SUMMARY: Space scientist Dr. Olivier Manuel from the University of Missouri-Rolla believes that the Sun's core is mostly iron and not hydrogen as most astronomers believe; and this could help to explain how solar flares occur. Dr. Manuel's highly controversial theory proposes that stars like the Sun formed around older neutron stars, and flares are caused by the magnetic interaction between the core and the rest of the star. He believes that trace elements found in meteorites and the clouds of Jupiter support this theory.


Comments or questions about this story? Feel free to share your thoughts.

Given the much larger supply of solar-type stars than neutron stars I don't see how there could have been enough of the latter to form the former.

It seems a little out to me, as well. A couple of questions, though:

1) Could the "Strange Xeon" have been generated in a Supernove outside the System, and 'blown' in on the solar wind? Or is there too much of it for that to be reasonable.

2) Regarding Donald A. Rosenfield's comment above about the disparity between Neutron and 'solar-type' stars, is it possible that there are a large umber of Neutron Stars being effectively 'masked' inside solar-types?

Testing this theory:

Is it plausible that having a neutron star at its core could have verifiable consequences that could be differentiated from a conventional cored star? I'm thinking things along the lines of density profiles, emissions spectra, etc.

If he is right... What does that do for the 5 billion years we thought we had for all the hydrogen to be exhausted?

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

Dr. Manuel's theory is interesting if only for its rather counter-factual
conclusion concerning the evidence of what he calls "strange Xenon" and the
evidence that many stars with large amounts of iron are seen to have planets.

Because the heavier elements (Oxygen and up) are made by supernovas, it is
altogether logical that stars of later generations --such as our sun and
similar stars-- should be enriched with these elements. If we examine those
areas of the galaxy where new stars are forming, we can see that those clouds
of gas are highly enriched with heavy elements created in supernova explosions.

In short, the present astrophysical theories of solar and planetary formation
account quite well for the evidence cited my Manuel et al. The accretion of a
sun around a rapidly spinning white dwarf remnant or even a neutron star might
conceivably take place if the dense remnant were surrounded by a sufficiently
large cloud of available hydrogen (though I think the rapid rotation might not
allow it), but it would not explain the formation of rocky planets.

IMHO professor Manuel's theory is interesting but probably wrong.

__________________
If ten million people belive a stupid thing...its still a stupid thing. The mother of fools is always pregnant

And wouldn't it change the mass of the sun?

I think the mass of the sun that we have worked out was determined from its gravity on us (As well as rotation and all that stuff).

Presumably, this theory doesnt change its mass, just the stuff the mass if made up of.


-Josh

But that would significantly change the size of the sun wouldn't it? You'd think that would've been taken into consideration when calculations were made as to the size of the sun but no-one seems to have had a problem with the size of the sun that i've ever heard of.

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

That's what I was thinking too, Josh.

To Fraser:

Thanks for posting this news report on the Forum.

The conclusion of an iron-rich Sun is the culmination of over 40 years of measurements since 1960. Solar-wind elements implanted in the surfaces of lunar samples returned by the Apollo mission confirm that lighter mass (L) isotopes of each element are enriched relative to heavier mass (H) isotopes by a common mass fractionation factor (F), where

log (F) = 4.56 log (H)/(L) …… eq. (1)

When the elemental abundance in the photosphere is corrected for the mass fractionation [eq. (1)] it is found that the seven most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun are Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca. These seven elements have even atomic numbers (Z), high nuclear stability, and are produced in the deep interior of supernovae. They are the same seven elements Harkins reported in 1917 to comprise 99% of the material in meteorites [W. D. Harkins, “The evolution of the elements and the stability of complex atoms” in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 39, pp. 856-879 (1917)].

The probability (P) that this agreement is accidental (fortuitous or meaningless) is almost zero, P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002.

Experimental evidence for an iron-rich Sun, which has accumulated like water behind an earthen dam since 1960, is summarized in our paper, "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proceedings of the SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conf. (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003) 27 Oct - 1 Nov 02, Big Bear Lake, CA

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

Welcome to the forum Dr. Manuel. I'm glad you found the site and posted your responses to peoples' comments and challenges.

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

To: Donald Rosenfield

Your comment about the low ratio of neutron stars to solar-type stars in intriguing. What would the ratio be if each neutron star accreted material and became a neutron star? The number of observable neutron stars is much lower than expected [Nature, vol. 379, p. 233 (1996)]. Perhaps the missing ones are in solar-type stars, closely orbited by rocky, iron-rich planets made out of supernova debris near the collapsed supernova core.

The first planetary system discovered beyond our own was rocky, Earth-like planets orbiting very close to a neutron star [Nature, vol. 355, p. 145 (1992); Science, vol. 264, p. 538 (1994)]. Since these planets could not have survived the supernova explosion that created the neutron star (pulsar), there is little doubt they formed out of supernova debris close to the collapsed supernova core.

The iron cores of the terrestrial planets probably formed in a similar fashion, and were then layered with silicates as material further away lost angular momentum and fell toward the Sun. Today we call those objects meteorites.

We discussed this in a paper, "Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete", distributed at a news conference before the 199th annual meeting in Washington, DC. It is available on-line at

http://www.umr.edu/~om/AASWashington2002.pdf

With kind regards,

Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

Thanks for the papers in .pdf! I have yet to read all of the papers you posted so maybe I am asking a question I could find myself but what effect does the theory that the Sun could be made up of iron oposed to hydrogen which we have been taught for many years. What calculations are gonna change i.e. The mass of the sun? Are there different elements in supernova blast then thought? etc. Thanks for your feedback.

__________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

&quot;The book of nature is written in mathematical language.&quot; -- Galileo

It seems a little out to me, as well. A couple of questions, though:

1) Could the "Strange Xeon" have been generated in a Supernove outside the System, and 'blown' in on the solar wind? Or is there too much of it for that to be reasonable.

2) Regarding Donald A. Rosenfield's comment above about the disparity between Neutron and 'solar-type' stars, is it possible that there are a large umber of Neutron Stars being effectively 'masked' inside solar-types?

Testing this theory:

Is it plausible that having a neutron star at its core could have verifiable consequences that could be differentiated from a conventional cored star? I'm thinking things along the lines of density profiles, emissions spectra, etc.[/b][/quote]
To: Michael Birks

1) “Strange Xenon” could not have formed outside the Solar System because primordial helium was initially associated only with “Strange Xenon”, not with “Normal Xenon” like that here on Earth [Science, vol. 195, p. 208 (1977); Icarus, vol. 41, p. 312 (1980); Meteoritics, vol. 15, p. 117 (1980); etc.]

There is also too much “Strange Xenon”. In 1983 we predicted that the Galileo mission would find “Strange Xenon” in Jupiter [Meteoritics, vol. 18, p. 220 (1983)]. That was confirmed. The data are available on the web at

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf

2) Yes, Michael, we suspect that neutron stars may be masked inside “solar-type” stars. Of course, we don’t know that. But we are rather certain something like a neutron star is lurking inside the Sun. The mono-isotopic H-1 that rises upward and leaves the solar surface in the solar wind (3 x 10^43 per year) is probably the product of neutron decay outside the core, n -> H + anti-neutrino + 0.782 MeV.

3) Yes, Michael, our model can be tested. We propose several possible tests in our papers. The most simple and straight forward would be the detection of low energy solar anti-neutrinos from the decay of neutrons in the interior of the Sun. The most plausible detector seems to be Cl-35. Capture of low-energy anti-neutrinos on this would produce 87-day S-35. I presented this at a conference in Dubna, Russia this past summer. You will find that test listed with several other possible tests near the end of our papers, e.g.,

"Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", in Proc. SOHO 12 / GONG+ 2002 Conf. (ed: Huguette Lacoste, ESP SP-517, Feb 2003) 27 Oct - 1 Nov 2002, Big Bear Lake, CA


http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

"Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", J. Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

With kind regards,
Oliver

If there was a supernova in the vicinity of our sun, would there not be clues and reminice of this massive explosion. Looking at the centre of our gallaxy, there is evidence of supernova's which could still be observed as voids with shock fronts.

Wait a minute, can anyone tell me what a neutron star is? Before we can say that our Sun has an "neutron star core" we need to know what it is. I haven't seen any proof of a neutron star other than theoretical evidence. What is the difference between a neutron star and an ordinary star and how de we measure this?

cheers.

To: Josh

Don’t worry, Josh. The Sun will probably be here much longer if its core is a neutron star than it would if the core were hydrogen-filled like the solar surface. The fraction of mass that can be converted into energy is over twice as high in a neutron star as in a star made of pure Hydrogen. See "Attraction and Repulsion of Nucleons: Sources of Stellar Energy", J. Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001)

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.ps

Kuroda and Myers combined U/Pb and Pu/Xe age dating to show that a supernova exploded here about 5 Gy ago, at the birth of the Solar System. See Figure 4, p. 364 of the paper on the “Composition of the Solar Interior”

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

We know the Sun has remained relatively stable since then, except for a period of flash heating about 4.5-4.7 Gy ago, when Hydrogen fusion was re-ignited in the Sun and some planetary dust was converted into glassy, aerodynamically shaped droplets in meteorites called “chondrules.”

In my opinion, our poor understanding of interactions between nucleons and of possible neutron tunneling of the gravitational barrier around a neutron star poses a much greater threat to us than does the exhaustion of fuel in the Sun

I challenged a group of theoretical physicists to address these issues at the 6th Workshop on Quantum Field Theory Under the Influence of External Conditions (QFEXT03) at the University of Oklahoma, Norman (Sept 15-19, 2003). I will send you a reference if our paper is not censored from the proceedings. That battle is on-going.

With kind regards,
Oliver
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
===============================

Phew!! I was about to start selling off all my footy cards. Good to hear we have a few more years. And thanks for the clarifications through out the discussion.

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74

I hate showing my ignorance but here goes: To form a neutron star doesn't it go nova and blast off it's outer shell? If that is true, how did the planets form? From the elements from the outer shell? And wouldn't the sun have a faster rotation?

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

The planets could have been there from the start, although in our case maybe not. Didn't think about the spin, that's a good question.