Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Fission creates antineutrinos (from decay of neutrons to protons in the fission products). There are stringent limits on the rate of emission of antineutrinos from the sun that limit the contribution of fission to (IIRC) at most .1% of the total solar energy output.

But anyway, if a neutron star existed in the center of the sun, the energy output would not be from 'kicking out nuclei', but from the release of gravitational energy as matter fell onto the neutron star (making the sun a so-called Thorne-Zytkow object) as well as from fusion in the gas around the neutron star. The energy release would be at the Eddington limit (at which the radiation pressure gradient balances the pressure of incoming matter), which would be many times the actual solar luminosity.

There's little controversy over that theory, any more than there's controversy over the 'flat earth' theory. Both are obviously wrong.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 3, 2006 02:56 PM

I agree. There's something wrong. The evidence that the authors cite for evidence of their theory all are provided by papers coauthored by O. Manuel, one of the authors of the current paper. There should be independent verification of the claims.
Let us add that they make some vague claims (eg, "The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures.").

This looks like some attempt to rationalize a steady-state theory.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 3, 2006 04:54 PM

Thanks, Paul, for your comments.

1. You are correct in the 1st paragraph in stating that fission a.) creates antineutrinos, and b.) little of the Sun’s energy. However, “stringent limits on the rate of emission of antineutrinos” are NOT available for antineutrinos produced in the Sun by the decay of neutrons into hydrogen atoms:

n --> H + anti-neutrino + 0.782 MeV

That seems to be the source of the hydrogen that pours from the Sun (and other stars) in the solar wind. In a talk presented in Dubna, Russia in 2003, we noted the need to measure these low energy anti-neutrinos (Energy

Our overheads are here:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2004/manuel.pdf

The manuscript was published in Physics of Atomic Nuclei, vol. 67 (2004) pp. 1959-1962 and is available here as an arxiv document:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410168

2. You are wrong in the 2nd paragraph of your comment in stating that “if a neutron star existed in the center of the sun, the energy output would not be from 'kicking out nuclei'”.

The Sun’s central neutron star ejects neutrons, which quickly decay to hydrogen ions that are accelerated upward toward the solar surface by deep-seated magnetic fields. Most of H+ are consumed by fusion during this upward journey, producing about 35% of the Sun’s energy. The H+ ions that reach the solar surface make up the bulk of the solar wind.

High precision mass data for the 2,850 known isotopes provide overwhelming evidence for repulsive interactions between neutrons. See “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”:

http://web.umr.edu/%7Eom/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

3. The ‘flat earth’ theory is as obsolete as the theory of solar neutrinos that oscillate into something else before they reach our detectors and the model of a ‘hydrogen-filled Sun’.

Experimental measurements of solar neutrinos, solar wind, solar flares, and solar luminosity all lead to the same conclusion: The Sun and other stars are magnetic plasma diffusers that selectively move lightweight elements and the lighter isotopes of each element to their surfaces. H+ ions from neutron decay are the carrier gas that maintains this mass separation.

Here are two papers that summarize the Sun’s origin and operation:

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2005/IsotopesTellSunsOriginOperation.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Posted by Oliver Manuel at March 3, 2006 05:38 PM

There's no controversy. This is nonsense. Manuel says the sun is mostly iron with a mini neutron star in the center. It doesn't match observation (helioseismology and neutrino observations among other things).

Manuel has coauthored a paper with Michael Mozina, a fellow who has basic misunderstandings in thermodynamics and average density (!) among other things. Michael proposes that the sun has a solid iron surface based on wild interpretations of TRACE and other images. For instance, he assumes that dark areas on a high contrast image of the sun are literally shadows.

There was was painfully long discussion of this on the Universe Today forum. Here are some links (although it doesn't look like html is allowed anymore):

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=23048

This and the following post (scroll down)sumarize some of the issues:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=495444#post495444

Posted by VR at March 4, 2006 01:36 AM

Hi VR,

Let's focus on the experimental data. If you find flaws in my interpretations or if you have better interpretations for the observations, please post them.

I will not call your interpretation "nonsense".

The finding of short-lived radioactive isotopes and unmixed products of stellar nuclear reactions in meteorites gave the first hint that:

"the entire solar system may have condensed primarily from a single local supernova."

For example the data shown in Table 1 of "Strange xenon, extinct superheavy elements, and the solar neutrino puzzle" [Science 195 (1977) 208-210] shows that all primordial He and Ne was trapped in mineral sites of the Allende meteorite that contain "strange" Xe, or Xe-2 (enriched in Xe-136 by about a factor of 2, i.e., 100%).

http://web.umr.edu/~om/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf

Meteorite minerals like FeS that trapped "normal" Xe, or Xe-1 (like here on Earth), trapped no He or Ne. Meteorite minerals like diamond (C) trapped "strange" Xe with primordial He and Ne.

How do you explain this observation (Table 1)?

Our conclusion: He, C and Ne came from the outer layers of the supernova that formed the solar system. Elements like Fe and S were made deep in the interior of the supernova where fusion reactions destroyed all light elements.

"We regard the iron cores of the inner planets, the iron meteorites, and the core of the Sun as likely condensation products from the supernova core."

Subsequent measurements on meteorites, the solar wind, solar flares, and planets supported our 1977 conclusion. Seven of those measurements were cited in our 2002 paper at the SOHO/GONG Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology [ESA SP-517 (2003) pp. 345-348] http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf

1. There two distinct types of xenon (Xe-1 and Xe-2) at the birth of the solar system (See Fig 1).

2. Primordial Helium accompanied Xe-2 ("strange" Xe) and not Xe-1 ("normal" Xe) when meteorites formed (See Fig 2).

3. Jupiter's He-rich atmosphere contains Xe-2 ("strange" xenon) http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf (See p. 346)

4. Lightweight (L) isotopes in the solar wind are enriched relative to heavier ones (H) by a common fractionation factor (f), where:

log (f) = 4.56 log (H/L)

(See Fig. 5 and discussion on pp. 346-347.)

5. When element abundances in the photosphere are corrected for the above empirical equation, one finds that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni, S, Mg and Ca, the same elements as that comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites (See p. 347).

6. The statistical probability that this agreement is fortuitous is less than 1 in 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

7. Energetic solar flares bring up material from the interior of the Sun, by-passing several stages of mass fractionation. Lightweight isotopes are less enriched in solar flare ejecta, and the "Wind" spacecraft found that lightweight elements are less enriched in solar flare ejecta by several orders-of-magnitude (See Table 1 and discussion on p. 347).

Please tell us how you explain these observations.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Posted by Oliver Manuel at March 4, 2006 08:32 AM

While it's not clear to me that the different isotope distributions of xenon came from the same supernova (seeing that the Solar System must have passed through many supernova nebula and perhaps passed through a sufficiently dense one), let's assume that it is. This isn't evidence that the Sun is haboring a neutron star, but merely that the Solar System was very near a supernova, which is supposed (as I understand it) by some current theories of Solar System formation. I still have some questions.

Why didn't a supernova originating where the Sun is now, drive away the rest of the material of the Solar System? Why does the Sun have the profile (age, solar output, isotope distribution) of a regular star not a star with a neutron star at the core? Why do we see little variation in solar neutrino emissions? With a neutron star at the core, I'd expect orders of magnitude variation as material settled on the surface of the neutron star as a sort of mini-soft gamma ray burster (minus the gamma rays which wouldn't make it to the surface).

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 4, 2006 01:47 PM

And why do we see neutrinos that are consistent with the standard solar model (now that SNO has revealed some are converted into other neutrino flavors) in which the energy is coming from ordinary fusion?

And how does a putative neutron emitted by a neutron star actually get emitted? The surface of a neutron star doesn't have free neutrons. Free neutrons only exist at depth, where there is sufficient density and sufficiently many degenerate electrons to prevent neutron decay. If anything, accretion onto the neutron star would be causing protons to be undergoing conversion to neutrons, not the other way around.

But if a neutron did get emitted, how does it survive for minutes required for it to decay, instead of being immediately captured on other nuclei (a process that should take a small fraction of a second in the conditions at the center of the sun)? If this neutron star is initially surrounded by iron, you'd get neutron capture and beta decay of a wide variety of heavy nuclei, much like from fission products.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 5, 2006 06:17 AM

Hi Paul,

Neutrinos do not oscillate, although our goverment spent millions of dollars to fund studies that would support this misconception. What is, ... is. That cannot be changed by funding decisions.

Watch for "back-pedalling" on this discovery.

Most H+ ions are consumed by fusion during their upward journey from the Sun's core. This explains

a.) the observed solar neutrino flux,
b.) less than 38% of the Sun's luminosity, and
c.) the observed flux of H+ ions leaving the solar surface in the solar wind.

We predicted that the number of solar neutrinos observed would be somewhat less than 38% of the number expected if H-fusion alone powers the Sun.

The measurement yielded 35% of the number of solar neutrinos expected, in excellent agreement with our prediction.

However, the researchers decided their measurement was close enough to 33% to declare that neutrinos oscillate between three (3) types.

As mentioned above, there will be "back-pedalling" on this discovery.

For more detailed information on our model, please see this paper from the Proceedings of the 2003 Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410460

With kind regards,
OLiver K. Manuel
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Posted by Oliver Manuel at March 5, 2006 12:43 PM

You didn't explain how those neutrons survive long enough to decay without being captured. Do the calculation! If a free neutron has an absorption cross section on the nuclei in the solar core of 1 millibarn (a very conservatively low nuclear cross section), a free neutron in the solar core will on average last less than 1 microsecond before undergoing nuclear capture. Less than 1 neutron in a billion would decay before being captured.

I urge you to seriously consider the possibility that you've become the victim of a serious mental illness. Schizophrenia, for example, can manifest itself in fixation on bizarre, contrafactual theories such as yours.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 5, 2006 01:15 PM

Neutrinos do not oscillate, although our goverment spent millions of dollars to fund studies that would support this misconception. What is, ... is. That cannot be changed by funding decisions.

This is just conjecture one way or another. But it does appear to me that a neutrino with a slight mass would fit observation. And current observations haven't ruled that out.

Second, what differentiates the Sun from other stars. Unless you're claiming that most stars (or at least most massive stars) have a neutron star at the core, then what evidence sets the Sun apart from these "normal" stars? Another thing that bothers me here is that apparently there aren't any intermediate objects in your theory. We have either naked neutron stars or the fully cloaked ones like the Sun. Even when you have a neutron star orbiting a nearby giant star, it doesn't accumulate a stellar envelopment, but apparently more an accretion ring.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 5, 2006 05:19 PM

Come on, Paul.

This page is not about your mental health nor mine.

Focus on the seven experimental observations listed above and published in the Proceedings of the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology [ESA SP-517 (2003) pp. 345-348].

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

It's okay if you can't explain those data.

But it's not okay to try to divert attention away from experimantal observations that show the model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is as obsolete as the flat Earth theory.

Hydrogen (the lightest of all elements) accounts for 91% of the atoms at the surface of the Sun. Helium (the second lightest element) accounts for 9% of the atoms there. The 81 heavier elements together account for only about 0.2% of the atoms at the surface of the Sun.

Mental illness is not required to see a trend here, especially if one knows that balloons filled with Hydrogen or Helium tend to rise upward.

With kind regards,
Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Posted by Oliver Manuel at March 5, 2006 05:41 PM

It's okay if you can't explain those data.

Hey, I don't have to explain any observations. I only have to point out how your theory is wrong. It is up to you to counter each and every criticism, which you have not done and cannot do. If I, who am not a physicist, can see the problems, then imagine what real physicists must think.

But it's not okay to try to divert attention away from experimantal observations that show the model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is as obsolete as the flat Earth theory.

Hey, I'm talking about the fatal defects in your theory, mister. If the standard solar model is also flawed it won't make your bullshit smell any sweeter.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 5, 2006 06:02 PM

Neutrinos do not oscillate, although our goverment spent millions of dollars to fund studies that would support this misconception. What is, ... is. That cannot be changed by funding decisions.

And your evidence for this is? Because it doesn't agree with your iron sun model? Please . . .

Actually, that isn't new. Manuel came up with this model before the SNO results. Now that this and other experiments indicate oscillation and the flux is consistent with P-P fusion for the observed luminosity, Maneul would prefer to wave it away.

Manuel asked many of the same questions on the UT thread I noted earlier. Those were discussed (for instance, his assumptions in the relevance of a meteorite's composition to the bulk composition of the sun). There were many questions he didn't answer, as well, such as the physics and detailed calculations showing how you get an iron sun with a (possibly) solid surface and a mini neutron star in the center that just happens to match the luminosity, mass and volume of the star we see.

Posted by VR at March 5, 2006 11:25 PM

Thanks, Paul.

You got the message right!

New measurements will tell whether or not neutrinos oscillate.

I predict that there will be "back-pedalling" on the discovery that solar neutrinos oscillate.

Would you like to go on record opposing this prediction?

With kind regards,
Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Posted by Oliver K. Manuel at March 6, 2006 03:41 PM

Oliver,

I think often when we have committed many years to an idea, it
can be hard to let go of it.

I went to the website VR cited and read, certainly not all of
it, but a good bit of it. After awhile I felt that I was seeing
a certain repeating pattern: namely that you were not answering
key questions.

If you don't know, you should say you don't know. That may be
painful in the short run, but in the longer run you'll be much
better off for it.

If you don't understand an area you should be forthright in
stating that lack of expertise.

What I would focus on if I where you is what you do know,
really know, and talk only about that. If that means giving up
this grand theory, then so be it.

What I found most interesting by the way and which I found no
mention of in these various discussions was the assertion in
your paper of a repulsive force between neutrons.

Posted by Mark Amerman at March 6, 2006 09:44 PM

the assertion in your paper of a repulsive force between neutrons.

It's well known that the two neutron system (the 'di-neutron') is not bound. There have been many experiments looking for this animal (as well as the tri-neutron, the tetra-neutron, etc.) with no success.

