Iron Sun Discussion

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 28 2004, 06:34 PM
The "truth" in scientific debates frequently lies between opposing views. Skillful moderators help us all move in that direction.

Concerning energy, I got a note of apology and explanation from Larry Swinford, saying that he felt that Enery had simply carried a little too far his metaphor about he and duane being dogs trying to keep up. I accepted his explanation with good will and no ill feelings. I have modified my previous asking about your relationship to him.

Unless it resurfaces, that issue is done.

So, in returning to the scientific debate, what are your responses to the eight points?

[om@umr.edu]

Sorry, antoniseb.

Let's not let the discussion of personalities distract us from the observation that directly contradicts the nearby supernova injection hypothesis.

Xe-2 and excess Xe-136 from the supposed nearby supernova is closely linked with primordial Helium from the supposed protosolar cloud containing normal Xe-1, primordial Hydrogen (91%), and primordial He (9%).

Did you address this observation?

With kind regards,

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

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 28 2004, 09:53 PM
Did you address this observation?

Actually Duane addressed it. You can see it in the third post on page 20.

The measurements falsify this model , revealing instead a strong link (99+% correlation coefficient) in meteorites between Primordial Helium and Xe-2 (with excess Xe-136 from the r-process).

No it doesn't falsify the model. The link between the meteorite isotope measurements and solar element abundances is not correlated by the graph presented. Instead, the measurement speaks only to the abundance of the elemental comparison in the meteorites themselves, revealing only the fact that material arose in a supernova explosion.

This would be expected by the injection of material from nearby supernova events arising after the formation of the solar system. The added material from the supernova would be expected to show the correlation you are stating.

Regardless, this still does not given any definitive conclusion regarding the makeup of the sun itself. This is especially true if the sun had already formed by the time this material arrived in the solar enviroment.

Still, I feel like you are trying to change the subject. The issue of the moment is the eight points presented earlier in the ninth post on page 19 [reproduced here for your convenience], and weakly addressed by Energy. I responded to his replies, but they were certainly not as strong as the ones you might put together.

1. The Sun with a neutron star core would be more massive than we observe.
2. Supernovae blast their debris far beyond escape velocity and do not reaccrete substantial material.
3. Iron accreting onto a neutron star would not pile up, but would become part of the degenerate matter shell of the neutron star.
4. Neutrino flux from the Sun is now understood and is explained by the Hydrogen Sun model.
5. Neutron Stars are not giant atomic nuclei and cannot emit 1e43 hydrogen atoms/year in the form of neutrons tunnelling many kilometers. His model can't explain the luminosity of the sun; and free supernovae like Geminga do not give off even a tiny fraction of the energy he claims a neutron star core would provide.
6. The shortest lived half-life isotopes he cites as reasons that a mythical outiside supernova can't blow in material could also not have been blown out by a supernova and had time to reaccrete. So the grain forming process is the same either way.
7. Main sequence stars get very slowly hotter. Stars of his model very slowly would get cooler. The geologic history shows that the Sun has been slowly getting hotter.
8. His model says that the Earth accreted in layers which haven't mixed, but we see layers mixing currently.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by antoniseb@May 28 2004, 11:06 PM

1. The Sun with a neutron star core would be more massive than we observe.
2. Supernovae blast their debris far beyond escape velocity and do not reaccrete substantial material.
3. Iron accreting onto a neutron star would not pile up, but would become part of the degenerate matter shell of the neutron star.
4. Neutrino flux from the Sun is now understood and is explained by the Hydrogen Sun model.
5. Neutron Stars are not giant atomic nuclei and cannot emit 1e43 hydrogen atoms/year in the form of neutrons tunnelling many kilometers. His model can't explain the luminosity of the sun; and free supernovae like Geminga do not give off even a tiny fraction of the energy he claims a neutron star core would provide.
6. The shortest lived half-life isotopes he cites as reasons that a mythical outiside supernova can't blow in material could also not have been blown out by a supernova and had time to reaccrete. So the grain forming process is the same either way.
7. Main sequence stars get very slowly hotter. Stars of his model very slowly would get cooler. The geologic history shows that the Sun has been slowly getting hotter.
8. His model says that the Earth accreted in layers which haven't mixed, but we see layers mixing currently.

Antonio,

There is a difference between:

1. Experimental observations, and

2. Pontifical statements.

I did not want to state that here, but in my opinion all 8 of your "points" fall in category #2.

Compare, for example your statement #2 with the references posted here earlier to:

i ) Observations of rocky, Earth-like planets orbiting a pulsar published in Nature and Science, and

ii) Serious theoretical calculations published in Nature on supernovae debris that falls back to make planets.

Further, the measured association of Primordial He with Xe-2, instead of Xe-1, is directly opposite that expected if Xe-2 were injected from a near-by supernova into a presolar cloud containing primordial He and Xe-1.

PRIMORDIAL HELIUM ACCOMPANIES STRANGE XENON, NOT NORMAL XENON



The nearby supernova hypothesis predicts that primordial He will be linked with Xe-1, not Xe-2, and the correlation line will have the opposite slope !

