Some Thoughts on the Sun's Recent Outbursts

We are witnessing in real time the fact that stellar atmospheric dynamics
are much more complex than anyone admits to. The observed eleven year solar
cycle is so poorly understood that there are not many astrophysicists that
will make the claim that it can be adequately described with enough
resolution to make any presumptions really useful. It is fascinating to
note that the so-called "chance occurrences" of two near simultaneous events
we have witnessed are being described as "so low on the probability scale as
to be statistically impossible" - and yet, there they are in real time for
all to observe. It is difficult to imagine that it is we, out of all people
in all of history that are actually privy to once-in-a-stellar-lifetime
event. What is more likely is that we are witnessing common stellar
phenomenon that is so complex that we are unable to understand the
underlying process itself. It is also of some importance that we are also
probably onlookers to events that describe the true nature of a local star
for which we have little understanding. In this unsettling event, the
bottom line is that what we may be witnessing is a star of unexpected
complexity with a propensity to outbursts and relative instabilities we had
no prior knowledge of.



In the real world of stellar atmospheric dynamics, events occur in
thermonuclear reality, in subatomic subsets and in quantum regions, not
readily decipherable by classical descriptions. This is, in fact, the real
rub. As John Haldane has stated so accurately, "My own suspicion is that
not only is the universe queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can
suppose." In light of this reality, we need to drop the presupposition that
we have a handle on the Sun's stellar dynamics and begin to look it in a
magnitude of greater depth. I suspect there is a fundamental quantum effect
here that we have either overlooked or have not yet uncovered. It is
essential that we pour many more resources into this study. Not that we
will ever be able to do anything about it, but it would be useful to develop
an early warning system based on the sun's quantum output, perhaps beginning
with a careful look at what happened to the neutrino count several weeks ago
from Sudbury and extending to the outbursts itself. Now there is a data set
I would love to get my hands on! Just a thought..



Sean Steele

International Institute of Space Exploration

Space Studies Online

http://www.spaceinstitute.net

"Sean Steele" writes:

[...] In the real world of stellar atmospheric dynamics, events occur in
thermonuclear reality, in subatomic subsets and in quantum regions, not
readily decipherable by classical descriptions. [...]

_Individual_ fusion reactions between two nuclei are quantum processes, but
there is =NO= reason to believe that "macroscopic" quantum mechanical effects
are required to understand the Sun as a whole.


[...] I suspect there is a fundamental quantum effect here that we have
either overlooked or have not yet uncovered.

I suspect you are wrong. Quantum mechanical effects are important in reactions
between elementary particles or nuclei, but rapidly become insignificant
when either the number of particles involved or the temperatures involved
become macroscopically large. The Sun is =VERY= large and =VERY= hot;
it should therefore be a =VERY= "classical" object indeed !!!

The Sun is quite turbulent, and perhaps even chaotic --- but it should be
well-describable using CLASSICAL turbulence and CLASSICAL chaos theory,
=NOT= Quantum Mechanics.


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

In article ,
"Sean Steele" writes:
We are witnessing in real time the fact that stellar atmospheric dynamics
are much more complex than anyone admits to.

Who, exactly, have you asked? MHD is a classic example of a hard
subject.

It is fascinating to
note that the so-called "chance occurrences" of two near simultaneous events
we have witnessed are being described as "so low on the probability scale as
to be statistically impossible"

Who exactly said this, and what is the exact quote? It sounds to me
like a sloppy or misunderstood press release. Without knowing the
exact quote it's impossible to be sure, but I suspect the point may
have been that these events are not independent of each other.

It is difficult to imagine that it is we, out of all people
in all of history that are actually privy to once-in-a-stellar-lifetime
event. What is more likely is that we are witnessing common stellar
phenomenon that is so complex that we are unable to understand the
underlying process itself.

I suspect most scientists would agree with this, at least part way.
That is, while there is some understanding of the basic underlying
process, (magnetic reconnection), there are many things not
understood.

It is also of some importance that we are also
probably onlookers to events that describe the true nature of a local star
for which we have little understanding. In this unsettling event, the
bottom line is that what we may be witnessing is a star of unexpected
complexity with a propensity to outbursts and relative instabilities we had
no prior knowledge of.

"No prior knowledge" is quite an exaggeration. There is some
statistical base of knowledge, but it goes back only a few decades,
at least in terms of modern observations. Sunspot records go back a
few hundred years.

More fundamentally, the solar interior is much simpler than the
surface because there is no convection, and magnetic fields are
unimportant. While there are certainly many question still to be
answered, my understanding is that there is quite good agreement
between theory and helioseismology results.

In the real world of stellar atmospheric dynamics, events occur in
thermonuclear reality, in subatomic subsets and in quantum regions, not
readily decipherable by classical descriptions.

I don't know what most of this means. Thermonuclear reactions are
unimportant on the surface because the temperature is so low. (Even
at the Sun's center, the average proton sits around for a few billion
years without undergoing any thermonuclear reaction.) Nobody doubts
quantum mechanics is important, and I doubt anyone is trying to use
classical theory where it doesn't apply.

with a careful look at what happened to the neutrino count several weeks ago
from Sudbury and extending to the outbursts itself. Now there is a data set
I would love to get my hands on! Just a thought..

Supposing something odd happened in the core, just how long do you
think it would take for the signal to propagate to the surface? What
form would the signal take? Why is this more credible than random
bubbling in the convection zone?

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)