There are some nuclei, called 'halo nuclei', which have a tightly bound core with some neutrons in a more extended halo. In some of these, such as 6He and 11Li, the two neutrons in the halo are bound to each other in this sense: if one of the neutrons is removed, the other neutron is no longer bound to the core. The force between nucleons is not a simple central force like electromagnetism.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 7, 2006 04:40 AM

Paul,

Do you have any thoughts on that chart of 2,850 nuclides in the
paper Rand mentions above? It's figure 3 at the end. Of course
it's extrapolation but if we expand that figure out and apply it
to neutron stars then there should be staggering amounts of energy
buried in the repulsion between all these neutrons.

As you point out the interactions between nucleons are harder to
understand than those due to the electromagnetic or gravitational
forces. Despite that the curve that appears in figure 3 is, at
a high level, smooth and regular.

I don't by the way want to give the impression that I have any
real knowledge of this stuff, because I don't. Still some things
seem clear.

Has anyone taken this relationship and applied it to neutron
stars and seen what different predictions of neutron star behavior
would inevitably result?

Posted by Mark Amerman at March 7, 2006 05:54 AM

then there should be staggering amounts of energy buried in the repulsion between all these neutrons.

Which, of course, is more than compensated for by the gravitational binding energy of the neutron star as a whole. Part of the gravitational energy released during the formation of the neutron star went into compressing the nuclear matter against inter-nucleon repulsion (and converting electrons + protons to neutrons, as well as compressing the remaining electrons into a relativistic degenerate state).

The idea that a neutron star can somehow release energy by emitting neutrons is dubious in the extreme -- the neutron star, absent some phase transition like conversion to quark matter, should already be in a lowest energy state.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 7, 2006 06:26 AM

Paul,

Yes. But I was wondering if in our models of neutron star
behavior would be different if we assume a net neutron
repulsion corresponding to figure 3. You don't address this
directly but it seems that the implication of your words is
that we already know about this and this is nothing new.
Is that the case?

I understand that we already assume nucleon repulsion, and
of course neutron repulsion, or else there would be nothing
to prevent the collapse of a neutron star into a black hole.

Is the data in figure 3 in the paper above in fact already well
known and accounted for and assumed to apply to neutron stars?

Posted by Mark Amerman at March 7, 2006 07:19 AM

Hi Mark and Paul,

You are right. The main issue NOW is the repulsive interaction between neutrons. But we only arrived at that after several decades of puzzling experimental observations, from 1960 until now.

Paul correctly notes the staggering amounts of energy buried in the repulsion between all these
neutrons in a neutron star. In fact, the energy stored in neutron repulsion far exceeds that stored in hydrogen atoms. The fraction of mass (M) converted to energy (E) is approximately this:

a.) Neutron emission releases 1.2-2.4% of M as E
b.) Fusion releases no more than 0.8% of M as E
c.) Fission releases only about 0.1% of M as E

We slowly arrived at this conclusion after decades of puzzling experimental findings (listed below in approximate historical order):

1. [1960's] Why was there so much short-lived radioactivity in material when it started to condense to form the solar system about 5 Gy ago?

2. [1970's] Why are isotopes of the same element, made in different regions of a star by He-burning, the r-process, the s-process and the p-process still unmixed when the first meteorite grains formed?

3. [1970's] Why are these nucleogenetic isotope anomalies linked with chemical gradients in the solar system? (E.g., six or seven different classes of meteorites and planets each have characteristic levels of O-16 from He-burning.)

4. [1970's] Why are light elements like H, He and C tightly linked with certain isotopes of heavier elements like Xe-136 in the material that formed meteorites?

5. [1980's] Why are lightweight isotopes of several different elements in the solar wind enriched in the manner expected if each element underwent nine (9) stages of mass fractionation in reaching the surface of the Sun? (E.g., in xenon the lightweight isotopes from Xe-124 to Xe-136 are each enriched by 3.5% per mass unit.)

6. [1980's] When element abundances at the solar surface (photosphere) are corrected for this empirical mass fractionation, why does it indicate that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of the same seven elements that comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites - Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca?

7. [1980's] Can this be a coincidence? Only if you believe in magic! The chance of that is less than 1 in 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

8. [1980's] Why do iron sulfide (FeS) inclusions of meteorites have element and isotope abundances like those in Earth and Mars?

9. [1990's] Why do diamond (C) inclusions of meteorites have element and isotope abundances like those the Galileo mission found in Jupiter?

10. [2000's] What is the source of solar neutrinos, solar luminosity, and solar wind hydrogen (Yes, the Sun is generating and throwing away billions of metric tons of H each year) if the Sun is made mostly of Fe, O, Ni, Si, S, Mg and Ca?

Question #10 led us to the study of the systematic properties of all 2,850 known isotopes and the conclusion of repulsive interactions between neutrons.

With kind regards,
Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Posted by Oliver Manuel at March 7, 2006 08:17 AM