PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: New Theory Proposed For Solar ...



Fraser
2004-May-21, 06:13 PM
SUMMARY: A new theory from researchers at Arizona State University challenges the traditional view of the formation of our Solar System. Instead of forming within an out-of-the-way cloud of interstellar gas and dust, they believe we formed in the intense environment that typically creates more massive stars. The core of their argument is the recent discovery of iron-60 in meteorites; this isotope can only be found in the heart of massive stars. This could mean that the Sun formed while a more massive star was nearby, blasting our environment with intense ultraviolet radiation.

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

StarLab
2004-May-21, 06:22 PM
I wonder what Oliver makes of this story?

antoniseb
2004-May-21, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by StarLab@May 21 2004, 06:22 PM
I wonder what Oliver makes of this story?
I think he is justifiably proud that one of the lead authors is a student of one of his students. He posted something about this in the Other Stories section earlier today [Earth and Sun Born Amid Choas].

This is a group coming to a different conclusion than his, but it provides no additional undermining evidence against his model. You can read some pride in his writing anytime someone cares about isotope ratios as evidence about the origin of the sun and planets. This is no exception.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-21, 08:45 PM
Thanks, Fraser, for posting this exciting news here.

Radiation is an important part of this story. Because of radiation, each of us may retain a record in our bodies of the event that made the Iron-60!

Something separated d- and l- amino acids, the precursors to life, in meteorites. John Cronin and Sandra Pizzarello [Science 275 (1997) 951] suggest the separation was caused by circular polarized light from a pulsar - the collapsed core of the supernova that made the isotopes of iron.

Post-SN radiation in the hot supernova debris likely made some short-lived isotopes and generated several rare isotopes in which nucleons are too loosely bound to survive inside a star - - - the isotopes of Deuterium, Lithium, Beryllium and Boron.

This was called the x-process in B2FH (1957). Fowler, Greenstein and Hoyle (1961) noted the possibility of local synthesis by radiation in their Deuteronomy paper.

However, post-SN radiation could not make Pu-244, Iron-60, Nickel-56, etc. These were made in the supernova itself.

Pu-244 has a half-life of 82 My. The decay products of Pu-244 and U-238 in the Earth, Moon and meteorites indicate the supernova exploded 5,000 My ago at the birth of the solar system.

Iron-60 has a 1.5 My half-life and decays via 5 y Cobalt-60 to Nickel-60

Fe-60 -> Co-60 -> Ni-60

Some of the Fe-60 was still alive when meteorites started to form. It is detected now as excess radiogenic Ni-60.

The most abundant iron isotope, Iron-56, is also produced in the supernova as Nickel-56 (Z = N = 28 = a closed shell of protons and neutrons).

Nickel-56 decays in two quick steps (half-lives = 6 day, 77 day) to Iron-56

Ni-56 -> Co-56 -> Fe-56

This decay process was observed in the hot, radioactive debris in the central region of supernova SN1987A.

Fe-56 makes up 90% of the iron in iron meteorites.

Yet Professor Akimasa Masuda's student, Qi-Lu, observed that the seven stable isotopes of Molybdenum made by different nucleosynthesis reactions were unmixed in massive iron meteorites [Qi-Lu, Doctoral Thesis, University of Tokyo, (1991); Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33 (1998) A99]. Other laboratories confirmed this unexpected finding.

Thus the bulk matrix material that makes up iron meteorites apparently came from the core of the same supernova that made Iron-60 here 5,000 million years ago.

With kind regards,

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

Fraser
2004-May-21, 08:50 PM
I knew you'd enjoy this one Oliver. :-)

bluemeteor
2004-May-21, 09:56 PM
what is the liklihood that a massive, but unseen, supernova remnant eg ?black hole or other body, is still in our region of the galaxy? any thoughts? JR

antoniseb
2004-May-21, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by bluemeteor@May 21 2004, 09:56 PM
what is the liklihood that a massive, but unseen, supernova remnant eg ?black hole or other body, is still in our region of the galaxy?
There could be some in our region, but I think it would be wrong to say "still" in the region. There are a lot of these things around, and most would be unseen.

Duane
2004-May-21, 10:26 PM
I have read a number of articles regarding this theory, and it does seem to answer alot of questions that Dr Manuel has raised in his "Iron Sun Discussion" thread, especially regarding the strange abundances of certain isotopes.

