Mass of the core of the sun > mass of the sun?

AI Thread Summary
The calculation of the Sun's core mass exceeds the total mass of the Sun due to using the maximum density value of 150 g/cm³ instead of the average density. The core's density varies from 150 g/cm³ at the center to about 20 g/cm³ at the edge, which must be considered for accurate mass calculations. To determine the core's mass correctly, one must integrate the density over the radial distribution, accounting for temperature variations as well. The initial calculations did not reflect this complexity, leading to an inflated mass estimate. Accurate modeling of the Sun's core requires a more nuanced approach to density rather than a single value.
h1a8
Messages
86
Reaction score
4
I tried calculating the mass of the core of the sun but keep coming up with a number that exceeds the entire mass of the sun. I used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun" facts on the sun. It says the core of the sun extends from its center to .2 to .25 times it's radius. I used the number .225 as an average. So this would make the volume of the core to be (.225)^3 or .011 times the sun's total volume. The volume of the Sun is stated to be 1.412e18 km^3 or 1.412e27 m^3. Thus the volume of the core is .011 x 1.412e27 km^3 or 1.608e25 km^3.

Now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Core" says the density of the core is about 150g/cm^3 or 1.5e5kg/m^3. So since mass = density x volume I get the mass of the core to be:

1.5e5 x 1.608e25 kg = 2.413e30 kg. This exceeds the state mass of the sun (1.9891e30 kg). What is wrong here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
That's probably the density at the actual center of the sun, not the average density of the core. Because of that, your mass is coming out too large.
 
In your second link it says that the density of the core varies from 150g/cm3 at the very center to 20 g/cm3 at the edge of the core.
So cjl is right. The average density of the core is significantly lower than 150.
 
I didn't check your numbers, but yes, there isn't a single number for the density of "the core", the density varies with radius. You'd need to integrate over the radial density distribution, and I don't think that's an obvious function since temperature varies with radius too.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top