The Sun - It Is All About Neutrons
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:48 am
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/110120 ... ulsion.pdf
This may affect how we try to do fusion on Earth.
This may affect how we try to do fusion on Earth.
Talk-Polywell.org
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/
The Sun - It Is All About Neutrons
Page 1 of 2
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:10 am
That's really gonna have the astrophysicists quaking in their boots! I mean, it really goes to work explaining how the current theories of nuclear synthesis are inadequate!!!
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:19 am
The author and I hang out at many of the same places on the net and until I read the paper (out yesterday) I thought he was full of bunk. The paper changed my mind.chrismb wrote:That's really gonna have the astrophysicists quaking in their boots! I mean, it really goes to work explaining how the current theories of nuclear synthesis are inadequate!!!
:?
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 2:51 pm
neutrons have a net spin of 1/2. i.e. they have a magnetic moment. that would seem they would act like a pair of free floating magnets, and align magnetically and attract.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:14 pm
I read the article and it is difficult understand as it is primarily dependent on the bibliography as it's arguments. Certainly that is required, but the text itself explains almost nothing.
It seems the basis of the arguments starts with the assumption that some isotopic distributions of xenon are not well explained.
What is definatly not explained is why the Sun would be neutron star core remnant of a supernova. and further explain the light output compared to other supernova. He claims that the neutron core is producing energy through neutron repulsion- producing hydrogen and heat. If this was the case the neutron star core would be cooling and contracting and getting lighter. The general theory is that neutron stars are at the lowest energy state allowed by the Pauli exclusion principle. If it is at the lowest allowable energy state, how could it be a power source?
Does he believe the Sun is a typical star, or some very unusual exception.
He mentions a reference that apparently considers neutrino issues in the Sun. Does he have an explanation why his model would be better?
If neutron stars are at the lowest energy state that they can achieve, then the Pulsars must be powered by something else. Indeed, this energy is the rotational energy they are born with. They tend to 'wind down over thousands to a few million years, not the 4.5 billion years that he concedes for the age of the Sun.
I'm not sure the picture of a neutron star surrounded by a gas envelope, or how that could long survive. The intense gravitational field would quickly draw in any overlying matter, unless the gas was orbiting fast enough to prevent this, in which case the friction of the gas would be creating intense x-rays, much like the accretion disks around black holes or neutron stars where this is a donating companion star or nebula that is continuously feeding in new gas. The system would not maintain itself in isolation (like the Sun). Prodigious light output would result for short periods, but not for billions of years.
His theories might solve a few observations. But it seems it ignores a vast body of observations.
Dan Tibbets
It seems the basis of the arguments starts with the assumption that some isotopic distributions of xenon are not well explained.
What is definatly not explained is why the Sun would be neutron star core remnant of a supernova. and further explain the light output compared to other supernova. He claims that the neutron core is producing energy through neutron repulsion- producing hydrogen and heat. If this was the case the neutron star core would be cooling and contracting and getting lighter. The general theory is that neutron stars are at the lowest energy state allowed by the Pauli exclusion principle. If it is at the lowest allowable energy state, how could it be a power source?
Does he believe the Sun is a typical star, or some very unusual exception.
He mentions a reference that apparently considers neutrino issues in the Sun. Does he have an explanation why his model would be better?
If neutron stars are at the lowest energy state that they can achieve, then the Pulsars must be powered by something else. Indeed, this energy is the rotational energy they are born with. They tend to 'wind down over thousands to a few million years, not the 4.5 billion years that he concedes for the age of the Sun.
I'm not sure the picture of a neutron star surrounded by a gas envelope, or how that could long survive. The intense gravitational field would quickly draw in any overlying matter, unless the gas was orbiting fast enough to prevent this, in which case the friction of the gas would be creating intense x-rays, much like the accretion disks around black holes or neutron stars where this is a donating companion star or nebula that is continuously feeding in new gas. The system would not maintain itself in isolation (like the Sun). Prodigious light output would result for short periods, but not for billions of years.
His theories might solve a few observations. But it seems it ignores a vast body of observations.
Dan Tibbets
Spammer at PhysOrg ??
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:25 pm
Uh, haven't read the PDF yet, but the neutron-star core hypothesis sounds like the brainchild of a one-track comment-poster all too familiar to readers of PhysOrg...
How he squares it with the solar neutrinos, the recently discovered 'deep currents', the sunspot cycle, the sloooow rotation and the Einsteinian variation in Mercury's orbit, I really don't know...
Another issue is that the putative formative process should have been violent enough to purge the solar system of volatiles out to the Kuiper Belt...
D'uh...
---
Added:
Yup, that's him...
Sadly, he will NOT consider the contrary, minimal hypothesis that a supernova near to the Sun's formative cloud seeded our star-stuff...
Uh, the necessary zoo of dust clouds, proto-planets, planets, brown and red dwarfs, yellow and blue stars plus live-fast-die-young heavyweights can be observed in many star-forming regions...
How he squares it with the solar neutrinos, the recently discovered 'deep currents', the sunspot cycle, the sloooow rotation and the Einsteinian variation in Mercury's orbit, I really don't know...
Another issue is that the putative formative process should have been violent enough to purge the solar system of volatiles out to the Kuiper Belt...
D'uh...
---
Added:
Yup, that's him...
Sadly, he will NOT consider the contrary, minimal hypothesis that a supernova near to the Sun's formative cloud seeded our star-stuff...
Uh, the necessary zoo of dust clouds, proto-planets, planets, brown and red dwarfs, yellow and blue stars plus live-fast-die-young heavyweights can be observed in many star-forming regions...
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:43 pm
So... what does that mean...you now know he's full of bunk?MSimon wrote:The author and I hang out at many of the same places on the net and until I read the paper (out yesterday) I thought he was full of bunk. The paper changed my mind.chrismb wrote:That's really gonna have the astrophysicists quaking in their boots! I mean, it really goes to work explaining how the current theories of nuclear synthesis are inadequate!!!
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:57 pm
You might want to read the paper to get better informed.happyjack27 wrote:neutrons have a net spin of 1/2. i.e. they have a magnetic moment. that would seem they would act like a pair of free floating magnets, and align magnetically and attract.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:03 pm
RTFP,Uh, haven't read the PDF yet, but the neutron-star core hypothesis sounds like the brainchild of a one-track comment-poster all too familiar to readers of PhysOrg...
How he squares it with the solar neutrinos, the recently discovered 'deep currents', the sunspot cycle, the sloooow rotation and the Einsteinian variation in Mercury's orbit, I really don't know...
It explains the solar neutrino anomaly. Re: Mercury. As far as we know the kind of mass (excluding dark matter - if it exists) makes no difference. As to the rest. He makes no mention of it in the paper you didn't read.
chris,
Clever boy. (you know the kind of voice)
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:06 pm
yeah, though i may be skeptical that doesn't mean i'm not curious.MSimon wrote:You might want to read the paper to get better informed.happyjack27 wrote:neutrons have a net spin of 1/2. i.e. they have a magnetic moment. that would seem they would act like a pair of free floating magnets, and align magnetically and attract.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:12 pm
nik,
What did you think of the A/Z mass graphs? They seemed to make sense to me.
And it seems to me that as an alternative to a brush with another star (re: solar system formation) he has some good evidence.
Could he be right and "everyone" else wrong? Why not? It has happened before. OTOH it could be the other way around - which I admit is more likely. But I'm not up on all the evidence and current theories. I do like the way he took a number of different threads of evidence and showed how his point of view is a good explanation.
What did you think of the A/Z mass graphs? They seemed to make sense to me.
And it seems to me that as an alternative to a brush with another star (re: solar system formation) he has some good evidence.
Could he be right and "everyone" else wrong? Why not? It has happened before. OTOH it could be the other way around - which I admit is more likely. But I'm not up on all the evidence and current theories. I do like the way he took a number of different threads of evidence and showed how his point of view is a good explanation.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:18 pm
O. Manuel*
Associate, Climate & Solar Science Institute
833 Broadway, 104, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
Emeritus Professor, Nuclear and Space Studies
University of Missouri, Rolla, MO 65401
Former NASA Principal Investigator
For the Apollo Mission to the Moon
Websites: http://www.omatumr.com
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Associate, Climate & Solar Science Institute
833 Broadway, 104, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
Emeritus Professor, Nuclear and Space Studies
University of Missouri, Rolla, MO 65401
Former NASA Principal Investigator
For the Apollo Mission to the Moon
Websites: http://www.omatumr.com
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Mass gradients...
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:17 pm
"As far as we know, the kind of mass..."
My astronomy's math does not extend to a rigorous treatment of this but, IIRC, a collapsed / degenerate object at the sun's core would significantly alter the mass distribution within the sun and skew the orbital effects relative to an 'ordinary' G-type star.
Akin to studying Moon's interior by back-calculating from orbital deviations over the mascons...
Also, IIRC, the new field of solar helioseismology should show a vast anomaly...
My astronomy's math does not extend to a rigorous treatment of this but, IIRC, a collapsed / degenerate object at the sun's core would significantly alter the mass distribution within the sun and skew the orbital effects relative to an 'ordinary' G-type star.
Akin to studying Moon's interior by back-calculating from orbital deviations over the mascons...
Also, IIRC, the new field of solar helioseismology should show a vast anomaly...
Re: Mass gradients...
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:38 pm
Good points.Nik wrote:"As far as we know, the kind of mass..."
My astronomy's math does not extend to a rigorous treatment of this but, IIRC, a collapsed / degenerate object at the sun's core would significantly alter the mass distribution within the sun and skew the orbital effects relative to an 'ordinary' G-type star.
Akin to studying Moon's interior by back-calculating from orbital deviations over the mascons...
Also, IIRC, the new field of solar helioseismology should show a vast anomaly...
I believe helioseismology does show an unexpected anomalies. I'll do some looking around.
I have invited the good Dr. to join the conversation. A few hours ago. We shall see if he drops by.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:43 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology
Helioseismology was able to rule out the possibility that the solar neutrino problem was due to incorrect models of the interior of the Sun.[2] Features revealed by helioseismology include that the outer convective zone and the inner radiative zone rotate at different speeds, which is thought to generate the main magnetic field of the Sun by a dynamo effect,[3][4] and that the convective zone has "jet streams" of plasma (more precisely, torsional oscillations) thousands of kilometers below the surface.[5] These jet streams form broad fronts at the equator, breaking into smaller cyclonic storms at high latitudes. Torsional oscillations are the time variation in solar differential rotation. They are alternating bands of faster and slower rotation. So far there is no generally accepted theoretical explanation for them, even though a close relation to the solar cycle is evident, as they have a period of eleven years, as was known since they were first observed in 1980.[6]