Page 8 of 31 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 916

Thread: Iron Sun Discussion

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Sorry antonio and VanderL,

    My sentence was unclear:

    "Nova and supernova are, as commonly used, moderate stellar outbursts versus the much more energetic terminal stellar events."

    I meant to say:

    Novae are moderate stellar outbursts compared to the much more energetic, terminal events known as supernovae.

    With kind regards,

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

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 5 2004, 12:02 AM
    Novae are moderate stellar outbursts compared to the much more energetic, terminal events known as supernovae.
    No problem, we all type dumb things once in a while. I'm glad to have it cleared up so quickly.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb@May 5 2004, 12:15 AM
    No problem, we all type dumb things once in a while. I'm glad to have it cleared up so quickly.
    Thanks antonio,

    No wonder I can't convince anyone the Sun is iron-rich. With my communication skills, perhaps it would be more convincing if I presented evidence for the opposing view!

    Seriously, there must be a lot of people interested in The Sun's Origin, Composition and Source of Energy. After all, the Sun controls almost all activity on Earth and is the model for other stars in the cosmos.

    I would appreciate your assistance in encouraging Universe Today Readers and their friends from other links to read and comment on:

    I. Historical Background on Element Synthesis (1815-1959)

    II. Facts and Interpretations from the Space Age (1960-2000)

    Before we move to the final chapter:

    III. What Makes the Iron Sun Shine? (2000-present)

    Thanks,

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

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    585
    I fianlly had time to read through some of these articles. I am still assimilating some of the ideas and conclusions in my mind. This theory certainly is interesting.
    I am not sold on the idea of a neutron star core being at the center of our sun. I think the observations of elemental distribution are interesting, and very helpful conceptually. But I still think it is more likely that our solar system formed from part of a nebula resulting from a supernova. Supenovas are rare events in a galaxy and there are alot of main sequence stars out there. I do not think this discrepancy can be explained very easily.
    It would make sense to me that a rotating cloud composed of various heavy elements from a supernova explosion would tend to concentrate heavier elements towards the center, so I am intrigued by the idea of there being more heavy elements in the sun than we have considered likely. I agree that there is a gradient of heavier and heavier elements in each orbiting body as we near the center of our solar system. This could offer an explanation of how gas giants are found close to stars in some solar systems: perhaps those systems formed from predominantly hydrogen clouds with stars made up fo predominantly hydrogen. In such a system low in heavy elements gas giants would be expected to form closer to their parent stars. The prevailing view is that gas giants spiral in towards their parent star after being formed further away. I would be curious to see if there is any pattern in the spectra from stars with closely orbiting gas giants.
    I am now anxious to see how you propose to resolve the problem of how the sun generates radiative energy by means other than nuclear fusion.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by Greg@May 6 2004, 05:56 AM
    I fianlly had time to read through some of these articles. I am still assimilating some of the ideas and conclusions in my mind. This theory certainly is interesting.
    * *
    * * I am not sold on the idea of a neutron star core being at the center of our sun. I think the observations of elemental distribution are interesting, and very helpful conceptually. But I still think it is more likely that our solar system formed from part of a nebula resulting from a supernova. Supenovas are rare events in a galaxy and there are alot of main sequence stars out there. I do not think this discrepancy can be explained very easily.

    * * It would make sense to me that a rotating cloud composed of various heavy elements from a supernova explosion would tend to concentrate heavier elements towards the center, so I am intrigued by the idea of there being more heavy elements in the sun than we have considered likely. I agree that there is a gradient of heavier and heavier elements in each orbiting body as we near the center of our solar system.

    * * This could offer an explanation of how gas giants are found close to stars in some solar systems: perhaps those systems formed from predominantly hydrogen clouds with stars made up of predominantly hydrogen. In such a system low in heavy elements gas giants would be expected to form closer to their parent stars. The prevailing view is that gas giants spiral in towards their parent star after being formed further away. I would be curious to see if there is any pattern in the spectra from stars with closely orbiting gas giants.

    * * I am now anxious to see how you propose to resolve the problem of how the sun generates radiative energy by means other than nuclear fusion.
    Thank you Greg for your comments.

    I deeply appreciate the time and consideration you devoted to "The Facts" and the "Interpretations" of facts.

    Please encourage others to study these findings.

    I like your idea that gas giants found close to stars in some solar systems may indicate they formed from predominantly hydrogen clouds with stars made up of predominantly hydrogen.

    Especially a possible pattern in the spectra from stars with closely orbiting gas giants.

    Yesterday I came across a news report in Nature from about 20 years ago, "The Demise of Ideas About the Formation of the Solar System."

    That Nature News Report in the world's leading scientific journal was the first public admission of serious problems arising from the puzzling Facts known in 1983.

    When I get to my office, I will post a reference to that 1-page News Report.

    Again, Greg, I appreciate your comments. Please encourage your friends to read and comment on "The Facts" and "Interpretations" of the facts posted here.

    It took us 25 years to figure out how the Iron Sun generates radiative energy by means other than nuclear fusion. The solution also answered other questions we had not yet addressed:

    1. What mechanism maintains mass separation in the Sun?

    2. Why does the Sun emit about 3 x 10^43 H+ ions per year in the solar wind?

    3. Do solar neutrinos really oscillate?

    With kind regards,

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

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Hi, UT Readers.

    The 1983 News Report, "The Demise of Established Dogmas on the Formation of the Solar Sysyem, by P. K. Swart was published in

    the 26 May 1983 issue of Nature 303 (1983) p. 286.

    That shows the impact of the first few II. Space Age Observations (1960-2000) of un-mixed isotopes and elements in the material that formed the Solar System.

    With kind regards,

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

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Hi StarLab,

    Let me give brief answers now*. The next major posting, III. WHAT MAKES THE IRON SUN SHINE? (2000 - PRESENT), will give more details.

    1. The potential energy per nucleon (P.E.) and thus the energy available for luminosity may be higher for a star produced near the core of a supernova than for one that forms out of hydrogen.

    Thus, the lifetime of an iron Sun may not be less than for a hydrogen Sun.

    2. The Fe -> H process requires energy. That is not the source of the Sun's energy.

    3. The most Fe-rich planet is Mercury, the planet closest to the Sun.

    4. Even-proton elements are more abundant than odd-proton elements. That conclusion is based on analyses of hundreds of meteorites.

    With kind regards,

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

    *PS - Send me an e-mail <om@umr.edu> if you want a pdf file on solar luminosity to read now.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Hi, UT Readers,

    Below is our attempt to answer a question that plagued us for 25 years - - - from 1975 when we first realized the Sun might be iron-rich until 2000 when 3-D plots of reduced nuclear variables revealed a possible source of luminosity in an iron-rich Sun.

    III. WHAT MAKES THE IRON SUN SHINE? (2000 - PRESENT)

    The Cradle of the Nuclides provides the key to luminosity in the iron Sun.

    1. Cradle of the Nuclides


    This 3-D plot of potential energy per nucleon, M/A, versus charge density, Z/A, versus atomic mass number, A, shows a data point for each of the 2,850 known isotopes [Nuclear Wallet Cards, 6th edition (Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Nuclear Data Center, Upton, NY, 2000) 74 pp.].

    The vertical axis is identical to f + 1, where f = Aston’s nuclear packing fraction, and f = (M–A)/A.

    Systematic properties of these 2,850 isotopes explain not only Why The Iron Sun Shines, but also supply answers to other questions:

    Why solar fractionation occurs
    The source of solar neutrinos
    The source of solar-wind protons

    The Cradle is also available as a pdf file at:
    http://web.umr.edu/~om/summary/cradle.pdf

    The Cradle shows precise values of M/A, total energy per nucleon, or Aston’s nuclear packing fraction, ( f ), for 2,850 different isotopes over the range of A (mass number) = 1 - 265 and Z (atomic number) = 0 - 108.

    The neutron and the hydrogen atom are represented by large red dots at A = 1. All other species are represented by blue dots.

    At any fixed A, mass data are typically available for about 10 different species having the same value of A but different values of Z. For all values of A, values of Z/A lie within the limits of Z/A = 0 - 1.0.

    At each value of A, moving across the Cradle from the front toward the back, the vertical heights of the data points in the Cradle first i) decrease, ii) reach a minumum, and then iii) increase. In other words, at constant A the values of M/A or f sweep out the familiar “Bohr-Wheeler mass parabola” described in nuclear physics textbooks.

    2. Mass Parabola at Each Mass Number


    Instead of 2,850 individual isotopes, shown here are the mass parabolas these isotopes define at each value of A. Large red dots at A = 1 represent the neutron and the hydrogen atom. The lowest known value of M/A (or f ) occurs in the parabola at A = 56, when Z = 26 (Z/A = 0.46).

    For light nuclei (low values of A), the minimum in the mass parabola occurs at Z/A = 0.50. For heavier nuclei (higher values of A), Coulomb energy becomes increasingly important, and the minimun in the mass parabola occurs at lower values of Z/A. As the values of A —> 265, the values of Z/A —> 0.40.

    These mass parabola, when expressed in terms of the reduced nuclear variables, Z/A and M/A or Aston’s nuclear packing fraction, f, reveal

    Attractive n-p interactions, and repulsive n-n and p-p interactions that are symmetric after correcting for Coulomb repulsion between positive nuclear charges.

    These attractive and repulsive interactions will be illustrated below at A = 27.

    The mass parabola at A = 27 illustrates the evidence for attractive interactions between unlike nucleons, and repulsive interactions between like nucleons.

    3. Mass Parabola at A = 27


    From left to right, this parabola is defined by the precision mass data for F-27, Ne-20, Na-27, Mg-27, Al-27, Si-27, P-27, and S-27 [Nuclear Wallet Cards, 6th edition (Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Nuclear Data Center, Upton, NY, 2000) 74 pp.].

    These isotopes all have A = 27. Their atomic numbers are Z = 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.

    The value of M/A for the free neutron is shown on the left side of the figure by the empty red diamond at Z/A = 0. Likewise, the value of M/A for the hydrogen atom is shown on the right side of the figure by the filled red diamond at Z/A = 1.

    The parabola defined by these precision mass data yields M/A = M(neutron) + about 0.0010 amu or 10 MeV on the left side of the figure at Z/A = 0.

    The parabola yields an even higher value of M/A on the right side of the figure at Z/A = 1 because Coulomb energy from repulsive interactions between + charges increases as Z x Z, and Z increases from 0 to 27 in moving from left to right across the figure.

    The parabola is more symmetric after correcting for Coulomb energy (below).

    4. Mass Parabola at A = 27; Corrected for Coulomb Energy


    From left to right, this parabola is defined by the precision mass data for F-27, Ne-20, Na-27, Mg-27, Al-27, Si-27, P-27, and S-27 [Nuclear Wallet Cards, 6th edition (Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Nuclear Data Center, Upton, NY, 2000) 74 pp.] after correcting for Coulomb energy.

    As before, the value of M/A for the free neutron is the empty red diamond on the left side of the figure at Z/A = 0. Likewise the value of M/A for the hydrogen atom is the filled red diamond on the right side of the figure at Z/A = 1.

    The parabola is symmetric about Z/A = 0.50 after correcting for Coulomb energy. The parabola now yields M/A = M(Hydrogen) + about 10 MeV on the right at Z/A = 1.0; the parabola also yields M/A = M(neutron) + about 10 MeV on the left at Z/A = 0.

