Solar, Stellar Model Problems - Hans
Bethe Model, Chandrasekhar Models,
New Forces
Comparing Our Sun to Observations of
Supernova-Nova-Exploding-Changing
Stars Using Stellar Models
Exploring the Bethe Carbon Cycle Model
through comparison to recent changes in
stars and the Chandra Model
New Forces, Collected particles and Force
at Distance, Complicate Comparisons
Poster presentation 2011, James Struck
Stellar model comparisons show problems with Bethe and Chandra Solar and
Stellar Models. New forces, particles collected or collected particles and force at
distance, complicate the comparison.
Hans Bethe Solar Cycle Problems
According to the "Illustrated Science and Technology Encyclopedia How it
Works" 1977 by H.S. Stuttman Publishers New York New York, "A story is told
that on the train back to Cornell he (Hans Bethe) decided to try and work out the
nuclear reactions which go on inside stars to produce their energy. He began
scribbling equations on a sheet a paper and, according to his close friend George
Gamow, ' had the correct answer at the exact moment when the dining car steward
announced the first call for dinner. It took several months more work before the
details could be published..." (p. 280)
1
Scribbling on a sheet of paper one cannot correctly understand solar cycles.
Because the Sun was not being directly observed, Bethe's solar 4 H to He cycle is
problematic. I share some Alsace and Lorraine region ancestry with Bethe from
over 100 years ago, and think concern with his cycle is appropriately expressed.
See paper H.A. Bethe, "Energy production in Stars," Phys. Rev. 55, 436 (1939) and
think how Bethe’s work may predict aspects of solar behavior, but cannot
understand changes, dynamics, all chemicals involved. Bethe’s solar model is only
a simplification and over simplification of solar processes.
See a discussion of the progenitor of SN 1987 A to understand that stellar models
are problematic“Soon after the event was recorded, the progenitor star was identified as Sanduleak
-69° 202a, a blue supergiant. This was an unexpected identification, because at the
time a blue supergiant was not considered a possibility for a supernova event in
existing models of high mass stellar evolution. Many models of the progenitor
have attributed the color to its chemical composition, particularly the low levels of
heavy elements, among other factors. [6] There has been some speculation that the
star may have merged with a companion star prior to the supernova. [7] It is of note
that the supernova of the blue giant Sanduleak -69° 202a was about one-tenth as
luminous as the average observed type-II supernova, which is associated with the
denser makeup of the star. Since blue supergiant supernovae are not as bright as
those generated by red supergiants, we would not expect to see as many of them,
and so they might not be as rare or unusual as previously thought.” SN 1987a
Wikipedia.org accessed 8/6/2011
See how Sanduleak ended up“SN 1987A was a supernova in the outskirts of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large
Magellanic Cloud, a nearby dwarf galaxy. It occurred approximately 51.4
kiloparsecs from Earth, approximately 168,000 light-years,[1] close enough that it
was visible to the naked eye. It could be seen from the Southern Hemisphere. It
was the closest observed supernova since SN 1604, which occurred in the Milky
Way itself. The light from the supernova reached Earth on February 23, 1987. As it
was the first supernova discovered in 1987, it was labeled "1987A". Its brightness
peaked in May with an apparent magnitude of about 3 and slowly declined in the
following months. It was the first opportunity for modern astronomers to see a
supernova up close and observations have provided much insight into corecollapse supernovae.
2
It was discovered by Ian Shelton and Oscar Duhalde at the Las Campanas
Observatory in Chile on February 24, 1987, and within the same 24 hours
independently by Albert Jones in New Zealand.[2] On March 4–12, 1987 it was
observed from space by Astron, the largest ultraviolet space telescope of that
time.[3]
The X-ray, optical and radio emissions from 1987A grew brighter because its
shock wave had crashed into a dense cloud of gas and dust.[4]” same article
Solar and stellar models are problematic and Supernovae 1987a should be seen as
recognition of that problematic nature of models.
Problems with Understandings of Other Stars-Questioning the
Chandrasekhar Mass Limit-White Dwarf and Other Stellar Masses May
Collapse to Neutron Stars or Black Holes Below Mass Limit and Can Stay
White Dwarfs Above the Mass Limit. Observations as Primary Over Theory.
Consideration of Other Factors, Size, Volatility, Composition, Jets, Gas
Release, Temperature, Pressure, Color, Age, Regional Objects, Other
Conditions in Star Collapse
From wikipedia.org's entry "Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, FRS (Tamil:
), English: /ˌtʃʌndrəˌʃeɪkɑr/)[1] (October
19, 1910 – August 21, 1995)[2] was an Indian American astrophysicist. He was a
Nobel laureate in physics along with William Alfred Fowler for their work in the
theoretical structure and evolution of stars.[3] He was the nephew of Indian Nobel
Laureate Sir C. V. Raman.
Chandrasekhar served on the University of Chicago faculty from 1937 until his
death in 1995 at the age of 84. He became a naturalized citizen of the United States
in 1953."
"He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983 for his studies on the physical
processes important to the structure and evolution of stars. Chandrasekhar accepted
this honor, but was upset that the citation mentioned only his earliest work, seeing
it as a denigration of a lifetime's achievement."
Accessed on 6/18/2010 at Northwestern University Library.
3
In about 1989, I met Dr. Chandrasekhar at a Social Hour in my resident house,
Henderson House at the University of Chicago , while I was a student at the
University of Chicago . He had just been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics a few
years before. His talk was a polite discussion of some of his work. As the
wikipedia.org entry mentions, he was upset about the lack of mention of his later
work when he won his Nobel Prize in Physics, but I do not recall that issue
specifically came up during his talk. I raised a similar query about the mass limit to
Dr. Chandrasekhar at the Social Hour that night. The Chandrasekhar mass limit
was only one of his achievements.
Here I want to propose and argue that his 1.44 solar mass limit for a non rotating
helium white dwarf, 1.4 solar mass limit for carbon composition, 1.11 solar mass
limit for an iron composition below which a star must exist for a star to be stable
and avoid collapse to a neutron star or black hole (Facts on File Dictionary of
Astronomy, 1994, 3rd ed. Author Valerie Illingworth, entry for “Chandrasekhar
Mass Limit,” New York: Facts on File) is arbitrary or based on opinion. Since
most stars contain elements outside of these compositions of helium, carbon, or
iron, the Sun contains all three clearly, the mass limit is merely an arbitrary or
opinion based discussion of stellar behavior. As many stars have many elements,
there is no way to say or prove that a star cannot collapse to a neutron star or black
hole if the mass is far lower than 1.44 solar masses or stay a white dwarf if the
mass is far higher. To support my questioning of the 1.44 solar mass limit, I posit
here1.
Most stars do not have singular compositions of helium, carbon or iron
2.
A white dwarf could be artificially created or observed above 1.44 solar
masses and remain stable. We cannot prove somehow that exceeding that
mass will result in gravitational collapse with all chemical compositions,
pressures, temperatures, regional characteristics
3.
A white dwarf could collapse to a neutron star or black hole with a lower
mass. Electrons and other matter in the area could accrete on a white dwarf
and cause gravitational collapse. Wind, temperature, pressure, gases, clouds,
regional objects could affect collapse as well.
4.
The idea that the mass limit is raised for a rotating star (From Facts on File
entry for “Chandrasekhar Mass Limit,” 1994) is problematic as stars can
lose matter during spinning. The star chemistry and star temperature are not
uniformly going to cause a rotating star to reach a higher mass and stay a
white dwarf.
5.
Type of rotation is not mentioned. The way a star rotates may change its
stability. If a rotating star is accreting matter it is going to stay stable
4
different than a rotating star not undergoing accretion or mass loss or
interacting with temperatures, pressures, gases, clouds, objects in the region.
6. Other factors are just as important in star collapse as mass. Wind, size,
composition, chemicals, gas release or gain, regional objects, clouds in
region, jets, temperature, pressure, interaction, collisions, difference, shape,
behavior, color, age, clouds, gases, regional objects, can play a role in star
collapse.
Observations of white dwarfs are more important than mass limit concepts. When
we observe Sirius A and Sirus B we can understand white dwarf behaviors. Sirius
B has a mass similar to that of the Sun, but its interaction with Sirius, its
companion, could make it collapse due to accretion or mass loss effects, heating,
pressure, temperature, interaction. The mass limit should be deemphasized and
observations of white dwarfs should be recognized as more important. Other
factors, wind, temperature, pressure, interaction, collisions, color, age, clouds, size,
shape, difference, gases, regional objects, can play a role in star collapse.
Chandrasekhar appropriately was recognized for his white dwarf and astrophysics
findings, but the mass limit should be seen as a mythical story or discovery,
reflecting certain realities but not necessarily true or complete in its comprehension
and description of star and white dwarf stability.
Dedicated to my mother Jane Frances Back Struck and some other people who were helpful, so
that people with differences do not face discrimination and loss of rights and resources under
guardianship system. My mother’s comment “ I am from Heaven” reflects a different view of the
world like Galileo, Bruno, Savonarola and others who faced discrimination for their different
views. Thanks also to University of Chicago Crerar Library , Northwestern University Library and
Evanston Public Library for use of resources.
Two new Forces Complicate Understanding of Solar and Stellar Models
Collected particle force
The 1994 Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy edited by Valerie Illingworth
describes a force as "any physical agency that alters or attempts to alter a body's
state of rest or of uniform motion." (p. 163) "Particle Collection" then can be
5
considered a new kind of force. Many particles, photons, neutrinos, cosmic rays,
electrons, gamma rays, neutrons, stellar wind, space dust, persons, animals, plants,
stars, galaxies, gas collect in an area, and the combination of these particles can
alter a state of rest or motion. Many uranium particles, as shown in Rome ,
Chicago , Berlin in the 1930's and 1940's, when collected can alter nearby objects'
states of rest or motion. Why we call gravity, weak, strong, electromagnetic
forces fundamental, and do not give recognition to this new "Collected particle"
force is not clear. Many hydrogen, carbon, helium atoms can have effects on other
particles, and use of this force means that Bethe’s solar cycle alone is not the only
issue involved in energy creation.
Force that increases with distance
See the image of Comet Sedna on the last page. Comet Sedna’s Orbit is largely
outside of the outer planets area. With only gravity, Sedna does not have to return
as Sedna’s orbit is distant from the Sun and from Jupiter, most of the mass of the
Solar system. A force that increases with distance explains the return of Sedna
and other comets in the Oort Cloud to the solar system. Consider also how
turbulence increases away from Earth.We can count the number of flights
(departures or arrivals) we have taken and compare. My TFN or total flight number
is 37- 8 flights Redlands, 4 Newark, 4 Ronald Reagan, 4 Dallas Fort Worth, 2
Boston, 1 Paris, 1 Rome, 1 Dublin, 2 Denver, 2 Atlanta Hartsfield, 2 Vermont, 2
Oklahoma City, 2 Pittsburgh, 1 helicopter Missouri Ozarks, 1 water plane from
Newark to Boston. Most turbulence 2002 D.C. to Chicago and 1985 Chicago to
Redlands over Rockies. Further away from Earth, there is more turbulence.
Distance can increase forces rather than Newtown’s distance decreases a force
model.
My mother Jane Frances Back wanted "perfect justice" for grandparents she had
not met, which made me think that some forces increase with distance. The Hubble
red shift could be explained by this force that increases with distance; more
distance more red shift due to this force. Quasars with increased energy could be
explained by this force as further away there is more energy produced. Our interest
in far away objects could be explained by this force; further away more interest.
Gravity is explained by an r squared rule where the force of gravity decreases as
the square of the distance. Isaac Newton ended up at the Mint in the UK. Comets
provide support for this new force. Maria Mitchell (1818-1889) discovered the first
telescopic comet, and a force that increases with distance explains why comets
return rather than fly away as gravity is decreasing further away. The force that
increases with distance is just as important as the many other forces we know like
the electroweak, strong, nuclear, resonance, spiritual, virtual, molecular,
6
gravitational, weak, quantum, antimatter forces. Even if movement away explains
the Hubble Shift and multiple reasons including black holes explain quasar
energy, quasar and high red shift distance does have an association with increased
force so we can call this increase in energy a force that increases with
distance. Build up of gravitons, magnetic fields, photons, cosmic rays, fields, gas,
particles could also explain this force. As particles build up in an area at a distance,
there is more power and energy in that area. Thinking about the solar wind
putting more neutrinos, heat, radiation in the heliosphere and more pressure,
energy and power at distance near planets, asteroids, comets, Venus can be studied
with a mission to study a new force discovered in the US by someone of
Lithuanian, Russian (controlled Lithuania at time), French, Belgium, US,
Luxembourg, German ancestry. Solar and stellar models have problems as new
forces like collected particles and force that increases with distance complicate the
understanding of these stars. Bethe and Chandra models which are used to
comprehend the Sun and stars are also problematic. Gravity by itself should not
cause Sedna’s return, a new force can explain some return. Solar models benefit
too from a force that ties the Sun to its distant solar wind.
Bethe’s model of the Sun and Chandra’s model of other stars have for almost 50
years made some think the Sun and stars were understood. Introduction of new
forces like Collected particle force and force that increases with distance makes
clear that solar models are always limited, problematic and changing!
7
8