English (UK) 
Română 
Francais 
Deutsch 
Espagnol A new physical model for stars structure (exemplification for Sun)
Background and actual explanation
A star is considered a self-gravitating ball of gas. There are two basic forces at work, on one hand gravity, which is attempting to make the star collapse inward on itself, and on the other hand there is the generation of energy and pressure from within the star, which holds the star up. Our nearest star, the Sun, is so hot that the huge amount of hydrogen is undergoing a constant star-wide nuclear reaction, like in a hydrogen bomb. The huge reactions taking place in stars are constantly releasing energy (called electromagnetic radiation) into the universe.
Sun structure was a favorite topic for astronomers and physicists along time. The first consistent solar model was proposed by Lane (1869) as a gas sphere in hydrostatic equilibrium. Other solar models with convective interiors were constructed by Ritter and by Kelvin .
The first reliable model of a gas star was proposed by Eddington in the 20s in the text “The Internal Constitution of the Stars”, when very little was known about physical properties of matter in stellar interiors. Later the gas star model was further improved by other theoreticians: Chandrasekhar (1939), Schwarzschild (1965), Clayton (1968), etc.
Calibrated solar models, equivalent to what we now call standard solar models, were introduced by Demarque and Percy (1964). In these models, the mixing length parameter and the helium abundance of the solar model are adjusted to produce a model that has the Sun's observed radius and luminosity. These values were then used in model calculations of other stars.
In the standard solar model the physics is simplified by assuming that the Sun is spherically symmetric. The amount of mass converted into energy or losses from star wind is neglected.
For any volume element within the Sun the weight of the element is assumed to be exactly balanced by the sum of all pressure forces acting on the element. The total pressure includes both the gas pressure and the radiation pressure. The energy balance of any shell in the Sun is obtained by equating the sum of the energy entering the bottom of the shell and the energy produced by nuclear reactions within the shell to the sum of the energy lost through the top of the shell plus the work energy done by the shell on its surroundings.
The standard solar model is derived from the conservation laws and energy transport equations of physics, applied to a spherically symmetric gas (plasma) sphere, constrained by the luminosity, radius, age and composition of the Sun. The standard solar model is used as a test case for the stellar evolution calculation because the luminosity, radius, age and composition of the Sun are well determined.
The equation of hydrostatic equilibrium which permit to derive the behavior of temperature, density, pressure etc for a star cannot be integrated without further assumptions about the physics of energy production and the manner in which it is transferred to the surface. Without entering in mathematical details the concepts of linear stellar model and the so-called polytropes model are presented. .
In the first of these models the density of the star takes an arbitrarily assumed form, which decreases linearly from the center to the surface
.
In the second model a simple form for the pressure as a function of the density is adopted
|
P = Krγ |
where K and γ are constants.
Based on these assumptions, with an appropriate mathematical approach, the parameters of each star and in particular case for our Sun can be estimated.
Proposed model of physical Sun
If astronomers from last century had been a bit more mindful with some simple data, by sure the gas model of a sun wouldn't have been accepted.
There were so many star spectra collected and, although astronomers are not chemists, someone should have looked a bit more careful at these data. Accepting that absorption lines in star spectra are coming from some elements in the star atmosphere, this does not mean that star atmosphere motion is identical with the star motion.
More than that, if atomic sodium is like a gas in star atmosphere, due to the proper motion of sodium atoms, there should be no separation of 589.6 nm from 589.0nm. Accepting by absurd that sodium atom could resist as neutral atom in star atmosphere, the thermal agitation of such species is so great that only a broad line between 588 and 590 should have been detected.
On the other hand, we know from analytical chemistry that absorption is proportional with the amount of absorbing species in the path of photons; and therefore beside lines of sodium, even the line of neutral hydrogen or other lines coming from neutral species in the solar spectra cannot be explained or should be broadened. There should be a correspondence between broadening of a line and the mass of the absorbing species. I cannot imagine that ,,hypothetical neutral’’ hydrogen atoms move with the same average speed as iron atoms; this would contradicts blatantly the kinetic molecular theory. I haven’t seen a paper or I haven’t heard about astronomers who have looked for a cloud of neutral matter (hydrogen, sodium, iron) between Sun and Earth. Are these elements in the same cloud or in different clouds? Maybe with so many telescopes around, someone will make a bit time in order to clarify this problem …
In the thermodynamic book and physical chemistry book ( in progress too) a new model for the solid, liquid and gas state of matter are developed.
