Big Bang Blasted

[Mike C]

Pluto

 

I accessed that site by Oliver Manuel and excerted the following first paragraph:

 

quote

Title:The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass

Authors: O. Manuel, Sumeet A. Kamat, Michael Mozina

Comments:20 pages, 92 references, 8 figures show that the Sun is an iron rich magnetic plasma diffuser that selectively moves lightweight elements and isotopes of each element to its surface. Solar luminosity, neutrinos, mass fractionation, and the outpouring of H ions in the solar wind arise from neutron emission and decay at the solar core.

Journal-ref: Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

 

Reply:

Mass fragmentation? Neutron decay at the core?

This sounds like 'fission' to me instead of 'fusion'.

So that was enough for me.

Also, the Sun is not an iron rich star. The iron it contains in miniscule amounts came from the impacting comets and meteroids.

 

Mike C

[modest]

Richard S. Ellis (Caltech) has studied the ultra deep images in detail. One of the outstanding features of the ‘early’ universe is that galaxies out to redshift 7 appear to have normal stellar populations. These are not the big, bright, ultra-heavy 500 solar-mass 1st generation stars thought to have reigned at the time. Moreover, galaxies are fairly evolved. This means that those distant galaxies formed, according to Ellis, when the universe was a meager 600 million years old—at an epoch once assumed to be in the Dark Age—detrimental evidence to big bang cosmology. Observations suggest these distant objects are not representative of the first population of galaxies (Ellis, R.S., 2004).

 

Others too have found that distant red galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (Toft et al 2005) present morphological properties that suggest “complex stellar populations, consisting of both evolved populations that dominate the mass and the restframe optical light, and younger populations, which show up as patches of star formation in the restframe UV light; in many ways resembling the properties of normal local galaxies."

 

Isobel Hook (see Hook et al, c2004), head of the UK Gemini Support Group, (Oxford University) is part of the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (GDDS) team whose objective is to capture the faintest galactic light ever detected. Three hundred galaxies were scrutinized. “These highly developed galaxies, whose star-forming youth is in fact long gone, just shouldn’t be there, but are," said Co-Principal Investigator Karl Glazebrook (Johns Hopkins University).

 

Using data obtained with the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope on Mauna Kea, Gemini Deep Deep Survey took the deepest spectra ever of very distant galaxies. The galaxy populations encountered look identical to local groups, with astoundingly no sign of evolution during this important era that was believed to be one most significant change. Massive, fully formed galaxies are found at great distances. The huge massive ones should not be there at all according to astronomers. There was simply too little time between t = 0 and then for them to form. Either something is drastically wrong with the standard model (inflationary period included) or we need to entirely rethink the manner in which galaxies formed. Either way the situation is not good for modern cosmology.

 

"It is quite obvious from the Gemini spectra that these are indeed very mature galaxies, and we are not seeing the effects of obscuring dust. Obviously there are some major aspects about the early lives of galaxies that we just don’t understand.” Said Patrick McCarthy (Observatories of the Carnegie Institution).

 

Wait, there’s more: “Studying the chemical composition of the interstellar gas, we discovered that the galaxies in our survey are more metal-rich than expected." Sandra Savaglio (Johns Hopkins University).

 

I don't have too much time to place a reply here, but I know something about GDDS, so I'll give it a go:

 

Data and Conclusions from the Gemini Deep Deep Survey:

The GDDS survey can be found here

 

The survey was constrained to redshift 0.8 < z < 1.8

Larger mass “red and dead” galaxies were favored for survey

Galaxies surveyed seem to go through a period of massive starburst

The larger mass galaxies have a shorter, earlier, and more-intense starburst epoch

The most massive galaxies are finished with their starburst by z = 1.8

Intermediate size galaxies are finished by z = 1

The starburst epoch leaves the galaxy metal-rich

There is a direct line of proportionality between metallicity and galaxy mass at any given value of z

There is a direct line of inverse-proportionality between length of starburst epoch and galaxy mass

[ sorry to be so sparse here - this is the first summary of the GDDS on hypography and I would spend more time if I had it ]

 

What this means:

 

This is direct support for down-sizing (Cowie et al. 1994). This is also evidence against the ‘SZ’ theory of galaxy formation and seems to rather support an ELS-ish model [i can't find any useful link to those, sorry]. Merger events don’t seem to play as large a role in galaxy evolution as people thought. This is all fine with BBT as the theory makes no claim to understand how galaxies or smaller structures formed (1). The Big Bang Theory has no favorites among the many theories of galaxy formation which seem to be changing all the time. If the most massive galaxies started burning massive stars in the first billion years of the universe’s evolution and burned through them quickly as the GDDS seems to show, then this is fine. If less massive galaxies burn smaller stars and less quickly then this is fine too. This is all to do with galaxy evolution and nothing to do with BBT. The GDDS shows us that a galaxy’s behavior from the young universe up till now is dictated mostly by its mass. (2)

If anything, this is good for BBT as I don't see how the earlier-prevailing theory of galaxy formation by slowly gathering more and more little clumps of matter (subclustering and the hierarchical model) works over the given time frame. This data has forced people to look at galaxy formation and evolution in a different light - this is good.

 

I wonder, however, how does this data fit into your steady-state theory? GDDS paints a beautiful picture of massive galaxies burning young and quick and dieing early. Galaxies with less mass have a longer starburst phase but only relatively speaking. Shouldn’t a steady-state universe have galaxies that remain steady? All of the data thus far shows a universe rapidly evolving and changing. At 1 < z < 2 it was evolving very rapidly[Dickinson et al. 2003; Glazebrook et al. 2004; Rudnick et al. 2003]. As an example, pure passive galaxies are increasingly rare at z > 1.5. (3) HST ACS images of the GDDS’s “red and dead” galaxies show morphologies characteristic of early-type galaxies (4) - as well it should.

 

This study is just one more nail in the coffin of steady-state theory. But - what’s one more nail in the coffin? Speaking of coffin, you know - denial is the first stage of grief. Most steady-state theorist have moved on to anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. But, hey - we may all be proven wrong

 

Maybe Douglas Adams had it right:

"The entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure" :)

-modest

[coldcreation]

...Merger events don’t seem to play as large a role in galaxy evolution as people thought.

 

I've been saying this for years.

 

This is all fine with BBT as the theory makes no claim to understand how galaxies or smaller structures formed (1).

 

That's because its impossible to explain how things could come together in a universe blowing apart.

 

 

The Big Bang Theory has no favorites among the many theories of galaxy formation which seem to be changing all the time.

 

The BBT theory made predictions about galaxy evolution and timescales. Those predictions were not confirmed by observation. On the contrary. The predictions have failed.

 

If the most massive galaxies started burning massive stars in the first billion years of the universe’s evolution and burned through them quickly as the GDDS seems to show, then this is fine. If less massive galaxies burn smaller stars and less quickly then this is fine too. This is all to do with galaxy evolution and nothing to do with BBT.

 

True, the BBT will take what it can get. But the fact is, confirming predictions is what confirms a theory. So far, galaxy formation and evolution resembles nothing of a BBU.

 

Note: the BBT has to do with galaxy formation and evolution.

 

 

The GDDS shows us that a galaxy’s behavior from the young universe up till now is dictated mostly by its mass. (2)

If anything, this is good for BBT as I don't see how the earlier-prevailing theory of galaxy formation by slowly gathering more and more little clumps of matter (subclustering and the hierarchical model) works over the given time frame. This data has forced people to look at galaxy formation and evolution in a different light - this is good.

 

Perhaps it should, too, make people look at the standar model in a different light, for it is that model's prediction that has been shown falacious.

 

I wonder, however, how does this data fit into your steady-state theory? GDDS paints a beautiful picture of massive galaxies burning young and quick and dieing early. Galaxies with less mass have a longer starburst phase but only relatively speaking.

