On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:25:12 +0000, Giovanni wrote:

Creationists do not know this but this article gives merit to their
group.


Unlikely ...

1. In Genesis account, God created light on the first day but the sun
and the stars were created by God on the fourth day. What is this
light or its source on the first day? Simple, the light was from a
supernova. God is light and does not need to create light to be able
to see things. So, God created a physical light so that physical
things will be visible to the physical world or universe.


Since at least one star undoubtedly must have existed before any
supernova could have occurred, it seems logically inconsistent to
propose that the first light came from a supernova.

2. The supernova is the result of God using his power to allow hydrogen
atoms to fuse all at once in a star or group of stars in the center of
Milky Way. The hydrogen atoms fused by allowing proton to capture the
electron in each atom contrary to the common belief of science.


Electron capture does occur in supernovae but electron
capture on protons from hydrogen is not the causative factor.

Supernovae occur in two basic situations.

First, a star in the mass range 6-8 solar masses and less than
(something near) 25 solar masses reaches the point at which the nuclear
fuel in the innermost stellar core is exhausted. At this point the star is
fusing various light elements into heavier elements, including indeed
still some hydrogen into helium in the outer reaches of the core. But the
key point is that the inner core consists entirely of iron,
and iron cannot fuse with iron to make a still heavier nucleus with the
release of energy. The iron core is initially held up by electron
degeneracy pressure against its own mass, but when the core size becomes
large enough, weak nuclear processes become fast enough to remove the
electron degeneracy pressure and the inner core then collapses under
its own weight.

Considerable gravitational binding energy is released in the collapse,
which produces a shock wave proceeding outward from the core. The great
majority of the energy in such a gravitational collapse supernova is
released in the form of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos which are mainly
produced by electron-positron annihilation in the early stages of the
collapse. A small fraction of the energy is transformed into light and
kinetic energy of the shockwave, and even this small fraction is enough
to completely disrupt the outer layers of the star producing an enormous
explosion.

If the star, before the supernova, still retains its outer envelope,
then the envelope contains an enormous mass of unfused hydrogen
and this unfused hydrogen is very easily detectable in the light we
observe from the supernova explosion.

So in this type of supernova, the cause is *not* that all the
hydrogen fuses at once, much less that all the electrons are
captured onto all the protons.

The second basic situation in which a supernova may occur is generally
thought to be a case in which a white dwarf star orbits a companion star
closely enough that matter from the companion can accrete onto the white
dwarf. This can easily occur, for example, if the companion becomes a red
giant. For example, in a light star, fusion cannot proceed beyond oxygen
in the core, because the mass is insufficient to produce further collapse
of the star and the accompanying temperature increase which could ignite
oxygen burning. Such a star at the end of its life has sufficient electron
degeneracy pressure to hold its core up, and if it were isolated it would
then simply cool down forever, despite the abundant nuclear fuel
remaining. But the situation is very different in a binary due to the
mass transfer.

If the accretion rate is neither too fast or too slow, mass transfer
eventually destabilizes the white dwarf companion by raising the internal
pressure and temperature in the dwarf's core to a point at which oxygen
can begin to burn by nuclear fusion to heavier elements. This reaction
becomes a runaway reaction, and proceeds to burn up the entire white
dwarf, which however, has little or no hydrogen in it, except on the very
surface. The result is a gigantic thermonuclear explosion which destroys
the whole white dwarf, and in which many heavy elements are produced.

The spectrum of such a supernova generally has practically no detectable
presence of hydrogen. However, that electron capture on protons in
hydrogen was the cause is out of the question. The presence of spectral
lines of many elements of the iron group, predicted to be produced in the
thermonuclear explosion strongly suggests that something like the above
scenario is a correct explanation for this type of supernova.

3. As a result of the fusion of electron and proton, the electron and
positron annihilated producing light and other subatomic particles
such as pions, muons, neutrinos and others. Note that in those days no
neutrino ever roamed in the universe.


What positron?

Electron capture in hydrogen produces a neutron and a neutrino.

Typical temperatures in supernovae are too low for there to
be any very significant production of on shell pions or muons.

4. Supernova may or may not produce a pulsar or neutron star. A
neutron star resulted in a partial annihilation of a star thru rapid
fusion or supernova. The release of neutrinos during the supernova
process could be trapped in an ongoing but not yet complete fusion of
electron and proton, hence a neutron results and the neutrons grouped
to form a neutron star.


A core collapse supernova will always produce a neutron star.

Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are initially trapped in the
hyperdense collapsing core, but they do escape in great numbers
and they have been detected.

If the neutrinos did not eventually escape, there would be be no
supernova explosion. Instead there would be a black hole.

5. The supernova fed all the stars in this galaxy with neutrinos so
that the stars and our own sun will continue to shine and not explode
destroying also the planets in the system. What a genius! It took
three days for neutrinos to travel to the farthest star perhaps our
sun?


The travel time of three days is far too short. The flux of neutrinos
from other stars in our galaxy at the sun can be easily calculated, is
insignificant, and makes no difference to the evolution of our sun.

6. The sun also produced neutrino but through electron-proton fusion as
evidenced by the light we see. Some of the neutrinos created by the sun
were trapped between electron and proton to produce neutron which is
needed to produce helium and other heavier atoms. The neutrinos that
were not trapped were able to escape the sun and travelled through the
universe. This is the reason why physicists could not account for the
missing neutrinos but invented a self-transmuting particle.


There exists no mechanism for `trapping' neutrinos between electrons
and protons. Physicists accounted for the missing neutrinos by
proposing neutrino oscillations and non-zero neutrino masses, true,
but this appears now to be the correct explanation for the missing
solar neutrinos.


7. The cycle of a star to undergo supernova depends on the total need of
the universe in a normal condition i.e. the net background neutrino
should remain constant. If not, a star lacking in neutrino will likely
become a supernova.

The evolution of stars is independent of the typical background neutrino
flux. The mean free path of a 1 MeV neutrino in iron is about 1 light
year; the average density of the sun and many stars is less than
that of iron.

Best Regards,

David