Iron Sun Discussion

[antoniseb]

duane has done some great work looking at Dr. Manuel's claims about the Iron Sun theory, that basically says that the sun is not the same as most stars, and is a collection of mostly heavy elements with a hydrogen atmosphere. Note, most serious astronomers regard this as a crackpot theory, but Dr. Manuel is willing to take the time to try and defend it. In it's favor, it does offer something of an explanation to some isotope abundance anomalies among other things.

You can look at a number of web-sites about this theory. Pointers to them are in the previous posts in this thread. I suspect that Dr. Manuel is sincere in his belief in the theory, but in this discussion, I am hoping we can shoot it down [or prove it] without shooting at Dr. Manuel, who has demonstrated that he is a gentleman.

Previous posts in this thread can be seen in the Story Comments -> Discussion: Spitzer looks at a Stellar Nursery
http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2435

Personally I found this discussion interesting enough that I wanted to pull it out into a properly labelled thread. Note, Josh has suggested moving this thread to Alternative Theories, and I agree it blongs there. I don't know when the move will be made.

[Tiny]

Is it possible for air to go through when the Sun is burning Iron to Helium?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Tiny@Mar 17 2004, 11:45 PM
Is it possible for air to go through when the Sun is burning Iron to Helium?

I'm sorry Tiny, I have no idea what you mean.
- Is it possible for air to go through what?
- I don't think the sun ever burns Iron to Helium.

[antoniseb]

Here's a link to a long article [32 pages] about an observed Iron Sun.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf...403/0403402.pdf

This star is a close binary 0.7 solar-mass companion to an 11 solar-mass black hole. The article guesses that the star was enveloped by the pre-supernova and spiraled in through the thin outer layers, and that the supernova happened before it coalesced into the core of the giant.

The article reports an Fe/H ratio of 0.14 +/- 0.12. Since Iron is substantially heavier than hydrogen, this means that much more of the mass of this star's atmosphere is Iron than is hydrogen.

I think this example shows that an Iron Sun is possible, but doesn't speak well for the likelyhood that our sun is one of these, as we don't have a large black hole orbiting our sun, and we don't have much iron in the sun's atmosphere.

[damienpaul]

okay, this may be a silly question, but waht exactly does the sun burn iron into? if anything

[Tiny]

To nickel I think, or else will be Cobalt...

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by damienpaul@Mar 20 2004, 01:34 AM
okay, this may be a silly question, but waht exactly does the sun burn iron into? if anything

Normally, Iron is the end of the line until it collapses into neutronium.

[damienpaul]

okay, next silly question, what is neutronium?

[VanderL]

okay, next silly question, what is neutronium?

Why do you consider this a silly question? Last time I asked that question, the answer was "nobody knows". It could be completely fanciful, and apparently can't be created in a lab. It doesn't stop people from talking about neutron stars as if neutronium exists. Neutron stars are apparently the last stop before a black hole.

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by damienpaul@Mar 20 2004, 05:43 AM
okay, next silly question, what is neutronium?

Sorry for the slightly glib answer. My intent was to convey the idea of the material that makes up neutron stars, which is a dense soup of neutrons, protons, electrons, pions, etc, all bound gravitationally to a degree that the nuclear forces are overwhelmed.

The actual word neutronium is a science fiction term, which was actually out of place here.

[VanderL]

Ok, but I would really like to know how we can be sure that matter can exist in this "neutronium" state; this soup of neutrons, protons, electrons, pions, etc. My guess is that this form of matter is the result of putting in higher numbers in the equations and see what comes rolling out, do we have any experimental evidence that matter can be compressed in this way?

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Mar 20 2004, 02:26 PM
do we have any experimental evidence that matter can be compressed in this way?

We have some indirect observational evidence. There are objects which spin around 250 times a second, and weigh about the same as the sun. If you assume that the equator on its surface is spinning at 20% the speed of light [a guess at the fastest possible spin rate], what is the space between atoms?

2e33 grams times [solar mass] 6e23 protons per gram [mole] is about 1e57 protons or neutrons.
0.2 [10 percent] * 3e10 cm/sec [speed of light] / (2pi * 250) = 4e6 cm radius.
volume = [1.33 * pi * r*r*r] is about 3e20 cubic centimeters.

