moving away from the neutron star, and starts falling back in on it?

As a follow-up, do you think the resulting star will be more or less massive than our sun? Is there any way to predict the amount of material that will appear in its planets?

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-22, 07:54 PM
Everything one does not understand is not necessarily a "logical non-sequiter". :D

Specialists also had difficulty trying to explain The 15 Major Space Age Observations. They struggled mightily with these measurements for 45-years.

By comparison, Universe Today readers have only had a month or two to ponder The 15 Major Space Age Observations.

I hope we can avoid Latin phrases in discussing The Cradle of the Nuclides

http://web.umr.edu/~om/summary/cradle

and III. What Makes the Iron Sun Shine? in future discussions.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-23, 12:14 AM
Dear UT Readers, :D

I finally figured out how to post an important image here so everyone can see it. ;)

The image below shows systematic trends in the potential energy of nucleons (neutrons and protons) in all 2,850 known isotopes, from mass 1 to 265. The neutron and the hydrogen atom are represented by red data points. Each heavier isotope is represented by a blue data point.

The average potential energy of nucleons in each isotope is represented by its vertical height.

Light species at the left end of this Cradle, like the neutron, H-1, H-2, H-3, He-3, Li-6, Li-7, Be-9, B-10, and B-11, have high potential energy. Fusion of these into heavier, more stable isotopes, like He-4, C-12, . . . Fe-56, releases up to 0.8% of rest mass as energy (E = mc2).

The most stable nuclear species, Fe-56, is the lowest point in the graph. This is the ash of fusion reactions. Fe-56 is abundantly produced near the core of supernovae.

Heavier species on the right of this Cradle, like Th-232, U-235, U-238, etc. can "split in two" or fission, releasing about 0.1% of rest mass as energy (E = mc2).

At any fixed mass number, A, isotopes near the front of the Cradle have low values of Z/A and spontaneously decay by emitting electrons from the nucleus. This process, negatron emission increases Z/A to an isotope represented by a point lower in the trough.

At any fixed mass number, A, isotopes near the back of the Cradle have high values of Z/A and spontaneously decay by emitting positrons from the nucleus or by capture of an atomic electron by the nucleus. This process, positron emission or electron capture decreases Z/A to an isotope represented by a point lower in the trough.


CRADLE OF THE NUCLIDES


http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/cradle.jpgThis is a 3-D plot of potential energy per nucleon, M/A, versus charge density, Z/A, versus atomic mass number, A, for all 2,850 currently known isotopes of the elements [Nuclear Wallet Cards, 6th edition (Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Nuclear Data Center, Upton, NY, 2000) 74 pp.]. The vertical axis is identical to f + 1, where f = Aston’s nuclear packing fraction = (M–A)/A. Systematic properties of these 2,850 nuclides explain not only What Makes The Iron Sun Shine?, but also the source of solar neutrinos and solar-wind protons pouring from the Sun&#39;s surface.

The Cradle of the Nuclides may also explain the high surface temperature reported on "The Lonely Neutron Star" and the observation of line spectra from hydrogen in the region [European Southern Observatory, 2000 ESO press release, on "The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star" by M. van Kerkwijk]
With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-23, 06:55 PM
Hi Dr. Manuel,

I saw this statement in one of your postings in the Questions and Answers -> Background Radiation Question -

Yes, we are living in a Local Bubble in our Galaxy and it was probably created by the event that gave birth to the solar system 5 billion years ago:

I am curious as to whether you seriously believe that the local bubble could really be from a single supernova small enough to have left a sub-solar-mass neutron star, and have insufficient energy to blast a large fraction of its materials beyond escape velocity [allowing re-accretion], and yet be strong enough to leave a bubble 300 lightyears across that survives recognizably intact through the tail end of the rapid star forming era [five billion years ago] in our galaxy, and through all subsequent supernova in this vicinity since then? Also, since the sun is substantially moving relative to the local stars and the gas in this spiral arm, is this bubble plowing through this medium with us?

If you believe this, please defend how it could be true, or else this discussion is pretty much over with your idea still not fully explained. We were interested in your theory because there is certainly some interesting science behind it, but if it depends on the local bubble being from our supernova, your theory is dead.

VanderL
2004-Apr-23, 08:10 PM
I&#39;m sorry Antoniseb,

But the statements in your last post seem to indicate that everything that happened to our part of the galaxy the past 5 billion years is a closed book. Do we really know what a supernova event does to it&#39;s surroundings and how much material is released and where it ends up exactly. I think we are far removed from knowing exactly how our solar system formed. We don&#39;t even know how large our system is and what is still "out there" waiting to be discovered.
I hope this discussion will not turn into a contest, let&#39;s just explore how the different facts have lead Oliver to his hypothesis and even if you think the hypothesis unlikely or even false, I would like to hear Oliver&#39;s explanation on what makes the Sun shine.

Cheers.

Duane
2004-Apr-23, 08:19 PM
I used Bayers Star Catalog (http://supernovawd.netfirms.com/worlds/Bayer.htm#Lepus) to get the distances to some of the stars represented in the "bubble" noted in Dr Manuel&#39;s diagram.

Let me say first off, that the bubble represented n this diagram does not reflect the "true" position of stars in their 3d enviroment. Nor have the stars been given any proper motion in relation to the earth nor the galaxy.


Looking at Scheat (http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/scheat.html) on the far left middle of the bubble, Hippacaros (http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/) measurements reveal the star is 200 light years (Ly) away in the constellation Pegasus.

beta Gruis (http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/betagru.html) at the top of the bubble is in the southern hemispheric constellation of The Crane, and is 230 Ly away. (It shouldn&#39;t be confused with Tau Gruis in the same constellation, but which is only some 77 Ly away and has at least one planet.)

Zeta Andromedae (http://www.dibonsmith.com/and_tble.htm) just below Scheat is 181 ly away in the constellation Andromeda.

Epsilon Bootis is 150 Ly away in the constellation Bootis.

Wazn (http://www.dibonsmith.com/cen_con.htm), pn the far right of the diagram, is also known as alpha Centauri and is 4.33 Ly away. I think this star has been mis-identified.

Mu Leporis, on the southern fringe of the diagram, is 215Ly away in the northern constellation Lepus.

So the bubble in question is somewhere in the neighborhood of 350-400 Ly across and contains some 30,000 stars, only the very brightest of which are listed here. There is no way to measure the direction the bubble is proceeding in, as the Hipparcos data only extends out to ~300Ly. The 2 dimensional diagram does not give the veiwer an understanding of whether or not the "bubble" is a sphere, like in foam, or pie pan shaped, as in round but flat. The diagram has no reference to size, no depth perception, and the stars on the edges range all over the night sky, including stars in the north edge that are in southern constellations, and stars on the south end that are in northern constellations, and vise versa.

As we are given no reference as the the orientation of the bubble to the plane of the galaxy, the view could as easily be looking down onto the plane as looking across the plane. In fact, the diagram remainds me strongly of the "Galactic Chimney" (http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/outreach/newsletter/news_eng/sep95/chimney.html) found by the Galactic Plane Survey (http://www.drao-ofr.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/outreach/newsletter/news_eng/sep95/gps.html), which would suggest that it is actually a argument against the iron sun theory, given that it supports the Galactic Fountain Theory (http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~spac250/allison/overview.html) of steller cloud enrichment.

I must work now, so I will add more tot his later :)

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-23, 08:58 PM
I would like to hear other explanations for The Local Bubble.

For the last 45 years we struggled with unexpected observations on the solar system, 15 Major Space Age Observations. The explanation for these observations may provide new insight into the source of solar luminosity and also impact other areas of cosmology.

For example, in the abstract to Jan Such&#39;s recent paper on "The Origin of the Universe and Contemporary Cosmology and Philosophy", he refers to "the extremely subtle problem of extrapolation of local physics onto the large scale areas of the universe".

This problem turned out to be a weakness in the laws of nuclear physics, as known in 1975, that would not permit extrapolation to neutron stars.

That year we had strong indications that the Sun is iron-rich and formed on a neutron star. But nuclear physics, as it was known in 1975, offered no source for luminosity from such an object.

Finally in 2000, we used "reduced variables" of nuclei, just as physical chemists had earlier used "reduced variables" of gases to obtain the Law of Corresponding States of Gases.

The systematic properties of nuclei, when expressed in terms of the reduced variables, Z/A (charge per nucleon) and M/A (potential energy per nucleon), revealed the "Cradle of the Nuclides". See earlier posting or go to the link at:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/cradle.gif

Trends in the "Cradle" can be extrapolated to neutron stars. They may explain, not only luminosity from the Sun, but also M. van Kerkwijk&#39;s 2000 report on "The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star."

He observed an unexpectedly high surface temperature on this neutron star. Analysis of light emitted from near the surface of the neutron star revealed the line spectra of hydrogen - a neutron decay product&#33;

The "Cradle" has the shape of two cupped hands held together, and might be seen by the religious as confirmation that "The Universe is in God&#39;s Hands". :P

The "Cradle" was first published on the cover of the Proceedings of the ACS Symposium "The Origin of Elements in the Solar System" that Glen Seaborg and I organized in 1999.

With kind regards,

Oliver :)

PS - Fresh neutron stars, pulsars, are a hot topic in the 23rd April 04 issue of Science.

Duane
2004-Apr-23, 09:07 PM
A little "light" reading about the size and distribution of the Local Bubble (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~soljourn/reports/AASJan2002.pdf) in a pdf format (you need acrobat to read it).

The bubble actually extends in an oval shape, extending ~100pc towards and away from the galactic centre, and ~50pc towards and away from the gallaxial rotation.

Duane
2004-Apr-23, 09:14 PM
I would like to hear other explanations for The Local Bubble.


Look here: http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/chimney.htm

Here is another view of the bubble (well, assuming this image thing works)

http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/loc2bubb.jpg


and:

http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/gal2bubb.jpg

antoniseb
2004-Apr-23, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Apr 23 2004, 08:10 PM
Do we really know what a supernova event does to it&#39;s surroundings and how much material is released and where it ends up exactly.
Hi VanderL,

I took a strong position on this because we do know a lot about the energy and quantity of matter released by the whole range of supernovae. We also know roughly how many supernaovae are happening now, and in ages past.

Yes there are error bars on the knowledge, but this local bubble in the diagram is far outside the error limits for a supernava that might have created the "Iron Sun" five billion years ago.

I am gentle with some forum members who stretch the laws of physics to express a non-standard idea, but Dr. Manuel is making a serious proposal, and I am trying to treat it seriously [out of respect for the idea and his scientific efforts], and test it against things we can see and measure [Something impossible with the DWINDLE theory]. We were having some success getting Dr. Manuel to make clear what his theory is, and how he came to the Iron Sun conclusion. Recently he&#39;s been courting people with ideas more outside-the-box than his to join the discussion. I feel I need to resist letting this happen, because it will muddy the discussion. My only tool is to demand the same rigor and careful measurement, calculation, and adherence to the laws of physics that Dr. Manuel would expect if we disputed his measurements. This will keep this a productive, and not fanciful, discussion.

BTW the local bubble IS probably the result of a supernova explosion, or perhaps several, but they were probably less than a million years ago.

Tim Thompson
2004-Apr-24, 02:08 AM
Maybe the rest of you think this is interesting, but I have a radically different opinion. I consider it a meaningless adventure in pseudoscience, so I will remove myself from the discussion with this message. But in so doing, I will leave behind several points to ponder, all of which Prof. Manuel will ignore, as he always does.

1: Looking at the "15 major space age observations (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=120)", it remains a simple & obvious fact that not one of them involves a direct observation of the sun itself. So am I crazy, for thinking that actually looking at the sun is a better route to understanding its internal structure, than is actually not looking at the sun? This fact alone renders the iron sun hypothesis on weak ground.

2: Considering the ramifications of 1, above, I have to say that all 15 of the so-called major space age observations are simply irrelevant to the question of the sun&#39;s internal structure. That makes the entire hypothesis a literal non-sequiter, wherein there is no visible, logical connection between the premise (15 major space age observations) and the conclusion (the sun has an iron core). It is for that reason that I consider the hypothesis to be pseudo-science, rather than science; it has no basis in fact or logic. Prof. Manuel&#39;s response is to simply say that I "don&#39;t understand", but he never once has mentioned what the physical connection is between the observations not looking at the sun, and the solar interior.

3: Physics is not something you can just ignore when you feel like it. Yet Prof. Manuel seems to think that it is, and I consider that a major failure to properly apply science to the solution of the problem. It is yet another reason for describing this hypothesis as pseudo-science. There are at least 3 significant examples of this "ignore physics" approach embedded in the iron sun hypothesis, which I will briefly describe.

3a: The opacity discrepancy is not a small issue. The first stellar modelers did assume a sun made mostly of iron, or other heavy elements. But they could not reconcile that model with the physics of opacity, and were forced by this to abandon the model. This bit of fundamental physics, which was known to Eddington nearly 80 years ago, has not changed. It remains a major problem. Yet, in his discussion of the history of solar models, Prof. Manuel does not mention it at all. When I brought it up, he simply ignored it, as if I had not even typed a word. If the iron sun hypothesis is to be taken as a scientific hypothesis, then this problem must be addressed in some way, not ignored.

3b: The solar neutrino problem began simply as a shortage of neutrinos counted, below the count expected by theory. But the first neutrino detector was primarily sensitve only to neutrinos from the boron reaction, and not to the proton-proton (pp) reaction primarily responsible for solar energy generation, in the standard models. Later detectors, sensitive to pp neutrinos, observed the expected flux of pp neutrinos. And the most recent neutrino experiments count the exact same number of neutrinos that the sun is anticipated to produce, based on standard models. And we know the count is of solar, and not non-solar neutrinos, because the count correlates with the solar position angle relative to the detector, and with solar distance in a seasonal signal. It is entirely consistent with the new model of neutrino oscillations (a major modification to the standard model of particle physics). Prof. Manuel&#39;s response to this is to ignore it. He says we should just ignore the fact that we can differentiate neutrinos from different reactions, and treat them they way researchers did 30 years ago, instead of the way we know how to do it today, and he simply ignores the correlation to solar position & distance. This is not a proper scientific treatment. If the iron sun hypothesis is to be taken seriously, it has to be noted that it specifically predicts a much smaller count of neutrinos than is actually seen, and that conflict between the iron sun hypothesis and observation of solar neutrinos must be resolved, or al least addressed in some positive way. It should not be ignored.

3c: The science of helioseismology is well established, and rests on a solid foundation of physics, even if it is complicated. Helioseismology returns a profile of sound speed as a function of depth, which is in turn used to recover density & temperature, using methods that have been verified here on Earth, looking at both the planet and its atmosphere. Helioseismology shows that the previous, standard solar models, are entirely consistent, to within an error margin of no more than +/- 5%, with the observed internal structure of the sun. Prof. Manuel&#39;s response is to simply ignore these facts, as if they did not exist. This is not a proper scientific treatment. If the iron sun hypothesis is to be taken seriously, then one must address the issue and not ignore it. Why does helioseismology imply an internal structure for the sun that is inconsistent with the iron sun hypothesis?

4: Another problem I have is the misrepresentation of data. As an example, consider the discussion of Reames&#39; data (Abundances of trans-iron elements in solar energetic particle events (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2000ApJ...540L.111R&db_key=AST&high=3e6fbfd69f18991), D.V. Reames, Astrophysical Journal 540(2): L111-L114, Part 2, September 10, 2000). Prof. Manuel said (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=73) "... Don Reames reports [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111] in a massive solar flare successively heavier elements are enriched by factors of 10, 100, 1000 times their value at the solar surface&#33;". But a simple reading of the abstract alone, shows that Reames&#39; enrichments are relative to the corona, and not to the surface. Furthermore, Prof. Manuel never explains what the "enrichments" are relative to, in terms of elements. In fact, the enrichments are relative to coronal oxygen. In order to tell what the data really mean, you have to scale the relative abundances of iron & oxygen in the corona to the abundance of hydrogen, and then scale the abundances again, from the corona to the photosphere, in order to finally find out how they actually compare to the solar "surface" (see here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=141)). By failing to properly present the data, its true meaning & value are disguised. It is especially unfortunate to do this in a forum where the majority of the readers, with little or no scientific backgrounds of their own, are unlikely even to realize what&#39;s going on. If the representation of Reames&#39; data is so shoddy, what about the representation of the data in the other 14 observations? What confidence do I have that they too are not disguised in some way? I don&#39;t have the time to track it all down and verify every detail.

