Exploring the Works of Physicist Norma G. Sanchez & Star Analysis

[Natanis_Likens]

There's a some things I've been wanting to look into for a while now I just don't know where to access that kind of information.

1. I'm interested in any information/journals concerning Physicist Norma G. Sanchez (I might be wrong on her title, please correct me if I am) work on a unifying theorem. I've seen bits in pieces here and there scattered around but I'm interested in seeing more of it or all of it. An article in science journal caught my attention some time ago about the appearance of the "light cone" shape, however, that's not the section that really grabbed my attention. It was more a passing comment about what she believed a black hole is.

2. Stars, I'd love to have a look at as much information on as many stars as possible. Preferably, Type (base element/color), Energy/Heat output, and size (if I have the terminology incorrect, please correct me). I'm curious to see if there's a correlation between the three parameters.

 

[fresh_42]

I moved it to our textbook forum.

Please note that popular science articles are not really reliable since they have to make far too many simplifications. In a GUT you may encounter strange things like Virasoro algebras. The topic is highly complicated and requires some very serious studies of physical branches. Anyway, I can't finally tell whether you are already equipped to read about those things or not. Here is a list of books authored by Sanchez:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/824838.Norma_G_Sanchez

It will probably be easier to find books about what sounds like a classification of stars at various levels of comprehension.

 

[Natanis_Likens]

I moved it to our textbook forum.

Please note that popular science articles are not really reliable since they have to make far too many simplifications. In a GUT you may encounter strange things like Virasoro algebras. The topic is highly complicated and requires some very serious studies of physical branches. Anyway, I can't finally tell whether you are already equipped to read about those things or not. Here is a list of books authored by Sanchez:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/824838.Norma_G_Sanchez

It will probably be easier to find books about what sounds like a classification of stars at various levels of comprehension.

Thank you for the input. I'll look into both searching for anything I can find.

To explain a little bit. In that brief comment in the article I came across it said that her calculations indicated that either a black hole effectively completely destroys matter sucked in by reducing it to nothingness cause anything to no longer exist OR the amount of gravity crushes everything down and compacts it to a very small very dense celestial body.

Something around twenty years ago I thought up an "idea" (I'm not saying theory for reasons I'll explain afterwards) that fits her findings of a very small, very dense celestial body. In my idea what causes natural star fusion is friction. Enough matter crammed together in a small, very dense space causes friction, that friction then leads to the necessary heat.

That's where the information about stars comes in. I'm curious to see if there is a correlation between all measurable factors such as Color (which we know is the burning of certain elements), Size, estimated Mass, Energy outputs, luminosity, etc... if my "idea" has any merit there should be a correlation. What I don't know, I can only speculate at.

---
As for me. Hmm... let me change my BIO, I think I was sharing a bit too much for a simple reply.

 

[phinds]

In my idea what causes natural star fusion is friction.

I suggest you read the forum rules, especially the one that says we do NOT discuss personal theories.

 

[jedishrfu]

Please be aware that we don't discuss personal theories here on PF. It's fine that you may be investigating hunches on your part but given that you're looking at things in a conceptual sense without the math to back it up means you won't get very far. Popular science books through the use of analogy to explain an arcane topic fool the reader into believing that physics is done that way when in fact much more goes into it including mathematical modeling.

As an aside and a curious example, historians and engineers were amazed to discover that the Greeks had correctly determined the mathematical relationship of potential energy storage in a torsion catapult to be proportional to the cube-root of the rope lengths.