This gives 3e36 nucleons per cubic centimeter.

This puts the average space between nucleons at about 6 femtometers, which is well within range of the nuclear forces. The space between normal atoms in a solid is about 20,000 times more sparse [0.1 nanometers].

More accurate, detailed, and less simplified analysis can be found on the web easily enough.

[VanderL]

There are objects which spin around 250 times a second, and weigh about the same as the sun.

You mean pulsars? They are assumed to be spinning, but maybe what we see as pulses is not the result of a spinning object. It seems to me that "neutronium" (what is the proper term btw?) is needed to explain the excessive spin rates. Just suppose there is nothing spinning that fast, doesn't it follow then that there are no neutron stars? Well, I must correct this, neutron stars are entities with specific characteristics, they are real. What could be different because of our assumptions is that they're not containing any collapsed matter. So what is eliminated then, is the need for an exotic form of matter.

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Mar 20 2004, 05:23 PM
You mean pulsars? They are assumed to be spinning, but maybe what we see as pulses is not the result of a spinning object.

Yes I mean the millisecond pulsars specifically. These are the ones that are spun up to faster rates by infalling matter from a companion.

If you assume that these things are not spinning, but are sending out very regular signals by some other mechanism, I'd like to see a suggestion for the mechanism. You are still required to have the energy source for the pulse be less than a kilometer across based on the pulse time. That's a lot of energy to get out of a small space in a short time.

Also, as to neutron star size, take a look at the observations of Geminga. This is an old neutron star that is glowing with the right color and brightness to be a black-body radiator. It has an observed opitcal counterpart. Because of proper motion studies we can make a good guess as to its distance. The size determinations are pretty solid scientifically.

One last note is the question: How could a neutron star could form without taking on a high rotation rate? Our sun spins once every 27 days. How fast would it spin if the radius shrunk to 1e-5 the current radius? Note that angular momentum must be conserved.

[VanderL]

If you assume that these things are not spinning, but are sending out very regular signals by some other mechanism, I'd like to see a suggestion for the mechanism.

Sorry Antoniseb, can't help you with another mechanism just yet. I wouldn't be surprised if another mechanism exists, but apart from the Electric Model (see other threads for it's discussions and debunking), I don't know of any. Doesn't mean that the spinning assumption is true though, I'd like to see better evidence then pulses (millisecond pulses because of rotation seems like a ludicrous idea to me), or some way to verify collapsed matter experimentally before I accept neutron stars as composed of "neutronium".
We're drifting away from the Iron Sun model, of which I'm still unsure why the measured isotopic ratio's must mean that there is something wrong with what we know of stellar evolution and the history of the Solar System.
Maybe it would be helpful if we compared the 2 models step by step, then maybe I'll be able to see at what point the models diverge, or if there is even anything compatible at all.

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Here's another set of questions for Dr. Manuel on this Iron Sun stuff:

Are you saying the the core of the sun is:
- a white dwarf [this is the one I assume you mean]
- a neutron star
- something else

If the mass of this core is less than 0.5 solar mass, how did it form?

Do you believe that the chemical abundances in the photosphere are different than what is commonly reported by main-stream astronomers?

If not, how deep into the Sun's interior do we need to explore before we start seeing very high Iron abundances?

Is there a layer in which thermo-nuclear fusion is occuring? How far from the center is it? If not, how long can the sun maintain approximately the same luminosity? How rapidly will this be changing?

Do you believe that the density of the photosphere is different than what is commonly reported by main-stream astronomers?

If not, how do you plot the temperature and pressure along a solar radius such that the mass of the sun works out to the observed value of 2e33 grams?

[Duane]

Dr manuel states:

We have little quantitative information about what the early Earth looked like.

However, measurements show that:

1. Earth accreted in layers, beginning with the formation of an iron core upon which the silicate mantle was later deposited.

2. The lower mantle surrounding that iron core never melted and retains highly volatile elements like He-3 today.

3. Earth's upper mantle melted to produce the atmosphere and crust within the first 200 My. The upper mantle stopped releasing volatile elements to the atmosphere while extinct I-129 and Pu-244 were still alive.

These measurements are summarized in ""The xenon record of extinct radioactivities in the Earth," Science 174, 1334-1336 (1971) and "The noble gas record of the terrestrial planets," Geochemical Journal 15, 245-267 (1981).

