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

Squashed Star Flattens Solar Theory

  1. Jul 12, 2003 #1


    "The following report appeared in New Scientist for 12 June 2003:

    Flattest star puts astronomers in a spin
    Danny Penman

    The flattest star yet seen is forcing researchers to revise their ideas on the dynamics and structure of celestial bodies. The star, called Achernar, was observed by astronomers at the European Southern Observatory in Chile.
    According to standard celestial theories, the fast spinning star should be only 20 to 30 per cent wider across its equator than from pole to pole. But Achernar, which spins at 225 km per second, has a colossal bulge around its equator and is 50 per cent wider. "


    "All stars and planets that reach a critical spin velocity bulge slightly at the equator. The Earth is 40 kilometres, or 0.3 per cent, wider from east to west than from north to south. Astronomers had been confident that their calculations of this oblateness were fairly accurate. "But the new observation means that the model for fast rotating stars is not complete," says astronomer Pierre Kervella, one of the team at the European Southern Observatory. "We clearly do not know enough." "Either the core is rotating faster than the surface or the star's matter is circulating in an unexpected way. We're not sure which possibility is correct at the moment," he told New Scientist."


    "The second serious challenge to the standard solar model comes from solar oscillations. In the 1970’s, the Sun was unexpectedly found to ring like a bell. In 1976 Severny, Kotov & Tsap discovered a dominant 160-minute ringing mode of the Sun. They wrote, "The simplest interpretation is that we observed purely radial pulsations. The most striking fact is that the observed period is almost precisely... the value if the Sun were to be an homogeneous sphere. ... We have investigated two possible solutions to this dilemma. The first alternative is that nuclear... reactions are not responsible for energy generation in the Sun. Such a conclusion, although rather extravagant, is quite consistent with the observed absence of appreciable neutrino flux from the Sun, and with the observed abundance of Li and Be in the solar atmosphere." "


    "In the not-too-distant future we will look back on attempts to explain the Sun in terms of a central fire with the same dismissive humor that we use for earlier notions of the Sun as some sort of fire in the sky, steadily consuming itself. What appears at first glance a perfectly natural and simple explanation fails to explain almost all of the strange solar phenomena we see. Our old fiery model of the Sun, and consequently of all stars, has become a complicated theoretical nightmare.

    It seems that the leap from an old worldview to a new one is difficult for the human mind. But once achieved we can teach young children ideas that defeated the greatest minds for centuries. Our grandchildren will view it as perfectly obvious that Nature should provide us with an electric light, the Sun, powered over galactic distances by a vast network of invisible transmission lines, humming at an ultra-low frequency. Plasma physicists already know those transmission lines as Birkeland currents. "
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 12, 2003 #2
  4. Jul 12, 2003 #3
  5. Jul 12, 2003 #4
    At least our 'wrong' models make progress. More than one can say for your 'right' ones :wink:
  6. Jul 12, 2003 #5
    Is that why they fail to solve so many of the mysteries that the plasma model has already solved?

    The data fits PERFECTLY in the plasma model without ANY hypothetical ad hoc retro-fitting.
  7. Jul 12, 2003 #6
    You know, if your infamous plasma model was so good, somebody would use it and get a lot of fame and glory for it. There is no reason at all to not accept it if it is right. There is no big mass conspiracy in the community as you seem to think.

    I find it more likely that even though you and its proponents claim it solves everything and then some, it in fact does not, and under close analysis would be shown to be internally inconsistent.
  8. Jul 12, 2003 #7
    Ptolemy's model made significant progress as well--adding epicycle after epicycle until the whole thing was a monster of unnecessary ad hoc complexity. It actually gave more correct results than did the copernican model at first due to its retro-fitted complexity.

    The whole point here is economy of thought. If the model requires fewer assumptions and hypothetical entities and solves more of the problems--then Occams razor says this theory is correct.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2003
  9. Jul 12, 2003 #8
    “One study found that the vast majority of scientists drawn from a national sample showed a strong preference for "confirmatory" experiments. Over half of these scientists did not even recognize disconfirmation (modus tollens) as a valid reasoning form! In another study the logical reasoning skills of 30 scientists were compared to those of 15 relatively uneducated Protestant ministers. Where there were performance differences, they tended to favor the ministers. Confirmatory bias was prevalent in both groups, but the ministers used disconfirmatory logic almost twice as often as the scientists did.”
    Michael J. Mahoney, Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1977, pp. 161-175.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2003
  10. Jul 12, 2003 #9
    who is talking about fame and glory?

    I am talking about evolution of science.
  11. Jul 12, 2003 #10
    you have incredible faith in the absense of knowledge
  12. Jul 12, 2003 #11
    And I am talking about reality. As much as it pains me to admit this, us scientists are humans, and the probability of at least one of us existing who would do the science for their own glory is high. So it follows naturally that if yours were the correct model then they would seize upon it immediately.

    As for your rhetoric about marching in conformity, would it surprise you to know you are marching in the same steps as all the others who oppose the scientific community with baseless theories? If as you say yours is the most correct and most accurate, then by all means make it the accepted theory. That is how science works. You can't just whine and say "But this is the best theory! You guys are just marching in step." You have to prove to US that it is, and just claiming it is doesn't cut it.

    For example, you say that ALL the forces are the result of one fluid dynamic pressure in the quantum vacuum, which you also say is a pressurized zero energy superfluid. Well how does it account for the various ranges and strengths of the various forces? If all the forces were coming from one entity, they should not have different strengths like that, nor should the electromagnetic force have both attraction and repulsion. And how does it deal with the asymptotic freedom of quarks as necessitated by the strong force?
  13. Jul 12, 2003 #12

    Oh? Is that how it works? The majority of scientists would not think of wasting their careers by committing professional suicide and endorsing a radically alternative model. In the short term it simply does not pay to be revolutionary. That is the social barrier to any paradigm shift.

    Do you know any of the theories that I am talking about? You are simply assuming that the standard model can never be replaced and you are assuming that the alternative models that I am promoting are baseless.

    Is baseless assumption your standard method of operation?

    I am exposing the evidence and confronting the defenders of the faith who blindly try and squash anything different.

    You can't teach an old dog new tricks. I am posting these things for the people that want to play a role in the evolution of science in spite of those people who will always stand in their way.

    You are FAR from understanding Sorce Theory. It would take a Herculean effort on your part to reformat your fossilized mind.

    And just what entity do you think the forces are coming from?

    A charge is an unequilibrated density gradient. As such, it can have too much density or too little density for its equilibrating wave systems.

    At atom is a very complex thing. You will not understand it without spending much time learning the basics of Sorce Theory (which will never happen). I would have to shrink the leviathan to fit through the eye of the needle of your attention span. It would look like a flea to you because you do not have the fundamental concepts to uncompress it with. Oh well, maybe you could enlist it in your circus of "crack-pot" theories?

    If you really want to learn Sorce Theory then send me an email and I can send you one of the introductory books. Otherwise I can answer your simple questions but the more complex stuff requires much study and diagrams… and an open mind so good luck.

    BTW, there are really no such things as quarks. That is why they have never been seen. Yes it is convenient that in principal, according to the standard model, they can never be seen.

    A quark is an invention to account for the fact that the standard model does not know what mass is. It is part of an accounting scheme that matches the resonances of the zoo of unstable fluid vortexes and solitons generated in the experiments.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2003
  14. Jul 12, 2003 #13
    From “The Big Bang Never Happened” by Eric Lerner


    If the latest theories—GUTs and superstrings—are stripped away from particle physics, the standard model with its quarks is left. Unfortunately, the problems don’t end here: the standard model is not at all a satisfactory theory of nuclear forces, or of other structures of matter generally.
    The theory arose as an attempt to simplify the zoo of particles discovered in the forties and fifties. Back in 1911 physicists believed that only two particles exist—protons and electrons. The neutron was discovered in 1930—it was a little heavier than the proton, electrically neutral, and a key constituent of the nucleus of the atom. Things seemed fine. The bulk of the mass of matter is contained in the nucleus, made up of protons and neutrons, while electrons swirl around the periphery of the atom. But this simple picture was spoiled as the cyclotron and other particle accelerators started hurling nuclei at each other with increasing energy, and scientists started to analyze the constituents of cosmic rays. New particles, all unstable, were discovered in the tracks they left on photographic plates and other instruments.