I cannot see myself in a discussion where every attempt to talk about real science is simply ignored. So I shall leave you all to have fun without my sourpuss fouling it up.

Duane
2004-Apr-24, 02:35 AM
Thank you Tim, I think you have summed up the problems I have also noticed in Dr Manuel&#39;s responces to the many inquiries made of him regarding this subject. As you state, he either ignores the question, answers it with an unrelated question, or lays out a series of half explained measurements as an answer.

I like Phil Plait&#39;s advice on dealing with claims like this, in a recent edition of Sky and Telescope. I don&#39;t have the time or inclination to find the article right now, so I will paraphrase him.

A person will propose a theory that has little or no merit, and then bury you in minutiae to overwelm your arguments in defence. The best way to deal with such arguments is to keep the big picture front and center.

In this case, the big picture is that the observations, physics, history and measurements all clearly support the standard solar model as the clearest and most complete explanation of what is happening in the sun.

Despite VanderL&#39;s dislike of the statement, the fact remains that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Dr Manuel doesn&#39;t even give good ordinary evidence.

I would like to be able to say I am done with the subject, and I will certainly be more choosy of the comments I respond to, but I seem to have this morbid fascination with the thread--sort of like watching a train wreck. Regardless, I think I have made my feelings known.

Good luck with it Dr Manuel.

antoniseb
2004-Apr-24, 04:21 AM
Thanks Tim and Duane,

For my part, I will wait and see what the rest of his &#39;Why the Iron Sun Shines&#39; line of reasoning is, but I agree that so far he has side-stepped or ignored the arguments using thirty or more year old science if he mentions it at all. It is pretty clear that he will never make a statement so clear that it can be proven wrong, and so thus falls back to a &#39;need more measurements&#39; or &#39;take 45 years to study it like I did&#39; position.

All that being said, I look forward to seeing what the isotope and element abundances tell us about the history of the solar system. He is right that there is an interesting story there. He is just wrong about the story.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-24, 11:36 AM
Dear UT Readers,

For the record, a resume of my scientific credentials can be accessed from links added at the end of each message posted here:

http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.BallOfIron.com
http://www.TheSunIsIron.com

However, let&#39;s not let personal issues side-track this discussion.

The discussion to date has shown:

1. General agreement on I. Major Mutations in the Science of Element Synthesis and Stellar Energy (1815-1959) posted at 2:48 pm on March 31, 2004.

2. The lack of alternative explanations* for II. 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000) posted at 8:38 pm on April 6, 2004.
Observations #1-7 show the presence of short-lived isotopes and un-mixed products from synthesis reactions preserved in meteorites and planets that formed at the birth of the solar system.

Observation #8 is the mass fractionation seen across isotopes of elements that also preserved a record of short-lived species (like Al-26) and un-mixed products of nucleo-synthesis. Gerry Wasserburg and his group at Cal Tech referred to this strange mix as FUN anomalies for Fractionation + Unknown Nuclear. This observation on planetary material is a natural link to the next five observations on the Sun itself.

Observations #9-13 are analyses showing that mass fractionation in the Sun generates a surface vaneer that is 91% H (the lightest element) and 9% He (the next lightest element).

Observation #14 shows that supernova debris also formed rocky, Earth-like planets orbiting a collapsed SN-core elsewhere in the universe.

Observation #15 shows that an iron-rich solar interior may cause magnetic fields and eruptions at the solar surface.

3. Little interest to date in The Cradle of the Nuclides

http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/cradle.gif

that will be used to explain III. Why the Iron Sun Shines.

Thank you for taking the time to read this review.

With kind regards,

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

----------------------------------
*Tim claims that none of The 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000) are direct observation on the sun. Observations #9-13 concern measurements on the abundances of elements and isotopes in the solar wind, in solar flares, and in an impulsive solar eruption. Observation #15 concerns measurements on solar magnetic fields.

Tim correctly notes that some detailed measurements at the top of the list of II. 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000) were made on material in meteorites and planets rather than the Sun.

Solar material is less accessible for detailed study and has not, like meteorites, retained a "frozen" record from the birth of the solar system. Most scientists assume a common source for the Sun and its planetary material. Tim has not denied that.

Tim has admitted he cannot explain even the first of 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000).

While not direct observations on the Sun itself, the first seven (7) of 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000) show collectively that:

i) Highly radioactive, fresh supernova debris formed the solar system.

ii) Parent/Daughter ratios of short-lived isotopes (e.g., Al-26, Pd-108, I-129, Pu-244) do not allow time for supernova debris to mix with the H-rich interstellar medium before the solar system formed.

iii) Parent/Daughter ratios of short-lived isotopes (e.g., Al-26, Pd-108, I-129, Pu-244) do not allow time for H-rich interstellar material to separate elements into the different types of planets and major chemical layers seen in the planetary system.

iv) Un-mixed isotopes from various B2FH processes of nucleosynthesis (s-process, r-process, p-process, He-burning, etc.) were "frozen" in meteorites at the birth of the solar system. This confirms that supernova debris did (ii) not mix with H-rich material to form the solar system and did (iii) not separate from H-rich material to form planetary solids.

Thus, the first seven (7) observations constrain the origin and composition of the Sun if it came from the same material that formed meteorites and planets.

This is widely accepted in the scientific community. Hence, the first seven (7) observations on material in meteorites and planets form the basis for several papers in highly regarded journals and conference proceedings about the iron-rich Sun that formed on the collapsed core of a supernova [Transactions Missouri Academy of Science 9 (1975) 104-122; Science 195 (1977) 208-209; Proceedings of the Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII. Cosmochemistry (1978) 263-272; Nature 277 (1979) 615-620; Meteoritics 15 (1980) 117-138].

VanderL
2004-Apr-24, 02:14 PM
Despite VanderL&#39;s dislike of the statement, the fact remains that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Dr Manuel doesn&#39;t even give good ordinary evidence

Yes, and I haven&#39;t changed my mind on that; it is the qualifier "extraordinary" that makes this remark useless. Who decides what is extraordinary, and what is the difference between ordinary evidence and extraordinary evidence. It should be "claims require evidence".
Anyway, the evidence that Oliver is trying to get across so far is not convincing to anybody here in the forum. It is not the facts that are problematic, but the interpretations of the facts.
I still hope he will be able to make things more clear.

Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-25, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Apr 24 2004, 02:14 PM
Anyway, the evidence that Oliver is trying to get across so far is not convincing to anybody here in the forum. It is not the facts that are problematic, but the interpretations of the facts.

I still hope he will be able to make things more clear.

Cheers.
Thanks, VanderL.

I obviously need to spend more time organizing

i) "the facts" and

ii) "the interpretations of the facts"

so they can be easily followed, discussed, discarded or modified.

It is my impression "the facts" in the first two sections are not in dispute:

I. Major Mutations in the Science of Element Synthesis and Stellar Energy (1815-1959) posted at 2:48 pm on March 31, 2004.

II. 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000) posted at 8:38 pm on April 6, 2004.

Do you agree?

It is also my impression there is little or no disagreement about the ii) "the interpretations of the facts" in I. Major Mutations in the Science of Element Synthesis and Stellar Energy (1815-1959).

Do you agree?

It is ii) "the interpretations of the facts" presented about II. 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000) that is confusimg and needs more attention.

Do you agree?

If so, I will go back and edit the posting on Apr 24 2004 to explain more fully "the interpretations of the facts" in II. 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000) while readers are continuing to ponder The Cradle of the Nuclides.

Again, VanderL, thanks for your comments.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-28, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by VanderL@Apr 24 2004, 02:14 PM
It is not the facts that are problematic, but the interpretations of the facts.

I still hope he will be able to make things more clear.

Thanks, VanderL, for an excellent suggestion.

Below I will try to separate -

"The Facts" from

"Interpretations” of facts

and italicize the interpretations so they can be easily discussed, modified, or discarded.

I. Major Mutations in the Science of Element Synthesis and Stellar Energy (1815 1959) posted at 2:48 pm on March 31, 2004.

"The Facts": Our understanding of element synthesis and stellar energy is rooted in:

i) Prout’s hypothesis that heavier elements are combinations of H atoms.

ii) Aston’s precise measurements of tiny deviations from Prout’s hypothesis.

iii) Einstein’s realization that mass and energy are equivalent, E = mc2.

iv) Harkins’ finding that even-numbered elements are more abundant than odd ones.

v) Development of the H-bomb.

vi) Adoption of the model of an H-filled Sun.

vii) B2FH’s finding that stellar evolution may be linked with the synthesis of heavy elements by various types of nuclear reactions that occur at different stages of stellar evolution or at different depths as a star, initially composed of hydrogen, becomes increasingly rich in heavier elements and finally explodes as a supernova.

"Interpretations”:
Fresh supernova debris will be highly radioactive and contain many short-lived isotopes made in the violent SN explosion.

If the SN debris mixes back in the interstellar medium, then the debris will be homogenized and mixed with non-radioactive material.

If the SN debris does not mix into the interstellar medium, then:

1. Elements in one region of the debris may all be enriched in one particular type of synthesis product, e.g., Te-130, Xe-136 and Ba-138 from rapid neutron capture (r-process).

2. Certain isotopes of one element, e.g., Te-124, may be linked with another seemingly unrelated element, e.g., Si, that happened to be abundant in the stellar region where that particular isotope was made.

3. Related elements - like He, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe - may be separated by stellar depth. For example, He would not accompany Ar, Kr and Xe from the deep interior of the star.

4. The earliest condensate will trap the highest levels of short-lived isotopes and also show the largest isotopic anomalies. Natural mixing (entropy) will reduce isotopic anomalies in the debris while short-lived isotopes are decaying away.

I am working on a similar list of Facts and Interpretations for II. 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000).

However, I am posting this now for your consideration because a friend from the early 1960s is coming for a few days&#39; visit.

Again, VanderL, thanks for pointing out the need for a separation of Facts and Interpretations.

With kind regards,

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

damienpaul
2004-Apr-28, 12:31 PM
I have read and re read, and now my brain is dribbling out of my ears from the meltdown...:) but i do understand both points of view. Please keep this debate going&#33;

antoniseb
2004-Apr-28, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Apr 28 2004, 12:31 PM
Please keep this debate going&#33;
As noted above, I am still waiting for the posts about what makes the Iron Sun shine.

In a different thread Dr. Manuel indicated that he does not believe in the big bang cosmology, but that if he could see some solid evidence that it was true, he might have to take some different positions [though, I assume not with respect to the Iron abundance in the sun]. At the risk of taking this thread off of the topic for which it was created, I&#39;d like to point out that with today&#39;s telescopes, it will be very hard to demonstrate that galaxy density has increased, but it is very easy to show that distant galaxies have a greater likelyhood of being smaller, in a merger, having an AGN, and in having starburst behavior. I don&#39;t think that a steady-state universe could explain an apparant evolution as a function of age or distance.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-28, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Apr 28 2004, 12:31 PM
I have read and re read, and now my brain is dribbling out of my ears from the meltdown...:) but i do understand both points of view. Please keep this debate going&#33;
Thanks, damienpaul.

As mentioned earlier, those of us working in the field had 45 years to digest the results as they were coming in.

My communication skills are weak and it is almost impossible to convey this information so it can be understood in a few weeks.

Again, thanks for your patience.

With kind regards,

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

madman
2004-Apr-28, 01:31 PM
in reply to Antoniseb,

Why do Galaxies in the Young Universe Appear so Mature? (http://www.gemini.edu/project/announcements/press/2004-1.html)

***********************************
quote from the article.

"Studying the faint galaxies at this epoch when the Universe was only 20-40% of its current age presents a daunting challenge to astronomers, even when using the light-gathering capacity of a very large telescope like Gemini North with its 8-meter mirror. All previous galaxy surveys in this realm have focused on galaxies where intense star formation is occurring, which makes it easier to obtain spectra but produces a biased sample. The GDDS was able to select a more representative sample including those galaxies which hold the most stars–normal, dimmer, and more massive galaxies–that demand special techniques to coax a spectrum from their dim light.

"The Gemini data is the most comprehensive survey ever done covering the bulk of the galaxies that represent conditions in the early Universe. These are the massive galaxies that are actually more difficult to study because of their lack of energetic light from star formation. These highly developed galaxies, whose star-forming youth is in fact long gone, just shouldn&#39;t be there, but are," said Co-Principal Investigator Dr. Karl Glazebrook (Johns Hopkins University)."

*****************************

antoniseb
2004-Apr-28, 02:37 PM
Hi Madman,

This is a very interesting topic [Differences: Local and Distant Galaxies], I want to discuss it more, but I don&#39;t think it belongs in Alternative Theories, and certainly not in the Iron Sun thread [mea culpa]. Since this is a mainstream topic, why don&#39;t we start a new thread under Astronomy. Would you like to start it, or should I?

madman
2004-Apr-28, 03:10 PM
you could start a new thread if you like, but i was just trying to point out that hierarchical/evolutionary models of the universe are not a foredrawn conclusion...and that in the article there is an admission that the sampling beforehand had been a bit biased towards the types of galaxies you listed..ie: "smaller, in a merger, having an AGN, and in having starburst behavior"

the bias was a product of the fact that a technique didn&#39;t exist to gather a proper sample of objects (including the dimmer/older besides the younger/brighter).

the "group" previously over-sampled were the young/bright/active bodies...and these fit the hierarchical model.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-28, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Apr 28 2004, 12:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Apr 28 2004, 12:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-damienpaul@Apr 28 2004, 12:31 PM
Please keep this debate going&#33;
As noted above, I am still waiting for the posts about what makes the Iron Sun shine.

In a different thread Dr. Manuel indicated that he does not believe in the big bang cosmology, but that if he could see some solid evidence that it was true, he might have to take some different positions [though, I assume not with respect to the Iron abundance in the sun]. [/b][/quote]
Thanks, antoniseb.

If it&#39;s okay, I would like to answer questions about the evidence for an Iron Sun before explaining what makes the Iron Sun shine.

It would be more accurate to say I doubt big bang cosmology. I simply cannot grasp, "poof - the entire universe from nothing". Personal friends that I respect, better acquainted with cosmology and astrophysics than I, also have problems with this concept.

At best, I may contribute to our understanding of the origin of this tiny corner of the universe.

With kind regards,

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

VanderL
2004-Apr-28, 05:56 PM
Thanks Oliver for the latest overview, it is still very hard for me to imagine what chronology of events best fit the facts. I don&#39;t know enough about the Standard Model (or the Iron Sun model ) to see why events in the distant past should give the results that we see.
What I do know is that a large number of assumptions are in place in both models. One of the most important assumptions is the fact that heavy elements must be produced in specific stars that subsequently go supernova and spread these elements into accretion disks of stars that are just starting to form. This is true for both models, just as the fusion reactions of light elements that is needed in both models. The only difference that I can see is the order of events that is assumed at the moment of the creation of the solar system. Those events are critical to the models, but can&#39;t be proven, no matter what model we come up with.

The recorded elemental abundance on (and in) the different bodies in the solar system are all clues to how the solar system formed, but there can be any number of "one off" events that have a big influence on what we are measuring (like the capture of a planet that didn&#39;t form in our solar system, or a disruption of orbits, or collisions and breakup at any time after the formation of the Sun etc etc.).

So imho, the data that are most relevant for the composition of the interior of the Sun are the elements found in the solar wind and the spectroscopic measurements of elements on the surface and in the atmosphere of the Sun.

Is it possible to see both models exclusively in light of the composition of the Sun, without "muddying" (no disrespect) the issue with the rest of the solar system?

I guess that this question will not help resolve the issue, but it may help me understand where the disagreements are. After all the composition of the Sun will give us insight in what makes the Sun shine.

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-Apr-28, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 28 2004, 05:47 PM
It would be more accurate to say I doubt big bang cosmology.
Again, mea culpa, it is my intention to represent you accurately, and I have at times failed in that.
Concerning the cause of the Big Bang, I think there&#39;s plenty of room for speculation and doubt. I started a new thread in Astronomy related to the topic of the evolving universe, and am willing to discuss this more there.

Concerning you laying out evidence for the Iron Sun before diving in to your model of how the Iron Sun shines... that sounds like a fine plan. I can&#39;t speak for everyone, but I think the biggest gaps come in the following places:
1. Your statement about there not being enough time for mixing matter from a separate supernova event seems not to have any specifics. Several of us have suggested that the sun formed in a dense star forming region similar to things seen today. Unless your mixing time is less than a few thousand years, I don&#39;t think this one holds up.
2. We pretty much believe that isotope and atomic abundance ratios are different in different places [and admire your part of getting these figures], but do not think you&#39;ve made an open and shut case for the fractionation all being in the photosphere.
3. Even if you are right about the iron content of the sun, there is little said that explains how you determined that there is a neutron star in the center of the sun.

There are quite a few other questions that you&#39;ve left unanswered, but as you aren&#39;t an astronomer as much as a nuclear chemist, and as you have no particular desire to model the results of your conclusions, we can certainly let that ride for a while. Keep in mind though, that it is the difficulty of meshing your results with observed phenomena that give rise to most of our resistence in accepting your conclusions.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-28, 07:02 PM
Thanks, antoniseb.

I will post these Facts and Interpretations for UT Readers to consider while I am visiting with my friend. Here are the first seven (7) of II. 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000) posted at 8:38 pm on April 6, 2004.

1. "The Facts": Decay products of many short-lived isotopes are observed in meteorites.

1. "Interpretations”: Many short-lived isotopes were trapped in meteorites when they formed. Planetary solids started to form almost immediately after our elements were made.

2. "The Facts": Decay products of extinct Pu-244 and I-129 are observed in the Earth’s atmosphere and in the Earth’s highly depleted upper mantle with other radiogenic gases like Ar-40. Radiogenic gases are less prominent, and primordial gases like He-3, Ar-36 and Xe-130 more abundant, in samples from the lower mantle.

2. "Interpretations”: The upper mantle melted, formed the Earth’s atmosphere and crust, and ceased degassing within the first 200 My, while extinct I-129 (16 My) and Pu-244 (82 My) were still alive. The lower mantle never melted and still retains primordial gases, including highly mobile He-3. Earth’s iron core formed first, likely by accretion of iron-meteorite like material, and then silicates accreted on the core.

3. "The Facts": The mass spectrum of Pu-244 decay products in the Earth and in meteorites fits that measured from a laboratory sample of Pu-244.**B2FH say Pu-244 and other actinide elements are only made by the r-process in a supernova explosion.

3. "Interpretations”: Extinct Pu-244 from a recent supernova explosion was alive at the birth of the solar system when planetary solids formed.

4. "The Facts": The decay products of Th-232, U-235, U-238 and Pu-244 can be used together to date the time of the supernova explosion that produced these.

4. "Interpretations”: Combined Th,U/Pb and Pu/Xe age dating shows that a supernova explosion occurred 5 billion years ago, at the birth of the solar system.

5a. "The Facts": Bulk xenon in meteorites is enriched in the lightest isotope, Xe 124, and the heaviest isotope, Xe-136.

5a. "Interpretations”: B2FH say the p-process makes Xe-124 and the r-process makes Xe-136 only in a supernova explosion. Un-mixed supernova debris is the only viable explanation for this observation.

5b. "The Facts": Characteristic levels of mono-isotopic O-16 are observed in six different types of meteorites and planets.

5b. "Interpretations”: B2FH say O-16 is the only oxygen isotope made by He burning. Poorly mixed elements and isotopes in fresh stellar debris formed six different types of meteorites and planets, each with distinctive levels of O-16.

5c. "The Facts": Diverse elements found together in meteorites, like Kr, Te, Xe, Ba, Nd and Sm, share a common property. Their lightest and/or heaviest isotopes are enriched.

5c. "Interpretations”: These dissimilar elements all came from the outer part of a star, where the p-process made the light isotopes and the r-process made heavy isotopes in the final supernova explosion.

5d. "The Facts":The middle isotopes of many of these same elements - Kr, Sr, Xe, Ba, Nd, Sm and perhaps Te - are enriched in other meteorite minerals.

5d. "Interpretations”: These dissimilar elements all came from part of the star where B2FH say slow neutron capture made the middle isotopes as the star slowly evolved, before it reached the supernova stage .

5e. "The Facts": The same isotopes that are enriched in one meteorite mineral are depleted in another. Normal isotope abundances are a more uniform mix.

5e. "Interpretations”: “Mirror-image” isotope anomalies are complementary excesses and deficits of the same isotope. They are un-mixed components of the isotopes that together comprise ordinary matter.

5f. "The Facts": Primordial He and Ne are only seen in meteorite minerals with “strange Xe”, containing excess Xe isotopes made by the r- and p-processes

5f. "Interpretations”: The r- and the p-processes produced Xe-124 and Xe-136 in the outer regions of the supernova where He and Ne were abundant.

5g. "The Facts": The Galileo mission observed the same r-products in Xe of Jupiter’s He-rich atmosphere.
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

5g. "Interpretations”: Jupiter and the other gaseous, giant planets formed out of material from the outer regions of the supernova. “Strange Xe” was made there in a region where light elements like He and Ne were abundant.

5h. "The Facts": The abundance of Xe isotopes in troilite (FeS) inclusions of meteorites are like those in Mars, the Earth, and the Sun.

5h. "Interpretations”: Troilite (FeS) inclusions of meteorites, Earth, Mars and the Sun came mostly from an iron-rich region of the supernova with “normal” xenon.

5i. "The Facts": Measurements reveal unusual abundances of isotopes of many other elements in the earliest condensates. e.g., in the silicon carbide which formed within 1-2 Myr after a supernova - - - when the Al-26/Al-27 ratio was as high as 0.6 [Ap. J. 394 (1992) L43]

5i. "Interpretations”: This silicon carbide is refractory material that condensed within 1 Myr of the supernova explosion. As expected, it physically displays some of the same properties observed in fall-out particles from nuclear weapons, including higher levels of radioactivity and larger isotopic anomalies in the grains that formed first and grew largest.

6. "The Facts": The decay products of extinct I-129 and Pd-107 observed in iron meteorites are at levels comparable to those in the most primitive stone meteorites.

6. "Interpretations”: Nickel-iron meteorites are as primitive as carbonaceous chondrites. B2FH say these elements are made near the supernova core by the e process. There was not time for Ni and Fe from the supernova to mix back into the interstellar medium and then separate back out.

7. "The Facts": Molybdenum isotopes made by the r-, p- and s-processes of nucleosynthesis are observed incompletely mixed, in carbonaceous meteorites as well as in massive iron meteorites.

7. "Interpretations”: This observation rules out melting and geochemical separation of interstellar material to make iron meteorites.

As noted earlier, there are separate, ad hoc explanations for each of these first seven (7) of 15 Major Space Age Observations (1960-2000).

However, collectively these seven measurements on meteorites and planets alone convinced us that heterogeneous debris of a supernova made the solar system and the Sun formed on the collapsed SN core - - - without mixing into the interstellar medium or separating elements from interstellar material to produce diverse types of meteorites and planets with internal layers made of different elements.

http://www.BallOfIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

The next posting will concern observations on the Sun itself. I must stop now and prepare for guests.

With kind regards,

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

PS - Good friends are a valuable resource to be treasured.

gooodcop
2004-Apr-29, 03:18 AM
Wow Oliver,
Mega technical. Brains dripping from ears is right.

The decay of radioactive elements in meteorites doesnt exactly pinpoint the meteorite&#39;s age...it could be they were already decaying unstable elements present in the sun when the sun shot them out. They would point to the sun&#39;s age really, right? Or even, the age of something that collided with the sun and fused igniting its nuclear reaction.

Big Bang? Chicken or egg? Thats a bad theory.

When we see molten meteorites after sunspots, coming at us unforeseen previously, and that they contain metal, this is observation. Its what science is all about. Look at how many things the Chinese knew from hit or miss observation. Observation is a biggie for science, because physics in the universe are to be determined. Physics on earth arent applicable in unknown gravities, temperatures, etc. tho we would all like them to apply.

We used to think this great ball of hydrogen/helium was the sun, and that its sheer mass made it a nuclear reactor, squishing atoms by its weight and immensity on itself. Not that it became lit and happens to be flammable. Thats like thinking, the sun HAS to be gaseous, like inside a light bulb, or else. We can squish an atom of iron same way we can split an atom of hydrogen, cant we? Why is that so hard to believe for some? If we released gas in a vacuum, like space is, it would expand to fill the void. If we released a cloud of uncontained gas in space, it would expand. WHY then would a gas-ball sun stay in a round form??? Doesnt make sense to me, nor does the theory that the outer planets are also gas....we see gas but thats called atmosphere most likely.

If we, earth, had a global mega-catastrophe, of all countries going ape and hitting their red nuke buttons, despite having an iron core like we do, we would become a sun. If we set off a nuke in the heart of our iron core, I think that&#39;s right.

gooodcop
2004-Apr-29, 03:21 AM
PS

Oliver, couldnt the decay of radioactive elements on earth differ from the same radioactive elements in a completely different atmosphere/gravity/pressure/mass/heat etc?????

Is it right to assume that radioactivity decays rate-equally on earth and in the universe?

Tinaa
2004-Apr-29, 03:31 AM
H atoms are not "split" in nuclear fusion, they are "fused" together to make a different element, He. He fuses together to make C. The sun shines because of the little bit of energy left over from these fusions. Also, iron has such a stable nucleus that it does not undergo nuclear fusion.

gooodcop
2004-Apr-29, 03:41 AM
>>3. Even if you are right about the iron content of the sun, there is little said that explains how you determined that there is a neutron star in the center of the sun.

Maybe if we remember that currently we believe, the sun and all stars are "nuclear reactors" at their cores....despite which element H they are etc...and switch the wording to "nuclear reaction" at the center of the sun, we&#39;ll see they mean the same thing. The gas sun would not trap the core reaction, it would be an entire nuclear reaction...the iron core would, and it would have periodic volcanic magmalike molten iron activity, spitting out these huge globs of bubbly lavalike high-velocity-travelling expulsions, we know as meteorites....like the biggie coming at us 2 years ago never before seen, right after the big sunspot activity that had us all holding our seats...


??

:)
Sally

DippyHippy
2004-Apr-29, 04:58 AM
I find it extremely hard to believe that the Earth - regardless of the circumstances - could become a sun. That sounds like a corny 50&#39;s B Movie. (Anyone seen "The Day The Earth Caught Fire"??)

After all, wouldn&#39;t Jupiter need to be at least 40 times more massive to become a star?

antoniseb
2004-Apr-29, 10:02 AM
My hope with this thread is to clarify Dr. Manuel&#39;s ideas. He states that he and his co-workers have determined that the sun has a neutron star in its core, and that it has a great deal of Iron on top of that, and above that a layer of solid Iron-Silicate minerals, which together account for about 70 percent of the solar diameter. This is very different from the more commonly held belief in the Hydrogen-fusion powered sun. We are interested in how the isotope abundance evidence he sites drew him to this conclusion.

Naturally, with 45 years of research, there is a lot that Dr. Manuel needs to lay out to get his point across.

Like Dr. Manuel, Exhale believes that the sun is a supernova remnant. Actually, some of her recent posting suggest it is a Nova remnant [white dwarf]. Aside from this, their theories are quite different. There is a thread created for her theory DWINDLE Theory (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2930). Comments and statements about the DWINDLE theory muddy the arguments about the Iron Sun.

With the exception of specific answers to Exhale&#39;s questions about the Iron Sun theory or evidence against it, I ask that further discussion of DWINDLE, and support and criticisms of Exhale&#39;s science should take place there. Refer to her writings here if you like, but please do it there.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-29, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 28 2004, 06:44 PM
Like Dr. Manuel, Exhale believes that the sun is a supernova remnant. Aside from this, their theories are quite different. There is a thread created for her theory DWINDLE Theory. Comments and statements about the DWINDLE theory muddy the arguments about the Iron Sun.
--------------------
I can&#39;t speak for everyone, but I think the biggest gaps come in the following places:

1. Your statement about there not being enough time for mixing matter from a separate supernova event seems not to have any specifics. Several of us have suggested that the sun formed in a dense star forming region similar to things seen today. Unless your mixing time is less than a few thousand years, I don&#39;t think this one holds up.

2. We pretty much believe that isotope and atomic abundance ratios are different in different places [and admire your part of getting these figures], but do not think you&#39;ve made an open and shut case for the fractionation all being in the photosphere.

3. Even if you are right about the iron content of the sun, there is little said that explains how you determined that there is a neutron star in the center of the sun.

There are quite a few other questions that you&#39;ve left unanswered, but as you aren&#39;t an astronomer as much as a nuclear chemist, and as you have no particular desire to model the results of your conclusions, we can certainly let that ride for a while. Keep in mind though, that it is the difficulty of meshing your results with observed phenomena that give rise to most of our resistence in accepting your conclusions.
Thank you, antoniseb.

I agree the DWINDLE Theory is very different. Thank you for keeping this thread focused.
----------------------
Regarding the "gaps" you mention"

#1a. Decay products from isotopes as short-lived as 8-day I-131 and 78-hr Te-132 are observed.

#1b. Measurements show that isotopes did not mix, even in massive iron meteorites. See 7. "The Facts"

#2. Evidence for fractionation in the Sun will be presented in the next posting. We do not claim that "all fractionation occurs in the photosphere." We only know it occurs somewhere in the Sun.

#3. Evidence for a neutron star in the center of the sun will be presented in III.What Makes The Iron Sun Shine. It is generally believed that neutron stars and iron are both made in the deep interior of supernovae.

I understand the resistence to conclusions about astronomical objects from measurements made on a few micrograms of material. So far, these measurements of isotopes and elements cover only a few AU - - - from the Sun, to Earth, to Mars and (thanks to the Galileo mission) to Jupiter.

Again, antoniseb, thanks for your assistance in keeping this discussion on track.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-29, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 29 2004, 10:02 AM
My hope with this thread is to clarify Dr. Manuel&#39;s ideas. He states that he and his co-workers have determined that the sun has a neutron star in its core, and that it has a great deal of Iron on top of that, and above that a layer of solid Iron-Silicate minerals, which together account for about 70 percent of the solar diameter.
Hi, antoniseb.

I have not said the Sun has solids in it, including " a layer of solid Iron-Silicate minerals".

However, I understand that the inner 70% of the Sun rotates as a rigid body.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify this.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu

antoniseb
2004-Apr-29, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 29 2004, 01:36 PM
I have not said the Sun has solids in it, including " a layer of solid Iron-Silicate minerals".
I&#39;m looking for your previous post, but I distinctly recall reading that you believed the sun had a mantle of Olivine, or similar minerals. I have tried to be careful to not put words in your mouth. Sorry if my summary of previous statements caused any confusion.

antoniseb
2004-Apr-29, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 29 2004, 01:30 PM
#1a. Decay products from isotopes as short-lived as 8-day I-131 and 78-hr Te-132 are observed.

#1b. Measurements show that isotopes did not mix, even in massive iron meteorites. See 7. "The Facts"
Concerning 1a, is there some evidence that these decay products could not have been blown into a cloud that was still in starless collapse? Look at the Crab nebula. It is only a thousand years old, and is already a light-year across.

Concerning 1b, this is evidence that the grains containing these isotopes condensed shortly after the neutron capture phase had ended, but not that these grains could not have been blown into our cloud.

I look forward to your posting about fractionation. What I didn&#39;t get across about point two was that I think it is reasonable to conclude that some fractionation may have launched heavier isotopes out of the sun during its initial formation of the protoplanetary disk. [Both light and heavy isotopes have similar opacity, but the lighter ones are more easily deterred from leaving the photosphere by the hydrogen in the way. In this way the isotope abundances in the terrestrial planets are shifted towards the heavy end.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-29, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Apr 29 2004, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Apr 29 2004, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Apr 29 2004, 01:36 PM
I have not said the Sun has solids in it, including " a layer of solid Iron-Silicate minerals".
I&#39;m looking for your previous post, but I distinctly recall reading that you believed the sun had a mantle of Olivine, or similar minerals.

I have tried to be careful to not put words in your mouth. Sorry if my summary of previous statements caused any confusion.[/b][/quote]
Thanks, Antoniseb.

I did not say:

1. The Sun has solids in it, including a layer of solid Iron-Silicate minerals.

2. All solar mass fractionation occurs in the photosphere.

However, I did say there are ad hoc explanations proposed for each observation, including:

#1a. Decay products from isotopes as short-lived as 8-day I-131 and 78-hr Te-132 are observed.

#1b. Measurements show that isotopes did not mix, even in massive iron meteorites. See 7. "The Facts".

Examples are claims that #1a. decay products and #1b. un-mixed neutron capture products were "blown into our cloud" as the solar system was forming.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu

antoniseb
2004-Apr-29, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 29 2004, 03:49 PM
I did say there are ad hoc explanations proposed for each observation
OK, I stand corrected. I&#39;m still looking forward to your post about fractionation.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-30, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Apr 29 2004, 02:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Apr 29 2004, 02:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Apr 29 2004, 01:30 PM
#1a. Decay products from isotopes as short-lived as 8-day I-131 and 78-hr Te-132 are observed.

#1b. Measurements show that isotopes did not mix, even in massive iron meteorites. See 7. "The Facts"

Concerning 1a, is there some evidence that these decay products could not have been blown into a cloud that was still in starless collapse?

Concerning 1b, this is evidence that the grains containing these isotopes condensed shortly after the neutron capture phase had ended, but not that these grains could not have been blown into our cloud.
[/b][/quote]
Hi, antoniseb.

1a. Are you suggesting that 8-day I-131 and 78-hr Te-132 or their decay products survived intact as they were "blown into a cloud that was still in starless collapse" and remained as such after this cloud differentiated to form various types of meteorites? I-131 and Te-132 are short-lived, volatile, and chemically reactive.

1b. The un-mixed isotopes of Mo are not in grains that might have been "blown into our cloud." These Mo isotopes are part of the metal matrix of massive nickel-iron meteorites.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-30, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 30 2004, 03:56 AM
1a. Are you suggesting that 8-day I-131 and 78-hr Te-132 or their decay products survived intact as they were "blown into a cloud that was still in starless collapse" and remained as such after this cloud differentiated to form various types of meteorites? I-131 and Te-132 are short-lived, volatile, and chemically reactive.
Yes, I am suggesting that. However, let me turn the tables. What do you think would be the difference in the timeline for some rapidly cooling Te-132 and I-131 ions as they finish their neutron bath, gain their electrons, collect into grains, chemically bind, and float around in space before accreting into some larger object.

For radioactive species with such short half-lives, the only difference I see between your model and mine from this perspective is whether the supernova is capable of accelerating these atoms beyond the escape velocity of the star.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-30, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Apr 30 2004, 11:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Apr 30 2004, 11:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Apr 30 2004, 03:56 AM
1a. Are you suggesting that 8-day I-131 and 78-hr Te-132 or their decay products survived intact as they were "blown into a cloud that was still in starless collapse" and remained as such after this cloud differentiated to form various types of meteorites? I-131 and Te-132 are short-lived, volatile, and chemically reactive.
Yes, I am suggesting that. However, let me turn the tables. What do you think would be the difference in the timeline for some rapidly cooling Te-132 and I-131 ions as they finish their neutron bath, gain their electrons, collect into grains, chemically bind, and float around in space before accreting into some larger object.

For radioactive species with such short half-lives, the only difference I see between your model and mine from this perspective is whether the supernova is capable of accelerating these atoms beyond the escape velocity of the star.[/b][/quote]
Thank you, Antoniseb.

Timelines are indeed important. The radioactive "clocks" all show:

1. There was not time to mix supernova debris into the interstellar medium to make the imaginary proto-planetary cloud of hydrogen, and

2. There was not time to separate elements from this proto-planetary cloud of hydrogen to make the various types of planets and meteorites in the solar system.

These radioactive "clocks" all tell the same story: The solar system formed right here from highly radioactive stellar debris. Even short-lived I-131 and Te-132 were alive - right here.

Ad hoc repairs on one clock will not "fix the problem". To illustrate that, tell us which species you imagine were "blown into a cloud that was still in starless collapse"?

1. I-131 and Te-132? Or their stable decay products, Xe-131 and Xe-132?

2. Did they arrive as individual atoms, gases, or incorporated into refractory interstellar grains?

3. Did parent and daughter remain together during their journey in?

4. Did parent and daughter remain together as the cloud differentiated into minerals, meteorites, and planets of different composition?

5. What other radioactive isotopes or their stable decay products were "blown in" and in what state (solids or gaseous atoms)?
..... Th-232, U-238, U-235, Pu-244, ...., I-129, Pd-108,...., Al-26, Ca-41, ....., I-131 and Te-132?

6. Were isotopic anomalies blown in too? Xe-136 and primordial He? Six different levels of O-16 and the elements that comprise 6 different types of meteorites? s-products, p-products, r-products of the diverse elements?

If you lay out the complete story of alien material being injected into a proto-planetary cloud of hydrogen that was "still in starless collapse", I will gladly explain the observations which rule out this ad hoc scenario.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-30, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 30 2004, 01:58 PM
Ad hoc repairs on one clock will not "fix the problem". To illustrate that, tell us which species you imagine were "blown into a cloud that was still in starless collapse"?

1. I-131 and Te-132? Or their stable decay products, Xe-131 and Xe-132?
Dr. Manuel,

These six questions are excellent ones for which I do not have immediate answers, but let me express some delight that we are now talking about a subset of your theory that is both your strength, and of the most interest to me.

If you have answers to the questions with regard to the Iron Sun model published some place, please point me to them. The time table for the creation of these isotopes and their freezing out into grains, and accreting into larger objects and bodies is an interesting subject, and one that I imagine over the 45 years you&#39;ve been researching this, one that you have many valuable insights to.

As to the specifics of question one, are you assuming that these elements were created in the supernova shockwave more or less as Clayton describes. If so, the were created in the shockfront of the supernova&#39;s blast. My understanding of the material in the shockfront is that it is moving at a few percent of the speed of light. Suppose, however, that some of it were to be moving slowly enough that it were to leave the sun, and travel out to one to five AU, where it would join a ring of material that would eventually become part of one of the planets. How many half-lives of Te-132 would it take to get there? [rhetorical question, the actual answer is &#39;too many&#39;]. My point is that whether we are talking about your Iron Sun scenario or some blow-in scenario, the Te-132 would have to have left its mark in the mineralogical evidence long before it got where it was going.

In summary: In this matter we have similar problems to solve; please point me to any published answers you have for these six questions.

om@umr.edu
2004-Apr-30, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+Apr 30 2004, 05:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Apr 30 2004, 05:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Apr 30 2004, 01:58 PM
Ad hoc repairs on one clock will not "fix the problem".* To illustrate that, tell us which species you imagine were "blown into a cloud that was still in starless collapse"?*

1. I-131 and Te-132?* Or their stable decay products, Xe-131 and Xe-132?

etc.
Dr. Manuel,

These six questions are excellent ones for which I do not have immediate answers, but let me express some delight that we are now talking about a subset of your theory that is both your strength, and of the most interest to me. . . . .

If you have answers to the questions with regard to the Iron Sun model published some place, please point me to them.

In summary: In this matter we have similar problems to solve; please point me to any published answers you have for these six questions.[/b][/quote]
Thanks, antoniseb.

Answers to these questions are published in:

"Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conference: Local and Global Helioseismology, The Present and Future (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003, pp. 345-348) 27 October - 1 November, 2002, Big Bear Lake, California, USA. O. Manuel and Stig Friberg

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

On the other hand, alien material "blown into our cloud" seems to offer no coherent answer to these six questions nor to the rest of the II. 15 Major Space Age Observations.

However, I am pleased you are trying to find one.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-Apr-30, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 30 2004, 06:18 PM
"Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conference: Local and Global Helioseismology, The Present and Future (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003, pp. 345-348) 27 October - 1 November, 2002, Big Bear Lake, California, USA. O. Manuel and Stig Friberg
Thanks, I&#39;ll take some time looking it over.
In the mean time, I look forward to seeing your upcoming postings

isferno
2004-May-01, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 26 2004, 04:08 AM
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?

I&#39;ve got two questions based on this quote:

1. Is this the main basis from which you started your thesis?
2. Is there a any different explanation then the one you give which gives a better chance then "no-chance"? (thinking about "keep it simpel")

and 3) 650 Myears ago, earth knew 3 Cryogenic era&#39;s lasting ~100 Myears, see: snowball (http://www.technews.vt.edu/Archives/2004/April/04186.htm)
Is this due to H fusion => He fusion?
-- (sun started with 74% H, and now has 70% He)
If not, does this information fit in with your theory?

Greg
2004-May-02, 03:26 AM
I am sorry to interrupt the flow of this theoretical discussion, which by the way is very interesting, but I had not seen it before now. I read over most of it, but not all, so I hope to not be rehashing old ground here. If so simply ignore this post.
The problems I have with the mostly-iron sun theory are purely theoretical in nature and I do not have a mathematical model to put weight behind it. To summarize, I do not think you can judge a book by its cover. I do not think enough is known about how the sun works (distributes and utilizes elements/isotopes) to fairly say that what is present in the photosphere represents exactly what is going on below.
To diverge briefly, on a practical level, we assume the enormous amounts of radiative energy we expierence from the sun are being generated by nuclear fusion (specifically hydrogen to helium). To my knowledge fusion of the heavier elements such as iron does not occur and these are essentially dead-ends of fusion of lighter elements. So if the sun were predominantly iron, how has it continued to generate energy for 4 billion years and counting?
If we were to look at pollution deposits in New York from the midwest we might be led to erronoiusly believe that the fuel being burned in the midwest factories is primarily composed of heavier elements such as sulphur and not hydrocarbons. In a self-sustaining reaction, does not nearby fuel get pulled into the reaction and thereby not emitted? Would not inert ( non-reactive) material tend to be repelled or emitted from the central fusion reaction and accelerated into the photosphere and beyond moreso than hydrogen? What are the effects of convection currents and magnetic fields on heavier elements as opposed to hydrogen? Do we know enough about high-temperature plamsa dynamics to rule this out as a factor effecting isotope distribution?
We know that heavier elements are generated by the fusion process, We know that the sun is a later generation star and probably enriched with heavier elements from the start from previous supernovas. We can witness stars forming from predominiantly hydrogen clouds all around us as opposed to clouds of iron. We can analyze the debris (neblulae) from existing supernova remenants (excluding exploding white dwarfs) and lo and behold the cloud is mostly hydrogen. Moreover the remmenant seems to always be a neutron star/pulsar/ black hole, not a viable main-sequence star. Perhaps in a way the sun (and the rest of the solar system) did form from a supernova remenant which enriched the solar system with isotopes as suggested. But I do not think the supernova came from within our star. An aside point question is what exactly causes a main-sequence star to swell into a red giant if there is very little hydrogen present to begin with?
Looking at the big picture like this makes it seem to me unnecessary to invoke an extradorinary process that we do not see happening elsewhere to explain why certain isotopes as opposed to others are being found in the solar wind and the rest of the solar system. Perhaps looking at isotope emissions and concentrations in one part of the sun and making broader extraplations is too narrow a focus and excludes empirical evidence of what is going on elsewhere in the universe. I also think that there alot of useful observations yet to be made about the sun and from this knowledge we will learn the asnwers to these questions. As usual, the more we learn, the more we are realizing that we have alot more to learn about the internal workings of the sun.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-02, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by isferno+May 1 2004, 09:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (isferno &#064; May 1 2004, 09:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Mar 26 2004, 04:08 AM
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?

I&#39;ve got two questions based on this quote:

1. Is this the main basis from which you started your thesis?

2. Is there any different explanation then the one you give which gives a better chance then "no-chance"? (thinking about "keep it simple"), and

3. 650 Myears ago, earth knew 3 Cryogenic era&#39;s lasting ~100 Myears, see: snowball (http://www.technews.vt.edu/Archives/2004/April/04186.htm)

Is this due to H fusion => He fusion?
-- (sun started with 74% H, and now has 70% He)

If not, does this information fit in with your theory?[/b][/quote]
Thanks, isferno, for your excellent questions.

Let me give brief answers:

1. No. This was not the basis from which Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I started our thesis about 28 years ago. In fact, this statistical analysis was only done a few years ago by a Professor of Statistics here, Dr. V. A. Samaranayake.

2. No scientist has challenged the validity of our statistical analysis. No scientist has offered a different explanation of why two completely independent analytical techniques would both show that the same seven, even-numbered elements (Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca) are the most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun and in ordinary meteorites.

3. The 3 Cryogenic era&#39;s probably reflect the Sun&#39;s chaotic, dynamic nature. It is not the ball of hydrogen described in textbooks with a well-behaved H-fusion reactor at its core.

These variations fit with our theory and with Berry Ninham&#39; landmark paper in 1963 on Bose-Einstein condensation of supernova debris. We discussed this issue in "Superfluidity in the Solar Interior: Implications for Solar Eruptions and Climate", J. Fusion Energy 21 (2003) pp. 193-198

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...perfluidity.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...uperfluidity.ps (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.ps)

A recent study at the University of Southern California reached many of the same conclusions about the Sun&#39;s dynamic, chaotic behavior. See latest http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/su...ic.html?3042004 (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/sun_dynamic_chaotic.html?3042004)

Dwarka Das Sabu and I first presented our thesis before a national audience at the 1976 AGU meeting. The reaction from members of the space science community was strange. So strange that I was invited to present the paper again at the 1976 ACS meeting in San Francisco before Nobel Laurate Glen Seaborg.

That led to our friendship and eventually to the 1999 ACS Symposium we organized together: "The Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post-1957 Observations" (Kluwer/Plenum Pulishers, 2000) http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-306-46562-0

With kind regards,

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

isferno
2004-May-02, 08:43 AM
Thank you for answering my questions Professor Manuel.

antoniseb
2004-May-02, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Greg@May 2 2004, 03:26 AM
I hope to not be rehashing old ground here. If so simply ignore this post.
Hi Greg,

Your questions are somewhat covered in the discussion preceding this, but Dr. Manuel is soon going to post information on What Makes the Iron Sun Shine. He is laying out some ground work for that now. You haven&#39;t missed it.

As to your broader questions, it is difficult to know the truth of something you can&#39;t see, but there is a lot of evidence that narrows the number of stories that can be told about the nature of the sun, how it generates energy, and how it formed.

Except for the neutrinos, the radiation coming from the sun is not a reflection of the energy generating mechanisms[s], it is a reflection of the energy transport mechanism at the photosphere and corona.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-02, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Greg@May 2 2004, 03:26 AM
So if the sun were predominantly iron, how has it continued to generate energy for 4 billion years and counting?
Thanks, Greg, and welcome&#33;

An excellent question that I could not answer for a quarter century - from 1975 to 2000 - from the time when we first realized the Sun might be iron-rich until we finally discovered a source of nuclear energy that had been overlooked. As antoniseb notes, we will report the answer to that question here shortly.

Most of our conclusions about the internal composition of the Sun come from measurements on the abundance of isotopes and elements in meteorites, planets, the solar wind, and solar flares.

If you can open pdf or ps documents, it will help if you go ahead and study this recent summary of measurements:

"Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings SOHO 12/GONG+ 2002 Conference: Local and Global Helioseismology (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003, pp. 345-348) 27 October - 1 November, 2002, Big Bear Lake, California, USA. O. Manuel and Stig Friberg

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

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2004-May-02, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by isferno+May 1 2004, 09:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (isferno &#064; May 1 2004, 09:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Mar 26 2004, 04:08 AM
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?

I&#39;ve got two questions based on this quote:

1. Is this the main basis from which you started your thesis? and

2. Is there any different explanation then the one you give which gives a better chance then "no-chance"? (thinking about "keep it simple"). [/b][/quote]

When I answered your questions above, I should have mentioned that this may be the strongest evidence for an iron-rich Sun.

However, the observations from which our thesis started in 1975 were these:

1. Meteorites trapped two distinct types of noble gases at the birth of the solar system.

1a. Primordial He and Ne were only found in the noble gas component in which Xe-136 was about twice its normal abundance ("strange Xe").

1b. There was little or no primordial He or Ne in the noble gas component without excess Xe-136 ("normal Xe").

1c. Destruction of light elements by stellar fusion and production of Xe-136 by rapid neutron capture offered the most straight-forward explanation for these observations.

However, this meant un-mixed supernova debris was the parent material of the solar system.

With kind regards,

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

gooodcop
2004-May-03, 09:28 AM
Oliver,

Consider this. I appreciate the iron sun idea, and the old hydrogen sun idea, but what if....

on the sun, since its so massively nuclear, elements are in a constant state of flux. Just like you can create one element to another such as gemstones, moissanite, etc and the same way you see many varied elements in asteroids....what if elements settle down here on earth by pressures to be "stable" relatively speaking, but on the sun, they are constantly changing protons and neutrons becoming anything they like at any given moment?

Is it a bit narrow to only look for ONE element on the sun or TWO? Maybe asteroid content is all a matter of pure chance.

gooodcop
2004-May-03, 09:55 AM
TINAA

I meant fission. Like the H Bomb, not fusion. Sorry

"H atoms are not "split" in nuclear fusion, they are "fused" together to make a different element, He. He fuses together to make C. The sun shines because of the little bit of energy left over from these fusions. Also, iron has such a stable nucleus that it does not undergo nuclear fusion. "

I dont believe in that one. I believe the sun is a gigantic, nuclear atom crusher by its sheer mass, and that it radiates as a huge nuclear explosion, Tinaa. Fission and not fusion.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-03, 10:15 AM
Exhale,

I do not agree with many of your comments, but I appreciate your inquiring spirit.

You are right - popular thinking sometimes becomes muddled.

Then it is helpful to back off and think things through again, from the start.

Let&#39;s try that approach with the Sun - - - the model for other stars in the cosmos.

Common fires here on Earth give off:

1. Heat
2. Light
3. Carbon Dioxide, and
4. Water

The Sun, an ordinary appearing star, gives off

1. Heat
2. Light
3. Neutrinos, and
4. Hydrogen

Do these observations tell us fires consume Water and stars consume Hydrogen?

Will more heat and light be emitted if we add Water to a fire and Hydrogen to the Sun?

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-04, 03:21 AM
Earlier VanderL commented on the need to make evidence of the Iron Sun more clear, adding "It is not the facts that are problematic, but the interpretations of the facts."

In response to his suggestion, we posted:

"The Facts" separated from

"Interpretations” of facts for

I. Major Mutations in the Science of Element Synthesis and Stellar Energy (1815-1959) posted at 2:48 pm on March 31, 2004, and the first seven (7) of

II. 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-2000) posted at 8:38 pm on April 6, 2004.

Below are "The Facts" and the "Interpretations” for the remaining Space Age Observations.

7. "The Facts": Molybdenum isotopes made by the r-, p- and s-processes of nucleosynthesis are observed incompletely mixed, in carbonaceous meteorites as well as in massive iron meteorites.

7. "Interpretations”: This observation rules out melting and geochemical separation of interstellar material to make iron meteorites.

8. "The Facts": Analyses of meteorites reveal excess heavy isotopes from mass fractionation, entangled with decay products of short-lived isotopes and poorly mixed isotopes made by various nuclear reactions in stars.**

8. "Interpretations”: These observations were labeled, rather than interpreted. They were called FUN anomalies for Fractionation + Unknown Nuclear. The extent of mass fractionation observed in the material that formed meteorites, even for very refractory elements like Mg, exceeded anything imagined. Many scientists still doubted the existence of severe Fractionation in proto-planetary material, even in the face of overwhelming evidence for its occurrence.

9. "The Facts": Light mass*isotopes (L) are enriched relative to the heavy mass ones (H) by a common fractionation factor (F) in elements implanted in surfaces of fine-grained lunar samples by the solar wind.**The fractionation in the solar wind is empirically defined by:

**********************log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L) . . . . . .Equation (1)

9. "Interpretations”: This mass ratio dependence is expected from a velocity selection process like diffusion.
Manuel and Hwaung [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 213-214] cite six reasons for concluding that this fractionation occurs in the Sun.

10. "The Facts": If Fractionation occurs in the Sun, then the composition of the solar interior can be determined by combining the abundance pattern of elements at the solar surface with the Mass Fractionation observed across isotopes.

10. "Interpretations”: The abundance pattern of elements at the solar surface (determined by line spectra measurements on the photosphere), when corrected with Equation (1) for the empirical mass fractionation (defined by isotope measurements on the solar wind), provides a quantitative measure of the internal composition of the Sun.

11. "The Facts": Application of Equation (1) to photospheric abundances shows that seven elements that occur only at the part-per-million level in the photosphere - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca - comprise almost all the material in the interior of the Sun.

11. "Interpretations”: Wet chemical analyses on 443 ordinary meteorites found that these same seven elements comprise 99% of the material in meteorites [J. Am Chem. Soc. 39 (1917) 856-879].* The statistical probability (P) of a meaningless (fortuitous) agreement is
P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002&#33;

12. "The Facts": Application of Eq. (1) to photospheric abundances shows that abundance in the interior of the Sun depends on nuclear stability, from loosely bound nucleons of Li to the tightly bound nucleons of Fe - - - with one notable exception, H.

12. "Interpretations”: This trend is expected in material from the deep interior of a supernova. The solar abundance of H is higher than expected because H is being produced in the Sun faster than it is consumed by fusion. Excess H departs in the solar wind at the rate of 3 x 10^43 H per year.

13. "The Facts": Heavy elements and heavy isotopes of individual elements are more abundant in solar flares and eruptions than in the quiet solar wind.

13. "Interpretations”: Energetic events disrupt the fractionation process and release less mass-fractionated isotopes and elements from the Sun.

14. "The Facts": Earth-like planets orbit pulsar 1257+12, a collapsed supernova core, in the first extra-solar planetary system discovered. Earth-like planets have not been observed orbiting other stars.

14. "Interpretations”: Earth-like planets form out of elements made in the deep interior of a supernova, near the collapsed SN core.

15. "Facts": The Sun’s violent, turbulent behavior is unexplained by the standard solar model, including the Sun’s 22-year magnetic cycle that produces peak sunspots of reverse polarity on an 11-year basis.

See, for example, the 30 April 2004 news story on the Sun at
http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...t=ST&f=2&t=3056 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=3056)

15. "Interpretations”: Solar magnetic fields are deep-seated remnants arising from the neutron star at the solar core and/or Bose-Einstein condensation of iron-rich material into a superconductor surrounding the solar core. These are the source of the 22-year Hale cycle and the magnetic fields that cause violent eruptions at the solar surface.

After UT Readers have had time to read, consider, and comment on these "Facts" and "Interpretations” from the space age, we will post the concluding chapter, III. WHAT MAKES THE IRON SUN SHINE?

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on space age observations #7-15.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-04, 01:55 PM
Hi Dr. Manuel,

I saw this paper on arXive this morning. I don&#39;t think it was written intending to support your ideas, but in some ways it does build a framework for some supernavae not blasting materials away beyond escape velocity. The result is the re-accretion of the heavier nuclei onto the compact [neutron star] core. The paper seems mostly to be talking about problems with computer simulations, but it may serve your purposes.

Liebendorfer - 59 Ways (http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405029.pdf)

VanderL
2004-May-04, 02:23 PM
Thanks Antoniseb,

This is real fun, I never thought to see research of this type written in plain English with qualitative statements on supernova explosions. I must admit that I never really took time to read up what is known about SN explosions, but this article explains a lot. If I read it correctly, current knowledge about SN expolsions tells us that they shouldn&#39;t explode. What we see as a supernova event is in disagreement with the models it seems, so we need new models and maybe this has a big impact on both the Standard model and the Iron Sun model?

Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-04, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@May 4 2004, 01:55 PM
Hi Dr. Manuel,

I saw this paper on arXive this morning. I don&#39;t think it was written intending to support your ideas, but in some ways it does build a framework for some supernavae not blasting materials away beyond escape velocity. The result is the re-accretion of the heavier nuclei onto the compact [neutron star] core. The paper seems mostly to be talking about problems with computer simulations, but it may serve your purposes.

Liebendorfer - 59 Ways (http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405029.pdf)
Thanks antoniseb.

That is another interesting paper.

Of course supernovae explode, independently of computer simulations.

Over a decade ago Lin, Woosley and Bodenheimer [Nature 353 (1991) 827] noted that a planetary system might be produced from a rotationally-supported disk of fresh supernova debris that may fall back after a supernova explosion.

This was quickly followed by Wolszczan and Frail&#39;s discovery of rocky, Earth-like planets orbiting the pulsar, PSR 1257+12 [Nature 355 (1992) 145; Science 264 (1994) 538].

W. K. Brown discussed this mechanism for producing planets in the Solar System in a review paper on the "Origin of the Solar System and its elements" [J. Radioanal. Nuclear Chem. 238 (1998) 213-225; See the Appendix on pp. 223-225].

Again, thanks for the reference to Liebendoerfer&#39;s paper.

With kind regards,

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

VanderL
2004-May-04, 07:49 PM
Of course supernovae explode, independently of computer simulations.


Do they really? There is always something left after the "explosion", there is a central pulsing star or something quite small and (as far as I recall) we always see a companion&#33; And even very close-orbiting planets exist after the explosion. So, how do we really know that the star&#39;s outer shell exploded? We see flash of radiation/light and a rapid expansion of material around the central star, but couldn&#39;t a different mechanism produce the same effects? That also begs the question what is the difference between a nova and a supernova?

Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-04, 09:17 PM
Thanks, VanderL.

IMHO, the flash we see of radiation/light and rapid expansion of material is independent of the mechanism that produced the effects.

Nova and supernova are, as commonly used, moderate stellar outbursts versus the much more energetic terminal stellar events.

With kind regards,

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

VanderL
2004-May-04, 09:23 PM
Nova and supernova are, as commonly used, moderate stellar outbursts versus the much more energetic terminal stellar events.

Oliver, could you explain which terminal stellar events you have in mind?

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-May-04, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@May 4 2004, 09:23 PM
Oliver, could you explain which terminal stellar events you have in mind?
Same here&#33; Dr. Manuel, I&#39;ve never seen something in your papers mentioning that Novas and Supernovas are minor events and that there is something bigger. Please tell us what you&#39;re talking about.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-05, 12:02 AM
Sorry antonio and VanderL,

My sentence was unclear:

"Nova and supernova are, as commonly used, moderate stellar outbursts versus the much more energetic terminal stellar events."

I meant to say:

Novae are moderate stellar outbursts compared to the much more energetic, terminal events known as supernovae.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-05, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 5 2004, 12:02 AM
Novae are moderate stellar outbursts compared to the much more energetic, terminal events known as supernovae.
No problem, we all type dumb things once in a while. I&#39;m glad to have it cleared up so quickly.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-05, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@May 5 2004, 12:15 AM
No problem, we all type dumb things once in a while. I&#39;m glad to have it cleared up so quickly.
Thanks antonio,

No wonder I can&#39;t convince anyone the Sun is iron-rich. With my communication skills, perhaps it would be more convincing if I presented evidence for the opposing view&#33;

Seriously, there must be a lot of people interested in The Sun&#39;s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy. After all, the Sun controls almost all activity on Earth and is the model for other stars in the cosmos.

I would appreciate your assistance in encouraging Universe Today Readers and their friends from other links to read and comment on:

I. Historical Background on Element Synthesis (1815-1959)

II. Facts and Interpretations from the Space Age (1960-2000)

Before we move to the final chapter:

III. What Makes the Iron Sun Shine? (2000-present)

Thanks,

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

Greg
2004-May-06, 05:56 AM
I fianlly had time to read through some of these articles. I am still assimilating some of the ideas and conclusions in my mind. This theory certainly is interesting.
I am not sold on the idea of a neutron star core being at the center of our sun. I think the observations of elemental distribution are interesting, and very helpful conceptually. But I still think it is more likely that our solar system formed from part of a nebula resulting from a supernova. Supenovas are rare events in a galaxy and there are alot of main sequence stars out there. I do not think this discrepancy can be explained very easily.
It would make sense to me that a rotating cloud composed of various heavy elements from a supernova explosion would tend to concentrate heavier elements towards the center, so I am intrigued by the idea of there being more heavy elements in the sun than we have considered likely. I agree that there is a gradient of heavier and heavier elements in each orbiting body as we near the center of our solar system. This could offer an explanation of how gas giants are found close to stars in some solar systems: perhaps those systems formed from predominantly hydrogen clouds with stars made up fo predominantly hydrogen. In such a system low in heavy elements gas giants would be expected to form closer to their parent stars. The prevailing view is that gas giants spiral in towards their parent star after being formed further away. I would be curious to see if there is any pattern in the spectra from stars with closely orbiting gas giants.
I am now anxious to see how you propose to resolve the problem of how the sun generates radiative energy by means other than nuclear fusion.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-06, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Greg@May 6 2004, 05:56 AM
I fianlly had time to read through some of these articles. I am still assimilating some of the ideas and conclusions in my mind. This theory certainly is interesting.
* *
* * I am not sold on the idea of a neutron star core being at the center of our sun. I think the observations of elemental distribution are interesting, and very helpful conceptually. But I still think it is more likely that our solar system formed from part of a nebula resulting from a supernova. Supenovas are rare events in a galaxy and there are alot of main sequence stars out there. I do not think this discrepancy can be explained very easily.

* * It would make sense to me that a rotating cloud composed of various heavy elements from a supernova explosion would tend to concentrate heavier elements towards the center, so I am intrigued by the idea of there being more heavy elements in the sun than we have considered likely. I agree that there is a gradient of heavier and heavier elements in each orbiting body as we near the center of our solar system.

* * This could offer an explanation of how gas giants are found close to stars in some solar systems: perhaps those systems formed from predominantly hydrogen clouds with stars made up of predominantly hydrogen. In such a system low in heavy elements gas giants would be expected to form closer to their parent stars. The prevailing view is that gas giants spiral in towards their parent star after being formed further away. I would be curious to see if there is any pattern in the spectra from stars with closely orbiting gas giants.

* * I am now anxious to see how you propose to resolve the problem of how the sun generates radiative energy by means other than nuclear fusion.
Thank you Greg for your comments.

I deeply appreciate the time and consideration you devoted to "The Facts" and the "Interpretations" of facts.

Please encourage others to study these findings.

I like your idea that gas giants found close to stars in some solar systems may indicate they formed from predominantly hydrogen clouds with stars made up of predominantly hydrogen.

Especially a possible pattern in the spectra from stars with closely orbiting gas giants.

Yesterday I came across a news report in Nature from about 20 years ago, "The Demise of Ideas About the Formation of the Solar System."

That Nature News Report in the world&#39;s leading scientific journal was the first public admission of serious problems arising from the puzzling Facts known in 1983.

When I get to my office, I will post a reference to that 1-page News Report.

Again, Greg, I appreciate your comments. Please encourage your friends to read and comment on "The Facts" and "Interpretations" of the facts posted here.

It took us 25 years to figure out how the Iron Sun generates radiative energy by means other than nuclear fusion. The solution also answered other questions we had not yet addressed:

1. What mechanism maintains mass separation in the Sun?

2. Why does the Sun emit about 3 x 10^43 H+ ions per year in the solar wind?

3. Do solar neutrinos really oscillate?

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-06, 02:15 PM
Hi, UT Readers.

The 1983 News Report, "The Demise of Established Dogmas on the Formation of the Solar Sysyem, by P. K. Swart was published in

the 26 May 1983 issue of Nature 303 (1983) p. 286.

That shows the impact of the first few II. Space Age Observations (1960-2000) of un-mixed isotopes and elements in the material that formed the Solar System.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-07, 05:33 AM
Hi StarLab,

Let me give brief answers now*. The next major posting, III. WHAT MAKES THE IRON SUN SHINE? (2000 - PRESENT), will give more details.

1. The potential energy per nucleon (P.E.) and thus the energy available for luminosity may be higher for a star produced near the core of a supernova than for one that forms out of hydrogen.

Thus, the lifetime of an iron Sun may not be less than for a hydrogen Sun.

2. The Fe -> H process requires energy. That is not the source of the Sun&#39;s energy.

3. The most Fe-rich planet is Mercury, the planet closest to the Sun.

4. Even-proton elements are more abundant than odd-proton elements. That conclusion is based on analyses of hundreds of meteorites.

With kind regards,

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

*PS - Send me an e-mail <om@umr.edu> if you want a pdf file on solar luminosity to read now.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-08, 04:22 AM
Hi, UT Readers,

Below is our attempt to answer a question that plagued us for 25 years - - - from 1975 when we first realized the Sun might be iron-rich until 2000 when 3-D plots of reduced nuclear variables revealed a possible source of luminosity in an iron-rich Sun.

III. WHAT MAKES THE IRON SUN SHINE? (2000 - PRESENT)

The Cradle of the Nuclides provides the key to luminosity in the iron Sun.

1. Cradle of the Nuclides
http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/cradle.jpg

This 3-D plot of potential energy per nucleon, M/A, versus charge density, Z/A, versus atomic mass number, A, shows a data point for each of the 2,850 known isotopes [Nuclear Wallet Cards, 6th edition (Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Nuclear Data Center, Upton, NY, 2000) 74 pp.].

The vertical axis is identical to f + 1, where f = Aston’s nuclear packing fraction, and f = (M–A)/A.

Systematic properties of these 2,850 isotopes explain not only Why The Iron Sun Shines, but also supply answers to other questions:

Why solar fractionation occurs
The source of solar neutrinos
The source of solar-wind protons

The Cradle is also available as a pdf file at:
http://web.umr.edu/~om/summary/cradle.pdf

The Cradle shows precise values of M/A, total energy per nucleon, or Aston’s nuclear packing fraction, ( f ), for 2,850 different isotopes over the range of A (mass number) = 1 - 265 and Z (atomic number) = 0 - 108.

The neutron and the hydrogen atom are represented by large red dots at A = 1. All other species are represented by blue dots.

At any fixed A, mass data are typically available for about 10 different species having the same value of A but different values of Z. For all values of A, values of Z/A lie within the limits of Z/A = 0 - 1.0.

At each value of A, moving across the Cradle from the front toward the back, the vertical heights of the data points in the Cradle first i) decrease, ii) reach a minumum, and then iii) increase. In other words, at constant A the values of M/A or f sweep out the familiar “Bohr-Wheeler mass parabola” described in nuclear physics textbooks.

2. Mass Parabola at Each Mass Number
http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/parabola.gif

Instead of 2,850 individual isotopes, shown here are the mass parabolas these isotopes define at each value of A. Large red dots at A = 1 represent the neutron and the hydrogen atom. The lowest known value of M/A (or f ) occurs in the parabola at A = 56, when Z = 26 (Z/A = 0.46).

For light nuclei (low values of A), the minimum in the mass parabola occurs at Z/A = 0.50. For heavier nuclei (higher values of A), Coulomb energy becomes increasingly important, and the minimun in the mass parabola occurs at lower values of Z/A. As the values of A —> 265, the values of Z/A —> 0.40.

These mass parabola, when expressed in terms of the reduced nuclear variables, Z/A and M/A or Aston’s nuclear packing fraction, f, reveal

Attractive n-p interactions, and repulsive n-n and p-p interactions that are symmetric after correcting for Coulomb repulsion between positive nuclear charges.

These attractive and repulsive interactions will be illustrated below at A = 27.

The mass parabola at A = 27 illustrates the evidence for attractive interactions between unlike nucleons, and repulsive interactions between like nucleons.

3. Mass Parabola at A = 27
http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/mass_parabola.jpg

From left to right, this parabola is defined by the precision mass data for F-27, Ne-20, Na-27, Mg-27, Al-27, Si-27, P-27, and S-27 [Nuclear Wallet Cards, 6th edition (Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Nuclear Data Center, Upton, NY, 2000) 74 pp.].

These isotopes all have A = 27. Their atomic numbers are Z = 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.

The value of M/A for the free neutron is shown on the left side of the figure by the empty red diamond at Z/A = 0. Likewise, the value of M/A for the hydrogen atom is shown on the right side of the figure by the filled red diamond at Z/A = 1.

The parabola defined by these precision mass data yields M/A = M(neutron) + about 0.0010 amu or 10 MeV on the left side of the figure at Z/A = 0.

The parabola yields an even higher value of M/A on the right side of the figure at Z/A = 1 because Coulomb energy from repulsive interactions between + charges increases as Z x Z, and Z increases from 0 to 27 in moving from left to right across the figure.

The parabola is more symmetric after correcting for Coulomb energy (below).

4. Mass Parabola at A = 27; Corrected for Coulomb Energy
http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/corrected_parabola.gif

From left to right, this parabola is defined by the precision mass data for F-27, Ne-20, Na-27, Mg-27, Al-27, Si-27, P-27, and S-27 [Nuclear Wallet Cards, 6th edition (Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Nuclear Data Center, Upton, NY, 2000) 74 pp.] after correcting for Coulomb energy.

As before, the value of M/A for the free neutron is the empty red diamond on the left side of the figure at Z/A = 0. Likewise the value of M/A for the hydrogen atom is the filled red diamond on the right side of the figure at Z/A = 1.

The parabola is symmetric about Z/A = 0.50 after correcting for Coulomb energy. The parabola now yields M/A = M(Hydrogen) + about 10 MeV on the right at Z/A = 1.0; the parabola also yields M/A = M(neutron) + about 10 MeV on the left at Z/A = 0.

Mass parabolas at each value of A become symmetric about Z/A = 0.50 after correcting for Coulomb energy. These parabolas can be understood in terms of

1. Symmetric and repulsive n-n and p-p interactions
2. Attractive n-p interactions

For example, the number of n-n, p-p and n-p interactions in Na-27, Mg-27, Al-27, Si-27, P-27 and S-27 are tabulated below:

A....Z.....N.....n-n....p-p....n-p..Isotope

27..11...16...120....55...176...Na-27
27..12...15...105....66...180...Mg-27
27..13...14.....91....78...182...Al-27
27..14...13.....78....91...182...Si-27
27..15...12.....66...105...180...P-27
27..16...11.....55...120...176...S-27

Even without correcting for Coulomb energy, empirical mass parabolas for all A > 1 yield intercepts of M/A > M(neutron) at Z/A = 0. The intercepts typically show 10 MeV more potential energy than a free neutron, but these intercepts may increase to as much as 22 MeV of additional potential energy for neutrons in a massive neutron star [J. Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93; J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 252 (2002) 3; J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197].

These studies expose a new source of nuclear energy (E = mc2) that releases the largest fraction ( F ) of total rest mass:

i) Neutron-emission at Z/A = 0; F = 1.1-2.4 %
ii) Uranium/Plutonium fusion; F = 0.1 %
iii) H-fusion to Helium-4; F = 0.7 %
iv) H-fusion to Iron-56; F= 0.8 %

More details on the information summarized above is available in recent papers:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy"

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.ps

2. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source"

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

5. Neutron Emission triggers a series of reactions that produce Solar Luminosity (SL), a carrier gas that maintains mass separation in the Sun, and an annual outpouring of neutrinos and 3 x 10^43 H+ ions from the solar surface.

• Neutron emission from the solar core
<n > —> n + ~ 10-22 MeV ( >57% SL)

• Neutron decay or capture
n —> H-1 + anti-neutrino + 0.782 MeV ( < 5% SL)

• Upward migration of H+ and fusion
4 H-1 —> He-4 + 2 neutrino + 27 MeV ( <38% SL)

• Escape of excess H+ in the solar wind
Each year 3 x 10^43 H+ depart (100% SW)

The first two reactions alone probably produce the high surface temperature and the hydrogen line spectra observed from an isolated neutron star, RX J1856.5-3754. See the European Southern Observatory press release in 2000 on "The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star" by Marten van Kerkwijk and Shri Kulkarni

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2...0/pr-19-00.html (http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/pr-19-00.html)

6. Solar Magnetic Fields that drive the 22-year solar cycle are probably deep-seated remnants from the neutron-rich solar core or from Bose-Einstein condensation of iron-rich material into a superconductor [J. Fusion Energy 21 (2003) 193].

On the other hand, the Sun’s magnetic fields revealed by the Ulysses spacecraft are unexplained by the standard solar model.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13022

Conclusion: The process that explains luminosity in an iron Sun also resolves the solar neutrino puzzle - without neutrino oscillations - and offers a straightforward explanation for the solar wind, for solar mass fractionation, for solar neutrinos, and for solar magnetic fields.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-09, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 8 2004, 04:22 AM
The intercepts typically show 10 MeV more potential energy than a free neutron, but these intercepts may increase to as much as 22 MeV of additional potential energy for neutrons in a massive neutron star.
Thanks for a fairly clear explanation of why the Iron Sun shines.

Naturally several questions come up, but first is that I&#39;d be interested in seeing a clearer statement of how you extrapolate from your theory of n-n repulsion inside nuclei to a similar theory for neutron stars, with a specific average release energy of up to 22 MeV. Perhaps this appears in one of your cited papers. I read the one on the Energy Source being Confirmed, but not the other. It would probably be helpful to bring that expalanation directly to this thread since it&#39;s a pretty important key to the hole thing.

I am also wondering how a 22 MeV neutron can be a source of energy from a neutron star, since it will be travelling initially at substantially less than the escape velocity of a minimum mass neutron star, and will reach the peak of its flight about 10 microseconds after launch, and fall back into the neutron star 10 microseconds later. This is well below the average decay time of a neutron. The best it could do is restore 22 MeV of thermal energy to the star [the same 22MeV it took to launch it]. This also takes away the supposed source of protons you propose for your solar wind model.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-10, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@May 9 2004, 02:55 PM
Thanks for a fairly clear explanation of why the Iron Sun shines.

1. Naturally several questions come up, but first is that I&#39;d be interested in seeing a clearer statement of how you extrapolate from your theory of n-n repulsion inside nuclei to a similar theory for neutron stars, with a specific average release energy of up to 22 MeV. Perhaps this appears in one of your cited papers. I read the one on the Energy Source being Confirmed, but not the other. It would probably be helpful to bring that expalanation directly to this thread since it&#39;s a pretty important key to the hole thing.

2. I am also wondering how a 22 MeV neutron can be a source of energy from a neutron star, since it will be travelling initially at substantially less than the escape velocity of a minimum mass neutron star, and will reach the peak of its flight about 10 microseconds after launch, and fall back into the neutron star 10 microseconds later. This is well below the average decay time of a neutron. The best it could do is restore 22 MeV of thermal energy to the star [the same 22MeV it took to launch it]. This also takes away the supposed source of protons (Hydrogen) you propose for your solar wind model.
Thanks, antoniseb, for your comments.

1. Values of M/A at Z/A = 0 for all mass parabolas were plotted versus 1/A to obtain the value of M/A at 1/A = 0. See “Nuclear Systematics: - Part III: The source of solar luminosity”, [Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252 (2002) 3].

In neutron-emission from a neutron star, the average energy released will not be necessarily 22 MeV. This is only the upper limit on the value of M/A in a neutron star (Z/A = 0, 1/A = 0).

The parabola defined by precise mass data for A = 27 is posted above. This is a typical mass parabola. At Z/A = 0, it yields a value of

M/A = M(neutron) + 10 MeV.

2. You are right, the neutrons do not have the escape velocity required for immediate emission. If they did, the neutron star would disintegrate.

Details of the mechanism involved in neutron-emission has not yet been worked out. This has been discussed at several theoretical physics conferences [3rd International Conference on Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Oulu, FINLAND, 2-7 June 2002; 4th International Conference on Non-Accelerator New Physics, Dubna, RUSSIA, 23-28 June 2003; 6th Workshop on Quantum Field Theory Under the Influence of External Conditions, Univ. Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA, 15-19 Sept. 2003].

Probably neutron-emission, like alpha-emission, involves quantum-mechanical barrier penetration.

For example, the Coulomb barrier around U-238 will not permit emission of a 4.2 MeV alpha particle. But U-238 emits 4.2 MeV alpha particles. The half-life for this process is 4.5 billion years.

Although a theoretical framework for neutron-emission has not been completed, this process followed by neutron-decay to Hydrogen seems to be a reasonable explanation for these observations:

A. The Cradle of the Nuclides reveals a strong driving force for neutron emission from collections of neutrons (Z/A = 0) at all values of A > 1.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/summary/cradle.pdf

B. A neutron star has:
B-1. An unexplained source of energy, and
B-2. High hydrogen levels near its surface.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2...0/pr-19-00.html (http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2000/pr-19-00.html)

C. The iron-rich Sun has:
C-1. An unexplained source of energy, and
C-2. Hydrogen pours from the Sun’s surface.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-10, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 10 2004, 09:04 PM
Probably neutron-emission, like alpha-emission, involves quantum-mechanical barrier penetration.

My ability to do the math for Quantum Mechanics is pretty weak, but I have the impression that Quantum tunnelling depends on the uncertainty principle allowing the particle to be in a slightly different place for a brief moment, and when it is, it escapes. But the fact is that the barrier for neutrons to escape from a neutron star at 22MeV is many kilometers wide [not the femtometers of a U238 nucleus&#39; weak force barrier]. I&#39;m not sure how to calculate the probability of this happening, but I&#39;d bet that your average neutron star wouldn&#39;t emit more than a few neutrons per year this way, even if the effect you decribe here is applicable to a neutron star.

B. A neutron star has:
B-1. An unexplained source of energy, and
B-2. High hydrogen levels near its surface.
Concerning B-1, Geminga is a neutron star, and seems only to have the amount of thermal energy that would be expected from a half-million year old neutron star. It certainly does not emit one-third the bolometric output of the sun. What unexpected source of energy are you talking about?
Concerning B-2, Do you have evidence for the large amounts of hydrogen in a non-accretion situation?

Greg
2004-May-11, 02:41 AM
The biggest problem I still have with the idea of a neutron star powering the interior of the sun is along the lines of stellar evolution. Either our sun is a unique main sequence star that somehow has a neutron star at its center, or there are a whole lot more neutron stars out there then anyone can imagine or explain based on what we currently believe about stellar development on a galactic scale.
At what point did all of these neutron stars form that now power main sequence stars? Why isnt that process continuing now?
Another question I have is how the neutron star remenant acquires its substantial outer shell of elements. Clearly a neutron star remenant would not have this gas after its formation as seen in the Gemiga example. I would suspect that infalling gas would interact and even be largely expelled upon interacting with a neutron star, rather than accumulating around it to the point it reaches the diameter of our sun.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-11, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+May 10 2004, 10:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; May 10 2004, 10:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 10 2004, 09:04 PM
Probably neutron-emission, like alpha-emission, involves quantum-mechanical barrier penetration.

A.My ability to do the math for Quantum Mechanics is pretty weak, but I have the impression that Quantum tunnelling depends on the uncertainty principle allowing the particle to be in a slightly different place for a brief moment, and when it is, it escapes. But the fact is that the barrier for neutrons to escape from a neutron star at 22MeV is many kilometers wide [not the femtometers of a U238 nucleus&#39; weak force barrier]. I&#39;m not sure how to calculate the probability of this happening, but I&#39;d bet that your average neutron star wouldn&#39;t emit more than a few neutrons per year this way, even if the effect you decribe here is applicable to a neutron star.

B. A neutron star has:
B-1. An unexplained source of energy, and
B-2. High hydrogen levels near its surface.
B.Concerning B-1, Geminga is a neutron star, and seems only to have the amount of thermal energy that would be expected from a half-million year old neutron star. It certainly does not emit one-third the bolometric output of the sun. What unexpected source of energy are you talking about?
Concerning B-2, Do you have evidence for the large amounts of hydrogen in a non-accretion situation?[/b][/quote]
Thanks, Antoniseb.

To answer the concerns expressed in Greg’s posting, I would like to add a section IV. Summary and Conclusions, if that is okay. Returning to your comments:

A. We agree more theoretical work is needed on the mechanism of neutron emission. I endorse that need and have encouraged such work.

Several theoreticians have expressed an interest. I expect we will hear more on the mechanism of neutron-emission soon.

B. We may not agree on three aspects of neutron stars - features that are related to our conclusion about the internal structure of the Iron Sun. These features are listed below with direct quotes from these sources:

1. “Discovery of a nearby isolated neutron star” by Frederick M. Walter, Scott J. Wolk and Ralph Neuhaeuser [Nature 279 (1996) 233] .

2. “The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star: The VLT Reveals Bowshock Nebula around RX J1856.5-3754,” 11 September 2000 ESO Press Release about a detailed study of RX J1856.5-3754 by Marten van Kerkwijk and Shri Kulkarni.

1. An Unexplained Source of Energy

“The emission of X-rays indicates a very high temperature of RX J1856.5-3754. However, from the moment of their violent birth, neutron stars are thought to lose energy and to cool down continuously. But then, how can an old neutron star like this one be so hot?” [2]

“From positional measurements and the assumed distance, approx. 200 light-years, RX J1856.5-3754 was found to be moving with a velocity of about 100 km/s [4]. However, at such a high speed, it is hard to imagine how it would be able to catch much interstellar matter, whose infall might heat the surface as described above. The puzzle was deepening&#33;” [2]

2. High Levels of Hydrogen

“Another surprise was that the spectra showed very faint emission from the neighbourhood of the neutron star. The measured wavelengths identified these emission lines as H-alpha and H-beta, two of the so-called Balmer lines that originate in hydrogen atoms.” [2]

“Interestingly, a simple estimate of the hydrogen density near the neutron star that is needed to produce the observed glow indicates the presence of about one hundred hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre. This is no less than one hundred times the usual density in the interstellar medium.” [2]

“It shows a small, cone-shaped nebula never seen before - this is the emission from hydrogen atoms near the neutron star RX J1856.5 3754. . . . . The shape of the cone is like that of a "bowshock" from a ship, plowing through water. Similarly shaped cones have been found around fast-moving radio pulsars and massive stars, cf. e.g., ESO PR 01/97 . However, for those objects, the bowshock forms because of a strong outflow of particles from the star or the pulsar (a "stellar wind"), that collides with the interstellar matter.” [2]

“Because of this analogy, one may think that a "wind" also blows from RX J1856.5-3754.” [2]

3. Missing Neutron Stars

"Our Galaxy should contain between a hundred million and a billion neutron stars; . . . . . Only about 600 pulsars are known . . . . . How many old neutron stars exist is unknown, but based on the above numbers, about 2,000 isolated ones (not in binary systems) should be detectable . . . . . To date, however, evidence for only one has been presented . . . . . it also highlights the significant problem of accounting for the absence of others that should be visible.” [1]

Finally, I want to express again my appreciation for your kindness in maintaining this link for an open discussion of evidence for and against an Iron Sun.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-13, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Greg@May 11 2004, 02:41 AM
The biggest problem I still have with the idea of a neutron star powering the interior of the sun is along the lines of stellar evolution. Either our sun is a unique main sequence star that somehow has a neutron star at its center, or there are a whole lot more neutron stars out there then anyone can imagine or explain based on what we currently believe about stellar development on a galactic scale.

At what point did all of these neutron stars form that now power main sequence stars? Why isnt that process continuing now?

Another question I have is how the neutron star remenant acquires its substantial outer shell of elements. Clearly a neutron star remenant would not have this gas after its formation as seen in the Gemiga example. I would suspect that infalling gas would interact and even be largely expelled upon interacting with a neutron star, rather than accumulating around it to the point it reaches the diameter of our sun.
Welcome, Greg, and thanks for your comments

I am preparing a section, IV. Summary and Conclusions, that will address your concerns.

In the meanwhile, I hope that you and other UT readers will study and comment on this graphical summary of stellar energy available from the fusion and dissociation of nuclei.

STELLAR ENERGY FROM FUSION AND DISSOCIATION OF NUCLEI
http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/fusion-nuclei.gif

The vertical axis, M/A, is potential energy per nucleon, as used on The Cradle of the Nuclides.

The horizontal axis, 1/A, extends from hydrogen atoms and neutrons on the right at 1/A = 1 to neutron stars on the left at 1/A = 0.

Path (1) Illustrates the energy released in hydrogen fusion into heavier elements up to Fe-56. This process is usually considered to be the main process of stellar evolution. The maximum amount of energy released in this process is 8 MeV per nucleon.

Path (2) Illustrates the compression of material into a neutron star at the core of a supernova. The Cradle of the Nuclides shows that material is "rammed" into the high energy state of all other assemblages of pure neutrons, A > 1, at Z/A = 0.

Path (3) Illustrates the energy released in neutron dissociation from a neutron star. The Cradle of the Nuclides predicts that the amount of energy released in this process is 10-22 MeV per nucleon, far more than is released by fusion or fission.

So the lifetime of a H-filled Sun may be less than that of an Fe-rich Sun with a neutron core&#33;

Best wishes,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-13, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 13 2004, 05:11 AM
So the lifetime of a H-filled Sun may be less than that of an Fe-rich Sun with a neutron core&#33;
Hmmm. You seem to have built a perpetual motion machine&#33;

You also haven&#39;t shown any rationale for the 22MeV energy for the release of neutrons from the neutron star [an extraordinary claim], or evidence that the conclusions from your cradle can extrapolate to a neutron star [which, BTW, is not just neutrons]. We are also still looking forward to hearing what your quantum friends have to say about how a 22 MeV neutron could tunnel several kilometers so as to escape the neutron star.

Somehow, you imply that these 10 to 22 MeV neutrons are supplying the protons which make up the hydrogen ions in the solar wind. So not only do they need to escape the gravity of a neutron star, then need to migrate up through 300,000 miles of iron, before being ejected into the extrasolar environment.

This whole ediface of how the iron sun shines looks like it is built on some pretty shaky ground.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-13, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@May 13 2004, 11:48 AM
Hmmm. You seem to have built a perpetual motion machine&#33;

This whole ediface of how the iron sun shines looks like it is built on some pretty shaky ground.
Sorry, antoniseb,

We neither found the Fountain of Youth nor built a Perpetual Motion Machine&#33;

Step (2) in the Summary of Stellar Energy Available from Fusion and Dissociation of Nuclei is simply the conversion of gravitational potential energy into nuclear potential energy, a process widely accepted for 70 years, since Baade and Zwicky proposed this in 1934 [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 20 (1934) 259-263].

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-14, 04:05 PM
Here is a paper that gives the current mainstream ideas, and pointers to some backing evidence, about neutron stars. They have not included Dr. Manuel&#39;s team&#39;s conclusions about the new energy source, but aside from that, their research seems pretty current.

The paper is twenty-two pages long [but it is large type, and only the first thirteen pages are the body of the paper. The rest is references and figures. The paper was written for the layman with a science background, so very little in it will be too difficult to go through. There is some math, but nothing complicated. Most concepts mentioned are explained.
Physics of Neutron Stars by Lattimer and Prakash (http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405262.pdf)

I&#39;ll be referring to some items in this paper in future rebuttles to Dr. Manuel&#39;s Energy Source, and other issues related to the Neutron Star core in his model of the sun.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-14, 08:13 PM
Thanks, antoniseb, for the theoretical paper by Lattimer and Prakash.

First, let me explain better the four data points and three paths in the figure.

STELLAR ENERGY FROM FUSION AND DISSOCIATION OF NUCLEI
http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/fusion-nuclei.gif

Four Data Points

1. On the right at 1/A = 1, the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for a free neutron is represented by the top red diamond.

2. On the right at 1/A = 1, the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for a hydrogen atom is represented by the lower red diamond, 0.0008 amu below the free neutron.

The neutron decay energy is too low to illustrate by a separate path from 1. to 2.

3. The lowest red diamond at 1/A = 1/56 represents the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) in Fe-56, the ash (stable end product) of fusion reactions.

4. On the left at 1/A = 0, the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) in a neutron star (NS) is represented by the highest red diamond.

Measurements initiated by Aston about 80 years and encouraged by his motto, “make more, more, and yet more measurements”, left little doubt about the three data points representing the neutron, the hydrogen atom, and the Fe-56 atom.

Precise mass data for all the various atoms known by 2000 also left little doubt that the interaction between neutrons is repulsive. When considered in terms of reduced nuclear variables (M/A and Z/A), the data yield values of M/A = M (neutron) + about 10 MeV when Z/A = 0 for all values of A > 1.

See III. WHAT MAKES THE IRON SUN SHINE? (2000 - PRESENT) posted here on 8 May 2004 or “Neutron Repulsion Confirmed as Energy Source” .

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps


Three Paths

1. Path (1) goes from right to left, from 1/A = 1 to 1/A = 1/56, to show the source of energy imagined by B2FH during stellar evolution as a massive first generation star fuses hydrogen into heavier nuclei up to Fe-56.

Partial movement along Path (1), from 1/A = 1 to 1/A = 1/4, illustrates the source of solar luminosity for the standard model, when hydrogen is fused into helium-4.

2. Path (2) shows the fate of material in the collapsed core by an almost vertical increase in M/A (potential energy per nucleon) as the massive star described by B2FH explodes as a supernova.

3. Path (3) goes from left to right to show the release of energy that may occur on neutron emission from the neutron star produced above.

The neutron decay energy is too low to illustrate by a separate path.

Regarding the Lattimer and Prakash paper, there is no doubt the energy of nucleons in Fe-56 is increased (Path (2)) as this material is converted into a neutron star.

We used precise mass data for 2,850 isotopes with reduced nuclear variables to estimate the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) in the neutron star:

M/A (neutron star) = M/A (neutron) + 10-22 MeV

The question is whether Lattimer and Prakash better define the elevated energy level of nucleons in a neutron star that might cause -

i) neutron emission, and

ii) neutron decay to hydrogen

and thus explain these observations?

1. An Unexplained Source of Energy

“The emission of X-rays indicates a very high temperature of RX J1856.5-3754. However, from the moment of their violent birth, neutron stars are thought to lose energy and to cool down continuously. But then, how can an old neutron star like this one be so hot?” [1]

“From positional measurements and the assumed distance, approx. 200 light-years, RX J1856.5-3754 was found to be moving with a velocity of about 100 km/s [4]. However, at such a high speed, it is hard to imagine how it would be able to catch much interstellar matter, whose infall might heat the surface as described above. The puzzle was deepening&#33;” [1]

2. High Levels of Hydrogen

“Another surprise was that the spectra showed very faint emission from the neighbourhood of the neutron star. The measured wavelengths identified these emission lines as H-alpha and H-beta, two of the so-called Balmer lines that originate in hydrogen atoms.” [1]

“Interestingly, a simple estimate of the hydrogen density near the neutron star that is needed to produce the observed glow indicates the presence of about one hundred hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre. This is no less than one hundred times the usual density in the interstellar medium.” [1]

“It shows a small, cone-shaped nebula never seen before - this is the emission from hydrogen atoms near the neutron star RX J1856.5 3754. . . . . The shape of the cone is like that of a "bowshock" from a ship, plowing through water. Similarly shaped cones have been found around fast-moving radio pulsars and massive stars, cf. e.g., ESO PR 01/97 . However, for those objects, the bowshock forms because of a strong outflow of particles from the star or the pulsar (a "stellar wind"), that collides with the interstellar matter.” [1]

“Because of this analogy, one may think that a "wind" also blows from RX J1856.5 3754.” [1]

Reference
1. “The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star: The VLT Reveals Bowshock Nebula around RX J1856.5-3754,” 11 September 2000 ESO Press Release about a detailed study of RX J1856.5-3754 by Marten van Kerkwijk and Shri Kulkarni.

Again, thanks for the reference.

With kind regards,

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

VanderL
2004-May-14, 08:32 PM
Thanks Antoniseb,

Thanks for the article, but the article is based on the fact that a neutron star (and it&#39;s high density) is a reality. Could you explain (or point to links of) what solid evidence exists that these objects are truly as dense as is claimed? All I can find is that theory doesn&#39;t forbid it, and the size is measured as several tens of kilometres with a mass comparable to our Sun&#39;s. What I can&#39;t find is how the size is measured and how we measure mass of a single object.

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-May-14, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@May 14 2004, 08:32 PM
Thanks for the article, but the article is based on the fact that a neutron star (and it&#39;s high density) is a reality. Could you explain (or point to links of) what solid evidence exists that these objects are truly as dense as is claimed?
Hi VanderL,

We&#39;ve talked about this before, and I didn&#39;t convince you, and probably won&#39;t now.

First, the article is an overview of what we know about neutron stars, and I thought it was pretty fair about including information about what isn&#39;t known or fully understood [hence Dr. Manuel has already quoted it to his benefit]. It also was a good place for people who aren&#39;t really up on what a neutron star is to see what mainstream astronomers believe [It is not simply a ball of neutrons].

Second, as to the actual measurement of the size of neutron stars, the maximum frequency of the pulses of the millisecond pulsars is usually used as an indicator of the maximum size they can be. We do know what the mass is for a few of them pretty accurately. Your argument last time was that there could be some unknown mechanism other than rotation which could produce the highly precise pulses. I certainly can&#39;t say there ISN"T an unknown process that does this. If we throw out the assumption that the pulses are rotational, we still have the theory about how nucleons interact in relativistic gravitation and pressures.

A somewhat indirect method involves taking the Boltzman temperature of the object, knowing the distance and computing the surface brightness. This will tell you the total surface area of the object. Using this method Geminga is about 25 km in diameter. You can claim that an unknown process is causing a Boltzman-like spectrum, or that only a portion of the object is luminous.

There are some possibilities for future efforts to find the size of a neutron star more directly. Mostly this would involve some serious interferometry efforts looking at Geminga. Geminga is about 500 lightyears away [give or take 100 lightyears]. So lets call it 5e18 meters away. If it has a disk about 3e4 meters across we&#39;d need an interferometer about 2e14 wavelengths wide to see it. If were using 80 nm hard uv to look at it, we&#39;d need an interferometer 16,000 kilometers across to resolve the disk. If we look using 1 nm xrays, it&#39;d need to be 200 km across. Perhaps one of these will be possible by the middle of the century. I expect that this imaging would show enough details of the space around it that you could not claim that the object was really much larger and only a small part was luminous.

antoniseb
2004-May-14, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 14 2004, 08:13 PM
2. Path (2) shows the fate of material in the collapsed core by an almost vertical increase in M/A (potential energy per nucleon) as the massive star described by B2FH explodes as a supernova.
We have all agreed from the beginning on the information for the origin and end point of path one. Path two presents a problem, because the objects here lose a huge amount of gravitational potential energy in the collapse. They also lose a great deal of thermal energy through neutrino cooling [if you believe in that, which I do, but I understand not everyone reading this thread does]. This loss of gravitational potential energy is so large that it overwhelms any gain in weak-force potential. I think the path going from Iron to neutron star has a down slope, not up.

If this is assumed, then you can&#39;t really say there is much going on with Path 3.

I also question your use of the reciprocal of A for the x-axis in this graph. It sort of tacitly implies that a neutron star is much more like an Iron nucleus than the Iron is like hydrogen or a free neutron. If you used a log scale for the x-axis it might be less deceptive.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-15, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb@May 14 2004, 11:43 PM
I think the path going from Iron to neutron star has a down slope, not up.


Thanks, antoniseb.

That is the issue:

What is the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for nucleons in a neutron star?

We have shown and published our reasons for concluding:

M/A (neutron star) = M (neutron) + 10-22 Mev.

What are your reasons for suggesting:

M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-15, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 15 2004, 12:15 AM
What are your reasons for suggesting: M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?

As I stated in my last post, I think that the gravitational potential energy for the neutron in the neutron star is negative, and larger in magnitude than whatever positive potentials it may have from the combination of weak nuclear, pauli exclusion, and [negligible for neutrons] coulomb potentials.

Aside from this, I think that your estimate of 10-22 MeV for the non-gravitational potential [which I still doubt] has room to be made much larger since the neutrons in a neutron star are packed closer than in a nucleus. We would need to see some kind of experimental results showing this repulsive force as a function of distance. It may not be a very simple curve, and have a velocity [temperature] component. What is your rationale for it being capped at 22 MeV?

VanderL
2004-May-15, 09:15 AM
Thanks Antoniseb,

I just forgot that you answered the question before; pulsing frequencies as a measure of size. If rotation is the reason of the pulsing neutron stars are real, I&#39;ll just have to either wait for the future direct measurements or google up an alternative for the pulsations. Just carry on with the Iron Sunshine discussion.

Cheers.

VanderL
2004-May-15, 01:49 PM
I want to add something to the neutron star density discussion.
When pulsars were first dicovered they were explained as rotating beams of electromagnetic radiation. After it became clear that some of these objects were pulsing several times per second, new physics was needed because normal matter can&#39;t spin that fast and stay intact. What was proposed was a "neutron state of matter", where normal matter is extremely compressed during a supernova explosion. How can we be sure that it can exist and why would matter stay compressed after a star&#39;s outer layers are removed by the supernova explosion. We now have observed millisecond pulsars, needing even newer physics (strange matter) to explain how they can rotate that fast. Maybe when we search for even faster pulses (is there a limit to the duration of a pulse?) we need even stranger matter.

For the Iron Sun discussion I think it is problematic to visualise re-accretion on an object that is spinning several times per second, let alone millisecond rotations.

Cheers.

antoniseb
2004-May-15, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@May 15 2004, 01:49 PM
Why would matter stay compressed after a star&#39;s outer layers are removed by the supernova explosion.
The gravitational potential well it is in is severe enough to prevent escape. Note that the paper I pointed to recently described the outer kilometer or two of the neutron star as being more like very dense Iron white dwarf material with lots of Iron nuclei pressed together, with odd intermediate stuff before getting to the neutron soup lower down. That stuff provides enough pressure on the neutrons to keep their form.


For the Iron Sun discussion I think it is problematic to visualise re-accretion on an object that is spinning several times per second, let alone millisecond rotations.
I agree, but Dr. Manuel has written that he doesn&#39;t know what keeps the Iron from accreting down onto the neutron star itself, or what effect the rapid spinning and huge magnetic field would have. He only says that the observational evidence excludes any other possibility, and these issues are yet to be resolved [a paraphrasal]. Mildly in his defense on this, a neutron star that is five billion years old that hasn&#39;t been spun up by accretion would tend to be spinning fairly slowly from the magnetic deceleration.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-17, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb+May 15 2004, 12:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; May 15 2004, 12:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 15 2004, 12:15 AM
What are your reasons for suggesting: M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?

