Expert: Philip Stahl - 3/28/2011

Question
QUESTION: Let me help you for an answer.  I am of the (new) theory that Suns shed/eject/birth Suns.  We now see a "sustainable size" Sun of ours which is only capable of Solar Flares and prominences.  If, however, as it evolved and reached a maximum unsustainable size, it would have no choice but to shed/eject "a portion of itself intact."  Wouldn't this be possible (and logical)?

ANSWER: Hello,

There are actually serious problems with your proposal, not least of which is where the energy will come from to force an "ejection" on the scale you suggest.

First, one of the more basic physical principles that applies is the Virial theorem, which I dealt with in an earlier astrophysics answer, e.g.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astrophysics-3368/Virial-Theorem-Total-stellar.htm

Thus, in order to eject "another Sun" (effectively) you'd need energy on a scale equal to half the gravitational potential energy (e.g. W/2)or equal to the total energy of the star. In this case the remnant object (original or source star) wouldn't be able to sustain itself. Note, I am talking about the stage of stellar evolution in which pressure-gravity balance has already been reached and one thus has the typical Main Sequence star.

Thus, it is preposterous that (already stable) Suns "eject suns" to get other suns. The energy simply isn't there (although I'd be willing to be open about this if you can show me quantitatively WHERE it would come from).

Typically, it is the protostar phase at which initial mass (usually of the order of 0.0001- 0.001 solar masses is thrown off, accompanied by suitable transfer of angular momentum, which then forms a planetary system.

The comparison with ejecta from solar flares (and prominences, or CMEs, coronal mass ejections) is also egregious since there is no remote analog at all to the energy involved in those ejections vis-a-vis the scale of what you are proposing (essentially, another independent Sun).

Again, if you can show me some quantitative basis for your claim, I'd be much more willing to consider it as a serious theory. But right now, it is more a conjecture based more on qualitative perceptions, which aren't accurate.

Keep in mind if you follow this up you need to show where the energy to detach an existing portion of a stable star is coming from. Is it from a neighboring massive object passing very close by which then triggers tidal disruption or ejection? If internal, innate to the star itself, WHAT is the process, and how is the internal energy (U) affected in contributing to it? (See the link on the virial theorem).

In this case, an element of mass (m) of the source star with mass, M', will accelerate at a rate -M(r- r')^2 toward the external ('intruding') mass M where r' is the distance of the element from the stellar center, and r is the distance from the stellar center to the influencing mass. In order for the proposed stellar element to be pulled away from the source mas, you'd need the condition fulfilled:

MG{- 1/r^2 + 1 /(r - r')^2}> mG/r'^2

So the question of note is: WHAT agent do you have (flares don't cut it) that will produce the same result in a source star, and such that the mass element detached, m ~ 0.3 M' (about the minimum needed for a putative new star to fire up and attain its own equilibrium)?



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: 3/24 Thank you for your reply which I just discovered.  This will be my last input as a further clarification.  Your statement:  "Thus, it is preposterous that (already stable) Suns "eject suns" to get other suns.  The energy simply isn't there.."

What I am talking about is a small core of a newborn sun.  It does not come from a "stable" sun.  It comes from a growing and evolving sun in its stages BEFORE it ever becomes "stable."

As for WHERE (your caps) it would come from, the obvious answer would be from an explosion within the sun.  (You may equate it to a volcano.)
Solar flares are just a minute example of what a stable sun is capable of emitting.

As to the MASS/SIZE of a newborn core ejection, that would be pure conjecture.  But it is a fact that Suns and Planets do not start off at "present size" -- rather, a small conjectural size within a "collapsed cloud of gas and dust" theory.

As for being observed, no newborn star has been observed.  Therefore, no size can be determined or is speculated.  Certainly, there is a size before fusion takes place; but an initial newborn core sun, none has been "observed."  Your statement of "0.0001-0.001 solar masses is thrown off" in a so-called protostar phase (in the accretion theory) is noted.

Thank you for your input.  Sorry to disturb you.  The details of my theory are not for discussion.  My theory was written in 2008.  A follow-up document with mathematical figures is forthcoming.  Thank you for your time.

ANSWER: You wrote at the end:

"The details of my theory are not for discussion.  My theory was written in 2008.  A follow-up document with mathematical figures is forthcoming.  Thank you for your time."