 

Your interpretation of the evidence is erroneous. The observations show, to simplify, two things: (1) that galaxies are older, metal-rich, and well formed at distances where the BBT predicted there should be none of the above, and (2) that, though the investigation is on-going, results seem to indicate the galaxies in the distant past are very similar to those seen locally, and that, therefore, the universe appears much older than previously thought: Stay tuned.

 

 

Shouldn’t a steady-state universe have galaxies that remain steady?

 

No. That would meen there in no nucleosynthesis occuring within it's stars. Obviously stars along with the galaxies evolve, very slowly.

 

All of the data thus far shows a universe rapidly evolving and changing. At 1 < z < 2 it was evolving very rapidly[Dickinson et al. 2003; Glazebrook et al. 2004; Rudnick et al. 2003]. As an example, pure passive galaxies are increasingly rare at z > 1.5. (3) HST ACS images of the GDDS’s “red and dead” galaxies show morphologies characteristic of early-type galaxies (4) - as well it should.

 

The rate of change is still a topic under study, in its infancy. It is too early for the exact determination of evolution rate. What is seen, however, is high metallicity at high-z. That can be interpreted as rapid evolution in a young universe, or slow evolution in a much older universe. My vote is for the latter.

 

This study is just one more nail in the coffin of steady-state theory. But - what’s one more nail in the coffin? Speaking of coffin, you know - denial is the first stage of grief. Most steady-state theorist have moved on to anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. But, hey - we may all be proven wrong

 

When you refer to the steady-state theory, do you refer to the Hoyle, Gold, Bondi, SST, or QSSC? Or to all static solutions to the field equation derived models?

 

If a nail was placed in a coffin it was one in which the BBT resides, along with its spurious contentions.

 

Despite our great conceptual innovations, the standard model must bend-over to bogus assertions. Because without the spurious contentions, eighty years of modern cosmology spirals perilously straight down the drain like a toxic chemical threatening to erode the pipes and eventually the foundation of the house: Which leads us directly into the next and most arduous problem of all; having to admit that the universe is not expanding, that the legendary superdense explosion was never part of the history of our universe.

 

Although many astronomers may report exaggerated feelings of emptiness during the grieving process, if it remains pathologic, i.e., if many more high-z galaxies are found to be populated with metal-rich old stars, appropriate guidance should be found that might make a referral for more extensive support (this, however, is beyond the scope of the present discussion).

 

 

A new theory renders obsolete the old.

 

 

 

CC

[CraigD]

Title:The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass

Authors: O. Manuel, Sumeet A. Kamat, Michael Mozina

Comments:20 pages, 92 references, 8 figures show that the Sun is an iron rich magnetic plasma diffuser that selectively moves lightweight elements and isotopes of each element to its surface. Solar luminosity, neutrinos, mass fractionation, and the outpouring of H ions in the solar wind arise from neutron emission and decay at the solar core.

Journal-ref: Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

 

Reply:

Mass fragmentation? Neutron decay at the core?

This sounds like 'fission' to me instead of 'fusion'.

So that was enough for me.

I believe Mike C summarizes Manuel and colleagues’ position accurately. In brief, their “maverick” hypothesis is that most (over 60%) of the sun’s energy is not the result of fusion, as most scientists believe, but from nuclear decay and residual heat of a supernova remnant core.

 

It’s an interesting hypothesis, but most stellar scientists find that it creates more problems than it solves. This 2002 CNN article summarizes some of the problems it solves and creates.

Also, the Sun is not an iron rich star.

”Iron rich” is a relative term. Through spectroscopy, we know that sun’s photosphere is about 0.16% (by mass) iron. This is high compared to, say, the old stars found in globular clusters, which typically appear to be less than 0.01% iron. It is very low compared to, say, Earth, which is about 32% iron. To me, this suggests it’s more meaningful to compare stars to stars than stars to planets.

 

The sun likely has a much greater concentration of iron in its core than in its photosphere and middle layers, so it’s true iron content may be as high as 2% of its mass.

 

(sources: wikipedia articles “Sun”, “globular cluster” and “Earth”)

The iron it [the Sun] contains in miniscule amounts came from the impacting comets and meteroids.

