Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 916

Thread: Iron Sun Discussion

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Thank you, Tim, for the message and for pointing out my error.

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

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

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

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

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

    With kind regards,

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

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    Comments on Elemental Abundances in the Sun

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

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

    If the interior of a star is dominated by heavy element atoms, then the core temperature must be high. That in turn means the star must be bright. The sun is too dim, given its mass, if it is to be made out of heavy elements. So, there must be a lot of hydrogen. By the time that Eddington wrote his landmark book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926, revised in 1930; I have the old Dover reprint of the 1930 edition), it was already understood by Eddington that the old models were not physically tenable. He notes in his book, that a mixture of 15 hydrogen atoms to one iron atom, would suffice to balance Capella (section 169), and that about half of that relative abundance of hydrogen would do for the Sun.

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

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

    By 1931 Russell offers the opinion that, "Hydrogen is so abundant in the atmospheres of the stars that one might expect it to be abundant all through them. If present in suitable proportion it migth remove the serious discrepency between the 'physical' and 'astronomical' values of the absorption coefficient." (Notes on the constitution of the stars, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 91, p.951-966, June 1931). So we can see the move in that direction already in 1931, and it continued so through the 1930's

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

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Apr 2 2004, 03:36 AM
    Eddington continued to study the problem, and in 1932 ....... Eddington tells us the following: "For each star there are two solutions - two possible proportions of hydrogen consistent with the observed luminosity. In one solution the star is chiefly hydrogen (about 99½ percent) with only a trace of other elements. The other solution, which rightly or wrongly I have asumed to be the more probable, gives approximately 33 percent hydrogen in the Sun, Capella, Algol and Krueger 60.".

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

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

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

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

    I will be posting those post-B2FH measurements here.

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

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

    With kind regards,

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

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    I don't care who of you would do that but by all means, if he is willing to share his comments let him join the forum. Great idea Oliver,

    Cheers.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    OM: In the interest of fairness, I think the main spokesman for the hydrogen-filled Sun, John Bahcall, should be invited to consider the results and participate in the discussion.

    I have no problem asking him.

    Additional comments on the history of stellar/solar physics

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

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

    The energy source problem has its roots in the knowledge from geology that the Earth is a very old place (billions of years, and not merely millions). But physicists could not come up with a source that would last that long. The old idea that the source of solar energy was gravitational collapse was studied by Lord Kelvin in the late 1800's and early 1900's, but his derived maximum ages for the sun were all too short. However, it was known to Eddington, who mentions it in his 1926 book, that if one could plow 4 protons together to make helium, that would be a long lasting source of energy. He, and later authors, tacitly assumed that was the source. But it was not convincingly demonstrated that this could happen in nature until Hans Bethe published his landmark papers on CNO & PP fusion (The Formation of Deuterons by Proton Combination, H.A. Bethe & C.L. Critchfield, Physical Review 54(4): 248–254, 15 August 1938; Energy Production in Stars, H.A. Bethe, Physical Review 55(1); 103, 1 January 1939, a 1-page preview of the coming paper, and Energy Production in Stars, H.A. Bethe, Physical Review 55(5): 434–456, 1 March 1939).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This time, the standard solar model survived, and the standard physics of neutrinos failed. Endowing them with mass, and allowing them to oscillate is a major change to the standard model of particle physics. So a standard model did fall, it just wasn't the one for the sun this time.

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

    But why adopt a new model anyway? I can't see any reason to even consider it. After all, it is based on the unwarranted assumption that isotope ratios & elemental abundances seen in meteorites can be extrapolated down to the solar core, which certainly looks like a long stretch to me. The fact that we already know the model won't work just makes things that much worse for it, I think. Why replace a model that does work, with one that has already failed? That's the real question to answer.

    Cheers.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks, Tim, for agreeing to invite John Bahcall to participate, and thank you VanderL for endorsing the idea.

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

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

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

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

    Finally, by plotting all the masses of all the isotopes, we finally arrived at a reasonable solution in 2000!

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

    Again, Tim, thanks for your excellent comments.

    With kind regards,

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

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,784
    Are you suggesting Jupiter contains a record of this supernova shockwave?
    No, I am saying that there is strong evidence to support the premise that the material which formed the pre-solar nebulae was heavily enriched by the accumulated material of nearby supernova events, and the isotope readings you have noted more likely reflect that enrichment than the reaccretion of material upon a supernova remnant.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    I did invite Bahcall to join the crowd, but not surprisingly, he declined.