    Mass parabolas at each value of A become symmetric about Z/A = 0.50 after correcting for Coulomb energy. These parabolas can be understood in terms of

    1. Symmetric and repulsive n-n and p-p interactions
    2. Attractive n-p interactions

    For example, the number of n-n, p-p and n-p interactions in Na-27, Mg-27, Al-27, Si-27, P-27 and S-27 are tabulated below:

    A....Z.....N.....n-n....p-p....n-p..Isotope

    27..11...16...120....55...176...Na-27
    27..12...15...105....66...180...Mg-27
    27..13...14.....91....78...182...Al-27
    27..14...13.....78....91...182...Si-27
    27..15...12.....66...105...180...P-27
    27..16...11.....55...120...176...S-27

    Even without correcting for Coulomb energy, empirical mass parabolas for all A > 1 yield intercepts of M/A > M(neutron) at Z/A = 0. The intercepts typically show 10 MeV more potential energy than a free neutron, but these intercepts may increase to as much as 22 MeV of additional potential energy for neutrons in a massive neutron star [J. Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93; J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 252 (2002) 3; J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197].

    These studies expose a new source of nuclear energy (E = mc2) that releases the largest fraction ( F ) of total rest mass:

    i) Neutron-emission at Z/A = 0; F = 1.1-2.4 %
    ii) Uranium/Plutonium fusion; F = 0.1 %
    iii) H-fusion to Helium-4; F = 0.7 %
    iv) H-fusion to Iron-56; F= 0.8 %

    More details on the information summarized above is available in recent papers:

    1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy"

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

    2. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source"

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

    5. Neutron Emission triggers a series of reactions that produce Solar Luminosity (SL), a carrier gas that maintains mass separation in the Sun, and an annual outpouring of neutrinos and 3 x 10^43 H+ ions from the solar surface.

    • Neutron emission from the solar core
    <n > —> n + ~ 10-22 MeV ( >57% SL)

    • Neutron decay or capture
    n —> H-1 + anti-neutrino + 0.782 MeV ( < 5% SL)

    • Upward migration of H+ and fusion
    4 H-1 —> He-4 + 2 neutrino + 27 MeV ( <38% SL)

    • Escape of excess H+ in the solar wind
    Each year 3 x 10^43 H+ depart (100% SW)

    The first two reactions alone probably produce the high surface temperature and the hydrogen line spectra observed from an isolated neutron star, RX J1856.5-3754. See the European Southern Observatory press release in 2000 on "The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star" by Marten van Kerkwijk and Shri Kulkarni

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

    6. Solar Magnetic Fields that drive the 22-year solar cycle are probably deep-seated remnants from the neutron-rich solar core or from Bose-Einstein condensation of iron-rich material into a superconductor [J. Fusion Energy 21 (2003) 193].

    On the other hand, the Sun’s magnetic fields revealed by the Ulysses spacecraft are unexplained by the standard solar model.

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13022

    Conclusion: The process that explains luminosity in an iron Sun also resolves the solar neutrino puzzle - without neutrino oscillations - and offers a straightforward explanation for the solar wind, for solar mass fractionation, for solar neutrinos, and for solar magnetic fields.

    With kind regards,

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

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 8 2004, 04:22 AM
    The intercepts typically show 10 MeV more potential energy than a free neutron, but these intercepts may increase to as much as 22 MeV of additional potential energy for neutrons in a massive neutron star.
    Thanks for a fairly clear explanation of why the Iron Sun shines.

    Naturally several questions come up, but first is that I&#39;d be interested in seeing a clearer statement of how you extrapolate from your theory of n-n repulsion inside nuclei to a similar theory for neutron stars, with a specific average release energy of up to 22 MeV. Perhaps this appears in one of your cited papers. I read the one on the Energy Source being Confirmed, but not the other. It would probably be helpful to bring that expalanation directly to this thread since it&#39;s a pretty important key to the hole thing.

    I am also wondering how a 22 MeV neutron can be a source of energy from a neutron star, since it will be travelling initially at substantially less than the escape velocity of a minimum mass neutron star, and will reach the peak of its flight about 10 microseconds after launch, and fall back into the neutron star 10 microseconds later. This is well below the average decay time of a neutron. The best it could do is restore 22 MeV of thermal energy to the star [the same 22MeV it took to launch it]. This also takes away the supposed source of protons you propose for your solar wind model.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb@May 9 2004, 02:55 PM
    Thanks for a fairly clear explanation of why the Iron Sun shines.

    1. Naturally several questions come up, but first is that I&#39;d be interested in seeing a clearer statement of how you extrapolate from your theory of n-n repulsion inside nuclei to a similar theory for neutron stars, with a specific average release energy of up to 22 MeV. Perhaps this appears in one of your cited papers. I read the one on the Energy Source being Confirmed, but not the other. It would probably be helpful to bring that expalanation directly to this thread since it&#39;s a pretty important key to the hole thing.

    2. I am also wondering how a 22 MeV neutron can be a source of energy from a neutron star, since it will be travelling initially at substantially less than the escape velocity of a minimum mass neutron star, and will reach the peak of its flight about 10 microseconds after launch, and fall back into the neutron star 10 microseconds later. This is well below the average decay time of a neutron. The best it could do is restore 22 MeV of thermal energy to the star [the same 22MeV it took to launch it]. This also takes away the supposed source of protons (Hydrogen) you propose for your solar wind model.
    Thanks, antoniseb, for your comments.

    1. Values of M/A at Z/A = 0 for all mass parabolas were plotted versus 1/A to obtain the value of M/A at 1/A = 0. See “Nuclear Systematics: - Part III: The source of solar luminosity”, [Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252 (2002) 3].

    In neutron-emission from a neutron star, the average energy released will not be necessarily 22 MeV. This is only the upper limit on the value of M/A in a neutron star (Z/A = 0, 1/A = 0).

    The parabola defined by precise mass data for A = 27 is posted above. This is a typical mass parabola. At Z/A = 0, it yields a value of

    M/A = M(neutron) + 10 MeV.

    2. You are right, the neutrons do not have the escape velocity required for immediate emission. If they did, the neutron star would disintegrate.

    Details of the mechanism involved in neutron-emission has not yet been worked out. This has been discussed at several theoretical physics conferences [3rd International Conference on Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Oulu, FINLAND, 2-7 June 2002; 4th International Conference on Non-Accelerator New Physics, Dubna, RUSSIA, 23-28 June 2003; 6th Workshop on Quantum Field Theory Under the Influence of External Conditions, Univ. Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA, 15-19 Sept. 2003].

    Probably neutron-emission, like alpha-emission, involves quantum-mechanical barrier penetration.

    For example, the Coulomb barrier around U-238 will not permit emission of a 4.2 MeV alpha particle. But U-238 emits 4.2 MeV alpha particles. The half-life for this process is 4.5 billion years.

    Although a theoretical framework for neutron-emission has not been completed, this process followed by neutron-decay to Hydrogen seems to be a reasonable explanation for these observations:

    A. The Cradle of the Nuclides reveals a strong driving force for neutron emission from collections of neutrons (Z/A = 0) at all values of A > 1.

    http://web.umr.edu/~om/summary/cradle.pdf

    B. A neutron star has:
    B-1. An unexplained source of energy, and
    B-2. High hydrogen levels near its surface.

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

    C. The iron-rich Sun has:
    C-1. An unexplained source of energy, and
    C-2. Hydrogen pours from the Sun’s surface.

    With kind regards,

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

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 10 2004, 09:04 PM
    Probably neutron-emission, like alpha-emission, involves quantum-mechanical barrier penetration.
    My ability to do the math for Quantum Mechanics is pretty weak, but I have the impression that Quantum tunnelling depends on the uncertainty principle allowing the particle to be in a slightly different place for a brief moment, and when it is, it escapes. But the fact is that the barrier for neutrons to escape from a neutron star at 22MeV is many kilometers wide [not the femtometers of a U238 nucleus&#39; weak force barrier]. I&#39;m not sure how to calculate the probability of this happening, but I&#39;d bet that your average neutron star wouldn&#39;t emit more than a few neutrons per year this way, even if the effect you decribe here is applicable to a neutron star.
    B. A neutron star has:
    B-1. An unexplained source of energy, and
    B-2. High hydrogen levels near its surface.
    Concerning B-1, Geminga is a neutron star, and seems only to have the amount of thermal energy that would be expected from a half-million year old neutron star. It certainly does not emit one-third the bolometric output of the sun. What unexpected source of energy are you talking about?
    Concerning B-2, Do you have evidence for the large amounts of hydrogen in a non-accretion situation?
    Forming opinions as we speak

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    585
    The biggest problem I still have with the idea of a neutron star powering the interior of the sun is along the lines of stellar evolution. Either our sun is a unique main sequence star that somehow has a neutron star at its center, or there are a whole lot more neutron stars out there then anyone can imagine or explain based on what we currently believe about stellar development on a galactic scale.
    At what point did all of these neutron stars form that now power main sequence stars? Why isnt that process continuing now?
    Another question I have is how the neutron star remenant acquires its substantial outer shell of elements. Clearly a neutron star remenant would not have this gas after its formation as seen in the Gemiga example. I would suspect that infalling gas would interact and even be largely expelled upon interacting with a neutron star, rather than accumulating around it to the point it reaches the diameter of our sun.

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb+May 10 2004, 10:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; May 10 2004, 10:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 10 2004, 09:04 PM
    Probably neutron-emission, like alpha-emission, involves quantum-mechanical barrier penetration.
    A.My ability to do the math for Quantum Mechanics is pretty weak, but I have the impression that Quantum tunnelling depends on the uncertainty principle allowing the particle to be in a slightly different place for a brief moment, and when it is, it escapes. But the fact is that the barrier for neutrons to escape from a neutron star at 22MeV is many kilometers wide [not the femtometers of a U238 nucleus&#39; weak force barrier]. I&#39;m not sure how to calculate the probability of this happening, but I&#39;d bet that your average neutron star wouldn&#39;t emit more than a few neutrons per year this way, even if the effect you decribe here is applicable to a neutron star.
    B. A neutron star has:
    B-1. An unexplained source of energy, and
    B-2. High hydrogen levels near its surface.
    B.Concerning B-1, Geminga is a neutron star, and seems only to have the amount of thermal energy that would be expected from a half-million year old neutron star. It certainly does not emit one-third the bolometric output of the sun. What unexpected source of energy are you talking about?
    Concerning B-2, Do you have evidence for the large amounts of hydrogen in a non-accretion situation?[/b][/quote]
    Thanks, Antoniseb.

    To answer the concerns expressed in Greg’s posting, I would like to add a section IV. Summary and Conclusions, if that is okay. Returning to your comments:

    A. We agree more theoretical work is needed on the mechanism of neutron emission. I endorse that need and have encouraged such work.

    Several theoreticians have expressed an interest. I expect we will hear more on the mechanism of neutron-emission soon.

    B. We may not agree on three aspects of neutron stars - features that are related to our conclusion about the internal structure of the Iron Sun. These features are listed below with direct quotes from these sources:

    1. “Discovery of a nearby isolated neutron star” by Frederick M. Walter, Scott J. Wolk and Ralph Neuhaeuser [Nature 279 (1996) 233] .

    2. “The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star: The VLT Reveals Bowshock Nebula around RX J1856.5-3754,” 11 September 2000 ESO Press Release about a detailed study of RX J1856.5-3754 by Marten van Kerkwijk and Shri Kulkarni.

    1. An Unexplained Source of Energy

    “The emission of X-rays indicates a very high temperature of RX J1856.5-3754. However, from the moment of their violent birth, neutron stars are thought to lose energy and to cool down continuously. But then, how can an old neutron star like this one be so hot?” [2]

    “From positional measurements and the assumed distance, approx. 200 light-years, RX J1856.5-3754 was found to be moving with a velocity of about 100 km/s [4]. However, at such a high speed, it is hard to imagine how it would be able to catch much interstellar matter, whose infall might heat the surface as described above. The puzzle was deepening&#33;” [2]

    2. High Levels of Hydrogen

    “Another surprise was that the spectra showed very faint emission from the neighbourhood of the neutron star. The measured wavelengths identified these emission lines as H-alpha and H-beta, two of the so-called Balmer lines that originate in hydrogen atoms.” [2]

    “Interestingly, a simple estimate of the hydrogen density near the neutron star that is needed to produce the observed glow indicates the presence of about one hundred hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre. This is no less than one hundred times the usual density in the interstellar medium.” [2]

    “It shows a small, cone-shaped nebula never seen before - this is the emission from hydrogen atoms near the neutron star RX J1856.5 3754. . . . . The shape of the cone is like that of a "bowshock" from a ship, plowing through water. Similarly shaped cones have been found around fast-moving radio pulsars and massive stars, cf. e.g., ESO PR 01/97 . However, for those objects, the bowshock forms because of a strong outflow of particles from the star or the pulsar (a "stellar wind"), that collides with the interstellar matter.” [2]

    “Because of this analogy, one may think that a "wind" also blows from RX J1856.5-3754.” [2]

    3. Missing Neutron Stars

    "Our Galaxy should contain between a hundred million and a billion neutron stars; . . . . . Only about 600 pulsars are known . . . . . How many old neutron stars exist is unknown, but based on the above numbers, about 2,000 isolated ones (not in binary systems) should be detectable . . . . . To date, however, evidence for only one has been presented . . . . . it also highlights the significant problem of accounting for the absence of others that should be visible.” [1]

    Finally, I want to express again my appreciation for your kindness in maintaining this link for an open discussion of evidence for and against an Iron Sun.

    With kind regards,

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

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by Greg@May 11 2004, 02:41 AM
    The biggest problem I still have with the idea of a neutron star powering the interior of the sun is along the lines of stellar evolution. Either our sun is a unique main sequence star that somehow has a neutron star at its center, or there are a whole lot more neutron stars out there then anyone can imagine or explain based on what we currently believe about stellar development on a galactic scale.

    At what point did all of these neutron stars form that now power main sequence stars? Why isnt that process continuing now?

    Another question I have is how the neutron star remenant acquires its substantial outer shell of elements. Clearly a neutron star remenant would not have this gas after its formation as seen in the Gemiga example. I would suspect that infalling gas would interact and even be largely expelled upon interacting with a neutron star, rather than accumulating around it to the point it reaches the diameter of our sun.
    Welcome, Greg, and thanks for your comments

    I am preparing a section, IV. Summary and Conclusions, that will address your concerns.

    In the meanwhile, I hope that you and other UT readers will study and comment on this graphical summary of stellar energy available from the fusion and dissociation of nuclei.

    STELLAR ENERGY FROM FUSION AND DISSOCIATION OF NUCLEI


    The vertical axis, M/A, is potential energy per nucleon, as used on The Cradle of the Nuclides.

    The horizontal axis, 1/A, extends from hydrogen atoms and neutrons on the right at 1/A = 1 to neutron stars on the left at 1/A = 0.

    Path (1) Illustrates the energy released in hydrogen fusion into heavier elements up to Fe-56. This process is usually considered to be the main process of stellar evolution. The maximum amount of energy released in this process is 8 MeV per nucleon.

    Path (2) Illustrates the compression of material into a neutron star at the core of a supernova. The Cradle of the Nuclides shows that material is "rammed" into the high energy state of all other assemblages of pure neutrons, A > 1, at Z/A = 0.

    Path (3) Illustrates the energy released in neutron dissociation from a neutron star. The Cradle of the Nuclides predicts that the amount of energy released in this process is 10-22 MeV per nucleon, far more than is released by fusion or fission.

    So the lifetime of a H-filled Sun may be less than that of an Fe-rich Sun with a neutron core&#33;

    Best wishes,

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

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 13 2004, 05:11 AM
    So the lifetime of a H-filled Sun may be less than that of an Fe-rich Sun with a neutron core&#33;
    Hmmm. You seem to have built a perpetual motion machine&#33;

    You also haven&#39;t shown any rationale for the 22MeV energy for the release of neutrons from the neutron star [an extraordinary claim], or evidence that the conclusions from your cradle can extrapolate to a neutron star [which, BTW, is not just neutrons]. We are also still looking forward to hearing what your quantum friends have to say about how a 22 MeV neutron could tunnel several kilometers so as to escape the neutron star.

    Somehow, you imply that these 10 to 22 MeV neutrons are supplying the protons which make up the hydrogen ions in the solar wind. So not only do they need to escape the gravity of a neutron star, then need to migrate up through 300,000 miles of iron, before being ejected into the extrasolar environment.

    This whole ediface of how the iron sun shines looks like it is built on some pretty shaky ground.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  16. #226
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb@May 13 2004, 11:48 AM
    Hmmm. You seem to have built a perpetual motion machine&#33;

    This whole ediface of how the iron sun shines looks like it is built on some pretty shaky ground.
    Sorry, antoniseb,

    We neither found the Fountain of Youth nor built a Perpetual Motion Machine&#33;

    Step (2) in the Summary of Stellar Energy Available from Fusion and Dissociation of Nuclei is simply the conversion of gravitational potential energy into nuclear potential energy, a process widely accepted for 70 years, since Baade and Zwicky proposed this in 1934 [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 20 (1934) 259-263].

    With kind regards,

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

  17. #227
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Here is a paper that gives the current mainstream ideas, and pointers to some backing evidence, about neutron stars. They have not included Dr. Manuel&#39;s team&#39;s conclusions about the new energy source, but aside from that, their research seems pretty current.

    The paper is twenty-two pages long [but it is large type, and only the first thirteen pages are the body of the paper. The rest is references and figures. The paper was written for the layman with a science background, so very little in it will be too difficult to go through. There is some math, but nothing complicated. Most concepts mentioned are explained.
    Physics of Neutron Stars by Lattimer and Prakash

    I&#39;ll be referring to some items in this paper in future rebuttles to Dr. Manuel&#39;s Energy Source, and other issues related to the Neutron Star core in his model of the sun.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  18. #228
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks, antoniseb, for the theoretical paper by Lattimer and Prakash.

    First, let me explain better the four data points and three paths in the figure.

    STELLAR ENERGY FROM FUSION AND DISSOCIATION OF NUCLEI


    Four Data Points

    1. On the right at 1/A = 1, the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for a free neutron is represented by the top red diamond.

