Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Happy with the Solar Model?

  1. Dec 9, 2008 #1
    As a geologist I am very grounded here on Earth, but I do have a question for those of you who face is always pointed at the Sun.
    With the small level of knowledge I have about the solar model I clearly see that there are several unanswered questions that plague the solar community, but dispite these problems nearly all are settled on the H/HE solar model.

    My question then is; Who among you have studied Dr. Oliver Manuel's Neutron star model?

    If any of you have had more than a cursory look at it I would appreciate your opinion.
    I understand that his model is nearly as radical as the dispute about which body orbits which back in the middle ages, but I would appreciate any comments.

    Best

    Doug Danhoff
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 9, 2008 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    I just read his paper. It's not correct, and it is not as predictive as the standard solar model.
     
  4. Dec 9, 2008 #3
    Thankyou Vanadium for your response,

    Which of his papers did you read? Could you tell me what you find objectionable with the research or conclusions.
    I am not defending the hypothesis, just trying to understand why it is wrong if it is.
     
  5. Dec 9, 2008 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    arXiv:nucl-th/0511051

    If you want wrong, here's a quote "The interior of the Sun is made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorites – Fe, Ni, O, Si, and S – although the lightest elements (H and He) cover its surface."

    I don't think a detailed debunking is necessary - or anything other than a waste of time.
     
  6. Dec 10, 2008 #5
    I'm not supporting Dr. Oliver Manuel's idea about neutron stars but am not convinced that the interior of the sun could not have an abundance of Fe, Ni, O, Si, and S etc. as analysis of the composition of the sun is determined by its spectra, which will be restricted to what can be seen at or near the surface. What's to stop the sun being like an onion with different internal layers each blocking spectra from the layer below?

    The earth has an abundance of elements from the periodic table and it would seem far more plausible that there is a 'local' explanation rather than, as has been suggested, that we were hit by a chunk of supanova debris.
     
  7. Dec 10, 2008 #6

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    How about the fact that the sun shines? You can't explain that with an iron core without adding more new physics. And then you are defending Manuel.
     
  8. Dec 10, 2008 #7
    He has written a number of papers concering his hypothesis since 1960. His model includes an outer H layer energized by a nutron star interior. Not only the Earth but meteorites, and other planets have an unexplained abundance of elements that would be expected from a supernova event which he believes was the origin of the solar system. As said before a local supply would be at least as likely as being hit by a stray piece of supernova ejecta. There are several aspects of the SSM that have called into existence "new physics" so suggesting that this would disqualify another model is not logical.
     
  9. Dec 11, 2008 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2015 Award

    Ah, so, despite your claim that you are not defending Manuel, that's exactly what you are doing.

    Like I said before, I don't think a detailed refutation of nonsense is a productive use of PF bandwidth.
     
  10. Dec 11, 2008 #9
    Well You are not very perceptive if you believe that I am defending Dr. Manuel's hyposthsis. I am merely defending his right to the normal scientific process of attempted falsification. No one and I mean absolutly no one has ever disproven a single aspect of his hypothesis. I suspect this is true because there is really very little we know for sure about the SSM. It has far more problems than its adherants admitt.

    Science as you portray it( "so wrong it would be a waste of time") Is not true science as I understand it and have understood it for 40 years. A scientist either attempts to falsify or confirm or simply says "I don't know".
    I am defending his right to be falsified scientifically. If you choose not to attempt that your comment is only an opinion and worth little. I only respect the opinion of someone who has made a study of a theory.
    I presented this because it is out of my field, and I hoped someone had done some research into it. I know that some of the "new physics" that was invented was created to plug holes in the Standard Model, some of these are fixed in his model using old physics, and that his model has holes that required the same type of constructive thinking.

    Dr. Manuel has been developing his theory for nearly 50 years, and the list of those who have contributed is very long, this isn't a lone wolf theory.
    If I were competent to attempt falsification I would, but like I said I am a paleo-geologist, and my solar study is mostly auto-didactic.

    A scientist, let alone a gentleman, does not dismiss a man's life work as nonsence without a study of it. I don't think reading one paper suffices.

    And BTW I have seen a lot of far more foolish waste of bandwidth on PF (along with some of the best information available)
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2008
  11. Dec 11, 2008 #10

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    arXiv:nucl-th/0511051

    That was the worst article I've ever read! Just words words words, NO physics!

    50yeras, and the result was this?
     
  12. Dec 11, 2008 #11
    Are you comfortable with the "we were hit by debris from a supanova" to explain the heavier elements present on earth or can you contribute or know of an alternative hypothesis?
     
  13. Dec 11, 2008 #12

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    huh? has this ANYTHING to do with the sun being a "shining neutron star" as OP was asking about?

    I've written thesis in graduate nuclear astrophysics course about isotopic anomalies in meteorites etc, so if you want - I can tell you more about that. But again, what has this to do with the solar model and my complains about the "model" which after 50years of progress boiled down to an article with no single formula?
     
  14. Dec 11, 2008 #13
    Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines here but, without going and reading the article again, I got the impression that it was attempting to offer a possible explanation of how heavier elements got here in such large amounts. I notice you didn't answer my question.
     
  15. Dec 11, 2008 #14

    malawi_glenn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I am quite happy with that explanation yes.

    The quality of that article, coming from someone devoted 50y to this, is not impressive.

    Since it is not a peer reviwed article we are discussing, and is not even serious, I have suggested to the mod's that this thread should be locked, we are going nowhere here.
     
  16. Dec 11, 2008 #15

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There is no observational evidence of heavy elements at the core of the sun. This makes this topic pure speculation.

    Locked.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Happy with the Solar Model?
  1. Solar Modelling (Replies: 1)

  2. Solar/stellar models (Replies: 6)

  3. A solar model (Replies: 23)

Loading...