The problem with this claim is that, even though the Sun’s ration of iron to total mass is much lower than other solar system bodies, its total mass is much higher. At a minimum (assuming its core does NOT have a higher iron concentration than its outer layers), the Sun has about 3.18e27 kg of iron. The entire solar system other than the Sun has a mass of about 2.79e27 kg, or which all but 1.28e26 kg consist of the Jupiter and the other giant planets. So, even if all the non-giant solar system bodies were 100% iron, and all fell into the Sun, this would increase the amount of iron in the Sun by only about 3%.

 

More realistically, the total mass of all non-planet bodies in the solar system is about 4e21 kg for asteroids, some of which have a high concentration of iron, and about 3e25 kg for comets and other kuiper objects, most of which appear to have iron concentration more similar to the Sun than the planets and asteroids. The Sun probably has about 4e28 kg of iron. So, if all the small solar system bodies fell into the Sun, they would increase its iron content by about 0.00001%.

 

The conventional model of the formation of the solar system is that the Sun, planets, and smaller bodies condensed out of the same fairly homogenous molecular/dust cloud of about 2% iron. Due to its great mass, the Sun (about 1.99e30 kg) and the giant planets (1.90e27 kg for Jupiter to 8.68e25 kg) retained most of its light elements (H and He), while the smaller bodies did not, resulting in the smaller bodies now having high ratios of iron and other heavy element, and very low rations of H and He, while the giant planets have lower iron ratios even than the protosolar nebula from which they formed, due to having “swept up” the H and He the smaller bodies could not. (Source: Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[Erasmus00]

There are good physical arguments that show a stationary universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics, GR, QM and classical mechanics goes through phase transitions.

 

Such as? To undergo any phase change your temperature NEEDs to change. However, in a steady state universe, there is no characteristic time scale, so how can anything change?

 

In other words, it is not obligatory that hydrogen burning stars always existed, or even that hydrogen always existed. The possibility (or likelyhood) that hydrogen production transpired over cosmological timescales is compelling.

 

But you claim the universe has ALWAYS been here. How then do you define a cosmological time scale?

 

You no as well as anyone that infinities are meaningless when used as you do above. Infinite change means nothing. Fortunately there is a branch of science that deals with phenomena such as bifurcation points, spontaneous symmetry breaking, critical phase transitions often characterized by long correlation lengths and the appearance of novel states by amplifying or repressing the effects of slight perturbations, thermodynamic limits, irreversible evolutionary processes leading to the complex behavior, complex systems.

 

While this branch of physics (condensed matter) exists, you have given no compelling arguments for how it fixes your problem. Condensed matter physics obviously applies to a big bang universe (and hence we have phase changes from free quarks, to nuclei to atoms) in the early big bang universe.

 

However, you have given no reason this should be true of a steady state model.

-Will

[coldcreation]

 

There are good physical arguments that show a stationary universe governed by the laws of thermodynamics, GR, QM and classical mechanics goes through phase transitions.

 

Such as? To undergo any phase change your temperature NEEDs to change. However, in a steady state universe, there is no characteristic time scale, so how can anything change?

 

Funny... Modest writes there would be infinite change in a stationary universe, you write there would be no change.

 

You are both mistaken. In a stationary (nonexpanding) universe there is thermal evolution with time, i.e., the blackbody background radiation changes with cosmic epoch, since stellar proccesses are continually adding to the MBR.

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, it is not obligatory that hydrogen burning stars always existed, or even that hydrogen always existed. The possibility (or likelyhood) that hydrogen production transpired over cosmological timescales is compelling.

 

 

But you claim the universe has ALWAYS been here. How then do you define a cosmological time scale?

 

Timescales are described using light years. The reference frame is here and now. Certainly, even if the universe has no age, it is possible to date objects, to determine distance and cosmic epoch. This is practically model independent.

 

Cosmological time scale are extrapolated in the lookback time, from the present.

 

 

You [modest] no as well as anyone that infinities are meaningless when used as you do above. Infinite change means nothing. Fortunately there is a branch of science that deals with phenomena such as bifurcation points, spontaneous symmetry breaking, critical phase transitions often characterized by long correlation lengths and the appearance of novel states by amplifying or repressing the effects of slight perturbations, thermodynamic limits, irreversible evolutionary processes leading to the complex behavior, complex systems.

 

 

While this branch of physics (condensed matter) exists, you have given no compelling arguments for how it fixes your problem. Condensed matter physics obviously applies to a big bang universe (and hence we have phase changes from free quarks, to nuclei to atoms) in the early big bang universe.

 

However, you have given no reason this should be true of a steady state model. -Will

 

Physics is not indicative of one model or theory. Physics is applicable (or should be) to all theories. There is no reason why a stationary (nonexpanding) universe should not change and evolve according to known physical processes.

 

There is no reason why condensed matter physics would be excluded from a universe where space is not expanding.

 

My point was that change occurs (slowly but surely) in a nonexpanding universe according to known physics.

 

The problem with the BBT is that change needs to occur much too quickly to be accounted for by observation (especially with regards to galaxy formation). And too, that the amount of change (whatever that means) depends not on the age of the uiverse or cosmic epoch. It depends on physical factors such as described above, by thermodynamics, GR, QM, etc.

 

There is plenty of time for change in a universe with no beginning.

 

 

CC

[Erasmus00]

There is no reason why condensed matter physics would be excluded from a universe where space is not expanding.

 

My point was that change occurs (slowly but surely) in a nonexpanding universe according to known physics.

 

To apply thermodynamics, as you want, we always need to make the assumption that time averages can be replaced with ensemble averages. To make this assumption in a closed system (non-expanding universe) we instantly turn it steady state, and we lose any time scales. The past is no different then the future (i.e. no arrow of time).

 

How about we resolve this argument the easy way- you claim physical arguments exist for thermodynamics, phase changes, epochs, etc, in an infinite, steady state universe. Present these arguments.

-Will

[coldcreation]

To apply thermodynamics, as you want, we always need to make the assumption that time averages can be replaced with ensemble averages. To make this assumption in a closed system (non-expanding universe) we instantly turn it steady state, and we lose any time scales. The past is no different then the future (i.e. no arrow of time).

 

 

The problem of steady state, stability, of equilibrium, is not unique to cosmology. It arises in analyses of macroscopic and microscopic physical phenomena based on the principles of thermodynamics, GR and quantum mechanics as well. The second law of thermodynamics determines, if you will (pun intended), the arrow of time. The direction of time from past to the future is thus not model dependent.

 

Thus, a physical basis for the direction of time from past to future is provided for all stationary-scale-factor cosmologies. And finally, this is why the universe along with all that it includes evolves steadily, dynamically, inevitably and irreversibly.

 

So static (or steady state) solutions do addresses the causal description of time-evolution, as well as the properties and kinematics of all possible, probable, or allowed states of the universe.

 

 

How about we resolve this argument the easy way- you claim physical arguments exist for thermodynamics, phase changes, epochs, etc, in an infinite, steady state universe. Present these arguments. -Will

 

 

Certainly, Will, within the immense vastness of the universe there are systems and subsystems whose states can vary between unsteady, steady, nonequilibrium, and equilibrium (unstable, metastable, and stable). The target here is to identify one of a large variety of states from which the physical phenomenon (including the large-scale structures) observed in the universe today have evolved. An isolated system that does not change as a function of time or leave net effects in the environment or alter the values of amounts of constituents and parameters to a compatible set of values is excluded by observation and experience.

 

Generally, the state of a system and its environment are affected during a process. Two outstanding features of a process are that they may be reversible of irreversible. A reversible process can be achieved in at least one way such that a system and its environment may be restored to their respective initial states. Conversely, a process is irreversible if it is impossible to carry out in such a way that the system and its environment can be restored to their respective initial states. Irreversibility is a ubiquitous ‘property’ observed in most natural physical phenomena that leads to complex, constructive formations such as vortex creation, laser light, and chemical oscillations, and from which emerges the arrow of time—from the past to present, and toward the future: and that, whether one considers a universe infinite in spatiotemporal extent or finite.

 

 

 

Thermodynamics does not depend on cosmology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Erasmus00]

The problem of steady state, stability, of equilibrium, is not unique to cosmology. It arises in analyses of macroscopic and microscopic physical phenomena based on the principles of thermodynamics, GR and quantum mechanics as well. The second law of thermodynamics determines, if you will (pun intended), the arrow of time. The direction of time from past to the future is thus not model dependent.

 

You miss my point. I'm well aware of how the arrow of time arises from the second law. HOWEVER, in a state purely described by thermodynamics, entropy has already been maximized! There is no longer a macroscopic time dependence, because it has reached equilibrium. This must be true or we are not free to replace time averages with ensemble averages!!

 

Now again, present to me your physical arguments- provide me with an eternal,static universe, in which thermodynamics holds, and yet things still happen. You claim such a model exists, present it. You continually claim these things are possible, and so where is the model?

-Will

[coldcreation]

Now again, present to me your physical arguments- provide me with an eternal,static universe, in which thermodynamics holds, and yet things still happen. You claim such a model exists, present it. You continually claim these things are possible, and so where is the model?

-Will

 

I do not want to highjack this thread.

 

I will say though, that thermodynamics is operational regardless of whether the universe model is expanding or stationary.

 

Entropy is the property that determines the direction of spontaneous change.

 

In another way: there exists in all natural processes a quantity that always changes in the same way, regardless of whether the universe is infinite or not.

 

Thermodynamical problems arise, not as you seem to beleive, in a nonexpanding model, but in the expanding model, the closer one delves towards ground zero.

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

Such as? To undergo any phase change your temperature NEEDs to change. However, in a steady state universe, there is no characteristic time scale, so how can anything change?

 

Funny... Modest writes there would be infinite change in a stationary universe, you write there would be no change.

 

CC

 

Please do not misrepresent what I have said. Someone new to the thread could get the wrong impression. What I have said is "any change in an infinite universe over infinite years would become infinite change"

 

What is funny - that's the same thing Erasmus00 is saying:

 

To undergo any phase change your temperature NEEDs to change. However, in a steady state universe, there is no characteristic time scale, so how can anything change?

 

Either no cosmological value changes over time or the ones that do approach zero or infinity. What we are saying is how can your SSU be timeless and evolve - that doesn't work. You have to have either no-change or a starting point.

 

You are both mistaken. In a stationary (nonexpanding) universe there is thermal evolution with time, i.e., the blackbody background radiation changes with cosmic epoch, since stellar proccesses are continually adding to the MBR.

 

We are both quite right. Let's look at your thermal evolution with time. The stellar processes are continually adding to the MBR and your universe was never born - so:

 

Long long ago in a galaxy far far away...

your MBR was 0.5º K

1 trillion years later it was 1.5 K

5 trillion years after that it was 6.5 K

50 trillion years after that it was 56.5 K

500 trillion years after that it was 556.5 K

and an infinite time after that humans come into the picture and the MBR is [well, things kind of break down here]

 

Do you see why an infinite time-scale doesn't work with a universe that has changing cosmological values?

[coldcreation]

... What I have said is "any change in an infinite universe over infinite years would become infinite change" ...

 

Either no cosmological value changes over time or the ones that do approach zero or infinity. What we are saying is how can your SSU be timeless and evolve - that doesn't work. You have to have either no-change or a starting point.

 

Do you see why an infinite time-scale doesn't work with a universe that has changing cosmological values?

 

 

Recall that between 1918 and 1925, while MacMillan’s cosmogony was being developed, the notion of a stationary universe was unanimously accepted. Where his contentious testimonial differed from conventional cosmology was in its refusal of increasing entropy, of the continuing irreversible degradation of matter and energy associated with and implied by the second law of thermodynamics, which would ultimately lead to a lifeless, inert and unorganized universe: the so-called heat-death of the universe commonly believed as inevitable at that time. The question was essentially: Why had the entropy (or degradation of energy) not yet reached its maximum?

 

Although MacMillan’s scientific beliefs were based to a certain extent on common sense, he refused the validity of Einstein’s theory of relativity—exclusively mathematical world-views were to him a “dangerous thing in cosmology.” His primary goal had been to inject optimism in a field stricken by the haunting notions of stellar death and universal demise so prevalent in the minds of his contemporaries: “The forbidding picture of the galaxy as a dismal, dreary graveyard of dead stars,” he wrote in 1920, referring to his own cosmological model, “fades away from our sight; and in its stead we see an indefinite continuation of our present active, living universe with its never-ending ebb and flow of energy.” (see Kragh, 1996, p. 144).

 

In the 1920’s, partially stimulated by conversations with Einstein, Nernst shifted his attention from nitrate fertilizer explosives (amongst other things) toward cosmological considerations. And despite his familiarity with warfare and explosives he sought a solution that would evade Boltzmann’s miserable heat-death (Wärmetod) of the universe, allegedly forecast by the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Nernst investigated an assortment of possibilities, arguing that cosmological questions about the beginning and the end of the universe were scientifically meaningless. By postulating fluctuations in what he called the null-point energy of the ether (die Nullpunktsenergie des Lichtäthers), or zero-point energy of space as we prefer to put it, he rationalized that the universe could exist in a steady state provided there was a balance between energy degradation [entropy] and energy creation, as seen in supernovae explosions and star formation, and in the stages of stellar classifications ranging from new to steady state systems. The energy for these new creations would be drawn from the null-point energy of the ether [something in space]. (See Hiebert, 1978).

 

There are other ways, too, of doing away with the old 'heat-death" scenario. I will be back with at least one method later.

 

 

 

 

CC

[Mike C]

CraigD

 

I am not questioning your calculations on the Suns iron content or any of the other calculations.

 

But I want you to be aware of the fact that our Solar System is about 5 billion (current estimates) years old and the Sun was being impacted by these smaller bodies for all that time.

 

So I will post an article tomorrow on my theory of the formation of the galaxies and solar systems that I wrote more than 10 years ago.

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

CraigD

 

I am not questioning your calculations on the Suns iron content or any of the other calculations.

 

But I want you to be aware of the fact that our Solar System is about 5 billion (current estimates) years old and the Sun was being impacted by these smaller bodies for all that time.

The question is then, I suppose, “from where did the iron presently observed in the solar system come?” Accepting the data in post #157, like most of all matter in the solar system, most (99%+) of it is in the Sun.

 

Present best accepted theory answers that all the iron in the solar system came from the same place: the gas/dust cloud (usually called a proto-stellar nebula) from which it all formed roughly 4.6 billion years ago. This iron was made from a series of lighter elements by one or more earlier stars, late in their evolution, which subsequently disintegrated in explosive supernovas.

 

The Sun is too young to have yet manufactured elements heavier than helium. It’s too small to every manufacture elements heavier than carbon, or to explode in a supernova, so will never create new iron, or contribute to the formation of a future proto-stellar nebula that will form a future star. In about 6 billion years, it will settle into a white dwarfhood, gradually cooling and becoming dimmer until, 20 billion years or so from now, it’ll be so dim it won’t be visually detectable, a “black dwarf”.

 

The Sun and the planets got their iron second-hand, from a previous generation of more massive, shorter-lived stars, and won’t be making new or destroying old iron in significant quantities. Like most of the galaxy, the solar system is a nuclear chemical dead-end and dumping ground.

 

The planets and other solar system bodies simply aren’t major players in the Sun’s past, present, or future. They’re too small to have a significant effect on it, and can be thought of as insignificant (but very interesting) fluff. Had they been consumed of ejected from the solar system in its earliest days, the Sun would not be significantly different than it is now, or than it will be in the future.

So I will post an article tomorrow on my theory of the formation of the galaxies and solar systems that I wrote more than 10 years ago.

:) Presenting and discussing theories is what hypography’s all about, so bring ‘em on. However, you’d best have your arithmetic in good repair, as when theorizing about such things as the chemical composition of the Sun and solar system, the quantities of the elements must add up, or you’re theories will not be taken seriously by serious science enthusiasts or professional scientists.