To explain the experimental data, the nearby supernova hypothesis would have to be changed:

1. Instead of injecting Xe-2 from a nearby supernova into a protosolar cloud containing Xe-1, Primordial Hydrogen (91%) and Primordial Helium (9%),

2. The nearby supernova must have injected Xe-2 and Primordial Helium into a protosolar cloud containing Xe-1 but essentially no Primordial Helium.

This and all 15 Major Space Age Observations posted earlier simply confirm

A SINGLE SUPERNOVA FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM



With kind regards,

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

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 29 2004, 02:42 AM
There is a difference between:

1. Experimental observations, and

2. Pontifical statements.

Don't make up diminutive names for me. I don't do that for you. I see it as a hostile act, and showing a lack of respect. If you do not respect me, just come out and say it.

Concerning pontification vs. observations, lets start by looking at point number one. I gave a simple set of calculations in the 6th post on page two of this thread showing that the Iron Sun must have too much mass to account for observed phenomena. You dismissed the calculation, saying that we could not know the effect of temperature on the materials in the sun. So lets revisit it.

The lowest mass neutron star yet observed [which BTW is consistant with theory] is 0.88 solar masses. For your benefit, I will assume that this smallest neutron star is what is in the sun, not something more typical and massive. The convective layer of the sun [what you call the atmosphere] has been measured via helioseismology and has a total mass about 0.05 solar masses. Thus all of the layers under the 'atmosphere' and above the neutron star must have a maximum of 0.07 solar mass which is 1.4e32 grams, filling 5e32 cubic centimeters. How do you propose that the heavy elements that make up the sun form a solid layer under the atmosphere with that kind of density and temperature?

Even if you abandon the notion expressed in some of your publications that the sun has a solid layer under the 'atmosphere' of anomalous hydrogen, the iron gas would need to be extremely hot to stay so sparse all the way down. It would also need some mechanism to not blast through into the 'atmosphere' and transfer that heat to the relatively cool [2 million Kelvins] 'atmosphere'.

Do you have a model to explain this? You say you don't make models, but this really requires an explanation.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by antoniseb+May 29 2004, 12:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ May 29 2004, 12:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 29 2004, 02:42 AM
There is a difference between:

1. Experimental observations, and

2. Pontifical statements.

Don&#39;t make up diminutive names for me. I don&#39;t do that for you. I see it as a hostile act, and showing a lack of respect. If you do not respect me, just come out and say it.

Concerning pontification vs. observations, lets start by looking at point number one. I gave a simple set of calculations in the 6th post on page two of this thread showing that the Iron Sun must have too much mass to account for observed phenomena. You dismissed the calculation, saying that we could not know the effect of temperature on the materials in the sun. So lets revisit it.

The lowest mass neutron star yet observed [which BTW is consistant with theory] is 0.88 solar masses. For your benefit, I will assume that this smallest neutron star is what is in the sun, not something more typical and massive. The convective layer of the sun [what you call the atmosphere] has been measured via helioseismology and has a total mass about 0.05 solar masses. Thus all of the layers under the &#39;atmosphere&#39; and above the neutron star must have a maximum of 0.07 solar mass which is 1.4e32 grams, filling 5e32 cubic centimeters. How do you propose that the heavy elements that make up the sun form a solid layer under the atmosphere with that kind of density and temperature?

Even if you abandon the notion expressed in some of your publications that the sun has a solid layer under the &#39;atmosphere&#39; of anomalous hydrogen, the iron gas would need to be extremely hot to stay so sparse all the way down. It would also need some mechanism to not blast through into the &#39;atmosphere&#39; and transfer that heat to the relatively cool [2 million Kelvins] &#39;atmosphere&#39;.

Do you have a model to explain this? You say you don&#39;t make models, but this really requires an explanation. [/b][/quote]
I understand your reluctance to address the figure of experimental data that directly contradict the supernova injection hypothesis.

But I will not be side-tracked into an argument over

1. Your understanding of neutron star masses nor

2. Your misunderstanding "of notion expressed in some of your publications that the sun has a solid layer".

I already corrected that misrepresentation of our publications once.

Come on, quit stalling and address the measurements.

With kind regards,

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

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 29 2004, 01:31 PM
1. Your understanding of neutron star masses nor

2. Your misunderstanding "of notion expressed in some of your publications that the sun has a solid layer".

As I said before, let&#39;s begin with item one from the list. I will not be side-tracked by your insistance that we work with item two first. You are trying to avoid the issue, because you have no good answer for item number one.

Concerning these two most recent points of yours:
- What do you believe different about the mass of the neutron star in the core than what I have said above?

- In my most recent post I allowed that you abandoned your previous theory about the solid Iron. What I said was that even if the bulk of the area between the neutron star and the convective layer is a plasma of heavy elements, to maintain such a low density, its temperature would have to be too high, and there would be no explanation for why it would not blast through the convective layer, or why there should be a thermal insulating boundary at the bottom of the convection zone.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by antoniseb+May 29 2004, 01:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; May 29 2004, 01:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 29 2004, 01:31 PM
1. Your understanding of neutron star masses nor

2. Your misunderstanding "of notion expressed in some of your publications that the sun has a solid layer".

As I said before, let&#39;s begin with item one from the list. I will not be side-tracked by your insistance that we work with item two first. You are trying to avoid the issue, because you have no good answer for item number one.

Concerning these two most recent points of yours:
- What do you believe different about the mass of the neutron star in the core than what I have said above?