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

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

    So I think I've about run out of things to say without getting repetitious. I don't see that Bahcall's arguments would have been much different than mine, or much better, since a lot of it is his work anyway. I don't think the iron sun hypothesis has a future, and I think there are strong physical arguments to support my position. But as usual, time & science will tell.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,886
    Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Apr 6 2004, 04:51 PM
    So I think I've about run out of things to say without getting repetitious. I don't see that Bahcall's arguments would have been much different than mine, or much better, since a lot of it is his work anyway.
    I agree. Thanks Tim for your clear presentations of modern stellar structure theory.

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

    I look forard to seeing it.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,784
    A quick summary of the argument so far.

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

    As T Thompson has pointed out, the iron-sun theory was well accepted into the 40's, until a number of observations suggested that there were problems with that model. Those same problems still seem to exist for the model proposed by Dr Manuel.

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

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

    Part of his proof for this secondary premise is his belief that the Earth's mantle remains "unmelted and undifferentiated" and that the noble gas measurements of the terrestrial planets evidence some strange abundances. (I have to admit, I don't see how these measurements support his primary hypothesis)

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

    Have I missed anything?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks, antoniseb, Tim and Duane, for your comments. Please be patient and consider the following measurements and observations since 1960.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    With kind regards,

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

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    I have nothing to add to the isotopic measurements discussion, but I am interested to hear what experts think. What makes the Sun shine will hopefully bring this topic into focus (at least for me).
    There is one remark that I can&#39;t help responding to
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    That&#39;s just plain nonsense, all claims and all evidence should be treated equally; scientifically.

    Cheers.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,886
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 6 2004, 08:38 PM
    9. Elements departing the surface of the Sun in the solar wind are observed to be enriched in light mass isotopes (L) relative to the heavy mass ones (H) by a common mass fractionation factor (F). Empirically the fractionation in the solar wind is [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Also concerning # 13:

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

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by VanderL@Apr 6 2004, 09:31 PM
    There is one remark that I can&#39;t help responding to
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    That&#39;s just plain nonsense, all claims and all evidence should be treated equally; scientifically.
    Thanks, VdL, for pointing this out.

    Let me advise all participants, especially young ones:

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

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

    Please, everyone be careful what you say here.

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

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

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

    http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...opic=2755&st=0&

    With kind regards,

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

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,886
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 7 2004, 02:06 PM
    Please, everyone be careful what you say here.
    OK, now I&#39;m confused. Are you [Dr. Manuel] saying that you won&#39;t supply the requested clarification about the use of the fractionation formula because any statement you make here can be proven wrong by more measurements?

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

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks, Antoniseb,

    I said neither of those things.

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

    What do you think?

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

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

    were here, defending their claims?

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

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

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

    So I am asking you and others to:

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

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

    With kind regards,

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

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,886
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 7 2004, 03:28 PM
    my old age and multiple years of scientific research suggest that in science, "haste makes waste." So let&#39;s not rush to judgement on experimental results collected over the past 45 years&#33;
    In my request for a clarification, I am not asking for new research, or a new analysis of the data. I am only asking for some indication of what you say you have already shown. There is no rush, but certainly, if you used this formula to draw a conclusion, you can explain how without further research.

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

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb+Apr 7 2004, 12:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Apr 7 2004, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@Apr 6 2004, 08:38 PM
    9. Elements departing the surface of the Sun in the solar wind are observed to be enriched in light mass isotopes (L) relative to the heavy mass ones (H) by a common mass fractionation factor (F). Empirically the fractionation in the solar wind is [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    3. Also concerning # 13:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    With kind regards,

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

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Sorry, antoniseb,

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

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

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

    Please accept my apologies.

    With kind regards,

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

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,886
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 7 2004, 06:38 PM
    I should have posted this simple scenario of events that seems to fit all of the 15 observations.
    I&#39;ve seen this diagram in several of your papers, but it doesn&#39;t tell me anything about going from te observed fractionation in the photosphere [which well matches the Fractionation equation] to an assumption of an Iron/Nickel core to the sun. This is the clarification I&#39;ve been looking for.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 7 2004, 02:06 PM
    Please, everyone be careful what you say here.

    That includes everyone, antoniseb. Don Reames reports [Ap. J. 540 (2000) L111] in a massive solar flare successively heavier elements are enriched by factors of 10, 100, 1000 times their value at the solar surface&#33;
    Careful indeed. Reames did not report heavy element enrichment with respect to the solar surface, but rather with respect to the solar corona. Furthermore, he reports only on elements that are heavier than iron, which does not bear directly on the abundances of lighter elements, unless one simply assumes a consistent trend. And, furthermore, Reames did not observe the coronal abundances he compares with, but rather derived them from adjusted meteoric abundances. This last point means that his abundances are not strictly independent from the meteorite data, and so could not be used to imply an agreement with them in any case. I did not see any mention of surface or photospheric abundances in the paper. The paper is available in PDF format by following the link to Reames&#39; homepage.


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

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    I&#39;m not sure that the Iron Sun model is the only way to explain all the isotopic anomalies. Maybe it would be an idea to directly compare the anomalies with the models. Oliver, I know you have tried exhaustively to get the point across, but it is difficult for me to visualise where and when the Standard model fails to explain the isotopic abundances that are found. And that makes it difficult to see the reason why you have proposed the Iron Sun model, a sentiment I think Antoniseb and others are trying to express.
    You are right that it takes time to digest all the information, for some (me for instance) more so than others. I hope you can "talk us through" the different steps, because the model and the data they are based upon certainly justify a thorough discussion. Pity that Bahcall declined to participate, although I think the exchange so far is helpful for understanding where the problems are.

    Cheers.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 7 2004, 07:31 PM
    I&#39;ve seen this diagram in several of your papers, but it doesn&#39;t tell me anything about going from te observed fractionation in the photosphere [which well matches the Fractionation equation] to an assumption of an Iron/Nickel core to the sun. This is the clarification I&#39;ve been looking for.
    Sorry, antoniseb, for failing to understand your question.

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

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

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

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

    The empirical fractionation equation is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    With kind regards,

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

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,886
    Hi Dr. Manuel,

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

    In this diagram:

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

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

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by VanderL@Apr 7 2004, 09:17 PM
    Oliver, I know you have tried exhaustively to get the point across, but it is difficult for me to visualise where and when the Standard model fails to explain the isotopic abundances that are found. ....... I hope you can "talk us through" the different steps, because the model and the data they are based upon certainly justify a thorough discussion.

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

    Your comments and suggestions are appreciated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    With kind regards,

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

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

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Dear Readers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    i) Confirmed many features of B2FH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In this diagram:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    With kind regards,

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

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

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Apr 7 2004, 09:12 PM

    Abundances of trans-iron elements in solar energetic particle events
    D.V. Reames
    Astrophysical Journal 540(2): L111-L114, Part 2, September 10, 2000
    ABSTRACT: We report the first comprehensive observation of the abundances of heavy elements of atomic number Z in the range 34<=Z<=82 in solar energetic particle (SEP) events as observed on the Wind spacecraft. In large gradual SEP events, abundances of the element groups 34<=Z<=40, 50<=Z<=56, and 70<=Z<=82, relative to Fe, are similar to corresponding coronal abundances within a factor of ~2 and vary little with time during the events. However, in sharp contrast, abundances of these ions from impulsive flares increase dramatically with Z so that abundances of Fe, 34<=Z<=40, and 50<=Z<=56, relative to O, are seen at ~10, ~100, and ~1000 times their coronal values, respectively.
    Thank you, Tim, for posting Don Reames&#39; abstract from Astrophys. J. 540 (2000) L111.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or do you have a better explanation for the observations?

    With kind regards,

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

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,442
    OM: Do you agree, Tim, that the excess heavy elements that Dr. Reames&#39; observed in impulsive solar flares looks like mass fractionation?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb@Apr 7 2004, 12:54 PM
    The items you mention 1 through 9 seem to merely put constraints on the amount of time between the supernova blast that caused the collapse of the proto-solar nebula and the formation of solid materials that accreted into the planets and asteroids.
    Sorry to be so slow, antoniseb, in responding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    With kind regards,

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

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,886
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Apr 10 2004, 01:10 PM
    Item 1 constrains the amount of time between the supernova blast and the formation of solid materials that accreted to form planets and asteroids. It clearly shows there was not time for the (Fe,Ni,O,Si,S)-rich supernova products to be injected back into, and mixed with, the (H,He)-rich interstellar medium.
    Hi Dr. Manuel, just looking at item one for the moment:

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

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
  •