[modest]

Recall that between 1918 and 1925, while MacMillan’s cosmogony was being developed, the notion of a stationary universe was unanimously accepted. Where his contentious testimonial differed from conventional cosmology was in its refusal of increasing entropy, of the continuing irreversible degradation of matter and energy associated with and implied by the second law of thermodynamics, which would ultimately lead to a lifeless, inert and unorganized universe: the so-called heat-death of the universe commonly believed as inevitable at that time. The question was essentially: Why had the entropy (or degradation of energy) not yet reached its maximum?

 

...

 

Nernst investigated an assortment of possibilities, arguing that cosmological questions about the beginning and the end of the universe were scientifically meaningless. By postulating fluctuations in what he called the null-point energy of the ether (die Nullpunktsenergie des Lichtäthers), or zero-point energy of space as we prefer to put it, he rationalized that the universe could exist in a steady state provided there was a balance between energy degradation [entropy] and energy creation, as seen in supernovae explosions and star formation, and in the stages of stellar classifications ranging from new to steady state systems. The energy for these new creations would be drawn from the null-point energy of the ether [something in space]. (See Hiebert, 1978).

 

There are other ways, too, of doing away with the old 'heat-death" scenario. I will be back with at least one method later.

 

CC

 

That’s a great history lesson. You should have started with Svante Arrhenius who published “Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik" (Textbook of cosmic physics) in 1903.

 

He argued that the universe was eternal and thought the heat death was kept in check by nebula storing up heat from radiating stars and using it to form new stars. It is likely that MacMillan and Nernst were inspired by Arrhenius.

 

Or you could have gone as far back as William Rankine who, as early as 1852 speculated that, “the world, as now created, may possibly be provided within itself the means of reconcentrating its physical energies, and renewing its activity and life,”

 

Personally, I don’t think you can get rid of the 2nd law of thermodynamics now that entropy is successfully married to QM. Those two are stuck together in kind of an eternal true love kind of thing. I heard gravity is jealous of entropy and QM- but QM and gravity just don’t get along. I don’t see them ever getting together. Physicists keep trying to set them up (blind dates and what not) but, I just don’t see it happening.

 

Also, you mentioned cosmogony and as an aside - when I first joined hypography I thought your nick “coldcreation” was a reference to your study or belief in cosmogony. But, that’s neither here nor there.

[coldcreation]

That’s a great history lesson. ...snip...

 

I will respond to your post in another thread so as not to deviate off-topic in this one.

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

The formation of the elements can be traced back to the origin of our solar system and the process within stars.

 

If we evolved from a star that went supernova and left a ultra dense plasma matter core that maybe a Neutron composite.

 

The Iron that was formed in the previous star would be found in the solar system, Sun, Planets and all other bodies from the debries of the nebulae. We know that our solar system travels through the spiral of the MW and in so doing every few hundred million years or so it travels through other Nebulae, giving and taking matter.

 

The process that exists in the Sun would still be producing H to Fe/Ni elements consistently, Heavier elements woul be unstable in the Zone of the solar envelope.

 

CraigD said

 

The Sun is too young to have yet manufactured elements heavier than helium. It’s too small to every manufacture elements heavier than carbon, or to explode in a supernova, so will never create new iron, or contribute to the formation of a future proto-stellar nebula that will form a future star. In about 6 billion years, it will settle into a white dwarfhood, gradually cooling and becoming dimmer until, 20 billion years or so from now, it’ll be so dim it won’t be visually detectable, a “black dwarf”.

 

I disagree, where did you get the info that our sun is too young to make Fe.

and

If the Sun was left on its own without merging or what ever you maybe right. That possibilty is not probable.

Our sun has a gravity sink and in so having, it is able to rejuvinate in varies forms and phases.

 

Understanding the process within stars allows us to calculate the options.

 

As for the workings within stars I would advice for people to read

 

Oliver Manuel

 

Yes it is papers that do not agree with the standard model.