NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/physics/18635

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-10 | 3.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!astro.as.utexas.edu!joe
From: [e-mail] (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The solar neutrino problem - more confusing than *ever* before!
Keywords: Neutrinos, New Physics, Fusion
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:00:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin
Lines: 58

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes:
>The energy generation inside the sun comes not from fusion,
>but the thermal destruction of heavy elements.  Each element has a
>temperature above which it converts to pure energy.

If this is true, then

1) Why are there any neutrinos at all?  If the source of energy is due
to thermal destruction of heavy elements into pure energy, then where
are the neutrinos that we do see coming from?

2) What about white dwarf stars?  These are presumably the burned out cores
of stars, and they seem to be pure helium with no heavy metal content.

3) Why hasn't this energy conversion been detected in earth-bound experiments?

4) Where do the heavy elements come from in the first place?  In the standard
model, the universe starts out as essentially all hydrogen and helium?

5) If the energy from stars comes from heavy elements, then presumably
stars with lower abundances of metals ought to be much dimmer than
similar stars (same mass) with heavy elements.  They don't seem to be.

6) Have you calculated the impact of your model on stellar evolution?
Standard stellar theory says that stars become red giants when the core
runs out of hydrogen?  Does your model explain why red giants exist?

7) Can you give me the Temperature vs. Luminosity relationship that your
model predicts for stars?  The standard model gives a relationship which
fits the observations closely.  Do you have predictions about the lifetime
of stars and energy generation rates?  These ought to be easy to calculate.

8) If a atomic nuclei turns into energy, you don't conserve charge.  Very
soon, a star will be extremely charge imbalanced and this ought to have
observable consequences in spectra.  Why doesn't this happen?

It took me about 15 minutes to come up with these questions.  It seems
that you need to answer the above questions before you can use it to
answer the solar neutrino mystery.  Otherwise, you seem to be "solving"
one mystery at the cost of opening up dozens of other ones.

>These discontinuities cause oscillation of output (variables), and
>eventually, supernovae.

Explain.  Standard variable theory states that variables are due to an
instablity of the envelope in the star.  From standard variable
theory, you can get predictions about the temperature vs. luminosity
function of stars as well as predictions about their periods.  Does your
model do this?

Also, it seems that your model makes predictions about the elemental
abundances observed in supernova.  Can you share them with us?  Also,
can your model explain the abundance of Ni-57 in supernova explosions?
Conventional supernova theory says that there is a lot of it because
that part of the periodic table is where the most stable elements are
found.  Since your model of nuclear interactions is different, can you
explain this abundance?