Mentor
- 50,919
- 26,948
That process is not gentle.Devin-M said:Earlier you mentioned the Rayleigh Taylor instability process.
That process is not gentle.Devin-M said:Earlier you mentioned the Rayleigh Taylor instability process.
So what? What difference does that make?Devin-M said:By gentle I meant accretion disc rather than a blob falling from a few AU.
There's not as much of a difference as you might imagine. Most of the acceleration will happen close to the Sun.Devin-M said:By gentle I meant accretion disc rather than a blob falling from a few AU.
No. Universe Sandbox does not simulate stellar core physics in an accurate enough way to give you a meaningful result for such a unique situation.Devin-M said:Well in “Universe Sandbox” software I could modify the elemental composition and mass of a sunlike star by adding oxygen and mass… in such a simulation would it be expected to supernova? If it did in the simulation would the simulation be accurate?
Short of magic, I can't think of any way to add mass to the core of the star in a short timescale (let's say a million years or less) that doesn't substantially heat up the core.Devin-M said:If one ran a simulation where they “gently” filled the core with oxygen on a relatively short time scale would it supernova? Is a star that size hot enough to burn oxygen or would you get gravitational collapse?
Adding water is not just adding oxygen. It's also adding hydrogen. A solar mass of water contains a lot of hydrogen. All of which the star can and will burn.Devin-M said:I thought you need over 10 solar masses to burn oxygen so why wouldn’t you get a gravitational collapse?
It could, since it would most likely be a supernova.Devin-M said:Would that final collapse into a neutron star likely involve explosive oxygen burning?