    First came the muon, 207 times as massive as the electron. “Who ordered that?” nuclear physicist Isidor I. Rabi responded. Then came the pion, somewhat heavier, theorized as the carrier of the nuclear force. Then came an ever-increasing flood of particles.
    By 1960 particle scientists were struggling to simplify this bestiary. Murray Gell-Mann noticed that the particles- can be grouped together according to their properties in symmetrical arrays—the idea of perfect symmetry started to raise its head.
    By 1963 Gell-Mann developed the idea that the symmetry of the groups can be accounted for if it is assumed that mesons and baryons are made up of smaller particles, which he called quarks, from a passage in James Joyce’s Ulysses. Cell-Mann proposed the existence of three quarks, dubbed “up,” “down” and “strait” which carried fractional charge—either one-third or two-thirds of an electron’s charge. Two quarks together form a meson, three a baryon. Leptons—an electron, muon, and neutrino—and photons are left out of this scheme, but all the particles will be reduced to leptons, the photon, and the three quarks, a total of seven.

    Complications in this neat picture developed immediately. For one thing, no matter how hard accelerators smashed protons against each other, no quarks came out—they were never observed. Obviously, theorists reasoned, there is a force between quarks that increases with distance—a confining force that never lets quarks go free. A second complication occurred when they realized that in some particles all quarks will spin the same way and thus are indistinguishable—which violates a fundamental postulate of field theory, that identical particles cannot exist in the same energy state. So the quarks were assigned a new property, arbitrarily termed “color.” A quark can come in three “colors”—red, blue, and green. Three quarks had become nine.

    Worse still, newer particles kept turning up uninvited, so new quarks were needed—a “charm” quark and a bottom or “beauty” quark. More neutrinos showed up among the leptons—a muon, neutrino, and a new massive lepton called the tauon.
    To explain the nature of the strong and weak forces, still more particles were needed. A theory called quantum chromodynamics (QCD) was developed postulating gluons—also never observed—to carry the strong force. Another theory, the electroweak theory, described the weak field as merging with electromagnetism at high energy; it requires two more particles.

    The synthesis of QCD and electroweak is the standard model, which had its successes. The masses of the W and Z particles needed to carry the weak force were actually predicted before the discovery of these particles in the eighties. The theories can make rough predictions of the mass of most particles and the lifetimes of some. Perhaps most significant, in particle collisions experimenters observed concentrated jets of particles coming out in certain directions. These, it was argued, show that unobserved quarks are hit in collision and then emit observable particles in the direction of the quarks’ motion.
    But the standard model has important limitations. For one thing, what it can predict pales before what it can’t. The masses of all the quarks and the strengths of the interactions—a total of twenty constants—all have to be plugged into the theory, based on observation. Why these masses? Why is the proton, for example, 1,836 times as massive as the electron? Why are there so many particles? Why, three generations of quarks and leptons? Who needs neutrinos anyway? The strengths of the field are even more puzzling. Why such different strengths? And where does gravity, 1042 times weaker than electromagnetism, fit in?

    Unfortunately, like Ptolemy’s solar system, the standard model requires many special assumptions to match observation even remotely. To be sure, it makes valid predictions—so did Ptolemy’s system—within broad limits of accuracy. But it has no practical application beyond justifying the construction of ever-larger particle accelerators. Just as electromagnetism and quantum theory successfully predict the properties of atoms, one might expect a useful theory of the nuclear force to predict at least some properties of nuclei. But it can’t. Nuclear physics has split with particle physics; nuclear properties are interpreted strictly in terms of empirical regularities found by studying the nuclei themselves, not by extrapolating from QCD.

    What is more serious in judging the standard model is its own contradiction with observation. The model requires six particles to complete its symmetrical form, yet the “top” quark, the last of the six, has not been discovered in the range of energies predicted by theory. Another particle, the Higgs boson needed by the electroweak theory, is also AWOL. A major motivation of building the superconducting supercollider is to find the Higgs, but searches at lower energies have been unsuccessful.

    The most serious contradiction with theory comes in a series of experiments done with spin-aligned protons. In a decade-long series of experiments, Alan Krisch and his colleagues at the University of Michigan have demonstrated that protons have a far greater chance of being deflected in a collision when their spins are parallel, instead of spinning against each other. What’s more, they also deflect nearly three times more frequently to the left than to the right. In effect, the protons act like little vortices, pushing each other around (Fig. 8.3).

    This seriously contradicts a basic assumption of QCD, that quarks act independently within a proton. This implies that a proton’s spin should have little effect on a proton’s motion. Each of the three quarks has a spin of one-half unit of angular momentum, so a proton’s spin of one-half arises from two quarks spinning in one direction, one in the other. If two protons collide, it is the spin of the colliding quarks that should determine the outcome of the collision—in which case collisions of opposite spinning quarks should be only 25 percent more common for opposite-spinning protons than for parallel-spinning protons. But the effects Krisch observed are far bigger—two or three to one. This strongly implies the spin is carried by the proton, not by the quarks—if they exist at all. In the view of many theorists and of Krisch himself, this clearly contradicts QCD.
    Probably more important, QCD also predicts that spin effects, like all other asymmetries, should decrease at higher energies in accordance with the broken-symmetry approach of all particle theories. Yet Krisch’s experimental results show that spin effects steadily increase with the energy of the collision. Evidently, spin effects are fundamental to the structure of matter—matter is, therefore, inherently asymmetrical. But as with proton decay, such contradictions have been ignored for the most part.”
  15. Jul 12, 2003 #14
    Almost all physicists agree that the standard model is at best incomplete - many of the factors to make the predictions have to be put-in by hand (fiat) - and we might go so far as to say that most of the theory re quarks is wrong (at least from the standpoint of trying to interpret the results as being consequent to actual physical particles). Modern physics may have got on the wrong bandwagon years ago when Feynman and others attempted to explain the electrostatic force by inventing virtual photons (QED makes accurate predictions of the second order effect because it is just a disquised approach to perturbation theory). So much for my own critique of modern physics - but I would also say that merely because we do not have a correct model, we cannot throw out the baby out with the bathwater - while there may be merit to the notion of a frictionless spatial fluid - any theory that makes such wild claims as to solve all the mysteries of physics is more than suspect - show me a mathematical proof of why the electron charge is what it is, and not something else - then you may have a basis for a fundamental theory - the standard theory does not do this - it starts with the answer and works backwards - to date I have not seen any such derivation in any other theory either.
  16. Jul 12, 2003 #15
    Thanks Yogi. While most all physicists agree it is by no means the final say, it works and we will continue to use it. As such any new theory we develop must contain the standard model in it, only this time, it would have to be derived, not extrapolated by experiment. And I agree on pertubation theory. While it is infinitely useful for some calculations, everyone realized it was useless in quantum gravity, so new techniques are being developed with sucess.

    Now isn't it convienent that when I request an explination from you sub, you start claiming I won't understand it. Interesting.

    And one thing about your charges being unequal density gradients. If the quantum vacuum, being a pressurized zero energy superfluid according to you, is the cause of all the forces, how can there be unequal density gradients? This would mean that the 'pressurized zero energy superfluid is now no longer pressurized but rather imbalanced.

    And as Yogi addressed the basic thing about the standard model, I will say this about the top quark. It has been observed/detected. It looks like your quotes are still out of date.
  17. Jul 12, 2003 #16
    It is a very complex theory which you are welcomed to read.

    This is where it gets complex and requires much study to understand. Good luck.

    It is both pressurized and imbalanced. The zero-energy superfluid has created energy from the "quantum vacuum".

    Yes, it is true that books do age. So what?
  18. Jul 12, 2003 #17
    Well by all means, let us hear the explinations and the theory. The fact I am asking for them should indicate something.
  19. Jul 12, 2003 #18
    read the book
  20. Jul 12, 2003 #19
    unfortunately no books exist in this area on it. Nor online. I don't wish to read about how the 4 gospels were related to one another.
  21. Jul 12, 2003 #20

    BTW did you see the new thread in "Theoretical Physics" about the new superfluid model of quantum gravity as discussed in the new Scientific American?

    They are trying to figure out things that are already known in Sorce Theory!!!
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook