Triple Alpha Process Already Happens inside the Sun. Why isn't this obvious?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

The group temperature of the Sun's core is believed to be 16 million to 18.5 million Kelvin. This is not enough to produce the Triple Alpha Process at first glance, which is believed to require an average temperature of around 100 million Kelvins. However, group temperature does not necessarily reflect the temperature of individual particles. This works similar to how ice can sublimate directly to vapor without being a liquid, or liquid water can vaporize below boiling group temperature. Inside the Sun, it's possible for some Helium atoms to have individual temperatures (or kinetic energy) exceeding 100 million kelvins for very brief periods of time, and then collide with other Helium atoms, producing Berylium, Carbon, Nitrogen and even Oxygen; Nitrogen and Oxygen make up about 1% of the Sun's core mass for no apparent reason other than this. The CNO process is now known and confirmed via Neutrino detectors to produce about 0.4% of the Sun's total energy output, while the Proton-Proton chain (Hydrogen Fusion) is thought to produce almost all of the remaining 99.6% of the Sun's energy output. This is not necessarily the case though, because small amounts of the Triple Alpha process can already be happening.

The way you are taught Phase transitions in Stars is wrong. The Sun does not burn out of hydrogen before the Helium phase begins. The Triple Alpha process will start in earnest when the Sun is 80 to 90% depleted of Hydrogen, and the Hydrogen will CONTINUE fusion even as the early part of the Red Giant phase starts. Only once the Helium to Carbon burning phase is 50% or more of the energy output would Hydrogen be blown away from the Sun and "wasted", which would signify the end of the Red Giant phase. The Red Giant phase burns around 1000 to 2000 times brighter than present day Sun at the end of the event. Then it shrinks back to a White Dwarf with a surface temperature of a few tens of thousands of kelvins after all of that.

Updates

1 y

Also, a small fraction of the Sun's energy comes from annihilation of Positrons with Electrons, which happens at an insanely high energy density around 100 times the energy density of Hydrogen Fusion itself. This could explain how Helium and other atoms become energetic to produce the heavier isotopes in the Sun, rather than the "Second Generation Star" theory; Where is the progenitor star?

Updates

1 y

Anyway, there are a couple reasons I don't THINK the Sun is "second generation". It is still too light in my opinion to be second generation. When you look at the Crab Nebula Supernova Remnant, it is made of mostly Oxygen, Neon, and Iron, well those elements only make up about one percent or so of the Sun's mass, so it makes little sense to say that the Sun is a Second Generation Star.

[Anonymous]

Yup….,

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Well, I've also realized that the Iron and other heavy elements in the Solar System could have come from a "Dredging Up" event of the Sun; Either because of some internal instability event or because of a close-encounter with another Star. To give some idea of how colossal such an event would have been, it's probably the real physics-based origin of the planets, asteroids, and comets in the Solar System. That is to say, it would be like a Nova rather than a Supernova.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

The core density of the Sun is already believed to be a couple dozen times denser than Iron on the surface of the Earth, so we can't really prove one way or another what the Sun is "really" made of deep inside the Core.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Also, I see no good reason why heavier elements, such as Oxygen and iron, couldn't have been made during the Big Bang event itself, since its energy level is many orders of magnitude larger than the most powerful types of Supernovas.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I did an approximate calculation whereby I show that the Sun will run out of fuel when it is approximately 14 Billion years old. Scientists think the Sun (and Earth) are somewhere between 6 billion and 8 billion years old. They use 4.6 billion in textbooks because they don't know how to date objects older than the asteroids yet. Computer simulations of the Earth's interior show it needs to be at least 6 billion years old to reach its current composition, as determined by GPR and especially seismometers. So, if the Earth and Sun are 8 billion years old, this would roughly agree with the Idea that the Sun will run out of fuel around 5.5 billion years from now.

However, I did a linear approximation of the correct calculation. The real calculation involves solving a differential involving a double-exponential, which I confess i don't know how to solve correctly directly. So instead, I calculated how long it would take for the Sun to run out of fuel from start to finish if it burned at the same rate forever, which gave 14 billion years. In reality, the Sun accelerates its rate of burning by about 10 percent over the previous billion years, and willl accelerate again by more than 10 percent in the next billion years, etc.. As the core density increases by 1%, the luminosity goes up by 4%, which by the way SHOULD drive all life on Earth extinct by the time luminosity goes up by 1% EXCEPT that the radiation pressure from the Sun would push the Earth farther away from the sun, cooling the Earth rather than warming it.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

This suggests the UNIVERSE is twice as old as Scientists think it is, because you need to explain where there are already WHITE DWARFS ranging from 10% to 144% of the Sun's mass spread around the entire galaxy and universe. If it takes 14 billion years for a Sun-like star to run out of fuel, where did all those White Dwarfs come from which make up over half of all observable objects in the Universe? This suggests the Universe is at least twice as old as scientists think.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

For example, if Solar Luminosity went up by 1%, then the Solar Constant on Earth would go up by 13.655 Watts per Meter squared, which would melt all ice caps, thermalize the permafrost, and fry the entire planet IF the Earth didn't move farther away from the Sun. But by the time the Sun gets that much brighter, radiation pressure and systemic mass loss will have pushed the Earth farther away from the Sun. Another reason the Earth will move farther away from the Sun is Gravity Waves from Jupiter push the Earth and other inner planets outward over hundreds of millions and billions of years.

Thus it is possible that Revelation is correct. By the time the Sun is "seven times brighter", the Earth will be about 3 times farther away from the Sun, and will need the Sun to be brighter to maintain a safe living temperature for Earth life, at least if life is anything like what lives today.

How could humans survive this change, especially if, as john said, the Oceans will dry up?

Well, The Bible is talking about RESURRECTED immortal humans, who are spirit beings like the Angels, not flesh and blood humans like us today.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Yes, i'm aware the "surface temperature" of the Sun goes down as it expands, but the luminosity, which determines the temperature "felt on Earth" goes up as the Sun's core contracts and the sun's atmosphere, radiative zone, and convective zones expands. So there is no contradiction between Revelation and real modern Science.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

There is no chance of collision with Jupiter, because Earth and Jupiter don't orbit on exactly the same plane, and because Jupiter is over 300 times as massive as Earth. Jupiter only needs to move inward by 1 million miles to throw Earth outward by 300 million miles, which would not even reflect a 1% realignment of the Solar System's mass.