Io is much further from the Sun, where iron is a rare element. It is doubtful that its early history parallels those of the Earth and other terrestrial planets

I would add in Dr Manuel, that measurements do not support your contention that the earth accreted on an iron core, rather measurements almost universally support the premise that the earth accreted and then melted, resulting in the formation of an iron core.

Further, you have given no mechanism by which silicates formed farther out from the earth's early orbit could have migrated in to accrete on the newly formed iron core, nor have you given any explanation for the how a lack of differentation would have occurred in the aftermath of the proto-earth having been struck by a mars-sized body.

Recent measurements by Romanowicz et al at the University of California, Berkley have identified hot "superplumes" of material rising from the lower mantle (~ 2800 KM below the lithosphere) and earlier measurements also identified cooler "downplumes" in other areas of the planet.

William White at Cornell also found evidence of mantle recycling in measurements he and his team performed at the Society Islands, and this finding was reconfirmed later by Jon D. Woodhead of the Australian National University through measurements he made of the abundant oxygen isotope ratios at Pitcairn Island.

This could not be the case if the lower mantal remained undifferenciated and/or unmelted as you maintain.

There are a myriad of other studies which also support the premise that the lower mantle is melted. This must also lead to the conclusion that the lower mantle is differentiated, because it could not remain undifferentiated while melted.

Now no doubt you will again refer to your paper regarding the anomalties in the isotopes of He and Xe. Might I suggest that you instead refer to some independant findings from anyone other than you and your collaborators so that we might gain an unbiased view of your findings?

Might I also suggest that you outline a mechanism whereby the isotope readings you obtained might have arisen in the accretion method of planet formation? Or is it your position that such readings are impossible in that method?

[Tiny]

Oh by the way, what is the spectral line for Iron look like?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by antoniseb@Mar 24 2004, 01:24 PM
Are you saying the the core of the sun is:
- a white dwarf [this is the one I assume you mean]
- a neutron star
- something else

Oh! Dr. Manuel, I see in your papers that you postulate a neutron star in the sun's core [These must be at least 0.88 solar masses]. That makes the mass of the sun very difficult to get to be only 2e33 grams. Do you have a theory about the structure of the sun that accounts for this?

[om@umr.edu]

Thanks for all the comments and for an open discussion about evidence for and against an iron-rich Sun.

I received two e-mails last night asking why I had not responded.

The answer - I did not even know the site existed! Now a lot of material has accumulated and I need to start responding in a manner that will convey information clearly and concisely, despite other commitments on my time.

Physics On-Line also has a discussion about evidence for and against an iron-rich Sun and posted a lot of background information there. Am I allowed to post that link here? :blink:

http://www.physlink.com/Community/Forums/v...m=18&topic=2421

In case it is edited out, I will go ahead today and give readers biographical information on the events (1936-1959) leading to my interest in nuclear energy and the Sun.

When you reach my ripe old age, I suspect you too will look back on life and realize you had little or no control over your life, your career choices, successes, or failures.

I "decided" to be born in 1936 when, on the other side of this globe, Francis William Aston went to Japan to observe a solar eclipse. He also presented a lecture at the University of Tokyo, which sparked the interest of an unusually talented 19 year old student named Kazuo Kuroda in nuclear energy and the Sun.

World War II followed. As a young child I was taught to hate "Japs" and "Nazis" on this side of the globe. Kazuo Kuroda completed his education on the other side and became the youngest scientist appointed to the University of Tokyo faculty. The atomic bomb ended the War. Dr. Kuroda was sent by the Japanese government to investigate the bomb site and report back the nature of this new weapon.

The US government realized that knowledge is the key to national security - - - something that has since been forgotten! We stole ("relocated") the best scientific minds in Germany and Japan and brought them to this country. One was given the Christian name "Paul" on the boat ride to this country; the rest of his name looked strange to Americans - - - Kazuo Kuroda.

Kuroda landed in San Francisco and met Glen Seaborg of Berkeley National Labs (BNL). Seaborg wanted to hire this talented young scientist, but was prevented from doing. Kuroda was Japanese, and the US government wanted a monopoly on nuclear secrets. [Only in 2002 did they learn that Kuroda carried secret Japanese plans to build an atomic bomb there!] Americans of Japanese decent had been locked up during the War. No Japanese citizen could work at BNL.

So Kuroda ended up teaching at the University of Arkansas.

Meanwhile, life had been hectic for me. I grew up like an alley cat or a weed, and did not finish high school. By accident I was admitted to Pittsburg State College in 1956. My best teacher, Jim Pauley, taught General and Physical Chemistry. He was also a graduate of the University of Arkansas and directed me there when I graduated in 1959.

That is how "I selected" one world-class scientist, Paul Kazuo Kuroda, as my mentor and another, Francis William Aston, as my academic grandfather. They, of course, directed my attention to Nuclear Energy and the Sun.

With kind regards,

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

PS - Responses to questions raised in earlier postings will depend whether or not I need to reproduce here background information given on PhysLink.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 25 2004, 03:15 PM
Physics On-Line also has a discussion about evidence for and against an iron-rich Sun and posted a lot of background information there.

OK, I've read the stuff on the Physics link, and the collection of papers.
Please correct me if I am wrong about the rough structure of the sun that you are proposing:

0-10 km -------- neutron star
10-250,000 km-- iron core
250,000 - 485,000 km -- rocky molton outer core
485,000 - 695,000 km -- hydrogen-rich atmosphere

Note, I haven't seen anything in your paper giving the depth of the rocky to iron core transition.

I have a lot of concerns about this model, but the easist to point out is the mass problem. Even assuming that the iron and rocks resist compression we get a mass of the three core components as:

neutron star ---- 1.6e33 grams [minimum mass of known neutron stars]
iron core--------- 5e32 grams [density of 8 gm/cc]
outer core ------ 1.6e33 grams [density of 4 gm/cc]

the result, 3.7e33 grams [not counting the atmosphere] is almost 2 times the mass of the sun as measured by the orbits of the planets.

I have a few other immediate concerns:
1. What helioseismology study do you site saying there is possibly a solid body in the sun at 70% of the radius? This is new to my research.

2. What is preventing the iron core from rapidly accreting onto the neutron star and becoming gravitationally crushed into neutrons?

3. How do you assume that neutrons are able to escape from the neutron star's gravity and still have 10 MeV of thermal energy that they can contribuite to their surroundings?

[Duane]

Thank you for the link Oliver. You are obviously in a number of discussions regarding this theory, and that helps to explain why you have a penchant for repeating yourself!

Current solar theories are based on modelling, where the result of the model must meet the current solar levels of luminosity, output and size. Has your theory been modelled, and if so, how well does the model meet the above criterion?

Regarding the solid inner body rotation found through mapping of the solar interior by helioseismology, it is suggested that the solid rotating inner body is a neutron star (your theory) or a rocky oceon (ala Peter Blachle), however it also seems that an explanation would relate to the formation of metallic hydrogen, similar to what has occurred in the lower atmosphere of Jupiter. Certainly at the range of depths mentioned for this body (roughly 1/3 to 1/5 of the solar radius below the observable surface) there is enough mass and pressure to metallisize the hydrogen.

I have done alot of reading regarding this premise but I have yet to see an answer to my questions regarding the new findings from seismic measurements by Romanowicz et al. You state that your measurements support the premise that the lower mantle is unmelted and undifferentiated, and you rely on the amount of primordial Iodine 129 and Plutonium 244 released during the intial phase of the planets formation as the basis for this premise.

The new measurements of s-wave and p-wave propagation through the lower mantle have identified so called "superplumes", regions where heated magma rising from the lower mantle contact and spread at the lithosphere, then cool and sink. It seems clear that there is active mantle recycling from the lower to the upper mantle, which would seem to suggest that the I-129 and Pu-244 from the lower mantle region must have escaped, or is escaping.

This would seem to require an explanation from you regarding the measurements you have made. Specifically, how do your measurements explain the mantle recycling?

[om@umr.edu]

Thanks, antonsieb, for the excellent feedback!

Your questions indicate an approach very different than mine. <_<

I am an experimentalist. My conclusions are based on measurements - - - measurements limited to material outside the Sun. To date the measurements do not yield the details of the solar interior listed in your table.

Further, even if we knew the physical dimensions of layers inside the Sun, we do not know how to calculate density without information on temperature.