- In my most recent post I allowed that you abandoned your previous theory about the solid Iron. What I said was that even if the bulk of the area between the neutron star and the convective layer is a plasma of heavy elements, to maintain such a low density, its temperature would have to be too high, and there would be no explanation for why it would not blast through the convective layer, or why there should be a thermal insulating boundary at the bottom of the convection zone.[/b][/quote]
Antoniseb,

Let&#39;s try to keep this discussion focused on observations and measurements related to the Sun’s composition.

Personalities and egos-driven debates impede, rather than advance, understanding.

I never thought the inside of the Sun is “solid Iron”, antoniseb. I apologize for this misunderstanding.

In an effort to “calm the waters”, I will go ahead and comment on my very limited understanding of neutron star masses.

Because the semester here has ended and I have many other responsibilities in the months ahead, I will also post the second of three observations that contradict Jeff Hester et al’s new theory on injections of Fe-60 and other supernova products into the H,He-rich proto-solar cloud that formed the Sun and its planetary system.

First, experts have published a wide range of estimates on the mass limits of neutron stars. This is not an issue you and I can resolve here.

As early as 1938, Oppenheimer and Serber [Phys. Rev 54 (1938) 540] noted that, "The forces which must be known are those acting between a pair of neutrons; and no existing nuclear experiment or theory gives a complete answer to this question."

Six decades later we are still struggling with this issue: "A supernova explosion is a very complex event that is still not well understood. Nor is the structure of a neutron star known in any detail. It depends on the extreme properties of matter that has been compressed to incredibly high densities, far beyond the reach of physics experiments on Earth."

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2...0/pr-19-00.html

We used nuclear systematics to try to estimate the forces acting between neutrons:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", J. Fusion Energy 19 (2002) 93

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.ps

2. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

I do not know the mass limits of neutron stars. Until there is a consensus of opinion on the forces acting between neutrons, it is pointless for us to debate the mass limits on neutron stars here.

Returning to topic, I would like to clarify three issues:

-1.- I am not the only one that concluded the proto-solar nebula must have been chemically and isotopically heterogeneous. For example, Professor F. Begemann of the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Chemie in Mainz, GERMANY began his 1980 review ["Isotopic Anomalies in Meteorites", Rep. Prog. Phys 43 (1980) 1309-1356]:

"The classical picture of the pre-solar nebula is that of a hot, well-mixed cloud of chemically and isotopically uniform composition.

Recent measurements have shown this concept to be erroneous, however.”

-2.- There definitely was a supernova here, or near-by, at the birth of the Solar System.

Kuroda and Myers [Naturwissenschaften 85 (1998) 180] used data from many laboratories and combined Thorium/Uranium/Plutonium age dating on the Earth, meteorites, and the Moon to show that short-lived isotopes and our actinide elements (Th, U, Pu) were made in a supernova explosion 5 billion years ago .



-3.- The conclusion of a supernova explosion at the birth of the Solar System is based, not just on measurements in my laboratory. It is the only viable conclusion to many measurements in the world&#39;s best laboratories and space probes.

Thus, in 1972 Drs. E. W. Hennecke, D. D. Sabu and I suggested that the “strange Xe”, Xe-2 "in carbonaceous chondrites represents material that has been added to our solar system from a nearby supernova” [“Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”, Nature 240 (1972) 100].

However, a beautiful set of experimental data from the University of Chicago [Science 190 (1975) 1251] clearly showed that:

_I_. PRIMORDIAL HELIUM IS LINKED WITH "STRANGE" XE-2 FROM THE SUPERNOVA, NOT WITH "NORMAL" XE-1


Those experimental data ruled out our suggestion that Xe-2 (with excess Xe-136 made by the r-process in a supernova) was injected into the proto-solar cloud consisting mostly of primordial Hydrogen and Helium.

The experimental measurements instead showed that -

“Strange Xe”, Xe-2, came not from a near-by supernova, but from the He-rich region of the proto-solar nebula. [Trans. Mo. Acad. Sci. 9 (1975) 105; Science 195 (1977) 208].

Since the giant gaseous planets formed in the He-rich region of the proto solar nebula, we predicted that NASA&#39;s Galileo Probe would find “Strange Xe”, Xe-2, in Jupiter’s He-rich atmosphere [“Noble gas anomalies and synthesis of the chemical elements”, Meteoritics 15 (1980) 117; “The noble gas record of the terrestrial planets”, Geochemical Journal 15 (1981) 245; “Solar abundances of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209].

The Galileo Probe collected data during its plunge into Jupiter’s atmosphere in 1996. The measurements confirmed this prediction:

Jupiter’s atmosphere contains “Strange Xe”, Xe-2, with excess Xe-136 made in a supernova explosion by the r-process.

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

So the Galileo mission to Jupiter confirmed:

“Strange Xe”, Xe-2, came not from a near-by supernova, but from the He-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where the giant gaseous planets formed.

High precision measurements at the University of Tokyo and Harvard University provided another set of data that ruled out injections from a near-by supernova by showing that:

"Fe-60" came not from a near-by supernova, but from the iron-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where iron meteorites and the cores of the terrestrial planets formed.

_II_. "FE-60" AND ALL MAJOR ISOTOPES OF IRON AND NICKEL IN MASSIVE IRON METEORITES CAME FROM THE SUPERNOVA CORE

B2FH (1957) note that the e-process of nucleo-synthesis near the core of a supernova made "Fe-60" and almost all the stable isotopes of iron (Z = 26) and nickel (Z = 28).

Professor Alexander of the University of Minnesota summarized three sets of measurements showing iron meteorites were not formed by planetary differentiation [See "Iron Meteorites and Paradigm Shifts", in Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on the "Origin of Elements in the Solar System" (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000) pp. 401-406].

a. The distribution of trace elements
b. The decay products of extinct radioisotopes
c. Unmixed isotopes made by different nucleo-synthesis reactions

Recent high precision measurements from the University of Tokyo and Harvard University show conclusively that:

Products of equilibrium nucleosynthesis (e-process) in the supernova core formed massive iron meteorites, before being mixed back into the interstellar medium.

Qi-Lu and Masuda of the University of Tokyo first reported this totally unexpected finding at the 1998 meeting of the Meteoritical Society in Dublin, Ireland [Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33 (1998) A99]:

In massive iron meteorites, the isotopes of molybdenum have not been homogenized since they were made by different synthesis reactions in stars .

Qi-Lu and Masuda reaffirmed this finding in 2000 ["Variation of Molybdenum Isotopic Composition in Iron Meteorites", in Proceedings of the 1999 ACS Symposium on the "Origin of Elements in the Solar System"(Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000) pp. 385-400].

A couple of years ago, measurements by Yin, Jacobsen, and Yama****a at Harvard University confirmed this finding ["Diverse supernova sources of pre-solar material inferred from molybdenum isotopes in meteorites", in Nature 415 (2002) 881-883].

In conclusion, “Strange Xe”, Xe-2, came not from a near-by supernova, but from the outer, He-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where the giant gaseous planets formed.

"Fe-60" came not from a near-by supernova, but from the iron-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where iron meteorites and the cores of the terrestrial planets formed.

Massive chunks of iron that fall from the sky today came from the supernova core &#33;

With kind regards,

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

[antoniseb]

Thanks Dr. Manuel,

This is a more detailed explanation of your position in several ways. It will take me a while to read through the papers linked to, and digest them with your points in mind. But I wanted to let you know I was looking at them, and not simply being silent for a few days.

[Duane]

Because I lack the time to respond to all of the comments, I will comment piecemeal when I can.

First, experts have published a wide range of estimates on the mass limits of neutron stars. This is not an issue you and I can resolve here.

Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems that this is a very misleading statement.

Chandrasekhar determined in 1930 that the upper mass limit of of a white dwarf star is 1.4 solar masses. When the mass exceeds that amount the Pauli exclusion principle is overcome, and the star collapses into a neutron star.

The Oppenheimer-Volkoff mass limit, while not exact, limits the total mass of a neutron star to about 2-3Sm and certainly less than 4. Therefore, the lowest mass limit of a neutron star is 1.4Sm, and the highest mass limit is about 4Sm.

While there is some disagreement about the upper mass limit within 1.5 or so Sm because the properties of neutron degereation can only be estimated, this does not translate into a "wide range of estimates" as you state.

[Duane]

Six decades later we are still struggling with this issue: "A supernova explosion is a very complex event that is still not well understood. Nor is the structure of a neutron star known in any detail. It depends on the extreme properties of matter that has been compressed to incredibly high densities, far beyond the reach of physics experiments on Earth."

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-19-00.html

I like another comment in this same article:

However, it is possible that sometimes in the past the neutron star managed to collect more matter during its travel through interstellar space, was heated, and is now slowly cooling down. In another million years or so, it will become undetectable, until it happens to pass through another dense interstellar region. And so on...

In other words, the accumulation of material on the neutron star is rare, and only results in the star heating up for a period, before it again cools down.

[Duane]

1.- I am not the only one that concluded the proto-solar nebula must have been chemically and isotopically heterogeneous. For example, Professor F. Begemann of the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Chemie in Mainz, GERMANY began his 1980 review ["Isotopic Anomalies in Meteorites", Rep. Prog. Phys 43 (1980) 1309-1356]:

"The classical picture of the pre-solar nebula is that of a hot, well-mixed cloud of chemically and isotopically uniform composition.

Recent measurements have shown this concept to be erroneous, however.”

Yes, but he also said this:

It is argued that the observed variations in meteoritic SiC grain size fractions of 21Ne/22Ne ratios are more likely due to the effects of nucleosynthesis in the He burning shell of the parent AGB stars which imposes new boundary conditions on nuclear parameters and stellar models. It is suggested that spallation-Xe produced on the abundant Ba and REE in presolar SiC, rather than spallogenic Ne, may be a promising approach to the presolar age problem. There is a hint in the currently available Xe data (Lewis et al., 1994) that the large (>1 µm) grains may be younger than the smaller (<1µm) ones.

Oh, and this finishes the quote you attribute to him above:

The classical picture of the pre-solar nebula is that of a hot, well-mixed cloud of chemically and isotopically uniform composition. Recent measurements have shown this conception to be erroneous, however. Anomalies have been discovered in the isotopic composition of a number of elements which cannot be explained by processes known to be going on within the solar system at present. Rather, they appear to reflect primordial heterogeneities, testifying to variations in space and/or time of the isotopic composition of these elements within the proto-solar nebula. They contribute to our understanding of processes and of time scales in the early solar system, before and after its formation. Furthermore, they allow one to identify modes of nucleosynthesis and to derive relevant parameters of such production modes. **Emphasis added.**

[Greg]

A comment in response to Duane&#39;s comment on the limit of mass of a neutron star. The limit of 1.4 and 4 SM would apply to the neutron star upon its formation. According to Oliver it would then decay, releasing energy and decay products. Conceiveably then, the neutron star could lose mass from decay over time and shrink into something less massive while still occupying a similar volume of space. I don&#39;t think the decay process is by any means proven, but if possible I would guess that an old neutron star at the core of the Sun could be much less massive than the sun.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Greg@Jun 1 2004, 07:52 AM
According to Oliver it would then decay, releasing energy and decay products.

Dr. Manuel hasn&#39;t yet shown a mechanism by which neutrons can actually escape in quantity from a neutron star, given that escape velocity is much faster than the speed his neutrons would be given by his n-n potential, and the distance required for quantum tunelling is many kilometers [when normally a few tens of nanometers is as far as quantum tunnelling can be used for.

[lswinford]

In response to Antoniseb&#39;s reply to me on 05/28/04, please permit another vain babbling from my obviously flawed logic.

We still have elements of a conundrum here.

In a previous post, by antoniseb as I recall, the hydrogen-helium proportions were discussed before and I do not challenge that observational point for which you offered, “What we see is that the vast majority of the material in these clouds is Hydrogen [and some helium]. I even accept and understand, “There is also hydrogen, which, except for certain wavelengths, is transparent to visible light.” No one is saying the sun is "PURE Hydrogen. It is mostly Hydrogen.” So, neither am I saying it is “PURE” anything. That is, in part, just the issue.

As you affirmed from my previous note of observed nebulosities that are presumed to feed protostars, “There IS dust in the cloud, and the dust is opaque to visible light” and “…it does have bits of heavier elements in it, from the dust, spread pretty much uniformly all the way through the proto-stellar material. This material is pretty dense near the center, but even near what will eventually be the photosphere, the material is thick enough that it takes a very long time for materials to migrate in or out.”

I even understand, “in a dark relative vacuum, hydrogen falls just as fast as Iron.” Which is very close to my point. In the pre-ignition proto-star, as the mechanics of a center-of-gravity are realized in the proto-star accretion, there is obvious, significant quantities of heavier elements coalescing into the physical body of that which would later become a star (brown dwarf situations excepted from this argument, which may be confirming, yet they would &#39;cloud&#39; the discussion).

In the pre-ignition, pre-luminosity period, iron (speaking generically of heavier elements) has a distinct advantage of congregating into a gravitational core and actually displacing hydrogen. For while iron falls as fast as hydrogen, hydrogen is less dense. If the experiment were of individual iron atoms and simple hydrogen molecules in a low pressure cylinder and left to settle in a gravity environment, the denser iron would accumulate at the bottom and the top of they column would eventually be quite pure of hydrogen. The initial, mechanical environment of our proto-star would therefore require at least some consideration for a dense core. The pre-ignition, pre-luminosity period would have a distinct migration and stratification which is the opposite of the prevailing conditions following the sustained fusion event.

So, while I understand, “As noted before, the migration for optically opaque ions is outward” but it is “there is no time for an inward migration of Iron or Uranium toward the center” that I am taking issue with.

Consider how the first Russian hydrogen bomb was built: an explosive spherical shell suddenly pressing in upon the heavy-hydrogen fuel. The American hydrogen bomb was a comparatively linear event. As the iron core of a pre-ignition proto-star collapsed, the high temperatures and pressures of heavy elements, many miles thick, collapsing upon bubbles of compressed hydrogen kept from migrating out of great mass, experience fusion. The great release of energy and its shock wave, similarly collapse other bubbles. These likewise collapse still more bubbles. (Hmm, speaking of human fusion, I seem to recall there are people working on something like this too for fusion power generation.)

As to whether the iron core survives or is driven up and out to form the shell of "degenerate elements" you described elsewhere, still there is place for its consideration--even without disturbing the neutron star scenario you keep raising. Heavier elements that are essentially boiled away in the photosphere as the current scenario shows, but what of those masses of heavier elements that are where heavier elements should be, down deep? There are the pressures for the star to belch up those impediments to the radiant energy flow. What would we call this event? While the cataclysmic events we call super novae may eject material beyond recapture, as most observed nebulosities apparently attest, there are lesser nova events as well. And these may be also abundantly observed.

This is what attracts me to Dr. Manuel&#39;s paradigm. I learned the benign iron-core sun in school. You, obviously, bought the more recent &#39;pristine&#39; sun model. Dr. Manuel says, &#39;Hey, these clues indicate another possibility&#33;&#39; In that, I think he is very right and should not be dimissed too lightly. As for archaic me, I suppose I can be ignored.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by lswinford@Jun 1 2004, 02:44 PM
If the experiment were of individual iron atoms and simple hydrogen molecules in a low pressure cylinder and left to settle in a gravity environment, the denser iron would accumulate at the bottom and the top of they column would eventually be quite pure of hydrogen.

Hi lswinford,

Certainly the during the pre-high-temperature-core phase, heavy nuclei would have a downward moving advantage over hydrogen and helium. The core does not need to reach ignition temperature and pressure to start having sufficent photon pressure to drive opaque materials out. [This is true of brown dwarfs too, but I agree, their life in this regard is different and a discussion of that will cloud this discussion].

This heating from gravitation-potential in the collapse occurs at about the same time there is any tendency for gravitational migration to begin. Note that we are talking about columns on the order of a million kilometers long, so getting to the bottom [or top] of it would be a slow affair.

Concerning Dr. Manuel being right or wrong, I agree that his idea has enough data backing it up that it is worth challenging. If he was claiming Martian rocks are alive and carve sculptures of animals, or that there is a giant unseen planet near Saturn, none of us would take the time to look for places where his theory doesn&#39;t work with observations or accepted physics. IF HE IS RIGHT, there will be a LOT of consequences to the general understanding of physics, astronomy, and cosmology. One point of this thread for me is that by challengin him, we are making a list of places that will require major reworking if he is right. If we simply agree with him without making him explain himself, we will miss some or all of these. As you can tell, I think some of his model doesn&#39;t work. That doesn&#39;t mean he can&#39;t either explain it better, or find a way to modify it slightly to make it work.

BTW, thanks for the summary of hydrogen bomb design. I had been under the impression that they were all spherical compression ignition, but I have never studied the history of these weapons with more than a passing glance.

[Duane]

Greg, yes I understood that Dr Manuel&#39;s model required a low-mass neutron star. I guess the point I was driving at is that the minimum mass required for a precurser star to become a neutron star is 1.4 solar masses. Even assuming that a white dwarf star can accrete enough matter to somehow overcome baryonic degeneracy and collapse into a neutron star instead of exploding, how can it then "shed" 1/3 of its mass? (Note here I am using antoniseb&#39;s suggestion of a 0.88 solar mass neutron star for this example)

From what I understand of Oliver&#39;s comments, he is suggesting the neutron star at the core may be even less massive than that. Furthermore, this low-mass neutron core did not arise from accretion on a white dwarf, it arose from a Type II supernova.

Iswinford, in your comments you seem to be overlooking the fact that the nebulas from which the protostars are forming are made up of about 95% hydrogen. While there is enrichment of the cloud with heavier elements, these still only account for about 1 or 2% of the total mass of the cloud. Even assuming the star efficiently collects that 2 or so percent of heavier elements directly to its core, it still cannot account for the "iron core" suggested by Dr Manuel.

Regarding the lesser novas you mentioned, these are Type I novas arising from the accretion of material on a white dwarf by a companion star. Once the dwarf accumulates enough hydrogen from the companion star, the pressure causes the hydrogen to ignite in an explosive event. Depending on the mass of the dwarf, this can be a re-occurring event.

If the star is unlucky enough to accumulate 1.4 solor masses, the explosion is large enough to completely disrupt the progenitor.

Dr. Manuel says, &#39;Hey, these clues indicate another possibility&#33;&#39; In that, I think he is very right and should not be dimissed too lightly.

I agree that Dr Manuel&#39;s measurements suggest our understanding of steller evolution is incomplete. What I do not agree with is his conclusion that the sun has a neutron core. Simply put, his conclusions are not supported by the evidence he provides.

Opps, sorry Iswinford, I confused you with Energy. Nothing in your posts was offensive, and I appologise for my confusion.

I have been involved in various conversations over many topics with Dr Manuel for the last few months. In that time I do not believe I have ever attacked him personally, nor have I ever felt that Oliver was attacking me personally, despite the sometimes heated tenor of our discussions.

As have said several times, I do not think that Dr Manuel&#39;s evidence supports his conclusions. This is nothing personal against Dr Manuel.

Welcome to the discussion

[Deep_Eye]

But doesnt by definition a neutron star have a very high mass?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Deep_Eye@Jun 1 2004, 06:10 PM
But doesnt by definition a neutron star have a very high mass?

Yes, but the question is can it have a mass that is a modest fraction of the mass of the sun? [this would still be high mass for something that is 10-20 km in radius.] Dr. Manuel does not say yes or no on this, but his theory pretty much requires that neutron stars of about quarter solar mass be possible. So far nothing like that is observed. While he hasn&#39;t come right out and said it, I suspect that he believes that there must be some size of star that will have an unenergetic supernova, that results in a small neutron star, and rapid infall if the inner layers.

[Deep_Eye]

Ohh. Okay. I guess I&#39;ve never thought of it that way-with that small of an object having a mass a tenth of the sun&#39;s still being very dense. Good point

[Duane]

I have been review some of our earlier discussions with Oliver, and came across a couple of things I think should be added here.

I use a mass spectrometer to measure the relative abundances of isotopes. Since I do not peer through a telescope , I have not seen any evolutionary stages that show the accretion of "normal" matter onto an existing neutron star.

We think the precurson star was much larger than the Sun, but mostly blown away in an axially directed explosion about 5 Gya ago.

