Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 916

Thread: Iron Sun Discussion

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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.

    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

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,784
    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 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'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'll be back! B)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,784
    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.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    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. 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'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'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 & 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.

    I don't see any problem with standard solar models that requires a radical solution. I don't see the connection between meteorite isotope ratios and the solar interior. And I don't see why an indirect, circumstantial argument should be favored over one that is direct and non-circumstantial.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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't you just look at the sun?
    Thanks, Tim, for your comments.

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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,882
    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'm not readily finding the specifics of experimtal results. For example, I'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'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're big conclusion [which I don'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'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 'ordinary meteorites'? Harkin'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'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'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'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'll have more fractionation? The evidence cited doesn't seem to show any need conclude that there is more of the heavier elements lower down, even if there's more of the heavier isotopes within an element.

    Observation number 6, statistical probability I did your experiment , and came up with Hydrogen with all six atoms. [That place is HOT, I hope I don'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.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,882
    Here'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'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/
    Forming opinions as we speak

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Whoa! Please slow down, antoniseb.

    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.

    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

    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,882
    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've asked for some information which may be difficult to summerize or collect, and I'd like to see it in its best light.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1
    I ENCOUNTERED DR. MANUEL'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'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! 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'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!!! 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'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! YOURS TRULY NEIL FIERTEL

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    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'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't occur?

    Cheers.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,882
    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! 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'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's theory does not [e.g. the mass of the sun]. There is very little published about what the Iron Sun theory doesn't explain, because Dr. Manuel has no incentive to do it, and mainstream astronomers reject his model out of hand. I think here, we'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.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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'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't occur?
    There is much confusion about solar neutrino measurements.

    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

    With kind regards,

    Oliver
    http://www.umr.edu

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

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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.

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

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,882
    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".
    Forming opinions as we speak

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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.

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

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    508
    If this theory is ture, does that mean the Sun is more massive than we know beofre?

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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.

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

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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;

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

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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.

    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**
    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?

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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 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.

    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.

    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

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

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    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.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,882
    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.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    49
    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.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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.

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

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

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    On Solar Neutrinos

    There is a more complete discussion of this on my web page; Solar Fusion & Neutrinos. 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?, 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, 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...r-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.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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.

    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. .

    With kind regards,

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

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    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.

    With kind regards,

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

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,882
    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.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    More on Solar Neutrinos

    OM (with reference to John Bahcall): 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 ). It&#39;s an updated version of the diagram on my webpage, which I guess I&#39;ll have to fix someday soon.



    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-06, 01:42 PM
  2. Discussion: Opportunity Finds an Iron Meteorite
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2005-Jan-28, 08:28 PM
  3. Discussion: Is Iron Causing All the Flares?
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 2004-Jun-06, 01:58 PM
  4. Discussion: Iron Can Help Determine if a ...
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2003-Sep-19, 05:03 AM
  5. Iron Sun Discussion
    By antoniseb in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1970-Jan-01, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •