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

Paper - Sun not powered by H fusion

  1. Nov 15, 2005 #1

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is a pretty interesting theory on the evolution of stars and planetary systems. If you have the bandwidth, watch the movie linked in the paper. Has anybody seen this movie before, and are there alternate interpretations?

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0511/0511379.pdf
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 15, 2005 #2
    Turbo its much better if you can give abstract links?..I clicked your link above and it does not work?..I find if the poster links directly do a paper that he/she has opened on their computer, then there are always problems, especially if you have since closed the PDF!!
     
  4. Nov 15, 2005 #3
    The paper link works for me. It doesn't matter if turbo closed the pdf. If you go to lanl and get the paper you will receive the same link.
     
  5. Nov 15, 2005 #4
    Ok thanks, I have done a search, is this the paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0511379

    if so then its a problem my end, thanks again.
     
  6. Nov 15, 2005 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, that's the one. I'll try to link to abstracts in the future - at least there are sometimes options for searching citations on the abstract page, and options for the paper's display (HTML, PDF, etc).
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2005
  7. Nov 16, 2005 #6

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Looks like Mozina is still pedaling his 'sun is a supernova remnant' theory. He is clearly thinking outside the box. I lean toward the hydrogen fusion model.
     
  8. Nov 17, 2005 #7
    Wow, I was completely was under the impression that the hydrogen fusion model was pretty concrete. Guess there are some alternative theories.
     
  9. Nov 17, 2005 #8

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Your impression is shared by many.
     
  10. Nov 18, 2005 #9
    Just like creationism is an alternative theory to evolution [/sarcasm]
    edit: That may be prematurely unfair. I have yet to actually read the article, but I am certainly skeptical. Mostly I was just venting pent-up ridicule potential largely intended for Kansas.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2005
  11. Nov 18, 2005 #10
    So, we're allowed to discuss a non-fusion theory of the Sun, but not the Venus/Earth rotation resonance hypothesis, despite the fact that there is more prima facie evidence for rotational resonance.

    What's up with that?
     
  12. Nov 18, 2005 #11

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Next time you have a concern like this, please send a PM to the forum mentors rather than hijacking another's topic. If you don't like moderated forums such as PF, there are plenty of unmoderated forums available on the internet. And, as previously mentioned to you, you are allowed to discuss your hypothesis at PF...in the proper forum (Independent Research).
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2005
  13. Nov 18, 2005 #12

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That said, whether this topic stays open depends on whether turbo-1 wants to promote the paper (a task for the Independent Research forum) or have a critical review of it from the viewpoint of mainstream astronomy.
     
  14. Nov 19, 2005 #13

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I would like to know what others think of this paper, and whether the observation of fixed long-term solar features can be reproduced. I certainly would appreciate some discussion of this (admittedly off-beat) paper. The video is particularly compelling, and I have a hard time reconciling it with our conventional "ball of hydrogen" model of the Sun.
     
  15. Nov 19, 2005 #14

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Spectrometric studies suggest the sun, as well as most other stars in the observable universe, is composed largely of hydrogen. And it is fairly well established, both in theory and practice [e.g., the hydrogen bomb], that fusion will occur when hydrogen is sufficiently pressurized - by means such as gravitational collapse. Neutron stars, which are widely believed to be supernova remnants, radiate very strongly at x-ray wavelengths - something not observed in the case of the sun or other 'normal' stars. So far as reproducing 'fixed long-term solar features', that is an open issue. In my mind, this is not far removed from asserting the ocean is not composed of water by pointing out our inability to explain the California coastline.
     
  16. Nov 19, 2005 #15

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Notice:

    1) There are no calculations in their paper.
    2) None of their papers were in major astronomy journals.
    3) Their paper contains statements like:

    "Other measurements [7-9] independently confirmed that the Sun selectively moves lighter ions into the photosphere, over the mass range of A = 25-207 amu [8], leaving little doubt that the interior of the Sun is iron-rich..."

    This is a pretty clearcut case of crackpottery. The standard solar model has not only succeeded in explaining nearly everything we know about the sun, but also predicting the SOHO results and neutrino flux. In fact, it was these high-precision solar models that led physicists to our current understanding of the neutrino!
     
  17. Nov 19, 2005 #16

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thank you. What I find compelling, however, is that the sequence of images linked to that paper in the form of an animation shows stable features on (or just inside) the Sun rotating as if the Sun were a rigid body, with no sign of latitudinal differential rotation. Regardless of the merits of the remainder of the paper, this observation does not seem to reconcile with the concept that the Sun is a fluid mass of Hydrogen. If the observation is real and repeatable, what does this portend for our model of solar structure?

    I understand that your interpretation of the observations may differ widely from those of the authors; however, the observations remain, and if they are real, they must be explained. Can they be explained in a manner consistent with the model in which the Sun is a giant ball of Hydrogen undergoing fusion?
     
  18. Nov 19, 2005 #17

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What movie? The only one I see linked in that paper is this one:

    Solar Flare

    We've known for many years that the sun has differential rotation and have even measured its dependence on height. Whether or not it would appear in that movie depends on the time and length scale.
     
  19. Nov 19, 2005 #18

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm sorry, ST. I bookmarked a raft of links following up on that paper and forgot that this animation was not linked directly in the paper, but was embedded in a reference. The URL is:

    http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/The Surface Of The Sun_0001.wmv

    Mozina grabbed these images from the SOHO archive and put them in sequence so they look like an animation like a flip-book. The sequence shows persisitant structures rotating as if the Sun were a rigid body over a period of several weeks.
     
  20. Nov 25, 2005 #19

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Does anybody have an explanation?

    I'm still quite curious about the SOHO image flip-book movie that appears to show the Sun rotating as if it were a rigid body, with no differential rotation. Any comments?
     
  21. Nov 25, 2005 #20

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It looks to me like structures are smeared in exactly the sense one would expect from differential rotation. If the data were showing significant deviations from what we expect from current models of the sun, I'm sure the SOHO people would speak up. It's certainly to their benefit to do so.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Paper - Sun not powered by H fusion
  1. Iron fusion (Replies: 7)

  2. Gyrochronology paper (Replies: 2)

Loading...