It was developed at a time before the Greeks understood 3rd degree equations and could well have used the square-root but the engineers used the more accurate cube-root. It was also at a time before, we understood what we know to be classical physics today with its concepts of potential and kinetic energy and forces and torques...

https://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Technology/en/Catapults.html

This optimization of the cord bundle was completed by roughly 270 B.C., perhaps by the group of Greek engineers working for the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt. There and at Rhodes the experiments of the catapult researchers were, according to Philo, “heavily subsidized because they had ambitious kings who fostered craftsmanship.” This phase of the investigations culminated in quantified results of a distinctly modern kind. The results were summarized in two formulas. For the arrow shooter the diameter of the cord bundle was set simply as 1/9 of the arrow length. The more complex stone thrower formula stated, in modern terms, that the diameter of the cord bundle in dactyls (about 19.8 millimeters) is equal to 1.1 times the cube root of 100 times the weight of the ball in minas (about 437 grams). d = 1.13√100m The stone-thrower formula has two remarkable features. First, it gives a true and accurate solution for optimal design. To see why, first assume (as is indeed reasonable) that the catapult engineers wanted to maximize the performance of their machines.

Accordingly they had to maximize the kinetic energy of their projectiles. To do this they had to maximize the potential energy stored in the torsion springs. Modern elasticity theory applied to the design of these springs tells us that the stored energy available will be proportional to the amount of initial tension give the bundle in string it through the frame, the additional tension caused by the pre-twisting of the bundle, the square of the angle indicating the amount of additional twisting by the pulling back of the bow arm, and the cube of the bundle’s diameter. The cubing of the bundle’s diameter means that to express the diameter in terms of the mass of the projectile one would have to extract a cube-root.

Its the math that makes physics fit together more seamlessly than concepts alone. You need to seriously consider mastering the math and then your concepts will make more sense.

To be clear, we at PF don't discuss personal theories until they've been printed in credible peer-reviewed journals.

 

[Drakkith]

In my idea what causes natural star fusion is friction. Enough matter crammed together in a small, very dense space causes friction, that friction then leads to the necessary heat.

We already know where the heat that ends up causing fusion comes from in stars. It comes from gravitation. That is, the pre-stellar gas cloud that collapses to form the star is initially highly spread out. As it collapses, gas particles 'fall' towards the center of gravity, gaining kinetic energy that is converted to heat when these particles collide with other particles.

Friction is about macroscopic objects interact with a flow of fluid or with another macroscopic object. For microscopic objects, especially atoms and small molecules, friction isn't really a thing.

That's where the information about stars comes in. I'm curious to see if there is a correlation between all measurable factors such as Color (which we know is the burning of certain elements), Size, estimated Mass, Energy outputs, luminosity, etc... if my "idea" has any merit there should be a correlation. What I don't know, I can only speculate at.

Color is almost entirely due to the temperature of the photosphere, as in all but the coolest red dwarfs the temperature is much too high for any significant amount of chemical reactions to occur. Plus the extremely high proportion of hydrogen and helium compared to other elements means that there just isn't a lot of material there to 'burn' in the first place (in relative, not absolute amounts).

It turns out that all major stellar properties like color, size, and luminosity are functions almost solely of mass and time. Other variables, such as exact composition, don't vary enough to make a big difference.

2. Stars, I'd love to have a look at as much information on as many stars as possible. Preferably, Type (base element/color), Energy/Heat output, and size (if I have the terminology incorrect, please correct me). I'm curious to see if there's a correlation between the three parameters.

The observable parts of just about every star (so not the cores of stars) is primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, with hydrogen making up about 90% of the matter by number of atoms and about 70% by mass. Helium is around 9% by number of atoms and 27% by mass. The remaining amount is shared between all the other elements. Thus the 'base' element is the same for every star.

Note that I don't include stellar remnants like neutron stars in this, as they aren't really stars. Also, red dwarfs are fully convective stars, meaning that the material produced in their cores by fusion is mixed via convection into the rest of the star, slowly changing the composition of the photosphere as time passes. However, as far as I know, none have been around long enough to deviate significantly from the 'mostly hydrogen and most of the rest is helium' formula. There are some other minor effects that change the composition of the upper layers of stars, but these are all too insignificant to be worth discussing.

One of the most fundamental and important relationships is that between luminosity and color, which is exemplified in the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. In this diagram you can see the diagonal band of main sequence stars (the ones that are burning hydrogen in their cores), the upper horizontal bands of giant and supergiant stars (large stars that are burning helium or something else other than hydrogen), and even the white dwarfs, which aren't undergoing fusion at all.

