Iron Sun Discussion

[om@umr.edu]

You may be right.

I cited a 2001 reference from the Institute of Physics.

Two of your quotes seem to be upper limits, not lower limits:

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

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

With kind regards,

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

[Duane]

True, sorry I was rushing

Regardless Oliver, correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the case that your theory requires a neutron star of less than 1 solar mass? If it is the case that a neutron star cannot be less than 1.4 solar masses, then would this not indicate that there is a problem with the neutron-core theory?

Or do you propose a different means by which a neutron star could reach a mass less than the Chandrasekhar limit?

[om@umr.edu]

Slow down.

You don't have to be an expert on all topics.

Literature already cited here demonstrates there is a diversity of opinion on the lower mass limit of neutron stars.

With kind regards,

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

[Duane]

You don't have to be an expert on all topics.

Well Oliver, that was rather incongruetous of you I am not an expert on pretty well any subject, but I do have the ability to read. When I see something I don't understand, I will research the issue and post questions or ask for elucidation.

Speaking of which, please take a look at Henning Heiselberg's paperNeutron Star Masses, Radii and Equation of State, from Feb 2002, especially noting his comments on observed neutron star masses (2) and Equations of State (4).

See also this paper by Shmuel Balberg and S.L Shapirro The Properties of Matter in White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars.

While there is some discussion of "low mass" neutron stars of ~1Sm, no such neutron stars have been measured, with the lowest ones found being ~1.36 Sm. It is noted by the researchers that this seems to be consistant with the Chandrasekhar Limit of white dwarfs, tempting the conclusion that all neutron stars are produced with a minimum mass around 1.35Sm.

[om@umr.edu]

I am not an expert on pretty well any subject, but I do have the ability to read. When I see something I don't understand, I will research the issue and post questions or ask for elucidation.

Sorry, Duane. I am getting old and grumpy.

I do not doubt your ability to read what others write. That is, unfortunately, not the path to truth.

The question is whether you have the self-discipline to study seriously existing experimental results or to make new experimental measurements.

If you want to understand the solar system and are willing to seriously ponder the existing experimental data, you can start by carefully plotting the experimental data published in

1. John Reynolds' two papers in the January 1960 issue of Physical Review Letters.

2. Lewis, Srinivasan & Anders paper in the last issue of Science for December 1975.

I will be happy to work with you, if you are willing to invest the time to figure things out for yourself.

As regards neutron stars, there are few experimental observations available.

Mass limits on neutron stars undoubtedly depend on understanding the interactions between nucleons. The 1938 statement by Oppenheimer and Serber [Phys. Rev 54 (1938) 540] is still true,

"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.”

If you want to understand neutron stars and are willing to seriously consider the existing experimental data, you can start by carefully plotting the experimental data for mass per nucleon, M/A, published by Brookhaven National Laboratory for the 2,850 known nuclides.

The Cradle of the Nuclides seems to be the best way to plot the data so meaningful results are obtained.



However, you may find a better way.

Regardless of technique, if you work deligently you will be led to these conclusions about the interactions between nucleons:

1. The interaction between two neutrons is repulsive.

2. The interaction between two protons is equally repulsive,
plus the Coulomb repulsion between + charges.

3. The interaction between the neutron and the proton is so
attractive as to overcome the above repulsive interactions.

After you have convinced yourself of these interactions, then you will understand that you cannot believe anyone's estimate of mass limits on neutron stars unless they took into account all of these well-documented interactions.

Please let me know if I can be of any assistance.

With kind regards,

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

[Duane]

Thanks Oliver I will consider carefully your offer. For now, it is WAY past my bedtime, so I bid you goodnight

[om@umr.edu]

Goodnight, Duane!

I hope we can work on this mystery together.

Sweet dreams,

Oliver

[Duane]

I do not doubt your ability to read what others write. That is, unfortunately, not the path to truth.

That, Oliver, is a logical non sequitur, an inference that does not follow the evidence leading to it. You are stating, in essence, that my efforts in following the research published by people who are much smarter and better trained then me should be ignorred in favour of your version of the truth. With respect Oliver, that is bullocks.

I have reviewed your findings carefully over the course of several months. I have compared your findings against the findings of other equally well trained and intelligent researchers in an effort to reach "truth" or as close to it as can reasonablly be inferred by the facts, findings and observations across a multitude of disiplines. I have taken to time and effort to review the findings of researchers you yourself cite in our various discussions, and I have found that almost universally your citations and direct quotes do not convey the entire message of the peoples whose work you are quoting. With respect again sir, I suggest that my research into your claims is the better path to truth.

It seems to me that you have become so bent on forcing your view of the solar system that you have become unable to be objective in reviewing any research that does not support your theory. How is that a path to truth?

The question is whether you have the self-discipline to study seriously existing experimental results or to make new experimental measurements.

I have taken the time to study carefully the experimal results published by a multitude of researchers. I am not a experimental researcher, as you well know. Perhaps it is my very objectivety that you find so aggrevating. After all, if you cannot convince someone like me, how can you ever convince the "mainstream" scientists who can look at your work and truly compare your theory to thier own "experimental findings".

I think the question is, can you exhibit the self-disipline to study seriously and objectively the existing experimental results of scientists outside of your own field of study?

1. John Reynolds' two papers in the January 1960 issue of Physical Review Letters.

You must mean John Reynolds of Berkley. Was he not a colleague of yours? In any event, I note these comments about him and his work by John Sanders:

He is best remembered for his research on isotopic and elemental measurements of the noble gases - helium, argon and xenon - which made it possible to determine the age of both terrestrial rocks and meteorites. He discovered that an excess of xenon gas trapped in stony meteorites was a decay product of an extinct isotope of iodine. Using sensitive mass spectrometry to measure isotopes of iodine and xenon, he was able to estimate the time between creation of the isotopes inside a star and when the meteorites - and the planetary bodies they were derived from - formed.

These accurate measurements provided a reliable chronology for the early solar system. Among the surprises was that the Earth had formed a relatively short time - between 120 and 290 million years - after its gas and dust were produced in a nearby supernova explosion.

His research group discovered and developed another technique, argon-argon dating, for determining the age of young rocks. The technique had much to do with the proof of the theory of continental drift and sea floor spreading. It also helped scientists interpret the origin, history, age and composition of the moon from lunar soil samples.

"Argon-argon dating, the most important and most versatile dating method today, was discovered and pioneered in 1966 by two young scientists (Grenville Turner and Craig Merrihue) working in his laboratory," said Paul Renne, former director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center and an adjunct professor of earth and planetary science at UC Berkeley. "John was a real luminary in the field of geochronology, and his death is a tremendous loss."

Unfortunantly I cannot locate either of his papers. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a copy to me?

With regard to the findings of Lewis et al, lets see what some other scientist/researchers/experimentalists have to say about their work.

From Earth and Planetary Science Letters 183 (Sept 2000) by P.J.F. Harris, R.D. Vis, and D. Heymann:

In summary, our results show that significant numbers of fullerene-like, closed carbon nanopar-ticles are present in carbon isolated from the Al-lende meteorite. As discussed elsewhere, we be-lieve that carbon nanoparticles of this kind are likely carriers of the planetary noble gases in meteorites [6,20], and they could also be carriers of pre-solar gases. In this connection we note that the absorption spectra of fullerene-like carbonnanoparticles contain features which resemble those from interstellar dust [18].[FA]

I'm sorry I could not find the authors name on this, but here is a link: http://www.onafarawayday.com/Radiogenic/Ch...Ch15/Ch15-6.htm

15.7* * Conclusions

In order to achieve a realistic model for the formation and early evolution of the solar nebula it is necessary to use the results of several extinct nuclide tracers. In an early review of the subject, Wasserburg and Papanastassiou (1982) drew attention to the relative similarity between the ‘hot/cold’ isotope ratios of ca. 1 H 10!4, 0.5 H 10!4 and 0.2 H 10!4 for iodine, aluminium and palladium in chondrites. They pointed out that if the additions of hot material occurred comparatively early (e.g. ) = ca. 200 Myr), as suggested by Schramm and Wasserburg (1970), then their different half-lives would have attenuated the short-lived nuclides to very different degrees by the time of solar-system condensation. In contrast, the comparatively similar abundance ratios actually observed may imply a late addition with similar degrees of dilution by cold material.



* * * * * * More recent evidence should have narrowed the options for the origin of the solar-system, but a unique model is still not available. The presence of very short-lived species can be explained by the ‘trigger hypothesis’ (Cameron and Truran, 1977; Cameron et al., 1995), by which a single event caused late nuclide injection into a molecular cloud, and also triggered the collapse of the cloud. However, it is not clear whether this event was a Red Giant or supernova. On the other hand, 129I and 182Hf are best explained by a supernova, while actinides must be produced in supernovae. However, more than one type of supernova may be required to fit all of the production ratios.



* * * * * * Wasserburg et al. (1996) argued that the effective frequency by which supernovae could contribute to galactic nuclide production could be much higher than the one per 100 Myr commonly assumed. In addition, they suggested that different types of supernovae could have contributed ‘spikes’ of different nuclides to the pre-solar nebula. In the first place, the low level of 129I implies an early supernova source () around 100 Myr). Wasserburg et al. then grouped 182Hf with a late actinide addition from a second supernova () around 10 Myr, but this can increase in the light of new Hf/W data). Finally, they attributed 41Ca, 26Al and 60Fe, to very late addition, either from a third supernova source or from a Red Giant. A model of multiple supernova sources was also proposed by Harper (1996), who envisaged star birth in a large molecular cloud with a complex series of injection and mixing events (Fig. 15.30).





* * * * * * According to the model of Shu et al. (1997) and Lee et al. (1998), some of the very short-lived species (41Ca, 26Al, and also 53Mn) could also have been formed by spallation reactions when the sun was an embedded protostar. However, this mechanism cannot explain the presence of 60Fe in the early Solar System, so it seems likely that at least some of the 41Ca, 26Al, and 53Mn were introduced, along with 60Fe, by a late supernova.

This by A.Patzer and L. Schultz, Max-Planck-Institut für Chemie:

Results and Discussion: Plotted in a 3-isotope-diagram the subsolar component in E-chondrites does not reveal a strictly systematic distribution with petrologic type but yields a particular trend: All E3-chondrites (EH3’s) of our sample suite do not contain any recognizable amounts of subsolar gas. They partly plot within the bounds of Q and partly below it. On the other hand, most E4-5’s and EL6’s, e.g. the more metamorphosed petrologic types,do show detectable concentrations of the subsolar component.
Other data plots confirm the distinction between EH3’s and E4-6’s. In an 36Ar-132Xe-diagram, for example, more detailed information about the characterof Q in EH3-chondrites can be obtained. It becomes obvious that all EH3’s with high 132Xe concentrations(> 3 x 10-9cm3STP/g) define a fairly constant 36Ar/132Xe ratio of about 30 which is clearly lower than the Q-value of 90 [4] ("sub-Q"?). With smaller Xe abundance, this ratio increases. Above Q, we only find more metamorphosed E-chondrites. Probably, the change in elemental ratio represents the addition of subsolar gas.
The Kr isotopic composition of E-chondrites with prominent subsolar gas concentrations shows an enhancement of light isotopes relative to Q or AVCC.The same trend, but to a lesser extent, can be observed for Xe. In 3-isotope diagrams, the Xe-ratios closely scatter around a line which defines a mixture of solar Xe and Q-Xe. This result is in consistency with the characterization of the subsolar component by E-chondrites.

Also please take the time to review this paper by FA Podosec, CA Prombo, S. Amari and RS Lewis S-Process S Isotopiuc Compositions in Presolar SiC from the Murchison Meteorite where they conclude, amoung other things, that s, p and r-process composition of the pre-solar nebula likely arose through different sources, such as Type II supernova, Type Ia supernova and outgassing of atmosphere by red giant star(s).

By the way, the same RS Lewis you are quoting.

See also this paper by M. Arnould , G. Paulus and G. Meynet Astron. (Astrophys. 321, 452-464 (1997)) Short-lived radionuclide production by non-exploding Wolf-Rayet stars where they conclude that certain elements can be produced by a variety of WR stars at a level relatively compatible with the meteoritic observations, including those conducted by RS Lewis el al, and others.

Mass limits on neutron stars undoubtedly depend on understanding the interactions between nucleons. The 1938 statement by Oppenheimer and Serber [Phys. Rev 54 (1938) 540] is still true,

"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.”

**Emphasis added**

Yes still true, but in the 75 years since that statement was made the parameters of the forces acting between a pair of neutrons has been substancially narrowed.

Regardless of technique, if you work deligently you will be led to these conclusions about the interactions between nucleons:

1. The interaction between two neutrons is repulsive.

2. The interaction between two protons is equally repulsive,
plus the Coulomb repulsion between + charges.

3. The interaction between the neutron and the proton is so
attractive as to overcome the above repulsive interactions.

After you have convinced yourself of these interactions, then you will understand that you cannot believe anyone's estimate of mass limits on neutron stars unless they took into account all of these well-documented interactions.

This has been dealt with by Heiselberg, whom you quoted, among others. Electron degeneracy, the Pauli Principle and the Coulomb effect are all dealt with by researchers in their attempts to place mass limits on neutron stars and the formation of black holes, keeping in mind the Chandrasekhar Limit for the maximum mass for a white dwarf star. How else could Chandra arrive at his mass limit of 1.4Sm for a white dwarf star? It is at that point that electron degeneracy is overcome--and is it not the case that both the Pauli Principle and the Coulomb Effect related to the collapse of the electron shell? Come on Oliver, it is the overwhleming pressure which creates the neutron star that causes the electron to merge with the proton. See the previous papers I quoted in my last post as an example.

Even accepting (which I don't, in the event you are not clear on that) that a neutron star remnant could form with only 0.8Sm, which is the lowest mass noted by Heiselberg, how do you get down to .25Sm which you suggest if the core of the sun?

Need I also point out the Heiselberg was using the figure of 0.8Sm only to determine the radii of such an object? And furthermore, Heisenberg states he has seen no neutron star of less than ~1.36Sm as measured by observations of neutron/main squence star pairings?

You have still not answered the the fundamental question: how can a neutron star, which can form only when the iron core of massive star accumulates more that 1.4 solar masses, "shed" ~4/5 of it's mass to reach the size of the object you state is in the core of our sun?

[John L]

And Oliver, you often quote papers dated from the 1950's and 1960's, but the tools available to study these phenomena (computers, CCD's, telescopes, spectrographs, etc, etc) have advanced significantly. Are there any more recent research results you can offer that support your conclusions? As Duane has amply pointed out there are numerous isotope studies that disagree with your conclusions, and these were performed in the last decade most likely using state of the art, highly accurate instruments. I look forward to your response to Duane's questions and issues.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by John L@Jun 2 2004, 09:38 PM
And Oliver, you often quote papers dated from the 1950's and 1960's...

Well, there is that one paper from 1917 about element abundance in common meteorites that he cites for his 0.0000000000000000000000000000002% chance of being fortuitous.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by Duane@Jun 2 2004, 07:59 PM

The question is whether you have the self-discipline to study seriously existing experimental results or to make new experimental measurements.

I have taken the time to study carefully the experimal results published by a multitude of researchers. I am not a experimental researcher, as you well know. Perhaps it is my very objectivety that you find so aggrevating. After all, if you cannot convince someone like me, how can you ever convince the "mainstream" scientists who can look at your work and truly compare your theory to thier own "experimental findings".

I think the question is, can you exhibit the self-disipline to study seriously and objectively the existing experimental results of scientists outside of your own field of study?

1. John Reynolds' two papers in the January 1960 issue of Physical Review Letters.

Unfortunantly I cannot locate either of his papers. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a copy to me?

Duane,

Send me your mailing address and I will send you copies of John Reynolds’ landmark 1960 papers.

I will make one final effort to communicate with you. If I do not succeed, I accept responsibility for the failure.

Let me use one figure to try to illustrate the importance of studying the experimental data instead of just reading the paper.

All the data in the following figure came from the 26 December 1976 issue of Science.

Twenty pages of that issue of Science were devoted to two papers from the University of Chicago, reporting a major discovery.

1. “Host Phase of a Strange Xenon Component in Allende” by R. S. Lewis, B. Srinivasan, and E. Anders, Science 190 (1975) 1251-1262.

2. “Extinct Superheavy Element in the Allende Meteorite” by E. Anders, H. Higuchi, J. Gross, H. Takahashi and J. W. Morgan Science 190 (1975) 1262-1271.

If you read the papers, you will find nothing that resembles the figure below.

When Dr. Sabu and I studied the experimental data, we found this beautiful correlation of primordial helium with “Strange Xenon, Xe-2, in the Allende meteorite.

So in our opinion the measurements reported in those papers were exciting because they showed for the first time that:

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



Subsequent measurements confirmed that the association of primordial Helium with “strange Xe”, Xe-2, not “normal Xe”, Xe-1 occurs in all classes of meteorites.

This led to our successful prediction that the Galileo Mission would find “strange Xe”, Xe-2, not “normal Xe”, Xe-1 , in Jupiter's Helium-rich atmosphere.

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

With kind regards,

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

[John L]

Originally posted by antoniseb+Jun 2 2004, 06:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ Jun 2 2004, 06:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-John L@Jun 2 2004, 09:38 PM
And Oliver, you often quote papers dated from the 1950&#39;s and 1960&#39;s...

Well, there is that one paper from 1917 about element abundance in common meteorites that he cites for his 0.0000000000000000000000000000002% chance of being fortuitous. [/b][/quote]
I see you notice my problem. Science, especially in this field, is an ongoing process with new research being constantly performed. Has no one repeated these experiments, used newer and more accurate instruments, expanded the samples, or tried new methods to test this data in the last 40 years? Duane points out several and these seem to disagree with Oliver&#39;s ideas. What does he have to say about this? He quotes the same landmark 1960&#39;s research for the 25th time, using the same graph of isotopes for the 25th time, and fails to address Duanes questions. It seems to me that he&#39;s clinging to this one piece of data and ignoring any subsequent research. It reminds me of the Planet X guys that insist on using the oldest orbital data for Neptune even though it is known to be erroneous. Leaving it in gives orbital values that hint at Planet X and justify their unreasonable obsession.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by antoniseb+Jun 2 2004, 11:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Jun 2 2004, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-John L@Jun 2 2004, 09:38 PM
And Oliver, you often quote papers dated from the 1950&#39;s and 1960&#39;s...

Well, there is that one paper from 1917 about element abundance in common meteorites that he cites for his 0.0000000000000000000000000000002% chance of being fortuitous.[/b][/quote]
John & Antoniseb,

Yes, many of us are impressed that careful analyses by Harkins in 1917 revealed that:

Meteorites are composed almost exclusively of seven elements, all with even atomic numbers.

Iron (Z = 26, Fe), Oxygen (Z = 8, O),
Nickel (Z = 28, Ni), Silicon (Z = 14, Si),
Sulfur (Z = 16, S), Magnesium (Z = 12, Mg),
and Calcium (Z = 20, Ca).

A half-century later careful analysis of samples returned by the Apollo Missions to the Moon revealed that light mass ( L ) isotopes of different elements in the solar wind are systematically enriched relative to heavy mass ( H ) ones by a common mass-fractionation factor ( MF ), where empirically,

log ( MF ) = 4.56 log ( H ) /( L ) . . . . . equation (1)

Application of equation (1) to the abundance of elements in the photosphere shows that the interior of the Sun consists of the same seven elements, Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg & Ca, that comprise meteorites and planets near the Sun.

You are right, antoniseb, the statistical probability that this agreement is fortuitous is

0.0000000000000000000000000000002% &#33; &#33;.

Yes, this statistical analysis of careful analyses rules out the Hydrogen-filled Sun model.

The 1917 date of Harkins&#39; careful analyses is not an escape. His work has stood the test of time.

With kind regards,

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

[Duane]

You know Oliver, you ought to spend more time trying to answer questions posed to you than repeating the same thing over and over again. You seem to have a mindset that if you say something enough times, the shear repetition will overcome the lack of factual evidence.

First of all, lets look at Harkins research. What he did was to measure isotope abundances in a number of meteorites, most notably the Allend meteor, and he determined that even numbered elements were more commen than odd.

Since then, physiscists using the hydrogene model of the sun have determined that the preference for even numbers is the result of successive collisions of alpha particles. Odd-numbered elements form by collisions of single particles with nuclei.

So of course the elements will slew towards even as opposed to odd numbered nuclei.

In 1920, Arthur Eddington, on the basis of the precise mesurements of atoms by F.W Aston, was the first to suggest that stars obtained their energy from nuclear fusion of hydrogen to helium.

In 1928, George Gamow derived the Gamow factor, a quantum-mechanical formula that gave the probability of bringing two nuclei sufficiently close for the strong nuclear force to overcome the Coulomb barrier.

The Gamow factor was used in the decade that followed by Atkinson and Houtermans and later by Gamow and Teller to derive the rate at which nuclear reactions would proceed at the high temperatures believed to exist in stellar interiors.

In 1939, in a paper entitled "Energy Production in Stars", Hans Bethe analyzed the different possibilities for reactions by which hydrogen is fused into helium. He determined two processes that are the source of energy in stars, the proton-proton chain,which is the dominant energy source in low-mass stars like the Sun and the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle in more massive stars.

Over time, many important details were added to Bethe&#39;s theory, such as the celebrated paper in 1957 by Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle (B2FH) . This latter work collected and refined earlier researches into a coherent picture that accounted for the observed relative abundances of the elements, including those contained in meteorites.

Now Dr Oliver Manuel comes along and says, no all of these people are mistaken, and the sun is actually composed of an iron core which arose in a supernova explosion. He cannot explain how the core overcame the escape velocity of the material it ejected to begin reaccreting it. He uses neutrino flux, which is later explained, to support the idea, and dismisses findings which explained the original paradox. He claims the Earth has an undifferentiated solid lower mantle, and ignores research showing the mantle is not only melted throughout, it recycles. He cannot account for the current mass of the sun. He cannot explain how the sun could burn steadily for 5 billion years, nor explain why the sun is slowly heating up. He cannot explain how material accreting on the the "neutron core" would not become part of the degenerate shell. He cannot explain the means by which the iron star could shine, nor can he explain the the opacity problem which lead to the hypothesis that the sun burned hydrogen in the first place. He ignores literally stacks of research papers which explain the diverse isotopes found in meteorites, including several lines of research by different disiplines of science suggesting more than one incident of material injection into the pre-solar, forming and post-solar enviroment. He cannot explain how a small mass neutron star could form, nor can he explain how a star that requires the Chadrasekhar limit to collapse, could shed up to 4/5&#39;s of its mass. He cannot point to one single instance anywhere in the galaxy where a neutron star is accreting material, despite the literally hundreds of star-forming regions all around us. When questioned, he hides behind the lists and graphs he repeatedly (15 times? 20? more?) puts up to somehow support his now thoroughly debunked premise and ignores the questions.

Oh yea Oliver, I can see your path to the truth. "I am right, you are wrong and the facts be damned. Believe in me, and you will be saved."

Well I don&#39;t believe Oliver. Nor, it seems, does anyone else who looks closely at your claims. Why don&#39;t you go to one of the pseudo-science sites and complain about how all us people who have the intellegence to actually look at your theory are conspiring against you, along with the Planet X, UFO, Mars Civilization etc people. Because that is where your theory belongs.

[Tim Thompson]

I will stick my nose in for a momentary guest appearance, since a matter of some interest seems to have arisen.

There is consistent agreement in the literature, that the theoretical minimum mass for a neutron star is about 0.1 solar masses, the exact value depending on the details of the general relativisitc equation of state used for superdense matter (1,2,3,5,6,7). However, neutron stars with a mass below about 1 solar mass have a negative gravitational binding energy (1,2,5), which can lead to explosive instability for neutron stars near the 0.1 solar mass theoretical minimum (4,6,7). The fact that neutron stars less than 1 solar mass have a negative gravitational binding energy means that the collapse of such a core cannot power a supernova explosion, since the process absorbs, rather than producing energy. The explosive destruction of a minimum mass neutron star core could power a supernova explosion, at least in part (4,6,7), but then nothing would be left behind to provide a small neutron star for the solar core. So there is considerable question as to whether or not natural processes can produce neutron stars, or neutron star fragments, of such low mass (1,2,7).

The lowest observed neutron star mass that I am aware of is 0.96 (+0.19, -0.16) solar masses (2), and the distribution of observed neutron star masses is strongly concentrated in the range 1-2 solar masses (1,2).

Also note that even a near minimum mass neutron star, despite the negative gravitational binding energy, is stable against the loss of one or a few nucleons (1, section 3.18 & p. 253). This argues against the alleged mechanism of powering the sun via "evaporation" of the neutron star, by neutron emission and subsequent decay. Such small neutron stars either stay in one piece, without emitting any neutrons, or they just blow up altogether (1,7).

References:

1. Compact Stars; Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, and General Relativity, Norman K. Glendenning, Springer, 2000 (2nd ed). See chapter 5, Neutron Stars.
2. The Physics of Neutron Stars, J.M. Lattimer & M. Prakash, Science 304: 536-542, April 23, 2004
3. Recent trends in the determination of nuclear masses, D. Lunney, J.M. Pearson & C. Thibault, Reviews of Modern Physics 75: 1021-1083, July 2003. See Appendix C: Minimum mass of neutron stars and the symmetry coefficient "asym", p. 1072
4. Formation of an evanescent proto-neutron star binary and the origin of pulsar kicks, M. Colpi & I. Wasserman, Astrophysical Journal 581: 1271-1279, December 20, 2002
5. Equation of state of dense matter and the minimum mass of cold neutron stars, P. Haensel, J.L. Zdunik & F. Douchin, Astronomy and Astrophysics 385: 301-307, 2002
6. On the minimum and maximum mass of neutron stars and the delayed collapse, K. Strobel & M.K. Weigel, Astronomy and Astrophysics 367: 582-587, 2001
7. The fate of a neutron star just below the minimum mass: does it explode?, K. Sumiyoshi, et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 334: 159-168, 1998

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Tim Thompson@Jun 3 2004, 08:32 PM
I will stick my nose in for a momentary guest appearance.

Thanks for the input Tim. The negative gravitational binding energy is something new to me.

At the moment the discussion seems to be falling apart. Dr. Manuel is not addressing the various concerns expressed about his theory [nothing new]. Duane has done a lot of great research, and is frustrated with the response. Your input on Neutron Star minimum mass is very welcome, and I think raises the bar on this one issue.

If you have the time, a couple other matters that are required for the Iron Sun model that we&#39;ve only provided hand-waving refutations of include
- the fact that the iron plasma surrounding the neutron star in his model should be accreting into the neutron star very rapidly, but Dr. Manuel provides no explanation for what keeps this from happening.
- neutrons cannot quantum tunnel away from a neutron star, to a place where 20MeV gives them enough velocity to escape with any great probability, but we don&#39;t have a solid way to calculate this yet and get some hard numbers. This would remove his proposed mechanism for energy generation.
- observed free neutron stars have very low total bolometric output, but I don&#39;t have hard numbers for total ergs/second vs. age.

Any help you can give on these three topics will further make the case. Thanks in advance.

[Tim Thompson]

OK, i guess I can live dangerously for a while.

Antoniseb: the fact that the iron plasma surrounding the neutron star in his model should be accreting into the neutron star very rapidly, but Dr. Manuel provides no explanation for what keeps this from happening.

The real problem is, how does one manage to create an "equilibrium" condition in the first place, where a neutron star core (or any compact core object) remains behind, to re-capture infalling material from the initial supernova explosion. After all, the explosion is not called an explosion for nothing. The observed energies are on the order of 10^50 ergs or more, and that&#39;s a lot of poop. What makes any of that stuff suddenly turn around and fall back onto the core? Gravity is far short of the required energy to do that.

The theory for a core collapse supernova explosion goes roughly like this:

1. Degenerate, "white dwarf" core suddenly collapses, destroyed by photodisintegration of the iron nuclei. The collapse takes no more than about 10 seconds, which counts as "sudden" on astronomical time scales.
2. Stellar material outside the core, now suddenly bereft of support from material underneath, which is no longer there, falls inward rapidly under extreme gravitational pressure (where "rapidly" could be as fast as 10% of the speed of light)
3. Meanwhile, the neutron core forms from the infalling neutrons formed by the core collapse, and forms in a compressed state, so it rebounds outward.
4. The rebounding neutron core meets the infalling stellar material in one helluva crunch.
5. Energy released in the collision blows away everything outside the core. The energy is released as radiation, mechanical shock, neutrinos, and some other exotic stuff of little importance.

The point here is that the initial interface between the neutron star and the stuff outside the neutron star is hugely energetic, resulting in the outward explosion of roughly 10^50 ergs of energy. Some real magic has to happen here to suck all that energy out of enough stuff to make our own sun fall back on the neutron core. Where did all that energy go? And why didn&#39;t the stuff just slam into the neutron star (which it would do at essentially escape velocity or higher, say about 50 Mev per nucleon), and blow up again? As is usually the case with Dr. Manuel&#39;s theory, literally everything known about physics has to be tossed out to make it work.

Antoniseb: neutrons cannot quantum tunnel away from a neutron star, to a place where 20MeV gives them enough velocity to escape with any great probability, but we don&#39;t have a solid way to calculate this yet and get some hard numbers. This would remove his proposed mechanism for energy generation.

Well, neutrons could tunnel anywhere, that&#39;s the whole idea about tunneling, to probablistically pass through a classically impenetrable barrier. But the probability of tunneling goes down exponentially as the barrier thickness increases. Eventually, "impossible" becomes correct in practice, even if not in theory. For classical neutron stars, the ones about 1.5 solar masses, the binding energy is roughly 160 Mev per nucelon, which dwarfs the roughly 50 Mev required to reach escape velocity. But for the very small neutron stars, roughly 0.1 solar masses, the binding energy is negative, and it&#39;s the low temperature of the neutron star which makes the surface stable against particle escape. So, as I mentioned in the previous post (see Glendenning&#39;s book), neutron stars, even the wimpy ones, simply don&#39;t do what Dr. Manuel wants them to do. The surface particles don&#39;t have the energy to penetrate the surface potential, because their energies don&#39;t exceed about 1 Mev, even in a best case scenario.

But of course, this is all for a zero-pressure surface. Assuming one could find the magic path to a neutron star surrounded by the sun, things might be different. But the ~15 million Kelvin core temperature for the sun (in standard models), is only equivalent to about 13 kev per particle, vastly short of the ~50 Mev required to separate a nucleon from the neutron star surface. Not much help there, I don&#39;t see the neutron star "ablating" in such low energy. 50 Mev is about 580 billion Kelvins, in temperature units, and we can be pretty confident that the solar interior is not that hot, and not therefore knocking stuff off the neutron star surface.

Antoniseb: observed free neutron stars have very low total bolometric output, but I don&#39;t have hard numbers for total ergs/second vs. age.

Unfortunately, neither do I at the moment. But most of the luminosity, even from lone wolf neutron stars, comes from particles trapped in the strong neutron star magnetic fields. It&#39;s something of a chore to separate that "atmospheric" luminosity from the intrinsic luminosity of the surface. According to theoretical models, the surface of the neutron star should cool below 1 mev within about 20 seconds after formation, and below 9 kev (100,000,000 Kelvins) within a month. This looks to be way short of the kind of energy needed to pull off the heating required by the iron-core hypothesis. It certainly seems that, if the sun had a neutron star core, it would be a matter of the sun heating the core, and not the other way around.

My source for most of this is Glendenning&#39;s book, especially chapters 3 & 5.

Cheers.

[kashi]

Thankyou very much Tim for your on going input into discussions.

[Sp1ke]

I&#39;d second that, Kashi.

And thanks to Duane, Antoniseb and JohnL for keeping the discussion going with some clear statements of the "conventional" sun model.

Now I hope we can have an equally clear reply from Oliver (with no repetition of old stuff, please ) about why his model should continue to be considered as a serious proposal. Raw data in isolation without supporting theories to explain them do not advance our understanding. Particularly when we already have perfectly adequate theories that do explain the data.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by antoniseb+Jun 3 2004, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; Jun 3 2004, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Tim Thompson@Jun 3 2004, 08:32 PM
I will stick my nose in for a momentary guest appearance.

Thanks for the input Tim. The negative gravitational binding energy is something new to me.

At the moment the discussion seems to be falling apart. [/b][/quote]
Thanks, antoniseb, for pointing out that we need to get this discussion back on track.

And thanks, Tim, for confirming that the minimum theoretical estimate on a neutron star is not 1.4 solar mass.

Duane was right. The mechanism that generates solar luminosity is the weakest link in our model. Obviously, a 1.4 solar mass object cannot be hidding inside the 1 solar mass Sun&#33;

Let&#39;s consider a few observations not in dispute and not explained by the standard solar model to get the discussion back on track.

-1.- The Sun is a huge energy source driving life and most activity on Earth.

a. Solar energy output = 3.8 x 10^26 Watt [Zelik&#39;s textbook on Astronomy, p. 297].

b. Solar neutrino output = ~ 35 % solar neutrinos expected from the standard solar model [Latest SNO results].

c. Solar proton output = 3 x 10^43 H per year [Solar wind measurement, Bern, Switzerland].

In a thermodynamic-type analysis of the Sun&#39;s operation, one would consider the Sun as the System, the rest of the universe as Surroundings, and the Process that causes the above three products to cross the boundary from the System into the Surroundings.

The analysis shows:

a&#39;. The Process generates huge amounts of energy, probably from nuclear transformations.

b&#39;. H-fusion produces ~ 35 % of the energy generated by the Process [Or something consumes ~ 65 % of the solar electron neutrinos before they reach detectors on Earth].

c&#39;. The Process generates 3 x 10^43 more H per year than the Sun consumes by fusion.

From these observations, it seems clear that:

-1.- Conclusion: The Process is not just hydrogen fusion.

-2.- The Sun&#39;s surface consists mostly of the two lightest elements (91% H and 9% He), but there is little doubt the interior of the Sun is iron-rich.

a. Light mass ( L ) isotopes are systematically enriched relative to heavy mass ( H ) ones in the solar wind by a common mass-fractionation factor, ( MF ):

log ( MF ) = 4.56 log ( H )/( L )

b. When the composition of the photosphere is corrected for this empirical fractionation, the interior of the Sun is found to consist mostly of Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg & Ca.

c. These same seven elements:

c - i. All have even atomic numbers.

c -ii. Are made in the deep interior of supernovae.

c-iii. Are the most abundant elements in planets close to the Sun, and

c -iv. Are the same seven elements that comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites.

d. The statistical probability is essentially zero ( P ) that this agreement is meaningless. P < 0.00000000000
00000000000000000002 % &#33;

-2.- Conclusion: The Process does not release energy from the highly stable nuclei of Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg & Ca.

-3.- There is little doubt that iron meteorites are direct condensate from the supernova core.

a. Fe and Ni (including Fe-60) are only made in the core of supernova.

b. Fe and Ni fall from the sky as giant metal masses - iron meteorites.

c. Un-mixed SN products observed in iron meteorites falsify the nebular model for formation of these and other highly "differentiated" meteorites and planets in the solar system:

c - i. Fe/Ni from the core of a supernova ->

c -ii. Mixes with all other elements in a hydrogen cloud ->

c-iii. Geochemically separates from all other elements ->

c -iv. Forms massive iron meteorites, without mixing Mo isotopes made by the s-process, the r-process, and the p-process in the parent star ?? [See the high precision measurements at the University of Tokyo and Harvard University referenced here in earlier posting].

-3.- Conclusion: The Process is likely initiated by particle emission from the collapsed supernova core on which the Sun formed.

Final Conclusion: Some Process is generating energy, hydrogen, and neutrinos in the iron-rich Sun. If not reactions triggered by neutron-emission from the Sun&#39;s central neutron star, then what?

With kind regards,

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

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jun 4 2004, 12:26 PM
Let&#39;s consider a few observations not in dispute and unexplained by the standard solar model to get the discussion back on track.

-1.- There is little doubt the Sun is iron-rich.

Amusing. You ask us to review what we all agree on, and number one is the disputed item that started this whole thing. Everyone but you and your team doubts that the sun is iron-rich.

Note, Dr. Manuel edited the post quoted above after this message appeared, removing the amusing irony.

b. When the composition of the photosphere is corrected for this empirical fractionation, the interior of the Sun is found to consist mostly of Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg & Ca.

Hmmm. Where&#39;s the Neon? There&#39;s more neon in the photosphere than Iron. I understand why there isn&#39;t much Neon in meteorites, but the sun has lots of it.

Also, rather than try to review the stuff you&#39;ve repeated many times in the last four months, why not address some of the killer issues you&#39;ve been avoiding?

[John L]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jun 4 2004, 07:26 AM
And thanks, Tim, for confirming that the minimum theoretical estimate on a neutron star is not 1.4 solar mass.

Duane was right. The mechanism that generates solar luminosity is the weakest link in our model. Obviously, a 1.4 solar mass object cannot be hidding inside the 1 solar mass Sun.

Let&#39;s consider a few observations not in dispute and unexplained by the standard solar model to get the discussion back on track.

-1.- There is little doubt the Sun is iron-rich.

Good point Antoniseb&#33; The best information I can find is that the Sun&#39;s composition is as follows by atom abundance (A) and by mass (M):

Hydrogen (A) 91.2% (M) 71%
Helium (A) 8.7% (M) 27.1%
Oxygen (A) 0.078% (M) 0.97%
Carbon (A) 0.043% (M) 0.40%
Nitrogen (A) 0.0088% (M) 0.096%
Silicon (A) 0.0045% (M) 0.099%
Magnesium (A) 0.0038% (M) 0.076%
Neon (A) 0.0035% (M) 0.058%
Iron (A) 0.0035% (M) 0.14%
Sulphur (A) 0.0015% (M) 0.040

And once again, Oliver, you skip the most crucial question. How can a nuetron star reacrete matter from the supernova explosion? How can a neutron star of .1 solar masses form and remain stable? How can a neutron star produce the energy that powers the sun? Why would the matter reacreting on the neutron star not degenerate as well until the mass of the neutron star exceeds that of black hole formation and undergo further collapse? Answer these questions, please...

[om@umr.edu]

I quickly submitted the above posting before rushing to a dental appointment this morning.

I have since edited it, inserting the new -1.- and changing the original numbers
-1.- -> -2.- and -2.- -> -3.-.

With kind regards,

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

[Duane]

Oh my good lord, we are back to the beginning of the measurements claimed by Oliver since the very first set of postings he made.

I especially like the way Oliver has taken one single comment by Tim and used it in such a way as to somehow suggest it supports his theory. Read it again Oliver, Tim says a neutron core can&#39;t work.

Further, the 0.1 Sm limit is the theoritical limit, nothing even close to this minimum mass limit has been observed.

Heiselberg notes that mass calculations cluster at ~1.35Sm, and Lattimer and Pralish in the paper quoted by Tim also show the lowest mass object yet observed is 0.96Sm but note that there is some degree of error which may change that figure.

They also state in their paper "The minimum stable neutron star mass is about 0.1Sm, although the more realistic minimum stems from a neutron star&#39;s originin in a supernova"

Do you even bother to read the papers cited?

b. Solar neutrino output = ~ 35 % solar neutrinos expected from the standard solar model [Latest SNO results]

b&#39;. H-fusion produces ~ 35 % of the energy generated by the Process [Or something consumes ~ 65 % of the solar electron neutrinos before they reach detectors on Earth].

Holy cow Oliver, how many times does it have to be said? The neutrino output from the sun is at 100% of the amount predicted by the hydrogen sun theory.

It was a misunderstanding of netrino flux that cause the so-called netrino deficit, and this has been addressed&#33;

-1.- Conclusion: The Process is not just hydrogen fusion.

A logical non sequitar Oliver. The conclusion does not follow from the evidence presented, especially when you factor in the neutrino flux solution.

-2.- The Sun&#39;s surface consists mostly of the two lightest elements (91% H and 9% He), but there is little doubt the interior of the Sun is iron-rich.

Another logical non sequitar Oliver. In fact all of your "conclusions" are anything but conclusions.

Hmm, let me quote something here:

Now Dr Oliver Manuel comes along and says, no all of these people are mistaken, and the sun is actually composed of an iron core which arose in a supernova explosion. He cannot explain how the core overcame the escape velocity of the material it ejected to begin reaccreting it. He uses neutrino flux, which is later explained, to support the idea, and dismisses findings which explained the original paradox. He claims the Earth has an undifferentiated solid lower mantle, and ignores research showing the mantle is not only melted throughout, it recycles. He cannot account for the current mass of the sun. He cannot explain how the sun could burn steadily for 5 billion years, nor explain why the sun is slowly heating up. He cannot explain how material accreting on the the "neutron core" would not become part of the degenerate shell. He cannot explain the means by which the iron star could shine, nor can he explain the the opacity problem which lead to the hypothesis that the sun burned hydrogen in the first place. He ignores literally stacks of research papers which explain the diverse isotopes found in meteorites, including several lines of research by different disiplines of science suggesting more than one incident of material injection into the pre-solar, forming and post-solar enviroment. He cannot explain how a small mass neutron star could form, nor can he explain how a star that requires the Chadrasekhar limit to collapse, could shed up to 4/5&#39;s of its mass. He cannot point to one single instance anywhere in the galaxy where a neutron star is accreting material, despite the literally hundreds of star-forming regions all around us. When questioned, he hides behind the lists and graphs he repeatedly (15 times? 20? more?) puts up to somehow support his now thoroughly debunked premise and ignores the questions.

Still waiting for you to provide answers Oliver. You now been asked this series of questions some 10 times in a number of different ways and you still haven&#39;t answered. When are you going to answer Oliver? We are all holding our collective breath in bated anticipation.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jun 4 2004, 12:26 PM
b. Solar neutrino output = ~ 35 % solar neutrinos expected from the standard solar model [Latest SNO results].

We dispute this &#39;fact&#39;, as has been discussed pretty thoroughly. The neutrino output of the sun seems to be right on target, and has told us some things about the level of the CNO cycle in our sun. Thus your conclusion - b&#39;. H-fusion produces ~ 35 % of the energy generated by the Process [Or something consumes ~ 65 % of the solar electron neutrinos before they reach detectors on Earth]. is not accepted.

c. Solar proton output = 3 x 10^43 H per year [Solar wind measurement, Bern, Switzerland]

It seems like a bad use of language to imply that the sun is creating 1e36 protons per second, when this is, in the current model, simply gas being driven out of the photosphere, which is mostly hydrogen. Going a little further, the Sun is sending Iron out too [in small quantities], but you do not imply that the Iron is being created in the Sun. Thus your conclusion - c&#39;. The Process generates 3 x 10^43 more H per year than the Sun consumes by fusion. has no merit.

