Did our sun blow up 5 billion years ago?
Evidence indicates our sun exploded about 5 billion years ago. Evidence indicates that there is not enough concentrated mass for our sun to have blown up 5 billion years ago. If the effect of gravity is a function of cosmic time, then this contradictory situation can be resolved.
This posting is organized as follows
1. Reasons for believing our sun exploded about 5 billion years ago
2. Reasons for believing our sun did not explode 5 billion years ago.
3. Resolving the issue to being the determination of the amount of Iron in the core of the sun.
4. Reviewing the available information about the sun and determine the possible size of an iron core that is consistent with observation.
5. Applying the relationships proposed by the uniform expansion of space theory to resolve the problem.
The reasons for believing our sun exploded about 5 billion years ago are:
1. Radioactive dating. Professor O.K. Manuel, a nuclear chemist ( http://web.umr.edu/~om/ )has determined that our sun had to become a supernova about 5 billion years ago. This conclusion is based upon the relative amounts of radioactive strange xenon found within samples from the moon, meteorites and the atmosphere of Jupiter. A star had to blow up to form these elements in the percentages detected and the only star close enough to explode is our sun. (Note, whether or not the explosion of our sun was a nova or supernova will be discussed later)
2. Astronomical evidence. There is evidence that when a star explodes, matter is dispersed in a pattern that is conducive to the formation of planetary systems. If an explosion yields a formation that could form planetary systems, it is logical to assume that our solar system was formed as a result of such an event. Click here:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._020123-1.html
(sorry if you have to cut and past it, I thought my links were working with out the full address. )
3. A simple temporal sequence. If our sun did explode about 5 billion years ago, the date of the formation of the Earth and the rest of the solar system, which is about 4.6 billion years ago, results in a neat sequential evolution.
4. A simple source for heavy elements like iron and gold. The only source for heavy elements in the solar system is from the destruction of a star that has lived a lifetime. For our Earth to have these elements, a source has to be found. The simplest source available is our own sun since evidence of its existence is obvious.
(Other sources of heavy elements have been proposed, such as a near collision of our sun with another star, or the very short life of an extremely massive star that blew up billions of years ago, before our sun was formed. Both of these models also have problems of their own. Where is the “near miss” star? Since our sun is like many stars with heavy elements in its atmosphere, this would imply that the other stars also have heavy elements, which would then imply that they too formed after a very massive star had lived a short time and self-destructed, which would then imply that billions and billions of stars were exploding early in the evolution of the universe which would then be in conflict with the established standard model in which the majority of stars formed slowly from primarily hydrogen gas. This explosive era in the evolution of the universe is not part of the standard model accepted by astronomers today. Occasionally a star may explode, but stars do not explode in mass early in the evolution of the universe. The expansion of space, according to the traditional model, states that the expansion of space stops at the boundary of galaxies, so the overall density within a galaxy is the same over time. If this is true, why were the first stars so much more massive than the stars we see now if overall density is the same? (Black hole consumption?) If it takes billions of years for a star to coalesce from a gas, how could the entire process of forming two stars sequentially occur in a universe that is less than 15 billion years old? Shouldn’t it take even longer in the past to form a star since there would be no heavy elements to form on and the temperatures greater? The process is not impossible; it is just complicated and filled with unobserved assumptions and contradictions).
Reason for believing our sun did not explode.
1. It is contradictory to the established theory of star formation. Stars form from the coalescence of gas. Once there is enough mass accumulated, a star is formed. As time passes, heaver elements are formed due to nuclear fusion, ultimately creating iron. This takes well over tens of billions of years, given the present mass of the sun. It is only at the end of a stars lifetime of burning fuel, creating an iron core, that a star can explode. Usually the star would also have to have a mass several times bigger than our sun as well. Since our sun is not tens of billions of years old, it hasn’t lived long enough to build an iron core.
2. If our star did explode, where are all the heavy elements left behind? Theoretical nuclear physics has determined how a star evolves over time. The theoretical models conform reasonably well to observation. A star with the amount of mass our sun has, including all the planets, would only explode if it had a large iron core after burning nuclear fuel for billions of years creating an iron core “ash”. Where is all the mass? It is not observed in the solar system.
3. Astronomical evidence. Spectrographic analyses of stars that have blown up locally have significant amounts of heavy elements. While there are some heavy metals in our solar system, there are not anywhere near the quantities associated with a star that has blown up.
4. It is contradictory to the big gas cloud theory for the formation of galaxies. If our sun garnered mass from the remains of a once very massive star that lived quick and became a supernova, then that would imply that stars similar to ours also acquired iron form a previous star. Since our star is like billions of stars, that would imply that billions of stars were blowing up in the early development of the universe.
5. Our theoretical models describing the sun would have to be way off. If more than half the sun were in the core as non-fusionable material, the theoretical models would not work.
6. Half the mass of the sun can not be composed of heavy metals, much less an neutron core, based upon what has be detected within the core of the sun. Space satellites dedicated to investigating the sun have allowed the evaluation of the structure of the sun, and what is observed, seems to correlate to theory. (Although a fair amount of tweaking is being done in order for the models to conform to observation.
Mass, the real issue.
If there was some way to resolve the lack of evidence of an iron core the size necessary for our sun to explode it may be possible to resolve the situation. It would force a reevaluation of the gas cloud formation of our sun, but that theory is due for an adjustment since the theory cannot produce solar systems by theoretical models with out requiring some kind of critical density or “lumpiness” anyway. Similarly, the modeling of the theoretical formation of galaxies also has required assumptions as to critical densities and an initial “lumpiness” as well. (With galaxies there is even the problem of resolving the dark matter issue in order to explain the velocity profile of stars.) The real question is, where is all the necessary mass? Can it really be in the core of the sun with out destroying our present models? The intensity or energy output of the stars conforms to the theory fairly well. How much iron could be in the core of stars with out throwing out what we know about fusion in stars?
Measuring the interior of our sun
Probably the best hope of narrowing down what is at the interior of the sun is from the discoveries of the Solar and Heliospheric Survey SOHO. One of the primary techniques used to investigate the interior of the sun is called Time-Distance Helioseismology or Solar Tomography, which entails careful monitoring of the motion of the surface of the sun at various locations on the sun due to a localized disturbance. The sun is like a big ball of Jell-O. Pressure waves from a localized event, such as those associated with sunspots, pass through the interior of the sun, and are affected by various characteristics of the solar interior before eventually impinging on the surface. Events on one side of the sun can actually be detected on the other. Pressure waves that travel obliquely through the sun will even bounce off the surface in one location, reflect back into the sun and then emerge on the surface a second time, allowing a measure of what is happening cross-sectionally within the sun. The intensity of the waves at the surface is measured by the Doppler shift observed at the surface (amazing!) Such techniques have helped determine motion of material in the sun at various locations. The speed of the pressure wave is also used to indicate temperature at various depths. SOHO is the result of an international team of people and it is an inspiring application of the best efforts of our human race.
In May of 2000 the European Space Agency (ESA) published bulletin 102 which was a summary of the results of years of absolutely amazing research. Of particular interest now is page 72, which includes a plot of temperature (actually speed of pressure wave squared) verses depth. (To access the graph, first get to the SOHO site (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/ ), Click on Community – publications, then Click on Four years of SOHO highlights, then go to page 72. (sorry about the long link, it is an adobe file) (Note, the graph on page 72 has a typographical mistake, the x axis progresses as follows 0,,,0.2,,,0.1,,,0.6,,,0.8,,,1.0 , it should be 0,,,0.2,,,0.4,,,0.6,,,0.8,,,1.0) .
While this graph correlates well with theoretical models overall, there are two regions of significant deviation from the standard model. At a distance from the core of about .68 of the Radius (R) of the Sun, the variation associated with the observed squared speed, increased in magnitude beyond the theoretical model by an amount almost equal to the entire variation in the square speed throughout the entire sun. This was a surprise and required additional adjustments to the standard model, which will be discussed later. Another discrepancy was also indicated at the core of the sun. Starting at about a distance of .2 R and moving inwards, the discrepancy increases until the variation between theoretical and observed differs by a factor of 2 at about a Radius of .05 R. Any readings closer to the core than .05R are not made since it becomes increasingly difficult to establish specific readings for a comparatively small region (Small is relative, a .05R is about 5 times the size of Earth). Extrapolation of the data indicates that the discrepancy increases even more as one gets closer to the core. A graphic by SOHO shows the discrepancy between detected and theoretical temperatures. . (To access the graph, first get to the SOHO site (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/ , Click on Data – Gallery Then Click on HELIOSEISMOLOGY – MDI Then click on picture of sun with blue interior. ) .
Metals make the difference.
The variation at .68 R marks the boundary between the interior radiative zone and the convection zone. Adjustments to the standard model were and are being made to account for the unexpected increase in temperature. The first attempt was made by Brun et al (Reference from ESA 102 Bulletin), They introduced the concept of Lithium mixing in this zone. (While lithium is a “metal” it is not a “heavy” metal. Heavy metals are produced from the cores of suns that have lived a lifetime.) Once this was done, a somewhat better fit was established but it also resulted an increased deviation from the standard model in the core; the theoretical model was cooler than observed. (Previously, I posted another analysis by Winnick et al (of Yale) which indicated increased amounts of “heavy” metals, like iron, is proposed to be found within this .68 R region as a result of the in falling of heavy metal meteorites. This should result in a better fit curve than observed by Brun et al because the large size and mass of the metals would form a more definitive layer that traps more heat, but this is just an interpretive guess on my part, based solely on reading the abstract. The amount of these heavy elements suspended in this hot zone is small in relationship to the mass of the sun but it still may represent a mass equivalent to 40 Earths, according to the article.)