Then you can't be serious! You offer me some vague hypothetical question yet you refuse to give any quantitative details that I might take it seriously, even saying it's "not up for discussion" .

When you have your "theory" formalized and preferable published (in a peer-reviewed journal) maybe I can review it then, if you'd like my sincere and serious input.

But without the quantitative basis (which you refuse to share) it's not much more than science fiction to me.

Ciao!

P.S. If you were truly confident in your 'theory' you'd have no qualms discussing it in detail.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Sir:  Your replies have been condemning, as well as self-grandiosed.  It is a shame that you would reply to anyone that has a question of interest.  It is obvious that you can spout off anything you wish, since your site has a NO RATINGS ACCEPTED.

Your pompous attitude is noted.

Answer
NO, Rob, my replies aren't "condemning" only calling out baseless speculations where and when I see them (and if you saw all the 'theories' people have plied me with in the past year you'd get what I mean.) What is "grandiose" here is a guy who claims he has a theory of stellar formation and can't even quantify it. But since you may really not know what it is I mean, let me provide an example of quantification.

The issue - again - is not relying on some vague words based on faulty perceptions, but actually quantifying how the source energy can be explained in a consistent manner! For example, one way solar flare energy (and origin) can be accounted for is via electrostatic double layers. (See also previous illustrations in the astrophysics forum).

To fix ideas, on Nov. 5, 1980, one particular flare was found to have an onset electric current of magnitude, in amps:

I_o= 2.7 x 10 ^10 A.


The GOES (1- 8 Å)Soft x-ray record showed the time duration  ~ 1000s, so the power available to the flare could be computed from:


P = I_o ^2 R = (2.7 x 10^ 10 A)^2 (0. 0047 Ohm) =

3.4 x 10 ^18 W


where the second factor (for resistance, R) is the flare associated resistance, R, obtained from D.S. Spicer's flare inductance analog relation:


dR/R = [dL/dt] (5 x 10^ 2) 1/dL = 3.3 x 10^ -7


giving the rate of increase of resistance in the (magnetically complex) region given the current change. From this the ambient total resistance, R (=0. 0047 Ohm) is obtained from the circuit analog relation:


R = (rmr_s ^m-1)^1/m


where r_s is the singular surface (e.g. r_s= 0.1 r), and there are 100 tearing mode ’ islands’ spaced uniformly, This implies a flare energy, where:

P = 3.4 x 10 ^18 W was the flare power:

So the flare energy is estimated as:


E_f = P t = (3.4 x 10 ^18 W) (10 ^3 s) = 3.4 x 10 ^21 J

Thus, the quantities in place were adequate to account for a small flare such as the event was recorded as. ***THIS*** is what I expected from you, Rob, but all you did was fall flat, finally ending with:"The details of my theory are not for discussion."

Well, if not "up for discussion" then what you have is FAITH, not science.


Anyone can say something like "there's an explosion like a volcano". But that's useless unless you can quantitatively validate it! By which I mean trace the putative magnitude of energy needed to **achieve the claim**, and show how it arises from the physics, and defined quantities. Further when one says or asserts that a small core of a "newborn sun" is already under enormous gravitational weight (to allow fusion), then by definition, pressure -gravity balance must already have commenced, so it must already be stable in terms of hydrostatic equilibrium!

It is clear to me then, you've never even taken a basic astronomy course in your life yet purport to offer serious "theories" - yet can't take criticism when they are exposed for mere conjecture.

As for not enabling ratings - that was decided years ago when I discovered most questioners on this site aren't even competent to give objective ratings, such as when they awarded a "6" for 'timeliness' when the answer was delivered within 3 hours, while experts have up to three days. Because of that incompetence, I chose to nullify ratings. I guess one could say "Peter pays for Paul" in that regard because many other folks were competent to give proper ratings. But I tired of the twits that couldn't, as they continually brought my numbers down - and since I don't get paid here, that was the only currency that mattered. Now, I've taken it off the table.

As I said, whenever your paper gets properly vetted, or you wish to discuss it seriously with me, let me know. Otherwise I regard this issue as closed. I regret that you believe me to be "pompous" but in reality it is more impatience when so many people proffer "theories" but are never prepared to defend them properly!