In our preprint, we quote Oppenheimer and Volkoff&#39;s original estimate on the mass of neutron star that might remain, (0.33-0.75) solar mass [Phys. Rev., vol. 15, pp. 374-381 (1939)].
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003...erfluidity.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003...perfluidity.ps

It is my understanding, Arno, that self-collapse to a neutron star would not have been possible if the parent star had been less that 1.4 solar mass. So in that sense you and/or IonDrive are correct about this mass limit. However, the "pile-driven" collapse of a massive star can, from my understanding, produce less massive neutron stars, more like those suggested by Oppenheimer and Volkoff.

Both from this earlier thread: http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...%20flares&st=30

[Duane]

Coming back to the Oppenhiemer-Volkoff Limit (lets call it the OV Limit so I don&#39;t have to keep typing it ) in reading through various papers and explanation of the limit, I understand that the OV Limit sets out only the maximum mass of a neutron star or the minimum mass of a black hole.

Oliver, can you point me to something confirming your quote regarding their findings that a neutron star can form with only .33 to .75 Sm? Also could you please refer me to the explanation of a "pile-driven collapse of a massive star"? I could find nothing regarding either of these two comments despite a couple of hours of searching.

[John L]

This site states that the minimum mass of a neutron star is 1 solar mass. This site states that neutron stars can be as small as 0.1 solar masses, but require varying density assumptions. That&#39;s all I can find right now...

[Duane]

Ah, I found something about the calculations of mass limits which set out the OV Limit&#33;

In 1939 O-V used the then imprecise measure of the strong nuclear force to try and determine the minimum mass required to form a then very theoritical object called a black hole. At the time, they arrived at 0.7 Sm.

Later calculations using the more precisely known measurements of the strong nuclear force have raised that minimum limit to somewhere between 2 and 3.5Sm with a possible error of 0.5 to 1.5 Sm to the high end (not lower&#33; This is important&#33, so the limit could be as high as 5Sm but is almost certainly is less than 4Sm.

The Chandrasekhar Limit of 1.4 Sm must be reached to overcome electron degeneracy. Anything less than this would not provide enough pressure to overcome the strong nuclear force, and the star would not collapse&#33;

There is no "pile-driven collapse" Dr Manuel. You cannot have a neutron star containing less than 1.4 solar masses.

Ok sir, try and overcome this argument.

[Duane]

John, the first site says ~1 Sm, not 1. The second site makes an assumption about the lower limit that does not take into account the Chadrasekhar Limit of 1.4 Sm to overcome electron degeneracy.

I tried to pose a question to the scientist who answered there to explain how an object of 0.1 Sm could overcome electron degeneracy. Unfortunantly the site is off line.

I will try to find something more.

[om@umr.edu]

The lower limit on the mass of neutron stars is not well known. In an article on Neutron Stars [Encyclopedia of Astronomy & Astrophysics, volume 2 (IOP Publishing, Bristol, 2001) p. 1817] Henning Heiselberg’s writes:

“These huge neutron-rich ‘nuclei’ are bound by gravitation and require a minimum neutron star mass of ~ 0.1 M”, where M = solar mass.

As mentioned before, Oppenheimer and Serber [Phys. Rev 54 (1938) 540] noted that, "The forces which must be known are those acting between a pair of neutrons; and no existing nuclear experiment or theory gives a complete answer to this question.”

Before posting the final experimental evidence for an Iron Sun, I would like to correct any misconception that mine is the only possible interpretation of these unexpected experimental findings.

Experimental results are referenced or shown in graphs here to encourage UT readers to come up with other explanations.

I also want to correct any misconception that:

Only measurements in my laboratory revealed evidence of a supernova explosion and poorly mixed isotopes and elements at the birth of the Solar System.

Most of these unexpected experimental discoveries came from the world&#39;s best laboratories.

Of unexpected research findings Frank Herbert (1920-1986) notes:

“The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand.”

For example, measurements at the the University of Minnesota, the University of California-San Diego, the University of California Berkeley, the University of Berne, and the University of Arkansas are included in this graph from our 1972 paper [Nature 240 (1972) 100] showing two isotopically distinct types of xenon, Xe-1 and Xe-2, at the birth of the Solar System.



Subsequent studies showed that:

Xe-1 is from the inner, iron-rich region of the Solar System.

Xe-2 is from the outer, helium-rich region of the Solar System.

Likewise, measurements at the University of Chicago on mineral separates of the Allende meteorite formed the basis for our conclusion [Trans. Mo. Acad. Sci. 9 (1975) 104] that:

Primordial Helium accompanied “strange Xe”, Xe-2, not “normal Xe”, Xe-1 when meteorites formed at the birth of the Solar System.



Many other laboratories quickly confirmed this universal link of primordial He with “Strange Xe”, Xe-2 [Icarus 41 (1980) 321; Meteoritics 15 (1980) 117].

Later analyses showed that:

”Strange Xe”, Xe-2, is dominant in carbon inclusions of meteorites and in Jupiter’s He-rich atmosphere.

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

”Normal Xe”, Xe-1, is dominant in the Sun, Earth, Mars, and in Iron Sulfide (FeS) inclusions of meteorites.

UT readers are encouraged to suggest other explanations for these unexpected experimental results. Our interpretations are:

-I.-“Strange Xe”, Xe-2, came not from a near-by supernova, but from the He-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where outer layers of the supernova formed the giant, gaseous planets.

High precision measurements in well-equipped laboratories at the University of Tokyo and Harvard University show that:

-2.- “Normal Xe”, Xe-1, and Fe-60 came not from a near-by supernova, but from the iron-rich region of the proto-solar nebula where inner layers of the supernova formed iron meteorites and the cores of the terrestrial planets formed.

High precision measurements in the Physikalisches Institut and the Institut fuer Anorganische, Analytische und Physikalische Chemie at the University of Bern, Switzerland by Eberhardt, Geiss, Graf, Groegler, Mendia, Moergeli, Schwaller, Stettler, Kraehenbuehl and von Guten [Proc. Third Lunar Sci. Conf., Supplement 3, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, volume 2 (1972) pp1821-1856] revealed unexpected evidence that the lighter mass ( L ) isotopes of elements at the solar wind are enriched relative to the heavier mass ( H ) isotopes by a common fractionation factor, ( f ), where

log ( f ) = 4.56 log [( H )/( L )] . . . . . Equation (1)

[“Solar abundances of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222].

Thus, it appears that:

-3.-The Sun is iron-rich and formed on a collapsed supernova core

The mass fractionation the Berne group observed across the isotopes of He, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe in the Solar Wind is shown in the figure on the left:



The figure on the right shows that Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and S are the seven most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun after the composition of the photosphere (determined by line spectra) is corrected for the empirical mass fractionation (observed by isotopic analysis on the solar wind).

These same seven elements - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and S - all have even atomic numbers, comprise 99% of all material in ordinary meteorites, but occur only at the part-per-million level in the photosphere.

A statistical analysis concludes that the probability ( P ) for the empirical relationship defined by isotope ratios in the solar wind, Equation (1), to select these same seven trace elements from the photosphere is essentially zero,

P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002.

References in this figure are:

[5] O. Manuel & Golden Hwaung, “Solar abundances of the elements”, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222.

[8] William D. Harkins, “The evolution of the elements and the stability of complex atoms. I. A new periodic system which shows a relation between the abundance of the elements and the structure of the nuclei of atoms”, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 39 (1917) 856-879.

I encourage all UT readers to suggest other explanations for the totally unexpected experimental findings posted in this thread.

The most simple, straight-forward explanation for the observations is

A SINGLE SUPERNOVA PRODUCED THE SOLAR SYSTEM


I do not assume to have the final answer, but I feel blessed to have enjoyed 45 years putting this “jig-saw” puzzle together.

The kindness and understanding of all UT participants are deeply appreciated, especially John, lswinford, Energy, Tim, Duane and antonioseb. I hope you can all find as much fulfillment in life as I have enjoyed toying with unexpected observations.

My final conclusion is that Frank Herbert (1920-1986) was exactly right: “The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand.”

Or as Lao Tzu said much earlier (6th Century BC):

“To know that you do not know is best.
To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.”


With kind regards,

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

[Duane]

This links to an article from the Astrophysical Journal regarding the possible formation of several types of "exotic" stars. Nothing is considered for stars containing less than 1.3Sm, and those appear to all be white dwarfs.

Above 1.4 you start seeing neutron stars, then quark stars (1.7Sm - 2.5Sm), then black holes (>2.4Sm), with black holes flat-lining beyond 3Sm.

[Duane]

Ok Oliver, here are 4 notations about the minimum mass of a neutron star:

Holton, Gerald & Roller, Dance. Modern Physical Science. Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1984: 153. "If a star is about 1.5 solar masses, the resulting object formed would be a neutron star." 1.5 solar masses

World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1996: 155. "... a mass between 1.4 and 3.0 solar masses" 1.4 - 3.0 solar masses

Clark, Stuart. Stars and Atoms. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995: 128. "They contain more than 1.5 solar masses" 1.5 solar masses

Degani, Meir H. Astronomy Made Simple. New York: Doubleday, 1976: 100. "A neutron star is less than 3.2 solar masses." 3.2 solar masses

Asimov, Isaac. Guide to Earth and Space. New York: Fawcett Crest, 1991: 228. "Such a neutron star was less than 3.2 solar masses." 3.2 solar masses

Seems pretty consistant to me?

As it seems you are concluding your participation in this discussion, I have a quote for you that seems to be appropriate:

Let go of your attachment to being right, and suddenly your mind is more open. You&#39;re able to benefit from the unique viewpoints of others, without being crippled by your own judgment.
Ralph Marston

Be well Oliver, hope you still come around on occasion.

[om@umr.edu]

There does seem to be general agreement on the upper mass limit of neutron stars.

However, there is no concensus of opinion on the lower mass limit of neutron stars.

With kind regards,

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

[Duane]

I&#39;m sorry Oliver, but that is just not true. In fact, it is just the opposite.

The Chandrasekhar Limit of 1.4 solar mass maximum for a white dwarf star is absolutely accepted as the minimum limit for the collapse into a neutron star state. In order for the mass to be reduced, some other mechanism would have to intervene to allow the degenerate matter to escape. As far as I know, no such mechanism exists.

The upper mass limit is where all the debate arises. As you have stated, the strength of the strong nuclear force is not precisely known, in part because the pressures involved cannot be duplicated on Earth. That is why the limit is said to run from 2Sm to 5Sm, with an uncertainty level up to 1.5 Sm. Generally, it is accepted as somewhere between 2.7 and 3.2 Sm, which is still a 0.5 Sm uncertainty level.