The Sun - It Is All About Neutrons
There was an article in Scientific American or Discover about 6 years ago, I think the scientists name was Herndon. His theory was that the stars and planets had Uranium cores, and the internal heat was all from fission.
This prompted a lot of people to write in that a chicken and egg scenario would apply. Namely, how would the very first stars after the big bang acquire heavy elements in the core when heavy elements were supposed to be created by end of life stars.
This prompted a lot of people to write in that a chicken and egg scenario would apply. Namely, how would the very first stars after the big bang acquire heavy elements in the core when heavy elements were supposed to be created by end of life stars.
CHoff
Neutrons are easier to contemplate. And they weigh about as much as hydrogen.choff wrote:There was an article in Scientific American or Discover about 6 years ago, I think the scientists name was Herndon. His theory was that the stars and planets had Uranium cores, and the internal heat was all from fission.
This prompted a lot of people to write in that a chicken and egg scenario would apply. Namely, how would the very first stars after the big bang acquire heavy elements in the core when heavy elements were supposed to be created by end of life stars.
Is this theory right? Well it has holes. But so does our current theory.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The preceding link says nothing . There was a large solar eruption, but there is absolutely no mention of why these alternate theories would explain it.
Of course there is iron in the Sun's core. The Sun after all is a second generation high metal star. The iron may even have concentrated in the central core making a considerable lump. But, this iron is inert, it is not a power source in a main sequence star. It may have contributed some energy early on during the gravitational collapse of the presolar nebula, but since then it has been along for the ride. In massive hot stars, progressive fusion may reach iron end products, but again this is the lowest energy ash. It doesn't provide additional energy. In the Sun these end products are expected to reach to carbo and possibly oxygen, which is the final ash, as there is not anticipated to be enough heat to proceed further.
Another consideration (assuming the neutron core is considered universal, instead of a unique instance in our star) is how do you explain the dicotamy is stellar fusion processes. Using both P-P and CNO fusion models, the behavior and lifetimes of various sized (masses) stars is explained. How would a single neutron core producing hydrogen explain this? I suppose you could say the P-P and CNO reactions are secondary as the hydrogen is generated by the Neutron core, but that would introduce another whole laryer to the procees that would have to be consistant with stellar behavior and evolution. Is there any models incorperating these varius interacting processes. And don't forget white dwarfs. If the neutron core applies, they should all be neutron stars, not planet sized (not city sized) collections of degenerate matter.
If neutron cores produce hydrogen and somehow suspend it against it's tremendous gravitational gradiants, then the neutron core should gradually evaporate. Again, I don't see how this could be incorperated into observed stellar evolution.
What all of this rambling means is that unless these many different observations can be addressed, the theory is not reasonable.
The activity at the Sun's surface is driven by heat, gas dynamics and associated magnetic fields. It says nothing about what is providing this heat directly. What may need to be revised is models of this gas dynamic/ magnetic interaction. And, though this was apparently a large flare for the Sun, it is trivial compared to the activity of very many variable/ flare stars that surround us, and these are widely accepted as hydrogen fusing machines.
Dan Tibbets
Of course there is iron in the Sun's core. The Sun after all is a second generation high metal star. The iron may even have concentrated in the central core making a considerable lump. But, this iron is inert, it is not a power source in a main sequence star. It may have contributed some energy early on during the gravitational collapse of the presolar nebula, but since then it has been along for the ride. In massive hot stars, progressive fusion may reach iron end products, but again this is the lowest energy ash. It doesn't provide additional energy. In the Sun these end products are expected to reach to carbo and possibly oxygen, which is the final ash, as there is not anticipated to be enough heat to proceed further.
Another consideration (assuming the neutron core is considered universal, instead of a unique instance in our star) is how do you explain the dicotamy is stellar fusion processes. Using both P-P and CNO fusion models, the behavior and lifetimes of various sized (masses) stars is explained. How would a single neutron core producing hydrogen explain this? I suppose you could say the P-P and CNO reactions are secondary as the hydrogen is generated by the Neutron core, but that would introduce another whole laryer to the procees that would have to be consistant with stellar behavior and evolution. Is there any models incorperating these varius interacting processes. And don't forget white dwarfs. If the neutron core applies, they should all be neutron stars, not planet sized (not city sized) collections of degenerate matter.
If neutron cores produce hydrogen and somehow suspend it against it's tremendous gravitational gradiants, then the neutron core should gradually evaporate. Again, I don't see how this could be incorperated into observed stellar evolution.
What all of this rambling means is that unless these many different observations can be addressed, the theory is not reasonable.
The activity at the Sun's surface is driven by heat, gas dynamics and associated magnetic fields. It says nothing about what is providing this heat directly. What may need to be revised is models of this gas dynamic/ magnetic interaction. And, though this was apparently a large flare for the Sun, it is trivial compared to the activity of very many variable/ flare stars that surround us, and these are widely accepted as hydrogen fusing machines.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
A BEC core in the Sun?
When we understand the Sun we will understand the dynamics involved with steady-state fusion ...
Solar science is somewhat like climate science in that the cartoon theories and hypothesis are limited to observations and do not have the experimental component of the rigourous hard sciences.
The obvious danger being that human bias can see any pattern they wish to in a random clouds of observational data.
When we understand the Sun we will understand the dynamics involved with steady-state fusion ...
Solar science is somewhat like climate science in that the cartoon theories and hypothesis are limited to observations and do not have the experimental component of the rigourous hard sciences.
The obvious danger being that human bias can see any pattern they wish to in a random clouds of observational data.