Measurements do not tell us the Sun&#39;s internal temperature. :blink:

In view of these uncertainities, it is intriguing that the mass you calculate for the sum of these four layers is only twice "the mass of the sun as measured by the orbits of the planets."

Since you obviously read quickly, can I ask you to scan our 2-page abstract on the Sun&#39;s Origin, Composition and Source of Energy [2001 Lunar & Planetary Science Conference]:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf

Our 4-page paper on the Internal Composition of the Sun [2002 SOHO/GONG Conference]:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

Our 6-page paper on Superfluidity in the Solar Interior [Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2003)]:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-s...perfluidity.pdf

Please feel free to offer alternative explanations for the measurements reviewed in the first two short papers. The third answers the first of your other questions:

1. What helioseismology study do you site saying there is possibly a solid body in the sun at 70% of the radius? This is new to my research. Several speakers mentioned this at the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference. In our third paper (above) we cite an earlier 1996 paper in Science as reference no. 22.

2. What is preventing the iron core from rapidly accreting onto the neutron star and becoming gravitationally crushed into neutrons? I do not know. None of our measurements provide that information.

3. How do you assume that neutrons are able to escape from the neutron star&#39;s gravity and still have 10 MeV of thermal energy that they can contribuite to their surroundings? None of our measurements provide this information either. I suspect that 10-22 MeV neutrons escape from the neutron star&#39;s gravity in the manner that 4.5 MeV alpha particles escape from the nucleus of U-238 - - - barrier tunnelling.

Again, thanks for your excellent comments.

With kind regards,

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

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 25 2004, 08:12 PM
In view of these uncertainities, it is intriguing that the mass you calculate for the sum of these four layers is only twice "the mass of the sun as measured by the orbits of the planets."

It shouldn&#39;t be THAT intriguing, for one thing I didn&#39;t allow for ANY compression, but we know from earthbound experiments that the iron in the core mentioned above would compress a great deal, as would the iron-silcates in the outer core, and the atmosphere. We are probably talking about a mass of ten or twenty solar masses for the brief time before it all collapses.

I think it should take some kind of effort on your part to explain why the Iron shouldn&#39;t simply collapse onto the inner neutron star. Otherwise you are making an outrageous claim that can&#39;t be backed up with some kind of explanation.

[om@umr.edu]

Thanks, Duane and Antoniseb, for your comments.

I apologize for repeating myself. :unsure:

In addition to old age, there is another likely reason I will explain below*.

You are correct, Duane, "Current solar theories are based on modelling..."

Antoniseb wants a model "to explain why the Iron shouldn&#39;t simply collapse onto the inner neutron star." :blink:

However, I make measurements, not models. The interior of the Sun reveals itself to me in measurements - - - not models. Perhaps that is what distinguishes experimentalists from astronomers. Perhaps that is why our communications are leading nowhere&#33; :unsure:

*I repeat myself asking you to address measurements. For example, over a week ago on this web site I asked the two of you to explain six experimental observations listed in our 2002 SOHO/GONG conference paper: http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

1. Why were there two distinct types of xenon, Xe-1 and Xe-2, at the birth of the solar system [Figure 1]?

2. Why did primordial Helium accompany Xe-2 (strange xenon) and not Xe-1 (normal xenon) when meteorites formed [Figure 2]?

3. Why does the Jupiter&#39;s He-rich atmosphere contain Xe-2 (strange xenon) (p. 346)?

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf

4. Why are light mass (L) isotopes in the solar wind enriched relative to heavy mass (H) isotopes by a common fractionation factor (f), where log (f) = 4.56 log (H/L) [This is shown in Figure 5 and discussed on pp. 346-347.]?

5. When the above empirical equation is applied to elements in the photosphere, why does it indicate that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca, the same elements as that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites (p. 347)?

6. The statistical probability that this agreement is fortuitous is <0.000000000000000000000000000000002. How do mainstream views explain that?

As I recall, you offered no explanation for any of these observations.

Regretfully, I suggest we waste no more time on this pseudo-communications.
Otherwise, you will probably start repeating yourself asking me to explain a model.

With kind regards,

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

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Mar 26 2004, 04:08 AM
However, I make measurements, not models.

But you do make a model.
You are taking the measured abundances of several isotopes, and then proposing a model to explain them. This model fails against many other measurements.

A great deal of your paper space seems devoted to the Xenon issue. The paper
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf describes Xenon-1 as having elevated abundences of the middle-weight isotopes [e.g. 130 & 132 & 134] of Xenon and Xenon-2 as having somewhat elevated light and heavy isotopes [e.g. 124 & 136], plus it appears with an elevated number of trapped alpha particles. The papers discuss previous results showing that the Xenon-2 concentrations are probably the result of r-process in a supernova, but it says nothing to show that our sun must be constructed largely of fusion products from such a supernova. By showing that the Solar wind and Earth atmospheric abundences are Xe-1 and Jupiter and the carbonaceous meteroites contain Xe-2, you only show that the outer part of the protoplanteary disk ended up with different isotope ratios from the part that was highly heated by the early sun. You aren&#39;t showing that the sun is made of rocks [your model].

You give a correlation factor: The statistical probability that this agreement is fortuitous is <0.000000000000000000000000000000002. but you don&#39;t explain how it was calculated or what, precisely this non-fortuitous agreement must imply. There could be many models that might explain it.

[om@umr.edu]

You are partially correct, antoniseb.

I make observation-driven conclusions. When there are no observational data, I try to avoid speculations.

If you will offer explanations for the six observations posted above, I will try to come up with a more complete list of experimental observations - with no conclusions - that gradually led us to the iron-rich Sun - - - an object in which we had no initial interest.

This is not a new finding. The Sun was widely believed to be iron-rich. Development of the H-bomb and adoption of the Hydrogen-filled Sun occurred after the end of Word War II. See:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

To calculate statistical probability, antoniseb, you may want to take a table of abundances in the Sun&#39;s photosphere to a statistician. Imagine you go to the Sun, B) stick in a probe, and pull out one atom. What is the probability that atom will be Fe or O or Si or Ni or S or Mg or Ca (any one of the seven elements that make up 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites). These are all trace elements in the photosphere, so the probability of getting any one of them will be quite low. Now you repeat that process six times. Please report your results back here.

Yet the empirical mass-fractionation equation defined by isotope abundances in the solar wind,

log ( f ) = 4.56 log (H/L), where f = fractionation, H = mass of heavy particle, L = mass of light particle,

selects all seven of these trace elements out of the Sun&#39;s H-rich photosphere in a single step.

1.) Is this magic, antoniseb? Or

2.) Are elements, as well as isotopes, mass fractionated in the Sun?

Please post your answer.

With kind regards,

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

[antoniseb]

Are elements, as well as isotopes, mass fractionated in the Sun?

The isotopes could be mass fractionated in the sun without it being made of rocks.

I will spend some of the weekend working on explanations for the six observations posted above. As well as looking at your proposed experiments for testing the valididty of the theory.

[Duane]

I&#39;m sorry if I offended you Oliver with the repeating yourself crack, I meant it purely as a joke. Hard to convey humour in a forum like this.

Regarding the abundances of Xe1 &2 in the solar and jovian atmospheres, is it not possible that the isotopic readings you obtained arose from the makeup of the primordial cloud which coalesced to form the sun and planets? That is, could those isotopes have arisen through the enrichment of the cloud by the debris of a nearby supernova? (or supernovas?)

It is postulated that one of the triggers for the collapse of the cloud which formed the sun was a nearby supernova. Does it not seem more plausible that the measurements you obtained arose as a result of that process?

You have stated several times that the abundance of extinct I-129 and PU-244 support the premise that the upper mantle stopped releasing volitile elements only 200My after the formation of the planet, and that this also means the lower mantle remains unmelted and undifferentiated. I have pointed out new data obtained from difference sources which shows that premise to be incorrect--the mantle is not only melted throughout, it recycles&#33; Accepting that your measurements are accurate, can you come up with an explanation of how that recycling can occur and not release the primordial He3 and other volitiles?

However, I make measurements, not models. The interior of the Sun reveals itself to me in measurements - - - not models. Perhaps that is what distinguishes experimentalists from astronomers.

Ok, but how can you then state with certainty anything regarding the makeup of the sun? While your theory may help explain one anomalty, if it has not been modelled and compared to what is, then it is nothing more than an interesting oddity. This is why I asked you if you had modelled it, and also why I have asked you if you have considered the possibilty that the measurements could be explained through the generally excepted solar accretion model.

1. Why were there two distinct types of xenon, Xe-1 and Xe-2, at the birth of the solar system [Figure 1]?

2. Why did primordial Helium accompany Xe-2 (strange xenon) and not Xe-1 (normal xenon) when meteorites formed [Figure 2]?

3. Why does the Jupiter&#39;s He-rich atmosphere contain Xe-2 (strange xenon) (p. 346)?

I suspect these three questions are related to the same phenomenon. The answer probably has to do with the enrichment of the primordial cloud which formed the sun by debris from nearby supernova.

The sun is 0.17 dex more metal rich than the average nearby star (Wielen, Fuchs, & Dettbarn 1996). Wielen et al. propose that the sun was born ~ 2 kpc closer to the Galactic center than its current orbital radius, where abundances were higher.

4. Why are light mass (L) isotopes in the solar wind enriched relative to heavy mass (H) isotopes by a common fractionation factor (f), where log (f) = 4.56 log (H/L) [This is shown in Figure 5 and discussed on pp. 346-347.]?

5. When the above empirical equation is applied to elements in the photosphere, why does it indicate that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca, the same elements as that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites (p. 347)?

I admit this is beyond my ability to answer.

Regardless, I think that your model fails on at least two levels, the first outlined by antoniseb relating to the mass of the sun as it is today, the second by the recent measurements of the lower mantle outline by me. You have given no credible explanation for either of these two issues.

Furthermore, recent studies by Kobunicky and Stillman (1997) suggest that the supernova ejecta form a hot wind that escapes the galaxy, disperses the ejecta, and later reaccretes, avoiding local enrichment at the site of the stars&#39; deaths. Assuming their measurements to be correct, it would seem the idea of a supernova occurring and then re-accreting at the same site could not occur.

Have you seen the work of G. Parmentier et al of the University of Begium regarding cloud enrichment by Type II supernovas? Very generally, they have found that the enrichment process meets theoritical expectations for galactic halo globular cluster metallicities. This is another line of research which seems to suppport the premise of cloud enrichment by supernova debris dispersal.

Regretfully, I suggest we waste no more time on this pseudo-communications.
Otherwise, you will probably start repeating yourself asking me to explain a model.

I am sorry you feel this way Oliver. Obviously you are unable or unwilling to explain the inconsistancies that are apparent in your thesis. With respect, given the inability of your model to explain the inconsistancies, I cannot help but reach the conclusion that your model fails, and the sun is not the result of accretion of material on a supernova remnant as you have proposed.

[om@umr.edu]

Thanks, Duane, for the message and for starting to address the six observations.

As promised to antoniseb, I will make a list of other experimental observations that slowly led us to the iron Sun - - - without comments or conclusions.

I am not offended, Duane.

Conclusions drawn from observations do not alter what is. Future experiments, rather than personal opinions, decide the validity of conclusions.

For example, the supernova that made the solar system also made, in my opinion, the “Ancient Silicate Stardust” reported in the 5 March 2004 issue of Science. Future experiments will determine if our opinions or those of the Washington Univ. group are correct.

Because of the press for time, I will only reply now to your explanation of the first of six observations:

No, Duane, Xe-2 could not “have arisen through the enrichment of the cloud by the debris of a nearby supernova? (or supernovas?)”

1. Xe-2 is trapped in carbon grains of “normal” isotopic composition. <_<

2. Essentially all primordial He and Ne accompanied Xe-2, not Xe-1. <_<

The near-by supernova would have to inject into the solar system essentially all primordial He and Ne, Xe 2, and carbon of “normal” isotopic composition. :P

The link of primordial He and Ne with Xe-2 was noted in our debate with the University of Chicago group (Ed Anders) in the mid-1970s [“Strange Xenon, Extinct Superheavy Elements, and the Solar Neutrino Puzzle”, Science, vol. 195, 208-210 (1977)].

The link of Xe-2 with primordial He, C and Ne also contradicts Anders’ suggestion that Xe-2 might be a fission product of extinct superheavy elements - a popular opinion in the mid-1970s. :blink:

Finally, Duane, I hope you and other readers will have time to review the historical record of opinions about the composition of the Sun before we move on to the next five observations. See:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

Again, Duane, thanks for your comments.

With kind regards,

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