How the sun shines

log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science : How the sun shines

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next
Author Message
Profile Chipper Q
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1568
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0
Message 73796 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 1:46:44 UTC

Nice article about research at Gran Sasso National laboratory where researchers are detecting, for the first time, the low-energy neutrinos coming from the heart of the sun, pretty much confirming that physicists understand the nuclear activity that makes sunshine...

Underground experiment sheds light on sun

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1881
Credit: 738,269
RAC: 796
Message 73804 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 4:51:53 UTC - in response to Message 73796.

Nice article about research at Gran Sasso National laboratory where researchers are detecting, for the first time, the low-energy neutrinos coming from the heart of the sun, pretty much confirming that physicists understand the nuclear activity that makes sunshine...

Underground experiment sheds light on sun

There is a good article also on the July/August issue of CERN Courier. But what scares me a little is the size and cost of most modern physics and astronomy research tools, such as LHC, Gran Sasso and other neutrino detectors at the South Pole. I recently saw on Italian TV the first antennas of the Atacama Large Millimeter Array in Chile, which will consist of 66 units for radioastronomy in the millimeter band. I am also thinking of the ITER nuclear fusion reactor facility to be built in France. One good side of those Big Science projects is that they are just too big to be built by one nation alone, and they all are the results of international cooperation, like the ISS. I just watched the perfect landing of the Endeavor (or Endeavour for Brits) and I congratulate NASA. Good work!
Tullio
____________
Andreas
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Oct 05
Posts: 774
Credit: 4,985,541
RAC: 952
Message 74070 - Posted: 28 Aug 2007, 8:27:47 UTC - in response to Message 73804.

...text...

I just watched the perfect landing of the Endeavor (or Endeavour for Brits) and I congratulate NASA. Good work!
Tullio


Well, Endeavour is the correct name of the shuttle.
peanut
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 May 07
Posts: 162
Credit: 9,644,812
RAC: 0
Message 74215 - Posted: 2 Sep 2007, 0:57:17 UTC
Last modified: 2 Sep 2007, 0:58:35 UTC

This site proposes that the surface of the sun is rocky calcium ferrite.

Is this site a "quack" site or is there some legitimate belief that the sun has a solid surface. The core of the sun is probably so dense that it has to be solid, I am talking more like a surface like the crust of the Earth.

The site also proposes that observations from the Yohkoh satellite look similiar to results Dr. Kristian Birkeland produced in his experiments with an electromagnetic cathode sphere in his lab in the early 1900's. The Dr. basically thought the sun is like a giant iron sphere and it is electrical activity that causes arcs and gamma ray emissions.

Profile Chipper Q
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1568
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0
Message 74220 - Posted: 2 Sep 2007, 5:40:33 UTC - in response to Message 74215.

This site proposes that the surface of the sun is rocky calcium ferrite.

Is this site a "quack" site or is there some legitimate belief that the sun has a solid surface. The core of the sun is probably so dense that it has to be solid, I am talking more like a surface like the crust of the Earth.

The site also proposes that observations from the Yohkoh satellite look similiar to results Dr. Kristian Birkeland produced in his experiments with an electromagnetic cathode sphere in his lab in the early 1900's. The Dr. basically thought the sun is like a giant iron sphere and it is electrical activity that causes arcs and gamma ray emissions.

I ran across that site back in August 2005 and asked about it on this thread. This was back when there were 'plus' and 'minus' buttons to rate a post, so the second and third posts were so people could easily express their opinion (the buttons were deactivated on this forum a while ago). But read the comments of people who posted. Michael Mozina is the fellow who did a lot of work on the site in question... the site has changed a bit since then, but not too much...

What do you think? (about the comments in the previous thread)
Devilogic
Send message
Joined: 15 Sep 06
Posts: 9
Credit: 39,257
RAC: 0
Message 74225 - Posted: 2 Sep 2007, 11:48:08 UTC - in response to Message 74215.

This site proposes that the surface of the sun is rocky calcium ferrite.

Is this site a "quack" site or is there some legitimate belief that the sun has a solid surface. The core of the sun is probably so dense that it has to be solid, I am talking more like a surface like the crust of the Earth.


I should probably read the guy's site more thoroughly, but from what I gathered he doesn't adress any of the following:

1. How does he propose the Sun generates its energy? (3.9e26 W is not a trivial affair - aside from nuclear reactions I really can't see any way)
2. Where does he propose all the iron came from - in other words, how does he propose our Sun was born? (if you say Sun is made of iron you basically say that all models of galaxy and star formation are incorrect - you also invalidate any Big Bang scenario)
3. A follow up question, does he acknowledge the existance of red giants, neutron stars, pulsars, black holes, supernovae, ...? How does he explain those came into existance?
4. And finally, how does he explain the measured neutrino emissions (specifically the ones OP mentioned)?!

Faliure to answer any one of this questions means a BIG hole in his theory (especially with respect to current theories), but I suspect he can't answer not even one. Gas based star formation is really a great unifying notion - if you abandon it I'll be impressed if you can explain anything.
peanut
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 May 07
Posts: 162
Credit: 9,644,812
RAC: 0
Message 74227 - Posted: 2 Sep 2007, 13:41:35 UTC

I read through your other thread on the surface of the sun Chipper Q. Sorry if I repeated the topic, but it is hard to dig through all the threads here! I guess the one post (most easily understood by me) that kind of leans me away from the solid surface is the last post that talks about the density of the sun. Unless we are missing something big, the density calculated makes the solid iron compound theory seem impossible.

Profile Stranger7777
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Mar 05
Posts: 426
Credit: 164,738,061
RAC: 167,272
Message 74242 - Posted: 3 Sep 2007, 5:58:19 UTC

This is really interesting. 7 years ago I wrote a small program that calculates the dense, pressure and temperature of a white dwarfs. That time it had an assumption that the start consist of a very dense electron gas and the star balances between it's own mass and pressure.
Typical star like our sun balances between mass of it's outer layers and inside radiation that comes from nuclear processes in it's core.
The detection of low-energy neutrinos make us beleive that we had made right assumptions about sun (and I believe other stars) core processes.
But this should be checked at least once again somewhere else before we may believe it.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1881
Credit: 738,269
RAC: 796
Message 74248 - Posted: 3 Sep 2007, 8:30:36 UTC - in response to Message 74242.

This is really interesting. 7 years ago I wrote a small program that calculates the dense, pressure and temperature of a white dwarfs. That time it had an assumption that the start consist of a very dense electron gas and the star balances between it's own mass and pressure.
Typical star like our sun balances between mass of it's outer layers and inside radiation that comes from nuclear processes in it's core.
The detection of low-energy neutrinos make us beleive that we had made right assumptions about sun (and I believe other stars) core processes.
But this should be checked at least once again somewhere else before we may believe it.

I think that the Borexino detector in the Gran Sasso tunnel has confirmed that the Sun is behaving as expected.
Tullio
____________
peanut
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 May 07
Posts: 162
Credit: 9,644,812
RAC: 0
Message 74278 - Posted: 3 Sep 2007, 21:45:13 UTC
Last modified: 3 Sep 2007, 21:49:40 UTC

This little youtube vid says the sun shines thanks to quantum tunneling. 4 min vid.. It says the sun is not hot enough to overcome the atomic repulsion forces, but thanks to tunneling, that barrier can be overcome and the nuclei can fuse. It amazes me that any kind of order can come from such quantum chaos.

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1881
Credit: 738,269
RAC: 796
Message 74289 - Posted: 4 Sep 2007, 5:55:12 UTC

I saw the video but, AFAIK, the nuclear reactions in the Sun's core are far more complex (e.g. Bethe's carbon cycle). One should not oversimplify too much.
Tullio
____________

Ernesto Solis
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 05
Posts: 57
Credit: 49,513
RAC: 0
Message 78106 - Posted: 8 Dec 2007, 8:11:38 UTC - in response to Message 73796.

Nice article about research at Gran Sasso National laboratory where researchers are detecting, for the first time, the low-energy neutrinos coming from the heart of the sun, pretty much confirming that physicists understand the nuclear activity that makes sunshine...

Underground experiment sheds light on sun




Chipper Q,
You are an endless source of learning sunshine.
Thanks for the article!!!
Ernie Solis
P.S Go to www.soliswinery.com and buy yourself a bottle of wine on me. I'll owe ya!!! Catch me on tour!!!! :-)
____________
Michael Mozina
Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0
Message 78706 - Posted: 26 Dec 2007, 2:39:00 UTC - in response to Message 74225.
Last modified: 26 Dec 2007, 2:41:15 UTC

I should probably read the guy's site more thoroughly, but from what I gathered he doesn't adress any of the following:

1. How does he propose the Sun generates its energy? (3.9e26 W is not a trivial affair - aside from nuclear reactions I really can't see any way)


The sun does not generate the bulk of it's energy, though it does generate some energy locally. The bulk of the energy comes from the electrical current that flows through the sun.

2. Where does he propose all the iron came from - in other words, how does he propose our Sun was born?


Our sun comes from a supernova remnant. It is a recycled star IMO.

(if you say Sun is made of iron you basically say that all models of galaxy and star formation are incorrect - you also invalidate any Big Bang scenario)


Well, technically it wouldn't necessarily invalidate a BB model, just an inflation/speed of light defying one.

3. A follow up question, does he acknowledge the existance of red giants,


Sure, they have a mostly helium atmosphere.

neutron stars,


I personally allow for the possibility of neutron stars. Not every EU advocate shares that viewpoint however.

pulsars,


Sure, see my answer on Neutron Stars.

black holes,


No, I share Einstein's opinion on that particular topic.

supernovae,


Sure, I just think they occur for a different reason.

...? How does he explain those came into existance?


I don't necessarily attempt to explain how anything in the universe came into existence, just as you can't explain how a singularity came into existence. I tend to focus on the things that we might explain with EU theories (like coronal loops), rather than "big picture" mythologies I could never hope to demonstrate.

4. And finally, how does he explain the measured neutrino emissions (specifically the ones OP mentioned)?!


I explain them as being created in fusion processes in the solar atmosphere, and from the breakdown of cosmic rays in the solar atmosphere.

Faliure to answer any one of this questions means a BIG hole in his theory (especially with respect to current theories), but I suspect he can't answer not even one. Gas based star formation is really a great unifying notion - if you abandon it I'll be impressed if you can explain anything.


Well, keep in mind that every theory has "holes" in it. For instance standard solar theory can't explain the million degree coronal loops, the x-ray jets or those magnetic current carrying ropes we find between the sun and the Earth. Lambda-CMD theorists can't produce a single gram of "dark matter" or a controlled test that demonstrate that it exists. Inflation? Can you demonstrate that it exists in reality empirically in a controlled scientific test? Every theory has "problems", my our solar theories have the benefit of observational support.

If you're interested in a lengthy discussion on this topic, you might checkout this thread on Livescience. I've kept learning and growing in my understanding of the evidence that supports this model over the past few years.

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=468660&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1

This particular thread is still active and it's been a highly productive conversation, both in terms of critique, and also in terms of helping me grow and become better at explaining my ideas to different types of people.
____________
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland
Profile Chipper Q
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1568
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0
Message 78809 - Posted: 30 Dec 2007, 3:49:02 UTC
Last modified: 30 Dec 2007, 4:33:53 UTC

Michael Mozina
Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0
Message 78825 - Posted: 30 Dec 2007, 21:24:12 UTC - in response to Message 78809.

Michael Mozina
Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0
Message 78838 - Posted: 31 Dec 2007, 0:39:53 UTC - in response to Message 78809.

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/10/13/sun-shots/

I think this was the image I was referring to. If you notice, the whole sun is bright (not just the core) and the neutrino emissions seem to occur in the solar atmosphere as well. These observations seem to be consistent with an EU oriented solar theory. I'm not altogether clear how this image is consistent with a theory that predicts all neutrino emissions to occur predominantly in the core. I would think it would produce less "smudging" in this kind of image and look more like a point source rather than a whole atmospheric experience.
____________
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland

Profile Chipper Q
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1568
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0
Message 78862 - Posted: 31 Dec 2007, 16:46:28 UTC
Last modified: 31 Dec 2007, 16:51:49 UTC

Michael Mozina
Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0
Message 78871 - Posted: 31 Dec 2007, 19:43:17 UTC - in response to Message 78862.

Nereid
Send message
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 79
Credit: 925,034
RAC: 0
Message 78877 - Posted: 1 Jan 2008, 0:11:50 UTC

I was wondering when you'd get around to posting here Michael!

Did I read your earlier post correctly? You (with others?) have developed a quantitative model of the Sun, fully consistent with the relevant observations, based on the assumptions that a) the Sun is (primarily) powered by a giant ISM (inter-stellar medium) current, and that b) its elemental composition (outside any neutron star at its core) is predominantly iron (or iron-group elements)?

Would you mind correcting my summary, by stating as clearly as you can just what the scope of any quantitative model is that you (with, or without, others) have developed re the Sun?

On a somewhat unrelated (to the Sun) topic: what does 'EU Theory' predict that LIGO (etc) will detect? Quantitatively.

Directly related question: what specific signatures (templates) - beyond those already incorporated in the various search algorithms - does 'EU Theory' suggest/recommend/hint at should also be added/incorporated/looked for?

Michael Mozina
Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0
Message 78880 - Posted: 1 Jan 2008, 2:31:51 UTC - in response to Message 78877.

I was wondering when you'd get around to posting here Michael!


Well, that was over two years ago at this point. :) Howdy Nereid. Did you miss me, or are you just working on your next virtual lynching? :)

Did I read your earlier post correctly?


Which of my posts were you referring to specifically? Could you quote me?

You (with others?) have developed a quantitative model of the Sun, fully consistent with the relevant observations, based on the assumptions that a) the Sun is (primarily) powered by a giant ISM (inter-stellar medium) current,


When you say "others", did you mean NASA?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . [/b]A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934)[/b], and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."


Did you ever get around to reading Cosmic Plasma yet Nereid? Anyway, based on how Alfven defined a "magnetic rope" we can now thank NASA for shedding some light on how much power is flowing inside that current carrying thread between the sun and the Earth.

Maybe you meant John Hopkins University was helping me?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070822_skewed_saturn.html

"Ring currents" around planets? Where have I seen this before? Oh yes, Birkeland created rings and ring currents around objects in his EU terella experiments. Pure coincidence in your opinion that Birkeland's theories and experiments predicted these types of observations too Nereid?

and that b) its elemental composition (outside any neutron star at its core) is predominantly iron (or iron-group elements)?


100 years ago, Birkeland actually built a working lab model of his theories based on EU principles. The neutron core (it could be a heavy iron core too) would act as the focal point (z-pinch point) for the electromagnetic core in Birkeland's laboratory model.

Did you personally ever get around to qualifying hydrogen fusion theory by demonstrating a sustained hydrogen fusion reaction in plasma in controlled laboratory conditions? If so, did the fusion process involve Bennett pinch forces in plasma by any chance?

Would you mind correcting my summary, by stating as clearly as you can just what the scope of any quantitative model is that you (with, or without, others) have developed re the Sun?


You know I looked back at every one of my posts here and I never made any statement even remotely resembling what you just stated, or anything close to that statement. In fact I openly noted to Chipper Q that EU theory requires more work on the "quantitative" side of scientific life. That would be exactly the opposite of standard theory which has lots of quantitative presentations of ideas, but utterly lacks justification on the "qualitative" (controlled test) side of scientific life. All theories have their strengths and weaknesses. EU theory is no different in that respect.

On a somewhat unrelated (to the Sun) topic: what does 'EU Theory' predict that LIGO (etc) will detect? Quantitatively.


Quantitatively? Hmm. I hadn't really spent a lot of time even thinking about that issue frankly, I've certainly never tried to quantify it in any way. Most recently I've been on vacation with my family at the coast and working on solar models. I "hope" and believe that we will eventually find conclusive evidence of gravitational waves. I suspect that those waves will be indirectly related to EM fields in space and will likely follow and flow with the current carrying threads of spacetime. That's my guess anyway. I'm not sure I'm prepared to quantify anything at this point in time (or anytime). It's not really my personal field of expertise or interest.

Directly related question: what specific signatures (templates) - beyond those already incorporated in the various search algorithms - does 'EU Theory' suggest/recommend/hint at should also be added/incorporated/looked for?


Well, I suppose that EU theorists in general would assume that any GUT would probably describe mass objects that are expanding inside an all pervading EM field the "pushes" (z-pinches) objects together, and may accelerate them over time. An EU GUT would probably be based on the notion of mass acting as a focal point of the energy releases (electron flows) within the universe. Such a theory would probably suggest that the bulk of the large scale mass movements travel through the plasma filaments of space time, rather than as simple "spheres" of attraction/gravitational movement. The overall electron flows of the universe would tend to push (z-pinch) plasmas (particularly heavy plasmas) together over time. We'd probably expect to observe mass movements in jets around the largest gravity wells in spacetime, and we would expect to see mass movements following the overall current flows within the threads of spacetime. I don't of course speak for all EU theorists on this particular topic, but I think most EU theorists would be expecting to observe "rivers" of mass flow movement at a larger scale and more even "waves" of energy closest to the surface of the mass object.
____________
It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next

Message boards : Science : How the sun shines


Home · Your account · Message boards

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grants PHY-1104902, PHY-1104617 and PHY-1105572 and by the Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the MPG.

Copyright © 2016 Bruce Allen