(Notice the reluctance to initially consider the effects of “heavy” metals in the sun. Brun et al used Lithium since it would be available in the nucleosynthesis stage of the early universe. Starting to include heavy metals as part of a theoretical model for the sun creates a problem as to where all the metal comes from.)
What is of importance for this paper is the discrepancy observed at the core. The core is cooler than expected, but the anticipated temperature curve was also generally shaped as expected starting at about .05 R and moving outwards. This is not a straight uniform curve, somewhat complex, and even though the temperature was cooler, the overall shape of the curve conformed to that expected. This indicates that the theoretical structure and process is generally correct, but some explanation has to be made for the departure and that the departure has to be a result of something within the .05R distance from the core. Anything outside of this region would have disrupted the form of the curve too much. Anything any larger would have been detected by SOHO.
To resolve this problem I am proposing that an iron plasma core, not exceeding .05 R resides at the heart of the sun. Removing the very center of the sun as a source of energy would reduce the center core’s temperature, which is in accordance with observation. Initially one might think that by removing the hottest area under the most intense pressure would result in a significant loss of energy production. This is not the case, and depending upon the anticipate density increase observed at the core, there should actually be an increase in energy production. This is because of the larger volume of material above the “surface” of the plasma core experiences increased pressure.
I am clearly entering an area of study that is way beyond my expertise. It is going to take someone with a lot more familiarity with plasmas and nuclear processes to resolve the details. The important issue for me was to review the status of the field of study and estimate how much iron can exist at the core of the sun with out conflicting too much with what is observed. The next step was to consider if the proposed amount of iron in the core could upset current theoretical calculations. It appears that such an assumption would improve the correlation between the observed temperatures and the theoretically predicted temperatures. (I also think that the increased pressure above the plasma core will help improve the energy production rates observed, without depending upon other sources of increased energy generation, or other “tweaking” of the standard model, but this is going to take a real expert to evaluate.)
How much iron plasma is in the core? Once an assumed volume for the core is established, the mass can be found by multiplying the density at the core times the volume. I am not sure of a realistic density to use for matter at the core of the sun. I hope that someone with a better familiarity of the properties of Iron at extreme temperatures and pressures will provide a more accurate estimate. If Hydrogen were at the core, then the density would be estimated to be 160 grams/cc (160 times the density of water) This is based upon information from The Regents of the University of Michigan; University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...l&edu=high. Since Iron is 55.8 times denser than hydrogen, it would be anticipated that the density of an iron core would be greater than a hydrogen core. There is a limit to this increased density since matter in the core is in the form of a plasma and the increased charge of the Iron nuclei will tend to separate the iron nuclei further than Hydrogen nuclei. Just as a guess, it will be assumed that the density of iron plasma core would be 4 times that of a hydrogen core. Again, if someone could provide a more accurate estimate I would appreciate it. The estimated density of an iron core will be 4 x 160 = 640 grams/cc. (Note, if the density of iron was even greater than assumed, a corresponding reduction in the size of the iron core could be made. Also while the core is usually referred to as an Iron core, heaver elements such as uranium, lead, gold, etc, would also make up a significant percentage of the core. This would also tend to increase the density of the core. The greater the density, the better the improvement in the correlation between the standard model and observation.)
If the size of the core is 0.05R, and R = 7 x 10^8 meters for the sun, the diameter of the iron core would be 70 x 10^6 meters. The diameter of the Earth is 12.8 x 10^6 meters, so the largest possible hypothetical iron core is more than 5 times the size of Earth, with about 164 times the volume of Earth. Multiplying the mass of Earth (6 x 10^24 kg) by the volume of 164 Earths, times the difference in specific gravity between iron and the Earth ( 160 /5.52) yields a mass of 28 x 10^27 kg. (Again, If someone has a better-estimated density for iron in the sun I would appreciate it). Since the sun is 2 x 10^30 kg, the mass in the proposed iron core is 1/70 the mass of the sun. This is not close to the expected mass indicated by Professor Manuel’s estimates of a core with a mass of iron more that 50% the weight of the sun. It also represents about as large an iron core possible that still allows the theoretical and observed temperatures to still correspond without a major revision of theory.
Conclusion, an iron core 1/70 th the mass of the sun, or less, is conformant and theoretically compatible with the observations made by SOHO. Anything any bigger would probably distort the theoretical temperature curves from the observed temperature curves.
Would this amount of iron in the core be indicative of evidence of a supernova? Yes and no.
It appears that 1/70 of the mass of the sun is not enough iron to justify a supernova explosion. One would therefore conclude that our sun did not blowup, not enough of the ashes left behind in the solar system.
If the sun formed from the collapse of material dispersed in a cloud, it is reasonable to assume that most of the metals accumulated in the core of the sun. With evidence that as much as 40 earth masses are “floating” in the solar atmosphere, it is not too unreasonable to assume that 4 times that much is found in the core. If interstellar debris collapsed to form the stars and planets, then it is not too hard to image that most of the heavy elements ended up at the center of the solar system.
There may be some who think that any metals in the core would be dispersed by the energy of fusion occurring above the surface of the plasma metal core. This is not very likely. Anyone who has ever made a whirlpool in a round pool has noticed how all the dirt accumulates in the center. The higher kinetic energy on one side of an object will deflect an object towards the location with less Kinetic Energy. Nuclei while in the plasma pool will have less Kenetic energy than above the surface where nuclear fusion is occurring above the plasma core.
While 1/70 th the mass of the sun being composed of iron may not indicate initially that the sun once exploded, there is the problem of accounting for the source of all this metal. Since our sun appears like a lot of stars with metals indicted in their atmospheres, one has to wonder if these stars also have cores of iron. If that is the case, the question is, what was the source of all this iron so prevalent among Population 1 stars, like our sun?
Gravity as a function of cosmic time.
If on the other hand the effect of gravity were a function of Cosmic time, as proposed by the uniform expansion theory, then an iron core 1/70 the mass of the sun would be big enough to be the evidence left behind from a supernova explosion. If this were the case, observation would now conform to theory on all counts. Professor Manuel’s age dating of a local supernova (or energetic nova) is correct and the observed size of the iron core is correct.
The uniform expansion of space.
If the proposed uniform expansion theory is correct, meaning that matter itself is included in the expansion, then it would take much less observed mass to form a star. If the effect of gravity were intense enough, that star would rapidly burn its nuclear fuel, leaving a core of iron, and even explode. If the effect of gravity were just 10 times more, our sun would burn much more brightly and consume it’s fuel far faster. If the effect of gravity were 100 times more in the past, stars would also generally be 100 times smaller. If they exploded, the iron cores left behind would be 100 times smaller. It is this relationship that allows evidence of our sun to explode as a supernova or energetic nova yet leave behind a core that is 100 times too small. Everything is affected by the passage of time. (Note there is some ambiguity as to whether or not all supernovas are going to result in a neutron star this early in the evolution of the universe. If the influx of matter is so rapid that the rate of nuclear reactions is increased, it may be possible for a star to blow up as a super energetic nova, something between a nova and supernova. The main reason for considering this model is to reduce the likely hood of the creating a neutron star.)
The net effect of gravity, according to the proposed theory, is a function of when relationships are being evaluated. Since the expansion of space includes matter, then the effect of gravity would be greater since densities would be greater. Since motion in the “unobserved” dimension is also greater in the past, the effect of mass would also be greater. This corresponds to a squaring of the relationship describing the effect of gravity which results in the “net effect of gravity” (For explanation and derivation of the formulas see www.uniformexpansion.com ).
"G2/G1" = (T1/T2) ^(4/3)
Net effect of gravity
NG2/NG1 = (T1/T2) ^(8/3)
If 50% of the material left behind from a supernova should be iron, how far back in time would we have to go to have stars small enough for the presently allowable iron core to represent 50% of the stars mass? It will be assumed that the age of the universe (T2) is 6.3 billion years. (This is obviously much less than currently accepted age but the rate of expansion is not linear in the proposed uniform expansion model and this theoretical expansion of space conforms to the observed expansion, if this date is used. This will be discussed later). The required increase in effective mass must be 70 times more than presently indicated.
NG2/NG1 = (T1/T2) ^(8/3)
1/70 = (T1/6.3)^(8/3)
T1 = 1.3 x 10^9 billion years. , 5 billion years ago the sun blew up leaving the observed core behind. This is in direct agreement with the date predicted by professor Manuel.
Summery of observations
Clearly the assumption that the core of the Sun has no iron at its core is wrong. We have iron in the planets so it is logical to conclude the sun must also have iron in its core.
The size of the core should not be greater than .05R, otherwise the theoretical model would no longer correlate with observation.
The assumption of an iron core improves the correspondence between the theoretical temperature and the observed temperature by eliminating fusion at the core of the sun.
Radioactive decay analysis of strange Xenon indicates the sun had to have become a supernova about 5 billion years ago
There is not enough iron presently available for our sun with its present mass to have ever become a supernova.
If the net effect of gravity was a function of time, as predicted by the uniform expansion of space theory, stars should form with less observed mass. This would allow the presently observed or allowed amount of iron in the sun to be the remnant core of an energetic nova.
The uniform expansion of space theory conforms to observation.
Snowflake
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
)