-2.- The Sun&#39;s surface consists mostly of the two lightest elements (91% H and 9% He), but there is little doubt the interior of the Sun is iron-rich.

If by Iron rich, you mean might have double or triple the Iron in the photosphere, I think there&#39;s room for doubt, but if you mean mostly Iron, no one but your team thinks this is true, and how dare you put this on the list of things we all agree with&#33; You know better.

a. Light mass ( L ) isotopes are systematically enriched relative to heavy mass ( H ) ones in the solar wind by a common mass-fractionation factor, ( MF ):
log ( MF ) = 4.56 log ( H )/( L )

This cannot be extrapolated to say that the isotope abundances in the sun can be determined by assuming that this fractionation is happening currently. Certainly if the planets are made of materials expelled by the early sun, the fractionation happened 4.6 billion years ago, and may be an on-going process.

-3.- There is little doubt that iron meteorites are direct condensate from the supernova core.

It is more accurate, and less leading to say are direct condensates from one or more supernova cores.

c. Un-mixed SN products observed in iron meteorites falsify the nebular model for formation of these and other highly "differentiated" meteorites and planets in the solar system:

What nebular model are you speaking of? Perhaps you should be clear about what scenario these things disprove.

-3.- Conclusion: The Process is likely initiated by particle emission from the collapsed supernova core on which the Sun formed.

Again, only you agree with this. Don&#39;t say it is something we all agree with.

Final Conclusion: Some Process is generating energy, hydrogen, and neutrinos in the iron-rich Sun. If not reactions triggered by neutron-emission from the Sun&#39;s central neutron star, then what?

Fusion generates the energy. The hydrogen is not generated. The neutrinos are accounted for. Neutron stars can not emit neutrons.

We are still waiting for you to address the killer issues.

[Duane]

Oh and by the way, if this conversation is falling apart, it is because you steadfastly refuse to answer the killer questions.

Let&#39;s consider a few observations not in dispute and not explained by the standard solar model to get the discussion back on track.

What in heaven&#39;s name do you mean by saying these "observations" are not in dispute? They are all in dispute Oliver, because you have not provided a satisfactory answer to any of the multiple questions asked.

Let me say that again: You have not provided a satisfactory answer. That is why the discussion is "not on track" Oliver.

[om@umr.edu]

Originally posted by antoniseb@Jun 4 2004, 12:43 PM

b. When the composition of the photosphere is corrected for this empirical fractionation, the interior of the Sun is found to consist mostly of Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg & Ca.

Hmmm. Where&#39;s the Neon? There&#39;s more neon in the photosphere than Iron. I understand why there isn&#39;t much Neon in meteorites, but the sun has lots of it.

You are right, antoniseb.

There is lots of Neon in the photosphere.

Element #10 (Ne) is more abundant than element # 26 (Fe) in the photosphere because it is lighter.

20.2 is the average atomic weight of Ne.
55.8 is the average atomic weight of Fe.

Measurements show that the lighter isotopes of Ne are enriched relative to the heavier ones by about 25% per mass unit.

Measurements show that the lighter isotopes of Xe are enriched relative to the heavier ones by about 3.5% per mass unit.

These measurements reveal a mass ratio dependence, as expected from a velocity-selection process [Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209].

Light mass ( L ) isotopes of other elements are systematically enriched relative to heavy mass ( H ) ones in the solar wind by a common mass-fractionation factor, ( MF ):

log ( MF ) = 4.56 log ( H )/( L )

You can use that empirical relationship to find out why "There&#39;s more neon in the photosphere than Iron."

With kind regards,

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

[John L]

Doc Oliver M.,

I have a few more questions for you:

Is your theory that all G class yellow dwarf stars formed from the reacretion of matter onto a previous supernova remnant?

Have you compared the spectra of our Sun to that of other nearby G class stars of similar age?

Have you looked at the spectra of very young G class stars to see if the spectra agrees with your theories?

Have you looked at the spectra of red giant stars, the end of the life of a G class yellow dwarf like our sun, to see if their spectra agrees with your theory?

Will our Sun go through a red giant phase under your theory?

Since its core is supposed to be a SN remnant neutron star based on your theory, what will the fate of our Sun be if not a white dwarf (after a red giant phase)?

Where do white dwarf stars come from if, based on your theory, that is not the final fate of our small star?

[John L]

Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jun 4 2004, 07:26 AM
b. Solar neutrino output = ~ 35 % solar neutrinos expected from the standard solar model [Latest SNO results].

Is it possible that the sun is producing tau neutrinos (undetectable at this time) or very high energy neutrinos (nearly impossible to detect)? Fermi Lab confirmed the existence of Tau Neutrinos in August 2000 after creating them in the DONUT experiment.

Would this explain the low neutrino detection from the Sun?

And since neutrinos have a small but non-zero mass, is it possible that some of the neutrinos are changing flavor before they reach our detectors here on Earth?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by John L@Jun 4 2004, 06:38 PM
Is your theory that all G class yellow dwarf stars formed from the reacretion of matter onto a previous supernova remnant?

Hi John L,

This was one of the first line of questions I had for him. His response was non-commital. He implies that all G-Stars could be of this variety, and cites a lack of detected old neutron stars as evidence, but maintains the position that the sun is the only star for which we have neutrino data, isotopic measurements of the planets, solar wind, and meteors, as well as other key bits of data.

His theory is about the sun only. Certainly, none of his evidence applies to other stars.

There is a problem applying it to other stars, as G9, K, and especially M stars are so much less massive than the sun that the neutron star core theory gets into real trouble.

Concerning the Red Giant phase question, again, his theory does not make a prediction about that. He clearly states that a lot of details about the mass of the core, energy source, and composition of the interior of the star are still to be determined. All he is claiming is that the core is a small neutron star, and that much of the rest of the interior is Iron. That being said, if what he says is true there would probably not be a Red Giant phase. The star would dwindle in luminosity until the neutron star got to a limiting mass, and would then change state. Perhaps this would be explosively, perhaps it would take thousands of years. He also says he doesn&#39;t make models.