Briefly Oliver, do you agree with Hester's findings and conclusions?

om@umr.edu
2004-May-21, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by bluemeteor@May 21 2004, 09:56 PM
what is the liklihood that a massive, but unseen, supernova remnant eg ?black hole or other body, is still in our region of the galaxy?** any thoughts?** JR
Hi, Bluemeteor.

An excellent question!

Opinions on this matter differ. See Iron Sun Discussion

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

Most UT participants seem convinced there is little likelihood of a massive, but unseen, supernova remnant in our region of the galaxy.

On the other hand I think the element, iron can be used as a tracer to locate the remnant of the supernova that made our solar system - - - in the center of the Sun.

Time and more measurements will resolve this long-standing dispute.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-21, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Duane@May 21 2004, 10:26 PM
I have read a number of articles regarding this theory, and it does seem to answer alot of questions that Dr Manuel has raised in his "Iron Sun Discussion" thread, especially regarding the strange abundances of certain isotopes.

Briefly Oliver, do you agree with Hester's findings and conclusions?
Briefly, Duane -

1. There is little doubt Fe-60 was alive at the birth of the solar system.

2. There is little doubt Fe-60 came from the interior of a supernova.

3. Injected material from a nearby supernova does not explain, IMHO, many other observations summarized in the Iron Sun Discussion.

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...pic=2544&st=240

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-22, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb+May 21 2004, 07:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 21 2004, 07:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-StarLab@May 21 2004, 06:22 PM
I wonder what Oliver makes of this story?
I think he is justifiably proud that one of the lead authors is a student of one of his students. [/b][/quote]
Sorry Antoniseb,

I should have read more carefully.

The lead author is Jeff Hester. Gary Huss is not a co-author, but this paper is based on measurements of iron-60 reported by Shogo Tachibana and Gary Huss last year.

Gary Huss, is the former student of my former student, E. Calvin Alexander. So the lineage for this measurement is excellent - - - leading back to the stern advice of Francis William Aston: "Make more, more, and yet more measurements".

With kind regards,

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

kashi
2004-May-22, 04:52 AM
I had you in mind when I read this story Oliver&#33;

antoniseb
2004-May-22, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 22 2004, 02:59 AM
Gary Huss is not a co-author, but this paper is based on measurements of iron-60 reported by Shogo Tachibana and Gary Huss last year.
Pride and happiness is still justified. I have said all along that your contributions to the field of isotope abundance has been a great thing. For you &#39;grand-students&#39; to be continuing in that vein is all the better. As the contributor to our scientific understanding, I am sure that no matter how much you are confident in the importance of your contributions, it is a reassuring thing to actually see them being used. Well done.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-22, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Duane@May 21 2004, 10:26 PM
Briefly Oliver, do you agree with Hester&#39;s findings and conclusions?
Thanks, Duane.

Here is a more complete list of the observations and measurements that are, IMHO, unexplained by a nearby supernova explosion.

Jeff Hester et al. should be asked to address these:

1. 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].

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

3. “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].

3a. 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.
****
3b. 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].

4. 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].

5. 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)

6. 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].

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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].*

10. 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)

11. 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. 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;

13. 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 is linked with the abundance of elements in the interior of the Sun.

14. 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].

In the interest of fairness, Jeff Hester et al. should be asked to address these observations and measurements in this UT forum.

With kind regards,

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

Greg
2004-May-22, 06:26 PM
[SIZE=1][SIZE=1][SIZE=1]This theory is a very nice synthesis of stellar evolution theory and meterologic chemical evidence. These ideas have already made sense out of some previously mysterious findings of nebulae by HST. I think it is a tribute to the value of the scientific work espoused by Dr. Manuel and others. From reading his posts, I already arrived at the conclusion that our solar system probably formed from remmenants of supernova(s) as opposed to the traditional theory of it being formed in an isolated interstellar cloud. It is apparent that there is still much to be mined out of meteorite evidence. Dr. Hester implied that testable predictions will be forthcoming based on his theory. I look forward to seeing these predictions and whether or not they can be validated.

Fraser_Abel
2004-May-22, 08:20 PM
Thanks, Duane.

Here is a more complete list of the observations and measurements that are, IMHO, unexplained by a nearby supernova explosion.

Jeff Hester et al. should be asked to address these:

1. 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].

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

3. “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].

3a. 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.

3b. 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].

4. 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].

5. 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

6. 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].

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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].

10. 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)

11. 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. 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;

13. 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 is linked with the abundance of elements in the interior of the Sun.

