Newsgroups:
sci.physics.plasma
From: keller@noao.edu (Christoph Keller)
Organization:
National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson AZ
Subject: Re: Can
Gravity be Induced?
> CAN_GRAVITY_be_INDUCED?
> Verifiable Observational
Evidence
> for A_Dynamic_Non-Space_Sun
>
Stephen_Goodfellow
> 1989 (1994
update - See 'Ring Effect' prediction.)
I will just reply to some of the points where I feel
confident about
having some professional knowledge. Note that I assume
that a new theory
that is supposed to be superior than existing theories
must be able to
explain ALL the observational facts that existing theories
can explain as
well as some observational facts that previous theories
could not explain.
I wrote this answer to show people who are not
familiar with solar physics
that current theories give a much more
coherent picture than the proposed
non-space theory.
First I
will give some answers and comments on the list of questions given
in the
beginning of Stephen's article:
> Where are the abundant neutrinos
that are supposed to radiate from our
> sun's core?
Well, we
see a lot of neutrinos. The latest observations of low-energy
neutrinos
see also neutrinos from the proton-proton process. This is a
very nice
confirmation of the fusion theory. It is true that even these
measurements
see less photons than you would expect from current theoretical
solar
models, but we do see A LOT OF NEUTRINOS. There are theories that
conform
to the standard model of particle physics and that can explain
the reduced
number of neutrinos observed with fusion in the solar core.
> Why
does the neutrino count drop during sunspot activity?
The
measurements exist only for slightly more than one solar cycle. The
statistical
evidence is rather low and the correlation seen might just be
due to
chance.
> How does the Sun transfer heat to the Corona without
violating the Laws
> of thermodynamics?
Current theories on
coronal heating rely on various forms of non-thermal
heating process, most
of them involving magnetic fields. Let me just remark
that there are many
theories around that can explain many facts about the
corona. It is
presently, however, not clear, which theory is correct.
> Why
are sunspot depressions lower in temperature and luminosity instead
>
of the other way round?
That question has already been answered by Ludwig Biermann in 1941. In the
solar
convection zone, whose outermost part we see in the deep photosphere,
energy
is transported via convection. Magnetic fields inhibit plasma
mass
motions across magnetic field lines, which reduces the efficiency of
convection
by roughly an order of magnitude. Since energy transport is
much reduced
in sunspots, they become cooler and therefore darker. Sunspots
are slight
depressions since magnetic fields produce something that is
often called
'magnetic pressure'. For a stable configuration we need pressure
equilibrium
between magnetic fields and their field-free surrounding, which
implies
(even at the same temperature) a smaller density within magnetic
fields.
Therefore we can see deeper into the sun in sunspots, but it is
only a few
100 km.
> If the Sun is a contracted ball of gas, why is its
rotation rate so
> slow?
Again magnetic fields play an
important role in breaking down and removing
angular momentum from a star.
Current theories can indeed explain the
rotation rates of a large amount
of stars.
> How can solar oscillations travel from a violent
nuclear core, up
> through its inhomogeneous body and still retain
precise geometrical
> configurations by the time they reach the
photosphere?
Almost all solar oscillations that are seen are hardly
influenced by the
solar core. They are reflected before they reach the
core. Solar oscillations
are global, i.e. the whole sun 'rings'. The idea
that these oscillations
are generated in the core is not correct. Most of
those that we see are
actually due to phenomena very close to the surface.
> These are some of the many observational facts that the core
models are
> at odds with.
I cannot agree. Certainly,
current theories in all points you address do
have some weaker points.
However, this is the case with all theories. There
are no perfect
theories. Your questions can all be adequately answered
by current
theories.
> However, the Sun consists of super hot gas, a
plasma. If the Sun's
> plasma
particles mutually interact within a unifying magnetic field,
> then it
is the Sun's magnetic field and its associated particles that
>
dominate, not the gravitational contraction of the Sun's mass.
There
is no such thing as a unifying magnetic field in the sun. All
measurements
indicate that the sun does not have a general, stable dipole
field. You
seem to be at odds with basic physics. If you calculate the
energy
densities of the magnetic fields and compare it to gravity,
you easily see
that magnetic fields on the sun are not strong enough to
dominate over
gravity (except for the solar corona and the solar wind).