    2. On the right at 1/A = 1, the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for a hydrogen atom is represented by the lower red diamond, 0.0008 amu below the free neutron.

    The neutron decay energy is too low to illustrate by a separate path from 1. to 2.

    3. The lowest red diamond at 1/A = 1/56 represents the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) in Fe-56, the ash (stable end product) of fusion reactions.

    4. On the left at 1/A = 0, the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) in a neutron star (NS) is represented by the highest red diamond.

    Measurements initiated by Aston about 80 years and encouraged by his motto, “make more, more, and yet more measurements”, left little doubt about the three data points representing the neutron, the hydrogen atom, and the Fe-56 atom.

    Precise mass data for all the various atoms known by 2000 also left little doubt that the interaction between neutrons is repulsive. When considered in terms of reduced nuclear variables (M/A and Z/A), the data yield values of M/A = M (neutron) + about 10 MeV when Z/A = 0 for all values of A > 1.

    See III. WHAT MAKES THE IRON SUN SHINE? (2000 - PRESENT) posted here on 8 May 2004 or “Neutron Repulsion Confirmed as Energy Source” .

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


    Three Paths

    1. Path (1) goes from right to left, from 1/A = 1 to 1/A = 1/56, to show the source of energy imagined by B2FH during stellar evolution as a massive first generation star fuses hydrogen into heavier nuclei up to Fe-56.

    Partial movement along Path (1), from 1/A = 1 to 1/A = 1/4, illustrates the source of solar luminosity for the standard model, when hydrogen is fused into helium-4.

    2. Path (2) shows the fate of material in the collapsed core by an almost vertical increase in M/A (potential energy per nucleon) as the massive star described by B2FH explodes as a supernova.

    3. Path (3) goes from left to right to show the release of energy that may occur on neutron emission from the neutron star produced above.

    The neutron decay energy is too low to illustrate by a separate path.

    Regarding the Lattimer and Prakash paper, there is no doubt the energy of nucleons in Fe-56 is increased (Path (2)) as this material is converted into a neutron star.

    We used precise mass data for 2,850 isotopes with reduced nuclear variables to estimate the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) in the neutron star:

    M/A (neutron star) = M/A (neutron) + 10-22 MeV

    The question is whether Lattimer and Prakash better define the elevated energy level of nucleons in a neutron star that might cause -

    i) neutron emission, and

    ii) neutron decay to hydrogen

    and thus explain these observations?

    1. An Unexplained Source of Energy

    “The emission of X-rays indicates a very high temperature of RX J1856.5-3754. However, from the moment of their violent birth, neutron stars are thought to lose energy and to cool down continuously. But then, how can an old neutron star like this one be so hot?” [1]

    “From positional measurements and the assumed distance, approx. 200 light-years, RX J1856.5-3754 was found to be moving with a velocity of about 100 km/s [4]. However, at such a high speed, it is hard to imagine how it would be able to catch much interstellar matter, whose infall might heat the surface as described above. The puzzle was deepening&#33;” [1]

    2. High Levels of Hydrogen

    “Another surprise was that the spectra showed very faint emission from the neighbourhood of the neutron star. The measured wavelengths identified these emission lines as H-alpha and H-beta, two of the so-called Balmer lines that originate in hydrogen atoms.” [1]

    “Interestingly, a simple estimate of the hydrogen density near the neutron star that is needed to produce the observed glow indicates the presence of about one hundred hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre. This is no less than one hundred times the usual density in the interstellar medium.” [1]

    “It shows a small, cone-shaped nebula never seen before - this is the emission from hydrogen atoms near the neutron star RX J1856.5 3754. . . . . The shape of the cone is like that of a "bowshock" from a ship, plowing through water. Similarly shaped cones have been found around fast-moving radio pulsars and massive stars, cf. e.g., ESO PR 01/97 . However, for those objects, the bowshock forms because of a strong outflow of particles from the star or the pulsar (a "stellar wind"), that collides with the interstellar matter.” [1]

    “Because of this analogy, one may think that a "wind" also blows from RX J1856.5 3754.” [1]

    Reference
    1. “The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star: The VLT Reveals Bowshock Nebula around RX J1856.5-3754,” 11 September 2000 ESO Press Release about a detailed study of RX J1856.5-3754 by Marten van Kerkwijk and Shri Kulkarni.

    Again, thanks for the reference.

    With kind regards,

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

  19. #229
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    Thanks Antoniseb,

    Thanks for the article, but the article is based on the fact that a neutron star (and it&#39;s high density) is a reality. Could you explain (or point to links of) what solid evidence exists that these objects are truly as dense as is claimed? All I can find is that theory doesn&#39;t forbid it, and the size is measured as several tens of kilometres with a mass comparable to our Sun&#39;s. What I can&#39;t find is how the size is measured and how we measure mass of a single object.

    Cheers.

  20. #230
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Originally posted by VanderL@May 14 2004, 08:32 PM
    Thanks for the article, but the article is based on the fact that a neutron star (and it&#39;s high density) is a reality. Could you explain (or point to links of) what solid evidence exists that these objects are truly as dense as is claimed?
    Hi VanderL,

    We&#39;ve talked about this before, and I didn&#39;t convince you, and probably won&#39;t now.

    First, the article is an overview of what we know about neutron stars, and I thought it was pretty fair about including information about what isn&#39;t known or fully understood [hence Dr. Manuel has already quoted it to his benefit]. It also was a good place for people who aren&#39;t really up on what a neutron star is to see what mainstream astronomers believe [It is not simply a ball of neutrons].

    Second, as to the actual measurement of the size of neutron stars, the maximum frequency of the pulses of the millisecond pulsars is usually used as an indicator of the maximum size they can be. We do know what the mass is for a few of them pretty accurately. Your argument last time was that there could be some unknown mechanism other than rotation which could produce the highly precise pulses. I certainly can&#39;t say there ISN"T an unknown process that does this. If we throw out the assumption that the pulses are rotational, we still have the theory about how nucleons interact in relativistic gravitation and pressures.

    A somewhat indirect method involves taking the Boltzman temperature of the object, knowing the distance and computing the surface brightness. This will tell you the total surface area of the object. Using this method Geminga is about 25 km in diameter. You can claim that an unknown process is causing a Boltzman-like spectrum, or that only a portion of the object is luminous.

    There are some possibilities for future efforts to find the size of a neutron star more directly. Mostly this would involve some serious interferometry efforts looking at Geminga. Geminga is about 500 lightyears away [give or take 100 lightyears]. So lets call it 5e18 meters away. If it has a disk about 3e4 meters across we&#39;d need an interferometer about 2e14 wavelengths wide to see it. If were using 80 nm hard uv to look at it, we&#39;d need an interferometer 16,000 kilometers across to resolve the disk. If we look using 1 nm xrays, it&#39;d need to be 200 km across. Perhaps one of these will be possible by the middle of the century. I expect that this imaging would show enough details of the space around it that you could not claim that the object was really much larger and only a small part was luminous.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  21. #231
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 14 2004, 08:13 PM
    2. Path (2) shows the fate of material in the collapsed core by an almost vertical increase in M/A (potential energy per nucleon) as the massive star described by B2FH explodes as a supernova.
    We have all agreed from the beginning on the information for the origin and end point of path one. Path two presents a problem, because the objects here lose a huge amount of gravitational potential energy in the collapse. They also lose a great deal of thermal energy through neutrino cooling [if you believe in that, which I do, but I understand not everyone reading this thread does]. This loss of gravitational potential energy is so large that it overwhelms any gain in weak-force potential. I think the path going from Iron to neutron star has a down slope, not up.

    If this is assumed, then you can&#39;t really say there is much going on with Path 3.

    I also question your use of the reciprocal of A for the x-axis in this graph. It sort of tacitly implies that a neutron star is much more like an Iron nucleus than the Iron is like hydrogen or a free neutron. If you used a log scale for the x-axis it might be less deceptive.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  22. #232
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb@May 14 2004, 11:43 PM
    I think the path going from Iron to neutron star has a down slope, not up.

    Thanks, antoniseb.

    That is the issue:

    What is the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for nucleons in a neutron star?

    We have shown and published our reasons for concluding:

    M/A (neutron star) = M (neutron) + 10-22 Mev.

    What are your reasons for suggesting:

    M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?

    With kind regards,

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

  23. #233
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 15 2004, 12:15 AM
    What are your reasons for suggesting: M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?
    As I stated in my last post, I think that the gravitational potential energy for the neutron in the neutron star is negative, and larger in magnitude than whatever positive potentials it may have from the combination of weak nuclear, pauli exclusion, and [negligible for neutrons] coulomb potentials.

    Aside from this, I think that your estimate of 10-22 MeV for the non-gravitational potential [which I still doubt] has room to be made much larger since the neutrons in a neutron star are packed closer than in a nucleus. We would need to see some kind of experimental results showing this repulsive force as a function of distance. It may not be a very simple curve, and have a velocity [temperature] component. What is your rationale for it being capped at 22 MeV?
    Forming opinions as we speak

  24. #234
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    Thanks Antoniseb,

    I just forgot that you answered the question before; pulsing frequencies as a measure of size. If rotation is the reason of the pulsing neutron stars are real, I&#39;ll just have to either wait for the future direct measurements or google up an alternative for the pulsations. Just carry on with the Iron Sunshine discussion.

    Cheers.

  25. #235
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,608
    I want to add something to the neutron star density discussion.
    When pulsars were first dicovered they were explained as rotating beams of electromagnetic radiation. After it became clear that some of these objects were pulsing several times per second, new physics was needed because normal matter can&#39;t spin that fast and stay intact. What was proposed was a "neutron state of matter", where normal matter is extremely compressed during a supernova explosion. How can we be sure that it can exist and why would matter stay compressed after a star&#39;s outer layers are removed by the supernova explosion. We now have observed millisecond pulsars, needing even newer physics (strange matter) to explain how they can rotate that fast. Maybe when we search for even faster pulses (is there a limit to the duration of a pulse?) we need even stranger matter.

    For the Iron Sun discussion I think it is problematic to visualise re-accretion on an object that is spinning several times per second, let alone millisecond rotations.

    Cheers.

  26. #236
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Originally posted by VanderL@May 15 2004, 01:49 PM
    Why would matter stay compressed after a star&#39;s outer layers are removed by the supernova explosion.
    The gravitational potential well it is in is severe enough to prevent escape. Note that the paper I pointed to recently described the outer kilometer or two of the neutron star as being more like very dense Iron white dwarf material with lots of Iron nuclei pressed together, with odd intermediate stuff before getting to the neutron soup lower down. That stuff provides enough pressure on the neutrons to keep their form.

    For the Iron Sun discussion I think it is problematic to visualise re-accretion on an object that is spinning several times per second, let alone millisecond rotations.
    I agree, but Dr. Manuel has written that he doesn&#39;t know what keeps the Iron from accreting down onto the neutron star itself, or what effect the rapid spinning and huge magnetic field would have. He only says that the observational evidence excludes any other possibility, and these issues are yet to be resolved [a paraphrasal]. Mildly in his defense on this, a neutron star that is five billion years old that hasn&#39;t been spun up by accretion would tend to be spinning fairly slowly from the magnetic deceleration.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  27. #237
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb+May 15 2004, 12:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; May 15 2004, 12:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 15 2004, 12:15 AM
    What are your reasons for suggesting: M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?
    As I stated in my last post, I think that the gravitational potential energy for the neutron in the neutron star is negative, and larger in magnitude than whatever positive potentials it may have from the combination of weak nuclear, pauli exclusion, and [negligible for neutrons] coulomb potentials.[/b][/quote]
    Antoniseb, I deeply appreciate your kindness in allowing this discussion of evidence for and against an iron Sun. Our semester is ending, so I will be posting a concluding summary soon.

    The idea of an iron Sun is not main stream. If it were, it would not be listed here under Alternative Theories.