Although in actual science plasma as a mixture of ionised gases is considered as the 4rth state of matter and most abundant in Universe, i.e. 99,99% from visible matter, in the proposed theory this state of mater is only a transient state and with an insignificant percentage.
Let us consider our Sun. Only the solar wind and solar mass ejections are clearly formed by plasma as a mixture of ionized gases. None has ever thought what happen with this plasma after release....
As we have seen in another article related to Xray radiation, when this plasma or solar wind is released, the temperature of matter is so high (not millions but around 6000 maybe 7000 K) that no recombination is possible. So the electrons and positive species follow their trajectories radial along Solar system.
But I suppose starting with edge of the Solar system, these species have not so much energy and a process of recombination occurs. Of course for a quiet Sun and a low energy emission from Sun, such recombination can take place even at shorter distances after Neptun orbit.
Considering a typical coronal mass ejection with an average mass ejected of 1.6×1012kg, such quantity cannot vanish in … nothing.
We have to think at a cycle of Helium and Hydrogen at small scale (Sun and galaxy scale) and at higher scale.
I am sure that at the edge of solar system, maybe farther or maybe closer, electrons and protons and electrons and alfa particles recombine and form neutral atoms. There, in the frozen temperature ….an electron feels better near a proton ..:).
After that there should be a flow of this matter somewhere or in case this matter remain for a shorter or longer time stationary relative to Sun, huge clouds forms and they prepare the terrain for the next cosmic structures; therefore in the light of the new proposed theory, the amount of plasma in Solar system is equal with the solar matter emission by Sun at a certain moment of time and this amount should be equivalent with mass of a smaller or greater asteroid …..
In order to proper characterize the Sun, a new state of matter has to be postulated. It has not a name yet, but it is not a real fluid, although the equations of motion for fluids adapt quite well to this new state of matter. I do not have a name for this state of matter therefore until the book is published it will be called solar matter.
This solar matter although it has a temperature of 6000 K or even more (I am not sure about the real temperature of the Sun), has a composition made from atomic species. It means hydrogen, helium, sodium, magnesium, iron, etc are present in the atomic state. Each electron for each atom orbits its own nucleus. For hydrogen an electron orbit around its nucleus, for helium there are two electrons on orbit and so on... for the Iron of course there are 26 electrons around nucleus.
All matter at temperature more than 1500 K are good conductor of electricity and this fact is known from more than a century. I have an old book with an experiment performed around 1950, where silicate from a glass bulb heated with a Bunsen flame allow the conduction starting with about 500 C, although silicate has no free electrons even at 1000 C. The conduction of materials at high temperature is explained in the new theory of magneticity book which is also in working now.
From the same book, one postulate it is very important for the structure of the Sun, and this postulate sounds:
A homogenous fluid, electrical neutral, in rotational motion, generates a macroscopic magnetic field.The size of generated magnetic field is dependent on a series of parameters like: the molecular structure of fluid, its electrical conductibility, the speed of rotation, the character of motion - laminar or turbulent, etc.
A solid in rotational motion could generate a magnetic field only in case of an inhomogeneous structure of the solid body. Of course, solid materials which have a magnetization due to their structure are not considered relevant for this principle, because in this case, an the generated magnetic field has another ground.
A gas, ionised or not ionised, in rotational motion cannot generate a macroscopic magnetic field.
The effect was already confirmed experimentally by famous Riga experiments or other like type experiments made with molten sodium metal but has got a wrong interpretation in actual electromagnetism.
A very simple cut off experiment can be performed in order to eliminate the gas model of a star.
The most part of instrumentation exists already and maybe only a new container for high pressures is necessary. In a nutshell the experiment is very simple and is a replicate of Riga experiment but made with gases under pressure. Of course the experiment can be made with ionised or non ionidsed gases. In this way anyone can make the comparison between the magnetic field generated by a gas in rotational motion and the magnetic field of a fluid in rotation.
We know already that a molten sodium metal in rotational motion generate an magnetic field and therefore half of the experiment is already performed.
Here is a short description of Riga experiment / credit
New J. Phys. 9 (2007) 306
doi:10.1088/1367-2630/9/8/306
PII: S1367-2630(07)44493-7
The sketch of the Riga dynamo set-up is shown in figure 1 (right). It consists of the inner cylinder where a strong helical motion is generated by a propeller (driven by two electric motors with a power up to 100 kW each), the outer-cylinder with a back-flow and surrounding ring filled with sodium at rest. Although this set-up was not designed to actually mimic any real geodynamo situations, many similarities in its conceptual design can be identified in a simplified mechanism of the multi-columnar convective vortex patterns inside of Earth, Busse, as shown in figure 1 (left).
Figure 1. Riga dinamo experiment made with liquid sodium
We need a new container similar with the up presented one which is able to withstand high pressure and high temperatures for internal compartment. In the internal cylinder different gases at different pressures can be tested in order to see if a strong helical motion of the gas generates a macroscopic magnetic field. The same surrounding ring filled with sodium molten metal at rest has to be maintained in order to have a similar condition like in the previous experiment.
I have no doubt that the experiment will be negative and this simple replicate experiment demolishes everything it has been written about stars models in astronomy.
Although Sun is considered a quite perfect model of "blackbody" emitters, in reality based on the past and present information we can affirm that Sun discredits this black body model too.
In both borders limits of X ray and Radio waves emission, Sun do not respect the emission foreseen by a black body with a certain temperature – 6000K. For the X ray emission, we have relatively recent data, but for the Radio and microwave emission date are not new and it is very strange that none has thought to analyze a bit these data and how they fit with the blackbody model.
If we accept the blackbody formula as true, the spectrum of the Sun is given by:
where P(n) is the emitted energy per unit time, per unit area of the emitting surface, per unit solid angle, and per unit frequency. In this expression T is the temperature of the emitting surface, h is Planck’s constant, k is Boltzmann’s constant, and c is the speed of light. The energy per unit time (i.e., the power) of the radiation (per unit emitting area and solid angle) over any given range of frequencies is the integral of P(n)dn over that range.
The graph below shows a simplified representation of the energy emissions of the Sun versus the wavelengths of those emissions. The y-axis shows the relative amount of energy emitted at a given wavelength (as compared to a value of "1" for visible light). The x-axis represents different wavelengths of EM radiation. Note that the scale of the y-axis is logarithmic; each tick mark represents a hundred-fold increase in amount of energy as you move upward.
As it can be seen in the fig 2, when emission of Sun at 5 cm, 1 cm and 1 mm in radio wave and microwave are compared, we should have a huge difference for these values. As relative values, at 5 cm the emission should be about 10-18, at 1 cm it should be about 10-16 and at 1 mm it should be about 10-12. Making a simple comparison, at 1 cm, Sun should emit hundred time stronger than at 5 cm and at 1 mm it should emit million times stronger than at 5 cm. Does this things really happen ?
Today we can measure the emmision even in less then 1 mm radio wave (teraherz waves) and again the spectra of Sun do not fit with theoretical prediction.
Figure 2 Solar spectral emission
The radio and microwave emitted by Sun have another reason (like X ray) and they are not coming from a backbody radiation.
In laboratory a cut off experiment can be performed and it can be shown that a cooled body do not emit radio waves. The link to the experiment (it was already performed long time ago ) is:
http://pleistoros.com/index.php/en/books/corpuscular/thermodynamics-and-quanta-hypothesis
In astronomy, the experiment can be replicated as a student task and it can be proven than other cosmic bodies do not fit to a blackbody - it means at cooling do not emit radio and microwave. I have made the experiment for Moon, but with actual devices even for Mercury the replicate of the experiment is a piece of cake. The experiment was intended to detect the shift of emission for Moon from IR toward radio and microwave in correlation with Sun illumination.
http://pleistoros.com/index.php/en/books/corpuscular/cosmic-body-temperature-and-quanta-hypothesis
For Mercury the link is available only in Romanian at this time ...
http://pleistoros.com/index.php/ro/carti/astrofizica/cuantele-in-astronomie
These facts there should have been striking evidence in front of astronomers eyes from decades ….
Now with the new insights about Sun spectra, even in infrared, visible and ultraviolet, the Sun does not seems to have a continuous spectra.
A new theory for light and electromagnetic wave emission was partially formulated in published books and it will be finalized in the future and to the desperation of actual theoreticians the actual blackbody model will become history...
The third main reason we should discard the gaseous model of sun is related to the differential motion of Sun. Of course we have seen that in case of other cosmic bodies atmosphere, like Jupiter and Saturn, we have a differential motion, but this later motion cannot be compared with what we have in the Sun. In Jupiter or Saturn we have differential motion of atmosphere and some huge storms which can last for centuries. In Sun we cannot fit a necessary convection motion and the existence of a pattern of convection cells with a differential motion of the solar matter with greater speed at equator.
It is impossible for ,,matter in gaseous state” to perform both a convective motion between Sun core and Sun photosphere and in the same time to rotate with differential speed at Sun equator, as it is observed day by day. Matter in gaseous state of matter perform simple movements usually from high pressure towards low pressure and if other particular motions appears, these are usually not stable for a long period of time. The situation with Jupiter and Saturn will be evaluated later, because there should be other factors which conduct to a longer persistence.
Therefore in case of a gaseous Sun, we should have few convection cells which should increase in time and engulf other weaker convection cells and from time to time other new cells to appear. It is not possible in case of gaseous matter to have a pattern of convection cells as we suppose to have in Sun – fig. 6.
There are already other articles already published online and other thorny problems can be easily explained by the new model.
Actual science is not able to explain why the components of the solar wind travel with the same speed toward Earth and farther away toward Solar System edge. If an electric or inhomogenous magnetic field are the reason for a solar particles acceleration, we should have waves of particles arriving at Earth orbit at different time and this is not the case.
Figure 6 Pattern of convective cells in Sun structure
The speed of the particle in the solar wind is quite the same because the important factor is temperature and vaporization mechanism and not the acceleration made by a possible electric or magnetic field.
More information available only in Romanian for the time being:
http://pleistoros.com/index.php/en/books/astrophysics/solar-wind
In case of solar spots the actual explanation is even hilarious.... so solar spots are a window toward Sun interior, they are deep into photosphere and they are cooler than photosphere....
In short time someone will propose a new theory with a cold solar nucleus …
In reality, it is impossible to have matter inside Sun at lower temperature as photosphere. So in the new theory, a solar spot is a region where the emission of solar matter is perturbed and therefore our instruments are biased.
More information available only in Romanian for the time being:
http://pleistoros.com/index.php/ro/carti/astrofizica/petele-solare
Last but not least the chemical composition of solar matter needs some corrections....(Tab1 with actual composition)
At least a pinch of salt … has to be added...Sodium line cannot appear from thin air ..:)
|
Element |
Abundance |
Abundance |
|
Hydrogen |
91.2 |
71.0 |
|
Helium |
8.7 |
27.1 |
|
Oxygen |
0.078 |
0.97 |
|
Carbon |
0.043 |
0.40 |
|
Nitrogen |
0.0088 |
0.096 |
|
Silicon |
0.0045 |
0.099 |
|
Magnesium |
0.0038 |
0.076 |
|
Neon |
0.0035 |
0.058 |
|
Iron |
0.0030 |
0.14 |
|
Sulfur |
0.0015 |
0.040 |
Table 1. Actual composition of solar matter
The mathematical part of the ,,like fluid” solar model and other facts will be presented in the published book …