Note also that
gravity from different particles average up, i.e. there
is no such thing
as negative gravity. Magnetic field of opposite polarities,
however, may
cancel, i.e. their influence on large scales is much reduced.
> OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE
I
now will make some statements about some sentences under the title given
above:
>
The deficiency in the neutrino count may be accounted for as follows.:
>
Neutrinos originate from, or near, the Sun's surface. Since neither mass
>
nor radiation can travel through the Sun's
non-space interior, only the
> neutrinos produced on the side of
the Sun facing us reach the Earth.
> Those neutrinos originating from
the opposite side of the Sun cannot
> penetrate the Sun's non-space
interior and so escape the Earth based
> observer.
You need
to supply a mechanism that produces neutrinos close to the surface
and
that matches the observed neutrino flux from the sun. As long as you
cannot
provide a mechanism, your theory is at great odds with current
observations.
In some decades we will be able to measure the angular diameter
of the
neutrino source in the sun. You predict a source as large as the sun
while
current theories predict a source much smaller (only the solar core).
> 2) When sunspots occur on the
Sun's photosphere, the neutrino count
> drops.
> Neutrinos have
little or no charge and so cannot be significantly
> affected by the
magnetic field of sunspots on the Sun's surface.
> If neutrinos
originate from the Sun's core and travel outwards, then
> sunspots on
the photospheric surface should have no effect on the
> neutrinos.
These subatomic particles should pass to the observer
> unimpeded, yet
the neutrino count is diminished during sunspot
> activity.(9)
>
Why?
> I suggest that neutrinos originate near the Sun's
photospheric
> surface.
> Within sunspots there is decreased
temperature and luminosity.
> Consequently, there is less fusion and
therefore a likelihood of a drop
> in neutrino production; hence a
decrease of neutrinos during sunspot
> activity.
There is a
weak anti-correlation between sunspots relative numbers and
the measured
neutrino flux. It is, however, by no means an observational
fact. It is
most likely just by chance. How can you have fusion close
to the solar
surface where the density, temperature, and pressure are
much much lower
than in the solar core? If the fusion would occur close
to the solar
surface, we would need to see a deficit of hydrogen and an
overabundance
of helium as compared to theory. We do not see this.
> Sunspots are depressions in the
Sun's photospheric surface.(10) If the
> interior of a sunspot is
closer to the Sun's supposedly active core, why
> does it get cooler
and darker instead of hotter and brighter in these
> areas?
> I
suggest that the temperature and luminosity gradient drop with
>
proximity to the non-space solar interior.
See my comments above. In
very small, strong solar magnetic fields, so
called small-scale magnetic
elements or fluxtubes, we see hotter and
brighter material.
Helioseismology shows without any doubt that the temperature
increases
towards the core.
> A whole new science has recently sprung up
called Helioseismology. It
> can be observed that the Sun vibrates,
rather like a bell. It is
> presently believed that solar resonances
are propagated acoustically
> from the Sun's core.(11)
Again
you assume that the solar core is the origin of the oscillations. This is
just
not true. Some of these oscillations propagate THROUGH the solar core.
>
A core sun makes for an inefficient oscillator: how would solar
>
oscillations travel from a violent nuclear core, up through a somewhat
>
inhomogeneous body and still retain precise geometrical configurations
>
by the time they reach the photosphere?
Indeed, the solar
oscillations that are believed to go through the solar core
are extremely
damped and have not been seen without doubts so far. No problems
with
current theories. Oscillations that are affected by the solar core
have
very large wavelengths, i.e. they are insensitive to object smaller
than
their wavelength. Therefore they are largely unaffected by
inhomogeneities
in the solar
convection zone. They are sensitive to large-scale objects
such as
the solar core.
> The fusion reaction is matter in a plasma
state. Rotation creates a
> dynamo effect producing a magnetic field
which unifies the plasma, which
Rotation cannot produce magnetic
fields.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christoph
Keller Internet: ckeller@noao.edu
National
Optical Astronomy Observatories/National Solar Observatory
950 N. Cherry
Avenue, P.O.Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726-6732, USA
phone (602)321-3445 FAX (602) 325-9278
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christoph
Keller Internet: ckeller@noao.edu
National
Optical Astronomy Observatories/National Solar Observatory
950 N. Cherry
Avenue, P.O.Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726-6732, USA