14. 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].

In the interest of fairness, Jeff Hester et al. should be asked to address these observations and measurements in this UT forum.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om
Hey, Oliver-
Don&#39;t you think that just for once you could have a short post&#33;? :amused:

Fraser_Abel
2004-May-22, 08:22 PM
Oh, by the way Oliver, just out of curiosity, are you copy-pasting from your own website?&#33;

Victoria
2004-May-23, 02:44 AM
Hello thrice to you... :rolleyes: Oliver.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-23, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Fraser_Abel@May 22 2004, 08:20 PM
Hey, Oliver-
Don&#39;t you think that just for once you could have a short post&#33;?
Thanks Fraser and Humbled -

You are right - that list was too long, even though prepared over a period of 32 years&#33;

1972 Two distinct types of xenon were discovered in meteorites 32 years ago ["Xenon in Carbonaceous Chondrites", Nature 240 (1972) p. 99]. We concluded that one, Xe-1, was "normal Xe" and the other, Xe-2, was "strange Xe" injected from a near-by supernova.

ASU astronomer Jeff Hester et al. have now taken an important step in endorsing a nearby supernova for the origin of Fe-60 in the early solar system [21 May 2004 issue of Science]. However, in

1975 We found that all primordial He accompanied Xe-2, not Xe-1 ["Elemental and Isotopic Inhomogeneities in Noble Gases: The Case for Local Synthesis of the Chemical Elements", Trans. Missouri Acad. Science 9 (1975) p. 105]. This suggested that Xe-2 came from either -

i) The Sun&#39;s early binary companion that exploded as a supernova to produce the radioactive debris that formed the planetary system, or

ii) Outer layers of the single supernova that produced the entire solar system, including the collapsed SN core on which the Sun formed.

1977 We decided path ii) represents the formation of the solar system better than path i) ["Strange Xenon, Extinct Super-heavy Elements, and the Solar Neutrino Puzzle" , Science 195 (1977) p. 208].

The Galileo probe confirmed path ii) by finding Xe-2 in Jupiter.

Again, thanks for your comments.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-25, 10:32 PM
Without addressing the 14 observations cited above, Duane suggests in the Iron Sun discussion,

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...ic=2544&st=270& (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=270&)

that the new theory by Jeff Hester et al. explains the formation of the solar system better than

Formation of the Solar System from One Supernova
http://www.BallOfIron.com/images/SN-Solar_System.jpg

My reply will be posted there.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-25, 11:38 PM
I will also ask Duane to post his endorsement of the theory by Jeff Hester et al. here.

With kind regards,

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

Duane
2004-May-26, 08:07 PM
1. 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].


Burbridge, Burbridge, Fowler and Hoyle (B2FH) described how heavier than iron elements can be formed in s and r processes within stars. In essence, they state that the very heaviest elements arise from neutron capture in supernmovas.

So what? It is agreed that the enviroment around the early sun was enriched before, during and after the formation of the solar system. What is to answer?


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


Again, so what? Ionized oxygen is also a product of supernova explosions.


3. “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].


OK, so what? What is the question here Oliver?


3a. 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.


Yea, another finding that suggests material from supernova explosions was in the cloud from which the sun formed. How many times must it be stated that there is heavy agreement that material in the early solar system was enriched by material from nearby supernova explosions? According to Hesters new research, that material was added before, during and after the formation of the protosun.


3b. 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].


Yes, it makes sense that some of the material injected by nearby supernova events would be material that arose during the period before the star that injected the material went supernova.


4. 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].


Amazing, another measurement suggesting that material in the early solar enviroment came from supernovas.


5. 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


See 4 above.


6. 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].


Ok, so during the formation and initial ignition of the proto-sun, lighter elements were swept from the inner solar system by the fierce solar wind that arises in such young stars.

Further, the formation of polar jets would also sweep some material out of the inner solar system and rain some of it back into the accretion disk at 6 or so AU from the new star. Seems to make perfect sense.


7. 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.


How do you figure it leaves too little time for geochemical differentation? As the solar system arose out of a large enriched cloud of mostly hydrogen, and that enrichment occurred before, during and after the formation of the sun, the differentation could have been occuring before the sun even fully formed. Frankly, I think this supports the accepted theory of solar system formation more than your theory of re-accretion.


8. 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.


