Is the Sun Positively Charged?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the proton-proton chain reaction in the sun, which produces two positrons for each helium nucleus formed. These positrons annihilate with free electrons, but the overall number of protons remains effectively unchanged. The fusion process converts four protons into two protons and two neutrons, maintaining a neutral charge in the sun. The conversation highlights a common misunderstanding regarding the charge balance during fusion. Ultimately, the sun does not become positively charged due to this balance in proton and electron ratios.
Plok
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Hydrogen fusion as described by proton-proton chain reaction that dominates in the sun produces two positrons for each helium nucleus produced. These annihilate with free electrons while the number of protons remain the same. Over time the sun is supposed to become positively charged, yet the claim is that its charge is neutral.

What is the mechanism for maintaining the proton to electron ratio in the sun?
Thanks!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Two positrons: two electrons. What's your question?
 
Plok said:
Hydrogen fusion as described by proton-proton chain reaction that dominates in the sun produces two positrons for each helium nucleus produced. These annihilate with free electrons while the number of protons remain the same.
This is the source of your problem-- the number of protons does not stay the same. The net result is 4 protons turn into 2 protons and 2 neutrons in the helium nucleus. The loss in protons matches the annihilation of electrons.
 
  • Like
Likes Plok
The end result of the reaction is a helium nucleus which contains two neutrons as well as the two protons.
In simplistic terms those neutrons could be considered as protons which lost their positive charge during the fusion process.
So overall no net change of charge has occurred within the Sun.
 
  • Like
Likes Plok
Thanks, that was embarrassing. I was researching something that touched this topic and must have been so distracted I counted wrong.
 
  • Like
Likes davenn
Plok said:
Thanks, that was embarrassing. I was researching something that touched this topic and must have been so distracted I counted wrong.

hey, it happens to all of us from time to time

and welcome to the Physics Forums :smile:cheers
Dave
 
  • Like
Likes gracy
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Asteroid, Data - 1.2% risk of an impact on December 22, 2032. The estimated diameter is 55 m and an impact would likely release an energy of 8 megatons of TNT equivalent, although these numbers have a large uncertainty - it could also be 1 or 100 megatons. Currently the object has level 3 on the Torino scale, the second-highest ever (after Apophis) and only the third object to exceed level 1. Most likely it will miss, and if it hits then most likely it'll hit an ocean and be harmless, but...
Back
Top