D Tibbets,
The original paper
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/110120 ... ulsion.pdf
may answer some of your questions.
The original paper
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/110120 ... ulsion.pdf
may answer some of your questions.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And then there is the mounting evidence of a link between solar dynamics and radioactive decay rates on Earth .... (and supposedly in other nearby environs)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iLmTz_oGZg
... more test of decay rates during upcoming solar flares could prove shaky times ahead for foundations of physics, many fancy theories are built on the experimental "bedrock" of decay rates ....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/23/t ... ive-decay/
"All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is “communicating” with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iLmTz_oGZg
... more test of decay rates during upcoming solar flares could prove shaky times ahead for foundations of physics, many fancy theories are built on the experimental "bedrock" of decay rates ....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/23/t ... ive-decay/
"All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is “communicating” with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach."
I read this paper and even dug into a half dozen of the references.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/110120 ... ulsion.pdf
All I saw was that Science is not finished. There are questions and complexities that are not resolved. How the Neutron Star makes a better idea is not explained, except for the negative arguments about some selected issues. The references about anomalous output/ flares from some neutron stars are interestingly themselfs. But, jumping from observations that magnetic fields may be stronger inside the surface of some does not prove his claim, it just means there is more to learn. Despite references within the last year (meaning the paper is recent), he does not mention surface quakes which are used to explain at least some of these flares.
But, what bothers me most, is that he does not address the methods of how such a system- a neutron star with a very dense core could support, even with continuous resupply, a stable hydrogen outer surface. rotation speed of this envelope, solar flares, etc, etc.
I'm on shaky ground here, but it seems to be claiming that ~99% of the mass of the Sun is the neutron star core. It seams such a compact body at the center (verses the ~ 10% or ~ 100,000 mile conventional core size) would change the diameter of the Suns photosphere surface. After all , the stellar core and temperature has a large role in determining this. Consider stellar evolution, Hertzsprung- Russel diagrams, etc. I suspect an astrophysicist could place limits that would be compatible with a neutron core model. I suspect it would disprove the possibility. I suspect, but am uncertain, that orbital dynamics of the Sun, inner planets, and Jupiter would show differences due to the more condensed central Solar mass distribution- not the simple stuff as center of mass approximations would suffice, but things like precision, tidal effects, etc.
As far as D-L isomers of amino acids. I don't see the how the argument that circularly polarized radiation would have any significance. Irregardless of separation or a homogeneous mixture, One isomer became locked in as the preferred choice through biological means (development of specific enzymes). Once that presumably random choice was made, the game was over. It's sort of like asking do we live in a mater or antimatter universe. It boils down to which name we choose.
On the other side, non nuclear neutrons do decay into protons and several other particles. I don't know the rates in various nucleons or in neutron stars. I don't even know if a NEUTRON star exists. It apparently works on paper, though the condensed matter might be better pictured as a soup of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc clustered together like a quark soup. There are actually some who claim that a Quark Star might exist. More dense that a Neutron star, but not quite dense enough to form a black hole. IE: considering a Neutron Star as a massive nucleon may be misleading.
I could continue this ramble. but I think I've made my point that this extraordinary claim needs to be compatible with a huge body of science, and there is no such defense offered.
Dan Tibbets
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/110120 ... ulsion.pdf
All I saw was that Science is not finished. There are questions and complexities that are not resolved. How the Neutron Star makes a better idea is not explained, except for the negative arguments about some selected issues. The references about anomalous output/ flares from some neutron stars are interestingly themselfs. But, jumping from observations that magnetic fields may be stronger inside the surface of some does not prove his claim, it just means there is more to learn. Despite references within the last year (meaning the paper is recent), he does not mention surface quakes which are used to explain at least some of these flares.
But, what bothers me most, is that he does not address the methods of how such a system- a neutron star with a very dense core could support, even with continuous resupply, a stable hydrogen outer surface. rotation speed of this envelope, solar flares, etc, etc.
I'm on shaky ground here, but it seems to be claiming that ~99% of the mass of the Sun is the neutron star core. It seams such a compact body at the center (verses the ~ 10% or ~ 100,000 mile conventional core size) would change the diameter of the Suns photosphere surface. After all , the stellar core and temperature has a large role in determining this. Consider stellar evolution, Hertzsprung- Russel diagrams, etc. I suspect an astrophysicist could place limits that would be compatible with a neutron core model. I suspect it would disprove the possibility. I suspect, but am uncertain, that orbital dynamics of the Sun, inner planets, and Jupiter would show differences due to the more condensed central Solar mass distribution- not the simple stuff as center of mass approximations would suffice, but things like precision, tidal effects, etc.
As far as D-L isomers of amino acids. I don't see the how the argument that circularly polarized radiation would have any significance. Irregardless of separation or a homogeneous mixture, One isomer became locked in as the preferred choice through biological means (development of specific enzymes). Once that presumably random choice was made, the game was over. It's sort of like asking do we live in a mater or antimatter universe. It boils down to which name we choose.
On the other side, non nuclear neutrons do decay into protons and several other particles. I don't know the rates in various nucleons or in neutron stars. I don't even know if a NEUTRON star exists. It apparently works on paper, though the condensed matter might be better pictured as a soup of protons, neutrons, electrons, etc clustered together like a quark soup. There are actually some who claim that a Quark Star might exist. More dense that a Neutron star, but not quite dense enough to form a black hole. IE: considering a Neutron Star as a massive nucleon may be misleading.
I could continue this ramble. but I think I've made my point that this extraordinary claim needs to be compatible with a huge body of science, and there is no such defense offered.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.