As I stated in my last post, I think that the gravitational potential energy for the neutron in the neutron star is negative, and larger in magnitude than whatever positive potentials it may have from the combination of weak nuclear, pauli exclusion, and [negligible for neutrons] coulomb potentials.[/b][/quote]
Antoniseb, I deeply appreciate your kindness in allowing this discussion of evidence for and against an iron Sun. Our semester is ending, so I will be posting a concluding summary soon.

The idea of an iron Sun is not main stream. If it were, it would not be listed here under Alternative Theories.

I have tried to summarize the unexpected research findings and observations since 1960 that forced us to consider the possibility of an iron-rich Sun and to offer an explanation for its luminosity.

However, it will be futile to post unexpected results here if you and other readers do not appreciate that the cutting edge of science consists of unexpected and unpopular observations.

The above quote, to which I will respond later, is the most recent example of this tendency to dismiss unexpected observations - in this case the unexpected finding of overwhelming evidence for repulsive n-n interactions.

Another example, Unexpected Observations on Neutron Stars:

a. An unexplained deficit of neutron stars [1].
b. Unexplained luminosity of neutron stars [2].
c. Excess hydrogen around neutron stars [2].

References
1. "Discovery of a nearby isolated neutron star" by Frederick M. Walter, Scott J. Wolk and Ralph Neuhaeuser [Nature 279 (1996) 233] .
2. "The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star: The VLT Reveals Bowshock Nebula around RX J1856.5-3754," 11 September 2000 ESO Press Release about a detailed study of RX J1856.5-3754 by Marten van Kerkwijk and Shri Kulkarni.

Regarding Unexpected Evidence of Repulsive n-n Interactions

The conclusion that M/A (neutron star) = M (neutron) + 10-22 MeV came from literally hundreds of man-hours invested in a careful study of precise mass data for all 2,850 known isotopes.

That study started in 2000 when I taught a graduate course, Advanced Nuclear Chemistry, “a study of the production and decay of nuclei, radioactive dating techniques, and the abundance and origin of the chemical elements.”

Instead of textbooks, each student received a laminated copy of DOE’s latest Chart of the Nuclides and the 2000 edition of Nuclear Wallet Cards prepared by Jagdish K. Tuli of the National Nuclear Data Center at Brookhaven National Lab.

The study continued after the class ended and resulted in publication of The Cradle of the Nuclides and several papers reporting unexpected evidence for repulsive n-n interactions. For example, at all values of A > 1, M/A (at Z/A = 0) > M (neutron).

That is the empirical basis for our conclusion that

M/A (neutron star) > M (neutron).

I understand you “think that the gravitational potential energy for the neutron in the neutron star is negative”, but what measurements or observations lead you to conclude that M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-18, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 17 2004, 09:28 PM
what measurements or observations lead you to conclude that M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?
You have shown no measurements or observations that indicate anything about M/A of neutron star matter. You have shown M/A for things up to about 160 neutrons, which are bound primarily by the weak nuclear force. A neutron star is bound largely by gravity. I have included gravitational potential in my M/A. If you do not include it, you are ignoring an important difference between a neutron star and a nucleus.

A neutron star has a degenerate crust of Iron nuclei a couple of kilometers thick [so at the surface we should use M/A of Fe56] and gravity is the main binding force. It is only the repulsive nature of the weak force at close range that keeps the whole thing from collapsing altogether.

As for the interior, what do you suppose the mean free path of a neutron is in the thick soup of nucleons and highly reactive pions? And if a neutron does manage to travel the 1e21 mean free paths through the degenerate Iron, once it escapes, if it still does have 10 to 22 MeV of energy, it can only travel at best about 10 microseconds before falling back in due to gravity. How can this generate the excess Hydrogen observed around one neutron star travelling through a nebula?

As to excess luminosity, only one neutron star seems to have unexpected luminosity. This can be explained by recent accretion events, and doesn&#39;t need whole new physics.

There is no unexplained deficit of neutron stars. The old ones simply are rarely very luminous. It seems odd that you claim both that they are all too luminous [based on the few obeserved near the limit of detectability], and that there aren&#39;t enough of them.

On a side note. I read a paper today about element fractionation in the inner solar system. I was wondering whether you could comment on its strengths and weaknesses:

Herndon&#39;s Paper (http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0405/0405298.pdf)

I don&#39;t think this paper supports your case or mine against the other very strongly, but it includes some comments about planet formation and the nature of the chondrites that some of your conclusions are based on.

Thanks in advance.

PS. You indicated that you might be leaving for a while because the semester is over. Thanks very much for helping to clear up what your ideas are and how you got to them. I know this has been sometimes a testy forum, and you have mostly been very patient.

antoniseb
2004-May-18, 06:26 PM
Here is paper on Nova Nucleosynthesis and pre-solar grains.
Imprint of Nova Nucleosynthesis in Presolar Grains (http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405309.pdf)

I believe that this paper will be helpful to those people reading this thread and are interested in the origins of the grains of material that make up meteorites and other bits of natural debris we may find from primative origins.

The paper discusses Nova [not Supernova] Nucleosynthesis, which probably contributed a small amount of material to our pre-solar cloud. It also discusses how these grains are formed, and in what time frame. Similar grains are formed on a somewhat different timeframe with Supernova, but the process is similar enough that by reading this paper, you will be well equiped to understand that process as well. [The element and isotope abundances will be quite different]. The paper is a bit long, but I think it is accessible to most people with a science education.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-19, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb+May 18 2004, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; May 18 2004, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 17 2004, 09:28 PM
what measurements or observations lead you to conclude that M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?
You have shown no measurements or observations that indicate anything about M/A of neutron star matter. You have shown M/A for things up to about 160 neutrons, . . . . [/b][/quote]
Can you answer the question?

As noted a few postings back,

"That is the issue:

What is the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for nucleons in a neutron star?"

Thanks,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-19, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 19 2004, 12:07 AM
What is the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for nucleons in a neutron star?
Sorry Dr. Manuel,

I assumed by telling you that I was including the gravitational potential of the neutron, it would be obvious what M/A I was speaking of, especially to a PhD physicist [or was this a quiz?].

For the minimum sized neutron star observed [0.88 solar masses] I find that a single neutron on the surface has a gravitational potential energy of -135 MeV. Did you get a different figure?

Also, whether I can answer this question or not it not the issue. The issue is whether your conclusions about a neutron star in the center of our sun can account for the observed phenomena without violating well understood physical principles.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-19, 11:10 PM
IV. SUMMARY

In 1956 - a year before the classical B2FH paper on “Synthesis of the Elements in Stars”, [Rev. Mod. Physics 29 (1957) 547-650] - Professor John H. Reynolds developed a new, high-sensitivity mass spectrometer [Rev. Sci. Instruments 27 (1956) 928-934].

Beginning in 1960, measurements with that instrument started to reveal several [i]unexpected research findings, e.g., decay products of short-lived isotopes and un-mixed products of stellar nucleosynthesis reactions “frozen” in meteorites that formed at the birth of the solar system. Those findings undermined the idea that a well-mixed interstellar cloud formed the Sun and its planetary system.

By 1972 established dogmas on the Formation of the Solar System and an H-filled Sun from an interstellar cloud [Nature 303 (1983) 286] started to crumble with the unexpected observation of two distinct types of xenon in meteorites [Nature 240 (1972) 99-101]:

Xe-1 = “Normal Xenon” and Xe-2 = “Strange Xenon”

Subsequent measurements showed that:

1. Xe-1, “Normal Xenon”, is in:

a. Fe,Ni,S-rich meteorite inclusions (troilite).

b. Mars, Earth and the Sun where Fe, Ni and S are abundant.

2.Xe-2, “Strange Xenon”, is in:

a. Carbon-rich meteorite inclusions that trapped primordial He.

b. Jupiter where H, He and C are abundant.

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

IV. SUMMARY will be continued on the next page

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-20, 02:38 AM
IV. SUMMARY (continued)

Other unexpected experimental results are listed in II. 15 Major Space Age Observations on Element Synthesis (1960-present) posted on 6 April 2004. See also ”The Facts” and Interpretations of Facts for the Space Age Observations posted on 28 April 2004 and 4 May 2004.

1. Highly radioactive, stellar debris with many short-lived isotopes formed the Solar System.

2. Th,U,Pu-age dating shows the debris came from a supernova that exploded 5 billion years ago

3. Age dating with short-lived isotopes in meteorites and planets shows:

a. There was not time to mix the SN debris into the interstellar medium.

b. There was not time to separate interstellar material into the various types of planets and meteorites in the Solar System.

c. There was not time to separate iron into iron meteorites nor the Earth into layers by geochemical differentiation.

4. Un-mixed isotopes made by many different B2FH nucleosynthesis reactions were “frozen” in meteorites at the birth of the solar system. These observations confirm that the SN debris:

a. Did not mix with the interstellar medium.

b. Did not separate from H-rich interstellar material to form the various types of planets and meteorites in the Solar System.

5. Isotopes and elements from various layers of the supernova did not mix. Chemical gradients across the solar system and in the internal layers of the inner planets came from the supernova.

a. Iron-rich material near the SN core directly formed the iron cores of the inner planets and iron meteorites without mixing Mo isotopes.

b. Light elements from the outer SN layers formed Jupiter and diamond and graphite inclusions of primitive meteorites.

c. Inner SN layers formed the Sun, Earth, Mars (rocky planets), and FeS inclusions in meteorites.

Some of these unexpected findings were noted in “Strange Xenon, Extinct Superheavy Elements, and the Solar Neutrino Puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) p. 208.

The conclusion, confirmed by a multitude of later measurements is:
SUPERNOVA DEBRIS FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM
http://www.BallOfIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

This scenario, is incompatible with the standard model of a hydrogen-filled Sun.

IV. SUMMARY will be continued on the next page

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-20, 02:42 AM
IV. SUMMARY (continued)

SUPERNOVA DEBRIS FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM
http://www.BallOfIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

This scenario, is incompatible with the standard model of a hydrogen-filled Sun.

However, the idea that a well-mixed interstellar cloud formed the Sun and its planetary system cannot be salvaged by ad hoc explanations for individual findings, e.g., interstellar grains trapped in meteorites, injections of trace levels of alien nucleosynthesis products from nearby stars (supernovae, red giant stars), etc.

The solution to this paradox came in 1983 from another unexpected finding [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222] that

6. Light mass (L) isotopes of different elements in the solar wind are enriched relative to heavy mass (H) isotopes by a common fractionation factor ( F ), where

log ( F ) = 4.56 log (H/L) . . . . . . Equation (1)

7. The elemental abundance pattern in the photosphere (determined by line spectra), when corrected with Equation (1) for mass fractionation (determined by isotopic analysis on the solar wind), yields Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and S as the seven most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun.

8. These same seven, even-numbered elements - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and S - comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites but occur only at the part-per-million level in the photosphere. A statistical analysis concludes that the probability ( P ) for the empirical relationship defined by isotope ratios in the solar wind, Equation (1), to select these same seven trace elements from the photosphere is essentially zero,
P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002.

9. Measurements by the Galileo probe into Jupiter also confirmed that elements in Jupiter are unlike those in the Sun [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222]:

a. Jupiter contains Xe-2, unlike Xe-1 in the Sun, Earth and Mars

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

b. Jupiter&#39;s H and He could not have been changed into those seen in the Sun today by an early D-burning, T-Tauri stage.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/nolte_lietz.pdf

10. The unexpected observation of rocky, Earth-like planets obriting pulsar, PSR 1257+12 [Nature 355 (1992) 142; Science 264 (1994) 538] affirms that a rotationally supported disk of heavy elements from a supernova explosion can form a planetary system [[Nature 353 (1991) 827].

11. The Cradle of the Nuclides provided answers to the remaining questions - the mechanism that maintains mass fractionation and the source of energy, neutrinos from fusion, and hydrogen pouring from the surface of the iron-rich Sun.

The Cradle of the Nuclides
http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/cradle.jpg
These answers were posted here on 8 May 2004 and will be explained further in the concluding section.

V. CONCLUSIONS will be presented on the next page

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-20, 02:46 AM
V. CONCLUSIONS ON THE SUN AND STELLAR ENERGY

The Sun is like a high efficiency furnace with a catalytic converter in its flue (chimney, smokestack).

1. Emission of high energy neutrons from the solar core generates > 57% of the Sun’s energy. *These neutrons are like all others in The Cradle of the Nuclides when**A > 1 and Z/A = 0 (A = the**mass number; Z = the atomic number).

http://web.umr.edu/~om/summary/cradle.pdf

2. Hydrogen is a by-product of solar luminosity, like smoke coming from a furnace.

3. Hydrogen is also a fuel, like smoke in the flue with a catalytic converter.**This consumes 99% of the hydrogen produced in the solar core, generates less than 38% of solar energy, and produces essentially all solar electron neutrinos observed.

4. Constant upward flow of hydrogen maintains mass separation in the Sun, like the draft created by an upward flow of smoke in a flue.

5. Hydrogen pours from the Sun&#39;s surface in the solar wind (3 x 10^43 per year), like smoke that passes over the catalytic converter and exhausts the flue.

The solar neutrino puzzle arose from confusion that hydrogen - - - the product of dissociation and decay in the Sun - - - is the reactant that fuels solar luminosity.

If the Sun is a valid model of other stars in the cosmos, then the Hydrogen filled universe is like a smoke-filled room.

The Two Models of the Sun will be compared in the next posting.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-20, 03:26 AM
Here is a brief comparison of the Two Models of the Sun
http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/compare.gif

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-20, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb+May 19 2004, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 19 2004, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 19 2004, 12:07 AM
What is the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for nucleons in a neutron star?
Sorry Dr. Manuel,

I assumed by telling you that I was including the gravitational potential of the neutron, it would be obvious what M/A I was speaking of, especially to a PhD physicist [or was this a quiz?].

For the minimum sized neutron star observed [0.88 solar masses] I find that a single neutron on the surface has a gravitational potential energy of -135 MeV. Did you get a different figure?
[/b][/quote]
Thanks, antoniseb.

That is intriguing information on the gravitational potential energy of a neutron on the surface of a neutron star.

Earlier you reported that, "A neutron star has a degenerate crust of Iron nuclei a couple of kilometers thick . . . ."

Do you think the gravitational potential energy at the surface of a neutron star is representative of that inside the star?

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-20, 06:05 AM
Thanks, antoniseb, and all UT readers of this link for your patience while I tried to communicate, summarize, and conclude research that started in 1960 - - - when Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda, called a young new graduate student into his office at the University of Arkansas and showed me Professor John H. Reynolds&#39; startling discoveries reported in the January issue of Physical Review Letters.

In 1962, Professor P. K. Kuroda sent me to Professor Reynolds&#39; lab in Berkeley to learn how to operate Reynolds&#39; mass spectrometer - - - a marvelous new instrument that revealed many of the unexpected observations (i.e., enigmas) that obviously characterize the cutting edge of science.

I am deeply indebted to many members of my family, former teachers, students, colleagues, and acquaintances who encouraged me to remain true to my own convictions in this "pursuit of truth". In this sense, science is IMHO one of the many paths to God.

With kind regards,

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

antoniseb
2004-May-20, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 20 2004, 03:41 AM
Do you think the gravitational potential energy at the surface of a neutron star is representative of that inside the star?
The gravitational potential energy of a particle is measured against it&#39;s potential at infinite distance being zero. The gravitational potential energy of neutrons inside the neutron star is somewhat more negative than that on the surface.

suntrack
2004-May-20, 12:23 PM
[COLOR=orange]well i am sunil

question no.1.what is the magnetic typhoon?
question no.2. why solar typhoons repeated?
question no.3. is the mass of sun is different like any other similar star?
question no.4. why the plants and other live things become fresher or looks helthier in sunlight?[is it due to iron properties, since for body iron is a main content [through iron tonics etc] ?
question no.5. whether the sunlight is iron tonic for the live spacies of earth?
question no.6. whether sun has fixed by the god to serve earth better rather than
any other star?
question no.7. the hydrogen is dissolve in the air very easily if we assume that sun has a based property of hydrogen then why not dissolving?
question no.8. if iron+rocks may melt with the heat of sun if it has a base such like that? or whether the thickness of sun is greater one?
question no. 8. if hellium is there then why not the alternative compound follows with oxigen evaporation through the ozone?

sunildeshpande111@rediffmail.com