    I have tried to summarize the unexpected research findings and observations since 1960 that forced us to consider the possibility of an iron-rich Sun and to offer an explanation for its luminosity.

    However, it will be futile to post unexpected results here if you and other readers do not appreciate that the cutting edge of science consists of unexpected and unpopular observations.

    The above quote, to which I will respond later, is the most recent example of this tendency to dismiss unexpected observations - in this case the unexpected finding of overwhelming evidence for repulsive n-n interactions.

    Another example, Unexpected Observations on Neutron Stars:

    a. An unexplained deficit of neutron stars [1].
    b. Unexplained luminosity of neutron stars [2].
    c. Excess hydrogen around neutron stars [2].

    References
    1. "Discovery of a nearby isolated neutron star" by Frederick M. Walter, Scott J. Wolk and Ralph Neuhaeuser [Nature 279 (1996) 233] .
    2. "The Mystery of the Lonely Neutron Star: The VLT Reveals Bowshock Nebula around RX J1856.5-3754," 11 September 2000 ESO Press Release about a detailed study of RX J1856.5-3754 by Marten van Kerkwijk and Shri Kulkarni.

    Regarding Unexpected Evidence of Repulsive n-n Interactions

    The conclusion that M/A (neutron star) = M (neutron) + 10-22 MeV came from literally hundreds of man-hours invested in a careful study of precise mass data for all 2,850 known isotopes.

    That study started in 2000 when I taught a graduate course, Advanced Nuclear Chemistry, “a study of the production and decay of nuclei, radioactive dating techniques, and the abundance and origin of the chemical elements.”

    Instead of textbooks, each student received a laminated copy of DOE’s latest Chart of the Nuclides and the 2000 edition of Nuclear Wallet Cards prepared by Jagdish K. Tuli of the National Nuclear Data Center at Brookhaven National Lab.

    The study continued after the class ended and resulted in publication of The Cradle of the Nuclides and several papers reporting unexpected evidence for repulsive n-n interactions. For example, at all values of A > 1, M/A (at Z/A = 0) > M (neutron).

    That is the empirical basis for our conclusion that

    M/A (neutron star) > M (neutron).

    I understand you “think that the gravitational potential energy for the neutron in the neutron star is negative”, but what measurements or observations lead you to conclude that M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?

    With kind regards,

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

  28. #238
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 17 2004, 09:28 PM
    what measurements or observations lead you to conclude that M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?
    You have shown no measurements or observations that indicate anything about M/A of neutron star matter. You have shown M/A for things up to about 160 neutrons, which are bound primarily by the weak nuclear force. A neutron star is bound largely by gravity. I have included gravitational potential in my M/A. If you do not include it, you are ignoring an important difference between a neutron star and a nucleus.

    A neutron star has a degenerate crust of Iron nuclei a couple of kilometers thick [so at the surface we should use M/A of Fe56] and gravity is the main binding force. It is only the repulsive nature of the weak force at close range that keeps the whole thing from collapsing altogether.

    As for the interior, what do you suppose the mean free path of a neutron is in the thick soup of nucleons and highly reactive pions? And if a neutron does manage to travel the 1e21 mean free paths through the degenerate Iron, once it escapes, if it still does have 10 to 22 MeV of energy, it can only travel at best about 10 microseconds before falling back in due to gravity. How can this generate the excess Hydrogen observed around one neutron star travelling through a nebula?

    As to excess luminosity, only one neutron star seems to have unexpected luminosity. This can be explained by recent accretion events, and doesn&#39;t need whole new physics.

    There is no unexplained deficit of neutron stars. The old ones simply are rarely very luminous. It seems odd that you claim both that they are all too luminous [based on the few obeserved near the limit of detectability], and that there aren&#39;t enough of them.

    On a side note. I read a paper today about element fractionation in the inner solar system. I was wondering whether you could comment on its strengths and weaknesses:

    Herndon&#39;s Paper

    I don&#39;t think this paper supports your case or mine against the other very strongly, but it includes some comments about planet formation and the nature of the chondrites that some of your conclusions are based on.

    Thanks in advance.

    PS. You indicated that you might be leaving for a while because the semester is over. Thanks very much for helping to clear up what your ideas are and how you got to them. I know this has been sometimes a testy forum, and you have mostly been very patient.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  29. #239
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,144
    Here is paper on Nova Nucleosynthesis and pre-solar grains.
    Imprint of Nova Nucleosynthesis in Presolar Grains

    I believe that this paper will be helpful to those people reading this thread and are interested in the origins of the grains of material that make up meteorites and other bits of natural debris we may find from primative origins.

    The paper discusses Nova [not Supernova] Nucleosynthesis, which probably contributed a small amount of material to our pre-solar cloud. It also discusses how these grains are formed, and in what time frame. Similar grains are formed on a somewhat different timeframe with Supernova, but the process is similar enough that by reading this paper, you will be well equiped to understand that process as well. [The element and isotope abundances will be quite different]. The paper is a bit long, but I think it is accessible to most people with a science education.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  30. #240
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,233
    Originally posted by antoniseb+May 18 2004, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb &#064; May 18 2004, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-om@umr.edu@May 17 2004, 09:28 PM
    what measurements or observations lead you to conclude that M/A (neutron star) < M (neutron)?
    You have shown no measurements or observations that indicate anything about M/A of neutron star matter. You have shown M/A for things up to about 160 neutrons, . . . . [/b][/quote]
    Can you answer the question?

    As noted a few postings back,

    "That is the issue:

    What is the value of M/A (potential energy per nucleon) for nucleons in a neutron star?"

    Thanks,

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2005-Oct-06, 01:42 PM
  2. Discussion: Opportunity Finds an Iron Meteorite
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2005-Jan-28, 08:28 PM
  3. Discussion: Is Iron Causing All the Flares?
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 2004-Jun-06, 01:58 PM
  4. Discussion: Iron Can Help Determine if a ...
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2003-Sep-19, 05:03 AM
  5. Iron Sun Discussion
    By antoniseb in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1970-Jan-01, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: