Questions about Nuclear Fusion in the Sun

In summary, the excerpt from "The Universe and the Atom" by Don Lichtenburg explains how nuclear fusion reactions in the sun produce high energy photons, but through absorption and reemission processes, the energy is degraded and eventually radiated out into space as visible light. Before Einstein's discovery of E=mc2, the source of the sun's energy was a mystery, but the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism was one proposed explanation. Also, some of the photons produced in the fusion reactions may be absorbed or scattered before escaping the sun's surface.
  • #1
enceladus_
58
0
This excerpt is from "The Universe and the Atom" by Don Lichtenburg:

The two released positrons in these fusion reactions annihilate
against two electrons via the electromagnetic interaction, producing
energetic photons. The photons are absorbed in the sun, and less energetic
photons are emitted. Many absorption and reemission processes
take place, degrading the energies of the photons. Eventually,
most of the electromagnetic energy is radiated out into empty space,
much of it in the form of visible light.

I was under the impression that photons made in the nuclear fusion bounced off of particles for a long time, before they inexplicably were able to escape from the sun. Why does the sun absorb the most energetic photons?

Also, before Einstein discovered the equivalence of matter and energy, how exactly did physicists of the world think that the Sun functioned (or any star for that matter)?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
I was under the impression that photons made in the nuclear fusion bounced off of particles for a long time

The way I read the passage that you pasted, that's exactly what he's saying. The nuclear reactions create high energy photons, they bounce around and eventually reach the surface of the sun and escape into space. It's important to think about what "bouncing around" means, though. The photons produced are gamma rays. They don't scatter elastically from the matter in the sun, if they did then they'd still be gamma rays when they leave the sun. No, the energy spectrum thermalises to the sun's temperature and what comes out is a blackbody distribution of energies.

As for what people thought happened before E=mc2, I don't really know. There is a thing called the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin–Helmholtz_mechanism ) which refers how a large collapsing body releases its gravitational energy. You can calculate the timescale for how long the sun would last if this were the source of its energy and (unsurprisingly), it's much too short. I don't really know if this was ever considered to be the source of the sun's energy, though.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
enceladus_ said:
Also, before Einstein discovered the equivalence of matter and energy, how exactly did physicists of the world think that the Sun functioned (or any star for that matter)?

They didn't - this was one of the important unanswered questions of that time.
 
  • #4
Pagan Harpoon said:
The way I read the passage that you pasted, that's exactly what he's saying. The nuclear reactions create high energy photons, they bounce around and eventually reach the surface of the sun and escape into space. It's important to think about what "bouncing around" means, though. The photons produced are gamma rays. They don't scatter elastically from the matter in the sun, if they did then they'd still be gamma rays when they leave the sun. No, the energy spectrum thermalises to the sun's temperature and what comes out is a blackbody distribution of energies.

Ahh, I read the passage wrong then. I thought some of the photons we re-absorbed for some reason. This clears up some errors in my understanding.

Thanks to both of you for the answers.
 
  • #5
Pagan Harpoon said:
The way I read the passage that you pasted, that's exactly what he's saying.

Not really. The passage quoted explicitly says "absorption and reemission processes", indicating that the gamma rays from nuclear reactions in the Sun's core get absorbed, not just scattered. I believe our best current understanding is that both processes are going on.

There is a good point to raise here, though, which you may have been trying to get at when you mentioned inelastic scattering. A gamma ray is only going to get absorbed by a nucleus inside the Sun, and pretty much the only thing that can happen next is for the nucleus to re-emit a gamma ray of the same frequency. This is because a given nucleus will only absorb gamma rays of specific frequencies; nuclei have definite energy levels just as electrons in atoms do. The frequencies that get emitted are the same as the frequencies that get absorbed; there may be cases in which there is some intermediate nuclear energy level so that one absorbed gamma ray would be re-emitted as two gamma rays (each of lower frequency), but that's probably very rare (I would have to look up the nuclear energy levels involved to be sure).

So in order for the light radiated by the Sun to be thermalized by the time it is emitted at the surface, the gamma rays *have* to be inelastically scattered, gradually transferring energy and momentum to the matter inside the Sun. This energy and momentum then gets re-radiated by the matter inside the Sun; one gamma ray photon released by a nuclear reaction in the Sun's core ends up producing millions of visible light photons emitted at the surface. So virtually all of the photons we see from the Sun were not produced in the core; they were produced somewhere in between.

(Btw, it's quite possible that *none* of the gamma rays produced in the core ever make it to the surface; they may just be scattered back and forth in the core until they are absorbed by a nucleus, then re-emitted again, absorbed again, re-emitted again, etc. The key point is that there *must* be inelastic scattering going on to thermalize the spectrum.)
 
  • #6
enceladus_ said:
I thought some of the photons we re-absorbed for some reason.

Some of them are. See my post in response to Pagan Harpoon.
 
  • #7
Great post Peter, thank you. My book also touched on instances when a photon strikes an electron or positron before they can annihilate. What kind of process occurs when this happens?
 
  • #8
enceladus_ said:
My book also touched on instances when a photon strikes an electron or positron before they can annihilate. What kind of process occurs when this happens?

This would just be an example of scattering, probably inelastic.
 
  • #9
Pagan Harpoon said:
As for what people thought happened before E=mc2, I don't really know. There is a thing called the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin–Helmholtz_mechanism ) which refers how a large collapsing body releases its gravitational energy. You can calculate the timescale for how long the sun would last if this were the source of its energy and (unsurprisingly), it's much too short. I don't really know if this was ever considered to be the source of the sun's energy, though.

It certainly was considered a realistic theory of where the sun's energy came from, and it led to a classic debate between Lord Kelvin and Thomas Huxley, who was espousing Darwin's theory of evolution. If gravitational contraction were the source of the sun's energy, the Earth could only be 10's of millions of years old, which is not old enough for complex creatures like us to evolve, and which was considered a strike against Darwin's theory. See, for example, http://m.teachastronomy.com/astropedia/article/Kelvin-and-the-Suns-Age. Of course, today we know that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion, and Earth is in fact ~4.5 billion years old, ample time for the evolution of the life we see.
 
  • #10
enceladus_ said:
Also, before Einstein discovered the equivalence of matter and energy, how exactly did physicists of the world think that the Sun functioned (or any star for that matter)?

There have been some very nice answers here already. I can add that it has been estimated that it takes about 300,000 years for photons to exit the sun.

That stars are powered by fusion was proved by Landau or Bethe, I think. One of those excellent scientists who never became famous. The ancient Greeks thought it was fire. Then gravitational contraction. Lord Kelvin was unfortunate to live in an era in which much that was known was incomplete, so many of his very good theories did not work out. What can you do?
 

Related to Questions about Nuclear Fusion in the Sun

1. What is nuclear fusion and how does it occur in the sun?

Nuclear fusion is a process in which two or more atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus. In the sun, nuclear fusion occurs when hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium atoms in the core. This process releases an enormous amount of energy, which is responsible for the sun's heat and light.

2. How does the sun maintain its balance between fusion and gravity?

The sun maintains its balance through a process called hydrostatic equilibrium. This occurs when the outward pressure from the energy released by fusion is equal to the inward gravitational force. As long as this equilibrium is maintained, the sun will continue to shine and produce energy.

3. What is the role of temperature and pressure in nuclear fusion in the sun?

High temperatures and pressures are necessary for nuclear fusion to occur in the sun. The core of the sun has a temperature of about 15 million degrees Celsius and a pressure of 250 billion times that of Earth's atmosphere. These extreme conditions allow for hydrogen atoms to overcome their repulsion and fuse together.

4. How long will the sun continue to produce energy through nuclear fusion?

The sun is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old and is expected to continue producing energy through nuclear fusion for another 5 billion years. However, as the core runs out of hydrogen fuel, it will begin to fuse heavier elements, leading to changes in the sun's size and energy output.

5. What are the potential benefits of harnessing nuclear fusion as an energy source on Earth?

Nuclear fusion has the potential to provide a nearly limitless source of clean and sustainable energy. Unlike nuclear fission, which produces radioactive waste, nuclear fusion produces only helium as a byproduct. It also does not emit greenhouse gases, making it a promising solution for addressing climate change. However, there are still technological and financial challenges to overcome before nuclear fusion can be used as a practical energy source on Earth.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
19
Views
4K
Back
Top