Anton posted elsewhere an interesting new paper by Bahcall and Serenelli entitled, "How Do Uncertainities in the Surface Chemical Composition of the Sun Affect the Predicted Solar Neutrino Fluxes?"

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf...412/0412096.pdf

I moved a copy of the link here because:

"Predicted Solar Neutrino Fluxes" depend on "Uncertainties in the Internal Chemical Composition of the Sun" rather than on "Uncertainties in the Surface Chemical Composition of the Sun".

Most solar neutrinos likely originate in its interior.

Regretfully, the new paper does not mention measurements showing mass separation in the Sun causes the "Surface Chemical Composition of the Sun" to consist almost entirely of the two lightest elements, H and He.

Those results are shown in 4 Figures and a Summary on the upper right side of my web page.

* Fig 1. Sun's Surface Composition
* Fig 2. Solar Mass Separation
* Fig 3. Composition of Bulk Sun
* Fig 4. Composition of Bulk Sun
* Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

I have only seen this thread now, and it's fantastic . Duane, Antoniseb and others have raised some fantastic points but Oliver has collected some wonderful ideas from data and there may indeed be the evidence out there that suggests the theory may be correct. If I've the time then I'll spend the next day reading through this thread but more likely I'll need a few to read all the links. If I have a something to say or ask then I'll post it. Thanks

Welcome, Taikonaut Dongfang Hong.

It will be great to have additional input.

To save time, you may want to start by quickly reviewing the upper right postion of my web page

http://www.umr.edu/~om

* Fig 1. Sun's Surface Composition
* Fig 2. Solar Mass Separation
* Fig 3. Composition of Bulk Sun
* Fig 4. Composition of Bulk Sun
* Why the Model of a Hydrogen-Filled Sun Is Obsolete

and a summary paper on the "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conference

ArXiv paper: http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0...410/0410717.pdf

To test the Iron Sun model we now need:

1. Measurements of low energy, anti-neutrinos coming from the Sun

See:“The Need to Measure Low Energy, Anti-Neutrinos (E<0.782 MeV) from the Sun”
Lecture overheads: http://nanp.dubna.ru/talks/manuel.pdf
ArXiv paper: http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0...410/0410168.pdf


2. A better theoretical basis for empirical evidence of

a. Repulsive n-n interactions
b. Clustering of nucleons
c. Neutron penetration of gravitational barriers

See: "The structure of the solar core"
ArXiv paper: http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0...411/0411658.pdf

Again, welcome!

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

PS- Perhaps Duane, Antoniseb, and others will provide brief summaries of major weaknesses they perceive in the above.

Here's a copy of a post I made in the "Youngest galaxy Found" thread in the "Stories" section. The post was very oriented toward the Iron Sun theory [asking a direct question of Dr. M. about his model], so, I have moved it here.

By the usual theories, neutron stars that aren't accreting give off xrays as they cool. Before they are a few milllion years old, they are too dim to be detected even from only a few light years away, except as gravitational lenses in the lucky chance of an observed occultation.

According to Dr. Manuel's model, they should be blasting out about two thirds of the solar luminosity until they shrink to the minimum size [when they explode]. Except in the earliest stages, when the neutron star is naked, this luminosity should be seen as stellar-like emissions from the surface Hydrogen and other atoms.

Please, Dr. Manuel, if this is not a good description of your model, correct me.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi, Anton.

I answered that question in the "Youngest Galaxy Found" thread.

Duane deleted it, failing to understand that:

a. Our understanding of neutron stars in very immature.

b. The closest neutron star is the one at the core of the Sun.

c. Our understanding of neutron stars and the Sun will advance together.

I do not have time to repeat my earlier posting. Most of the information is in these papers:

1. "The structure of the solar core"

http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0...411/0411658.pdf

2. "“Is there a deficit of solar neutrinos?”

http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0...410/0410460.pdf

3. “The Need to Measure Low Energy, Anti-Neutrinos (E<0.782 MeV) from the Sun”

Overheads at: http://nanp.dubna.ru/talks/manuel.pdf

ArXiv paper: http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0...410/0410168.pdf

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

I am sure that you are aware that this point is in dispute. I don't think any of your papers make a good case for a neutron star being at the center of the Sun, and you have never shown:
- any evidence that it is possible for a sufficiently low-mass neutron star to ever form.
- why lower mass red-dwarf stars are significantly dimmer than the sun, if they are all driven by the neutron-star mechanism
- why we never see the explosion from when a neutron star in a star's core gets to the minimum mass to sustain its mostly-neutron property
- or any of many likely consequences of a neutron star being in the sun's core, such as explosive accretion

Even your rationale for why you think it has to be there seems pretty weak. It's not based on isotope ratios, or anything you actually understand, it is simply to explain an old mystery about lack of solar neutrinos, that has since been explained to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the non-quack scientific community.

You have no need for the neutron star in the core of the sun, it forces you to profess things you don't understand, and it makes your theory sound especially unbelievable. Why don't you drop it, and look for another mechanism to keep the sun operating?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

No Oliver, you actually didn't answer the question, although you did try to plug in the tired theory that there is a neutron core in the sun.

Our understanding of neutron stars is far more advanced than you seem to believe. That is not to say that everything about them is understood (the devil is in the details) but the mechanism that forms them, their behavior once formed, the energy requirements they need to form and the energy output they emit once formed are all mathematical calculations that have been reported on by astrophysicists for the last several years.

Furthermore, there are many observations of neutron stars, their accretion discs, and their affect on orbiting companions. One neutron star was even seen to light up as a result of heat generated by its accretion of material while it passed through an intersteller cloud.

With respect, it is you who does not understand neutron stars. Most assuredly you do not understand the Equations of State calculations that have been made by Heiselberg or Balberg or Shapirro, to name a few. You talk about neutrons in neutron stars as if they were a free neutron or a neutron in an atom without understanding that the immense gravity field of the neutron star is the biggest single factor in making calculations. Read Heiselberg's explanation of how he arrived at his figures.

You also do not seem to understand that the immense power generated by a supernova explosion is what overcomes the Coloumb Barrier (including n-n repulsion) in the first place. N-n repulsion is not enough to overcome electron degeneracy in the neutron star because the intense gravity field is too large.

Now, no doubt you will again tie to your papers to say I am wrong. So, in an effort to get you to move past this method, instead why don't you lay out the calculations you have made which suggest n-n repulsion can overcome electron degeneracy in a neutron star. Not in an atom or as a free particle Oliver, in a neutron star.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

You may be right, Duane.

Future observations will decide whether:

a.) Neutron stars are a great source of energy with neutrons at excited energies of +10-22 MeV relative to free neutrons at rest, as concluded in these papers

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19 (2001) 93-98.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chememistry 252 (2002) 3-7.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf

3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf

b.) Or neutron stars are "dead", with tightly bound neutrons at -93 MeV relative to free neutrons at rest, as claimed by Henning Heiselberg's model of a neutron star

4. "Neutron star masses, radii and equation of state" Arxiv file (16 Feb 2002)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/020...201/0201465.pdf

Astronomers should be able to distinguish "energetic" neutron stars from "dead" ones !

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

You have no need for the neutron star in the core of the sun, [/b][/quote]
That is your opinion, Anton.

I believe the following emissions from an Iron Sun cannot be explained without a neutron star at its core.

1. Solar Luminosity
2. Solar Neutrinos
3. Solar Wind Releasing
3 x 10^43 H/year

As shown by Four Figures in the upper right part of my web page, http://www.umr.edu/~om

* Fig 1. Sun's Surface Composition
* Fig 2. Solar Mass Separation
* Fig 3. Composition of Bulk Sun
* Fig 4. Composition of Bulk Sun

There is little doubt the interior of the Sun is Iron-rich, although its surface is covered with the two lightest elements, H and He.

With kind regards,

Oliver

There is little doubt WHETHER the interior of the Sun is Iron-rich. It is not.

I do agree that if you postulate that the sun is largely made of Iron and other heavy elements, that SOMETHING needs to explain the large and fairly constant amount of energy that it has been producing for a very long time, and that something needs to explain the neutrinos coming out of it, and if you assume there was no Hydrogen in the early Sun, something has to explain where all this Hydrogen & Helium came from...

But a neutron star cannot be made to explain these things, and brings with it a huge number of other problems for your model.

If you are going to postulate something that can't be made to work with modern physics, why not go all the way, and say that the Sun's core is the receiving end of a wormhole, or a white hole, or a cosmic string, trapped in sea of Iron. You are not constrained to a neutron star as your answer, except insofar as you have previously published that it is there, and would find it awkward to propose a different ridiculous answer. The imagination can supply an endless stream of alternatives as well founded as the neutron star.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

1. It is not.

2. . . . why not go all the way, and say that the Sun's core is the receiving end of a wormhole, or a white hole, or a cosmic string, trapped in sea of Iron. [/b][/quote]
Hi, Anton.

1. There is little doubt the Sun is Iron-rich, unless you simply ignore the measurements shown in Four Figures in the upper right part of my web page, http://www.umr.edu/~om
* Fig 1. Sun's Surface Composition
* Fig 2. Solar Mass Separation
* Fig 3. Composition of Bulk Sun
* Fig 4. Composition of Bulk Sun

2. I published my interpretation of the observations, including those you chose to ignore.

If you think the Sun instead contains wormholes, white holes, or a cosmic string, please go ahead and publish these novel ideas yourself.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Once again you resort to the age old, tried and true, method of misdirection.

It is not a big thing to be published Oliver. People who understand the scientific method (not you unfortunantly) understand that being published really means very little in the overall scheme of things. Even the biggest quack can do that, with effort and perserverence. Certainly having a university to give you a semblance of legitamacy helps.

It doesn't mean that every quack theory out there has legitamacy. Yours is probably the best argued quack theory there is, but it doesn't change the fact it is a quack theory.

Your borish attempts to undermine the reasonable, well thought out arguments of your critics does not add an air of legitimacy where there is none Oliver. Relax, enjoy your retirement, and leave the real investigations to those who understand the realms of subjects that you don't--like nuclear physics.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

I do not think the sun contains these things. I also do not think it contains a neutron star. I think the sun is mostly Hydrogen and Helium. I offered those exotic options as possibilities that are equally as physically plausible for the Iron Sun model as having a neutron star in the center. My point is that the neutron star core cannot be made to explain what we see, and that you aren't constrained to stick with it. You do have other explanations available.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hi, Duane.

Regretfully, Duane, those steeped in science fiction:

Cannot distinguish the difference between:

1. Nuclear physics based on measured properties of all 2,850 known assemblages of neutrons and protons, as shown in this Cradle of the Nuclides,


and

2. Idle theoretical speculation of concepts like wormholes, white holes, or a cosmic string.

When faced with experimental observations they cannot explain, they resort to personal attacks:

<!--QuoteBegin-Antoniseb@Dec 10 2004, 04:55 AM

6. ". . the non-quack scientific community."
[/quote]
If you two can regain any sense of the professionalism that should accompany your actions as moderators, please study and offer your interpretations of the experimantal observations posted in the upper right side of my web page.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Taken from the Youngest Galaxy thread in the stories section:
There is no empirical evidence that neutrons penetrate the gravitational "barrier" of a neutron star. No theoretical basis can or will be developed to support it. Such penetration is FAR outside the realm of modern physics.

Concerning your perceived lost dignity, neither Duane, nor I called YOU a quack. The term was applied to theories that demand substantial changes to the commonly held laws of science in order to be possibly true. The Iron Sun theory qualifies. You are what you are, a man promoting an untenible alternative theory. We never called you a quack.

Concerning the personal opinions you call experiemental observations in the upper right corner of your web page, if you ever bothered to read and acknowledge the opinions of the other side in a debate, you would know we have answered these many times over.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Okay, I give up. Topic closed.

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.