As you can see, there is a very high correlation between color and luminosity for each 'type' of star (main sequence, giant, supergiant, etc). This is because both of these are ultimately driven by the same thing. Mass. Higher mass stars are hotter and more luminous than lower mass stars. Because they are hotter, they are also 'bluer'. That is, their visible spectrum is shifted more towards the blue end than lower mass stars. Not only that, higher mass stars are also larger, so not only are they hotter than lower mass stars, they are also bigger, giving them more surface area to emit radiation and making the luminosity grow as a cubic or quartic factor. That is, a star that is twice as massive has 8-16 times more luminosity.

 

[Natanis_Likens]

Thank you all for indulging me.

---

I suggest you read the forum rules, especially the one that says we do NOT discuss personal theories.

I'll try to be more careful and I'll have a look later.

----

Color is almost entirely due to the temperature of the photosphere

I guess I miss understood. I got that from "Spectroscopy of Stars - Wonders of the Universe: Stardust". What did I misunderstand or mix up specifically?

----

As you can see, there is a very high correlation between color and luminosity

Wait... Hertzprung-Russel diagram. How on earth did I come up with a thought pattern that was already proven to exist nearly 90 years earlier? (112 years, but I had those thoughts 20 years ago) Weird.

Thank you for showing me this.

----

As for the friction thing. I have an analogy but I'm not sure it'll make sense to someone who has the proper foundation of knowledge. I'm also not sure if this crosses the line phinds pointed out to me, I should go read the rules. I really want to explain my thoughts, but it feels inappropriate considering the rules.

I really wish there was a way for me to get into an old school "classroom" (giant chalk boards with huge equations written out, 2 specially) and bounce thoughts, ideas, and questions off a professor or two.

I'm a LONG way from ever taking a base level Physics Class.

----

(Side note, way off topic. This reminds of the time I confused a Physics class and a Buisness Math class as I was using the room's white boards to write out and figure out a Programming Code for my C+ class. Very funny to see the other students reactions to the madness I had written out, the Professors just laughed. One Professor said he wanted me to leave it up to further confuse his class. Not important, just thought it would be funny enough to share a bit.)

 

[Drakkith]

I guess I miss understood. I got that from "Spectroscopy of Stars - Wonders of the Universe: Stardust". What did I misunderstand or mix up specifically?

I haven't seen/read that source, so I couldn't tell you exactly what you're misunderstanding. The fact is that the different elements in the photospheres that produce spectral lines don't absorb enough light to make a significant impact on color. That, plus the fact that the absorption lines are spread throughout the visible spectrum. If they were all located in, say, the blue end of the spectrum then they might absorb enough light to slightly 'cool' the color of the star, turning it more red, but they aren't.

As for the friction thing. I have an analogy but I'm not sure it'll make sense to someone who has the proper foundation of knowledge. I'm also not sure if this crosses the line phinds pointed out to me, I should go read the rules. I really want to explain my thoughts, but it feels inappropriate considering the rules.

You can PM me if you'd just like to get it out of your system so to speak.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm a LONG way from ever taking a base level Physics Class.

So why do you then think your ideas are right and by extension, everybody else's are wrong?

 

[malawi_glenn]

and bounce thoughts, ideas,

Why do you think you would have anything useful to say to a physics professor?

Get and read the book "an introduction to the sun and the stars" by Simon Green

 

[fresh_42]

Why do you think you would have anything useful to say to a physics professor?

Get and read the book "an introduction to the sun and the stars" by Simon Green

I think that is the farthest we can get here. There are no shortcuts to GUT that leave out the intensive study of GR and QM. Lucky punches are impossible. Results of the past like Newton's gravity or Kepler's orbit formulas may look easy in retrospect, however, they were the results of hard work and revolutionary in their era. And Einstein's, admittedly relatively short papers cannot even be understood without learning the physical language first.

This thread is closed.