Which goes again to support the theory that the material from nearby supernova explosions enriched the cloud of material which formed the solar system. Thank you Oliver, this makes that theory of formation all the stronger.


. 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].


Again, this makes perfect sense in the formation of the solar system from a mixed cloud enriched with material from nearby supernova explosions. It also makes the idea of mass arrival after the formation of the protostar stronger.


10. 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)


That&#39;s interesting. I think antoniseb has made several comments about this, over several different threads where you have posted this same list. He is better at answering this particular subject then me, so I will ask him, if he doesn&#39;t mind, to cut and paste his past responces.


11. 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].

I don&#39;t agree. This conclusion (not measurement, not observation) is not supported by the data you have laid out in any of your explanations.


12. 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;


What is this? You have been asked about this one several times, and as far as I have seen, you have never answered the question directly. Certainly meteorites are made up of the seven elements you have mentioned, but how does that then relate back to the make up of the sun? On what basis do you make this conclusion? (Again, conclusion, not measurement, not observation&#33;)


13. 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 is linked with the abundance of elements in the interior of the Sun.


How do you arrive at this conclusion? Line spectra supports that the sun is made up almost entirely of hydrogen, not iron. Furthermore, helioseismology studies have mapped the interior with enough precision to be able to spot sunspots before they rotate into view. Sorry, but your line of reasoning does not lead to the conclusion you have made.


14. 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].


So? CME&#39;s are the most energetic events that we see regularly on the sun. Some degree of s or p process might be occuring at the very energetic sites. Maybe it has something to do with the magnetic field of the sun, given that CME&#39;s occur at sites where the field intersects the solar surface. So, again, what is your point?

I wish to paraphrase Tim Thompson at this point--none of these numbered comments are direct observations of the sun, and alot are simply conclusions that you have made. They do not make the case for an iron sun&#33;

antoniseb
2004-May-26, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Duane@May 26 2004, 08:07 PM
I think antoniseb has made several comments about this, over several different threads where you have posted this same list. He is better at answering this particular subject then me, so I will ask him, if he doesn&#39;t mind, to cut and paste his past responses.
Thanks Duane, These are great responses to Dr. Manuel&#39;s fifteen space age observations.

Concerning Item 10, Our argument has been that Dr. Manuel is reporting on mass fractionation showing the photosphere to be populated by lighter isotopes of each element than the Earth [and meteorites that have landed on the Earth]. His claim is that if the isotopes in the Sun match those on the Earth [in total] that the Sun must have considerably more Iron in it than we see.

Tim has said that it is unclear whether the mass fractionation of the isotopes has happened in the sun, or in the material outside the sun, or both, and this formula cannot be relied upon for this kind of extrapolation.

Dr. Manuel has pointed out that there is a different set of isotope ratios observed in CMEs, which he presumes [as I would] come from lower than the observed photosphere. The ratios he cites in the CMEs still do not match the ratios he extrapolates to [particularly for Iron], but they do seem to contain some fractionation toward heavier isotopes.

Dr. Manuel asks if we have an explanation for this. Yes I have one, but it is not provable by me to be correct, and certainly this part of the star and planet formation process is in the area of new science, and subject to much modelling and change.

My argument is that the mass fractionation happened largely in the early days of the Sun heating up and fusion turning on. During this time, high energy photons provided photon pressure against the most opaque atoms [ions] driving them away from the center of the sun [Iron for example]. Those isotopes with the greatest mass had the most momentum to press through the layers above, and ultimately [after repetition of the process] be ejected from the early Sun into the protoplanetary disk. This was a slow process [an extreme form of gas chromatography], but the result is that the sun has the light isotopes and the planets and asteroids have the heavy ones. I have no math to back this up, and demonstrate that it would yield a log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L) result, but that, at least, is an explanation that fits with modern theory.


Concerning item 12, I have never liked the way Dr. Manuel expresses this [prefering scientific notation over such easily miscopied numerical expressions], but he did explain it. Essentially he is saying that it is not a coincidence that the most common elements in the meteorites is the same set as as the most common elements in the sun other than Hydrogen and Helium. Ultimately this boils down to these being the most abundent elements thrown out by a Supernova. It does not, by itself demonstarate that a Neutron Star must be at the core of the sun, or that the sun must be largely Iron. It only shows that the materials in the solar system which are not Hydrogen or Helium must have come from Supernovae, Novae, and Planetary nebulae, that is, must have been generated in an aging star&#39;s internal and terminal processes.


Concerning item 14, I would be surprised if any s or p process was taking place in CMEs that could account for these isotopes. CMEs are energetic, but not within several orders of magnitude energetic enough for s or p process in detectable levels. The isotope ratios in CMEs promises to provide an interesting bit of discovery.

Duane
2004-May-27, 01:44 AM
Thanks antoniseb. As I see it then, with regrads to item 12, it is another measurement supporting the idea that material forming the solar system arose from extrasolar events, such as supernovas.

On Item 14, I don&#39;t think the s or p process could be responsible either, for the same reason you state. And yes, the isotope studies of CME&#39;s should provide some interesting data.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-27, 06:03 PM
[I have moved Oliver&#39;s responce into the Iron Sun Discussion thread]

om@umr.edu
2004-May-27, 09:49 PM
I deeply regret Duane&#39;s decision to remove the figure of experimental observations which directly contradict the supernova-injection hypothesis away from this Story Comments forum on Hester et al&#39;s new theory on supernova injections during the formation of the solar system.

Here are the experimental data:

PRIMORDIAL HELIUM IS LINKED WITH XE-2 FROM THE SUPERNOVA

http://web.umr.edu/~om/images/Xe-2_He_in_meteorites.gif

The conflict between these data and Hester et al&#39;s new theory for formation of the solar system is explained on page 20 of the Iron Sun Discussion.

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...pic=2544&st=285 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2544&st=285)

With kind regards,

Oliver

Duane
2004-May-27, 09:58 PM
I have reviewed your request, and spent time looking over several threads where you have posted comments expousing your iron sun theory. I found your image representing the supernova explosion you claim the sun formed from 16 times, 7 times in the iron sun thread alone.

I do not think it unreasonable to move your post from the Story Comments section to the iron sun discussion, considering that the discussion is moving towards your theory of the iron sun in any event. You are aware that we do not allow the forum to be used as a platform to support any personal theories or ideas, and your posts in this thread were doing exactly that.

I (and we) have given you some leeway in making your points, and the iron sun thread was opened specifically for you to discuss your theory openly and allow debate of its merits and pitfalls. While there will occasionally be some overlap with other topics, especially in the Story Comments forum, and so some degree of flexibilty when you post in responce to a story, you must also accept that when the conversation begins to move into pages long, that the discussion will be steered back to the iron sun thread.

I hope you see my point. Your insights and comments are valuble and welcome, and I do not intend in any way to dissuade you from continuing to post on any topic. Again though, when the responces begin to become another debate on the merits of your theory I will steer the conversation back to the iron sun thread. If that steerage requires me to edit a post and move it to that thread, then that is what I will do.

Feel free to convince me otherwise Oliver. I would be happy to continue this conversation by private email, should you wish to debate the point further.

om@umr.edu
2004-May-27, 11:56 PM
The experimental data pose this puzzle for the nearby supernova hypothesis -

1) Instead of injecting trace levels of Fe-60 and Xe-136 (in Xe-2) from a nearby supernova into a protosolar cloud containing Xe-1, Primordial Hydrogen (91%) and Primordial Helium (9%),

2) The nearby supernova must have injected Fe-60, Xe-136 (in Xe-2), and Primordial Helium into a protosolar cloud containing Xe-1 but essentially no Primordial Helium.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-May-31, 02:22 AM
In the Iron Sun Discussion,

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...&p=29942&st=300 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?act=Post&CODE=08&f=16&t=2544&p=29942&st=300)

Experimental data are posted showing that:

- I.- “Strange Xe”, Xe-2, came not from a near-by supernova, but from the outer, He-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where the giant gaseous planets formed.

-II.- "Fe-60" came not from a near-by supernova, but from the iron-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where iron meteorites and the cores of the terrestrial planets formed.

With kind regards,

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

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-02, 01:31 PM
These conclusions to the Iron Sun Discussion were recently posted at:

http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...=315 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?act=Post&CODE=08&f=16&t=2544&p=29942&st=315)

-1.- “Strange Xe”, Xe-2, came not from a near-by supernova, but from the He-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where outer layers of the supernova formed the giant, gaseous planets.

-2.- “Normal Xe”, Xe-1, and Fe-60 came not from a near-by supernova, but from the iron-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where inner layers of the supernova formed iron meteorites and the cores of the terrestrial planets formed.

-3.- The Sun is iron-rich and formed on the collapsed supernova core.

With kind regards,

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

Duane
2004-Jun-02, 08:15 PM
Please everyone, keep in mind that these "conclusions" are the ones made by Oliver alone.

Almost no one else following this discussion has arrived at these "conclusions" and in fact, they are almost universally rejected.

Oliver, shame on you&#33; You have not answered fundamental questions posed to you in the iron sun discussion, and the wording you chose for this post seems to be deliberately misleading.

John L
2004-Jun-02, 08:48 PM
To clarify the wording would expose his idea to scrutiny. Something I personally don&#39;t think it could stand up to... Kind of like Spaceship1&#39;s nuclear rocket ideas on the Human Spaceflight forum...

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-03, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Duane@Jun 2 2004, 08:15 PM
Please everyone, keep in mind that these "conclusions" are the ones made by Oliver alone.

Almost no one else following this discussion has arrived at these "conclusions" and in fact, they are almost universally rejected.

Oliver, shame on you&#33; You have not answered fundamental questions posed to you in the iron sun discussion, and the wording you chose for this post seems to be deliberately misleading.
I did not mean to offend you, Duane.

I am not ashamed to say the Iron Sun Hypothesis is our conclusion to the 15 Unexpected Space Age Observations Since 1960 posted in the Iron Sun Discussion.

The first of these convinced Fowler, Greenstein and Hoyle as early as 1961 that D, Li, Be, B and some short-lived isotopes might have been produced locally.

My conclusions may be wrong, but I certainly will not feel shamed for having tried to address the observations.

Again, I apologize for annoying you.

With kind regards,

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

Duane
2004-Jun-03, 03:42 AM
You did not annoy me Oliver. I simply wished to make it clear that the conclusions you listed are your conclusions, not conclusions agreed to by the majority following the discussions in the iron sun thread.

Be clear I said seems like, not are.

Do not misunderstand me. I have no problem with you directing people to the discussion, and I am not annoyed that you do so. Rather, I will make it clear that you are making your comments in such a way as to misrepresent the current of the discussions, when I see posts like the one above.

Your arguments are not convincing the majority of, at least, the people posting in the topic, and I will not allow you to state things in such a way as to convey it is anything other than that. Should I see comments that you make suggesting the discussion is turning to favour you, I will call you on it.

Every time Oliver.

Do not mistake my lack of credentials as a lack of intellegence.

This is my personal opinion and has nothing what-so-ever to do with my role as a moderator for this forum.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-03, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Duane@Jun 3 2004, 03:42 AM
Do not mistake my lack of credentials as a lack of intellegence.

This is my personal opinion and has nothing what-so-ever to do with my role as a moderator for this forum.
Duane,

Let&#39;s focus on observations, not personalities.

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

Duane
2004-Jun-03, 05:15 PM
Hmm, lets look at Dr Manuels claim. He says the sun has an iron core which arose from a supernova explosion.

He cannot explain how the core overcame the escape velocity of the material it ejected to begin reaccreting it. He uses neutrino flux, which is later explained, to support the idea, and dismisses findings which explained the original paradox. He claims the Earth has an undifferentiated solid lower mantle, and ignores research showing the mantle is not only melted throughout, it recycles. He cannot account for the current mass of the sun. He cannot explain how the sun could burn steadily for 5 billion years, nor explain why the sun is slowly heating up. He cannot explain how material accreting on the the "neutron core" would not become part of the degenerate shell. He cannot explain the means by which the iron star could shine, nor can he explain the the opacity problem which lead to the hypothesis that the sun burned hydrogen in the first place. He ignores literally stacks of research papers which explain the diverse isotopes found in meteorites, including several lines of research by different disiplines of science suggesting more than one incident of material injection into the pre-solar, forming and post-solar enviroment. He cannot explain how a small mass neutron star could form, nor can he explain how a star that requires the Chadrasekhar limit to collapse, could shed up to 4/5&#39;s of its mass. He cannot point to one single instance anywhere in the galaxy where a neutron star is accreting material, despite the literally hundreds of star-forming regions all around us. When questioned, he hides behind the lists and graphs he repeatedly (15 times? 20? more?) puts up to somehow support his now thoroughly debunked premise and ignores the questions.

Hmm, something fishy about that claim.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jun-03, 11:25 PM
Thanks, Duane, for your insight.

With kind regards,

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

Gustavo 75
2007-Feb-24, 10:05 PM
The theory is plausible. ¿But where did this myterious stasr come from, and where did it go ?