Evidences For A Young Sun
Supplemental Reading

Keith Davies, M.S.
IMPACT
No. 276, June 1996

The standard model of the Sun assumes that it is around 5 billion years old andthat it has already passed into its nuclear burning stage. This makes it all the moreextraordinary that in 1976 a team of Russian astronomers, writing in therespected British Scientific Journal Nature showed how their research pointed clearly to the startling fact thatthe Sun does not even seem to possess a large dense nuclear burning core.Instead, their results showed the Sun as bearing the characteristics of a veryyoung homogeneous star that corresponds with the early stages of the computermodels.

The astronomers also proposed that nuclear reactions "are not responsiblefor energy generation in the Sun."[1] They saidthat such a conclusion, "although rather extravagant," follows fromtheir own research into the analysis of the global oscillations of the Sun andis quite consistent with two other major observational findings. They citedthese other evidences as being the observed absence of appreciable neutrino fluxfrom the Sun, and the observed abundance of Lithium and Beryllium in the stellaratmosphere.[2]

So not only did the team of astronomers propose the startling idea that nuclearreactions are not responsible for the source of the Sun's energy, but they alsoput forward the equally startling concept that the Sun, according to their data,could be homogeneous throughout.[3] Both of theserevolutionary ideas would fit in perfectly with the concept that the Sun is avery young star.

All three of these major discoveries that point towards a young Sun have sincebeen confirmed by independent observations. This article will evaluate andupdate these findings and point the way to recent discoveries that show that theSun cannot possibly be the old nuclear burning, main-sequence star that it wasonce assumed to be.

If, however, the Sun is similar to a very young homogeneous star that has notyet developed a large central core, then its spectrum of global oscillationshave been calculated as including a much longer fundamental radial oscillationof 2 hours 47 minutes, together with a non-radial fundamental oscillation of 59minutes and either a second harmonic radial oscillation of 47 minutes or a 42minute, non-radial second harmonic oscillation.[7]

The predicted oscillation of 2 hours 47 minutes is particularly important asbeing a key distinguishing feature of a young homogeneous star.

The Russian astronomers were certainly startled to find that their observationsof the Sun were showing large and remarkably stable global oscillations with aperiod of 2 hours 40 minutes[8]—very close tothat predicted for a young homogeneous Sun.

When trying to explain this quite unexpected observation, they stated in theirarticle that a "most striking fact is that the observed period of 2 hours40 minutes is almost precisely the same . . . as if the Sun were to be anhomogeneous sphere."[9]

The concept of the Sun's being an homogeneous sphere was so contrary to allprevious ideas that the Russians were anxious to find alternative explanations.They kept on returning, however, to the conclusion that their work, whichinvolved the observation of systematic fluctuations in very large portions ofthe Sun's surface (comparable in size with the radius of the Sun's disc) "pointsdefinitely to pulsations of the Sun as a whole."[10]

Comments from other astronomers
The unexpected observations have gone solidly against the predictions of thestandard model of the Sun. The solar astronomer Iain Nicholson, said of the longperiod oscillation that if it was a true fundamental period, then the "standardmodel could not be correct," and that the "central temperature of theSun would be less than half the conventional value."[13]Such a low temperature would, of course, again fit in with the Sun being a youngstar that has not yet achieved a sufficiently high temperature for main-sequencehydrogen burning.

The British astronomers J. Christenson-Dalsgaard and D.O. Gough commented thatin order to account for the 2 hour 40 minutes observation it is "evidentthat a very drastic change in the solar model would be necessary" and "itis unlikely that any such model can be found."[14]

This striking discovery of the Sun's oscillations was not, however, the onlyevidence of a young Sun.

The low neutrino flux is a well known and long standing problem for modernastronomy. A group of solar physicists, writing in the National Research Councilpublication Decade of Discovery, stated that the neutrino emission from the Sun is "aproblem that has worried astronomers for years" and that "thediscrepancy is serious."[15]

A low neutrino flux which results in a correspondingly low [16],[17] temperature of the Sun's core, again fits in perfectly with the Sunbeing a young star that has not yet achieved full nuclear burning of hydrogen,but is obtaining its energy from a slow gravitational contraction.

We know that lithium would be destroyed in around 7,500 years[19] when the central temperature of a young starreaches 3 million degrees.[20]

Observations show that the Sun has already lost all but around one thousandthof its original abundance of Lithium.[21] Thisimplies that if the Sun had the expected initial abundance of Lithium, then itscentral temperature must, of course, be at least 3 million degrees.

However, the Sun still has its normal abundance of Beryllium which is destroyed at atemperature of 4 million degrees.[22] If the Russianscientists are correct in assuming that the Sun is homogeneous, then this meansthat the temperature throughout the whole Sun must be far lower than the 15million degrees required for the Sun to be an old main-sequence star.

3. Ibid., p 88. Return to Text

4. A typical description of the Sun's core under the 'standard model' is that of Nicolson on p 14 of The Sun published in 1982 by Michael Beazley, in association with the Royal Astronomical Society. Nicolson gives the Sun's core as having a diameter of 350,000 km with a density of 160,000 Kg m^-3 (about 14 times the density of lead.) This large core would extend outward to about 1/4 of the solar radius. The temperature of the core would be around 15,000,000 degrees K. Return to Text

5. Brookes, J.R., Isaak, G.R., and van der Raay, H.B., 1976. "Observation of free oscillations of the Sun," Nature, vol. 259, p 94. Also Nicolson, I., 1982. The Sun Publ. Michael Beazley p 84. Return to Text

6. Nicolson, op. cit., p 84. Return to Text

7. Brookes et al., op. cit., p 94. Return to Text

8., 9., 10. Severny op. cit., p 88. Return to Text 8, Return to Text 9, Return to Text 10

11., 12. Brookes et al., op. cit., p 94. Return to Text 11, Return to Text 12

13. Nicolson op. cit., p 84. Return to Text

14. Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., and Gough, D.O., 1976. "Towards a heliological inverse problem," Nature vol. 259 p 90. Return to Text

15. National Research Council. 1991 The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics National Academy Press. p 34. Return to Text

16. Karttunen, H., Kroger, P., Oja, H., Poutanen, M., Donner, K.J., 1987.Fundamental Astronomy Springer-Verlag p 273. Return to Text

17. Nicolson op. cit., p 84. Return to Text

18. Severny, op. cit., p 89. Return to Text

19. Hopkins, J., 1980. Glossary of Astronomy and Astrophysics. University of Chicago Press p 102. Return to Text

20. Karttunen op. cit., p 273. Return to Text

21. Stephens, S., "Needles in the Cosmic Haystack" Astronomy September 1995 p 53. Return to Text

22. Karttunen op. cit., p 273. Return to Text

23. Chown, M., "The riddle of the solar wind," New Scientist 12th August, 1995, p 16. Return to Text