Theory Proposes New View of Sun and Earth's Creation

Contact: James Hathaway

480-965-6375
Arizona State University
May 20, 2004

Theory proposes new view of sun and Earth's creation

Like most creation stories, this one is dramatic: we began, not as a mere
glimmer buried in an obscure cloud, but instead amidst the glare and turmoil
of restless giants.

Or so says a new theory, supported by stunning astronomical images and hard
chemical analysis. For years most astronomers have imagined that the Sun and
Solar System formed in relative isolation, buried in a quiet, dark corner of
a less-than-imposing interstellar cloud. The new theory challenges this
conventional wisdom, arguing instead that the Sun formed in a violent
nebular environment - a byproduct of the chaos wrought by intense
ultraviolet radiation and powerful explosions that accompany the short but
spectacular lives of massive, luminous stars.

The new theory is described in a "Perspectives" article appearing in the May
21 issue of Science. The article was written by a group of Arizona State
University astronomers and meteorite researchers who cite recently
discovered isotopic evidence and accumulated astronomical observations to
argue for a history of development of the Sun, the Earth and our Solar
System that is significantly different from the traditionally accepted
scenario.

If borne out by future work, this vision of our cosmic birth could have
profound implications for understanding everything from the size and shape
of our solar system to the physical makeup of the Earth and the development
of the chemistry of life.

"There are two different sorts of environment where low-mass stars like the
Sun form," explained ASU astronomer Jeff Hester, the essay's lead author.
"In one kind of star-forming environment, you have a fairly quiescent
process in which an undisturbed molecular cloud slowly collapses, forming a
star here? a star there. The other type of environment in which Sun-like
stars form is radically different. These are more massive regions that form
not only low-mass stars, but luminous high-mass stars, as well."

More massive regions are very different because once a high-mass star forms,
it begins pumping out huge amounts of energy that in turn completely changes
the way Sun-like stars form in the surrounding environment. "People have
long imagined that the Sun formed in the first, more quiescent type of
environment," Hester noted, "but we believe that we have compelling evidence
that this is not the case."

Critical to the team's argument is the recent discovery in meteorites of
patterns of isotopes that can only have been caused by the radioactive decay
of iron-60, an unstable isotope that has a half life of only a million and a
half years. Iron-60 can only be formed in the heart of a massive star and
thus the presence of live iron-60 in the young Solar System provides strong
evidence that when the Sun formed (4.5 billion years ago) a massive star was
nearby.

Hester's coauthors on the Science essay include Steve Desch, Kevin Healy,
and Laurie Leshin. Leshin is a cosmochemist and director of Arizona State
University's Center for Meteorite Studies. "One of the exciting things about
the research is that it is truly transdisciplinary, drawing from both
astrophysics and the study of meteorites - rocks that you can pick up and
hold in your hand - to arrive at a new understanding of our origins," noted
Leshin.

When a massive star is born, its intense ultraviolet radiation forms an "HII
region" - a region of hot, ionized gas that pushes outward through
interstellar space. The Eagle Nebula, the Orion Nebula, and the Trifid
Nebula are all well-known examples of HII regions. A shock wave is driven in
advance of the expanding HII region, compressing surrounding gas and
triggering the formation of new low-mass stars. "We see triggered low-mass
star formation going on in HII regions today," said Healy, who recently
completed a study of radio observations of this process at work.

The star does not have much time to get its act together, though. Within
100,000 years or so, the star and what is left of its small natal cloud will
be uncovered by the advancing boundary of the HII region and exposed
directly to the harsh ultraviolet radiation from the massive star. "We see
such objects emerging from the boundaries of HII regions,'' Hester said.
"These are the 'evaporating gaseous globules' or 'EGGs' seen in the famous
Hubble image of the Eagle Nebula."

EGGs do not live forever either. Within about ten thousand years an EGG
evaporates, leaving behind only the low-mass star and its now-unprotected
protoplanetary disk to face the brunt of the massive star's wrath. Like a
chip of dry ice on a hot day, the disk itself now begins to evaporate,
forming a characteristic tear-drop-shaped structure like the "proplyds" seen
in Hubble images of the Orion Nebula. "Once we understood what we were
looking at, we realized that we had a number of images of EGGs caught just
as they were turning into proplyds," said Hester. "The evolutionary tie
between these two classes of objects is clear."

Within another ten thousand years or so the proplyd, too, is eroded away.
All that remains is the star itself, surrounded by the inner part of the
disk (comparable in size to our Solar System), which is able to withstand
the continuing onslaught of radiation. It is from this disk and in this
environment that planets may form.

The process leaves a Sun-like star and its surrounding disk sitting in the
interior of a low density cavity with a massive star close at hand. Massive
stars die young, exploding in violent events called "supernovas." When a
supernova explodes it peppers surrounding infant planetary systems with
newly synthesized chemical elements - including short-lived radioactive
isotopes such as iron-60.

"This is where the meteorite data come in," said Hester. "When we look at
HII regions we see that they are filled with young, Sun-like stars, many of
which are known to be surrounded by protoplanetary disks. Once you ask the
question, 'what is going to happen when those massive stars go supernova?',
the answer is pretty obvious. Those young disks are going to get enriched
with a lot of freshly-made elements."

"When you then pick up a meteorite and find a mix of materials that can only
be easily explained by a nearby supernova, you realize that you are looking
at the answer to a very longstanding question in astronomy and planetary
science," Desch added.

"So from this we now know that if you could go back 4.5 billion years and
watch the Sun and Solar System forming, you would see the kind of
environment that you see today in the Eagle or Trifid nebulas," said Hester.

"There are many aspects of our Solar System that seem to make sense in light
of the new scenario," notes Leshin. "For example, this might be why the
outer part of the Solar System - the Kuiper Belt - seems to end abruptly.
Ultraviolet radiation would also have played a role in the organic chemistry
of the young solar system, and could explain other peculiar effects such as
anomalies in the abundances of isotopes of oxygen in meteorites."

One of the most intriguing speculations is that the amount of radioactive
material injected into the young solar system by a supernova might have
profoundly influenced the habitability of Earth itself. Heat released by the
decay of this material may have been responsible for "baking out" the
planetesimals from which the earth formed, and in the process determining
how much water is on Earth today.

"It is kind of exciting to think that life on Earth may owe its existence to
exactly what sort of massive star triggered the formation of the Sun in the
first place, and exactly how close we happened to be to that star when it
went supernova," mused Hester. "One thing that is clear is that the
traditional boundaries between fields such as astrophysics, meteoritics,
planetary science, and astrobiology just got less clear-cut. This new
scenario has a lot of implications, and makes a lot of new predictions that
we can test."

If it is accepted, the new theory may also be of use in looking for life in
the universe beyond. "We want to know how common Earth-like planets are. The
problem with answering that question is that if you don't know how
Earth-like planets are formed - if you don't understand their connection
with astrophysical environments - then all you can do is speculate," Hester
said.

"We think that we're starting to see a very specific causal connection
between astrophysical environments and the things that have to be in place
to make a planet like ours."

###

Sources: Jeff Hester, 480-965-0741,
Laurie Leshin, 480-965-0796,

Images: http://clas.asu.edu/newsevents/press...es/photos/HII/

nightbat wrote

Ron wrote:

Contact: James Hathaway

480-965-6375
Arizona State University
May 20, 2004

Theory proposes new view of sun and Earth's creation

Like most creation stories, this one is dramatic: we began, not as a mere
glimmer buried in an obscure cloud, but instead amidst the glare and turmoil
of restless giants.

nightbat

Thanks Ron for that post for it is partially self consistent.
You cannot begin or claim to be creation planetary based theory and have
restless nova stage giants hanging close by. The excellent researchers
at Arizona State University however are partial model correct for their
differentiating between different various formed solar class stars in
normal gravity field. I have for years indicated same because of the
Einstein and Tesla pointing question where did all the concentrated
particular Earth iron core and water originate from? The amount of
energy needed to form an Earth same is insufficient for even immense
nova presentations or as researched by Arizona group. The formidable
question was not able to be resolved by either great physics theorist
until my postulate of " Black Comet " dynamics for black hole paradox
resolution.

I thank you for bringing this news and predictions to our group
attention for it confirms further my postulate for interior universal
dynamics. When independent researchers affirm and do not pointedly
falsify your model, even if only partially, it is good.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote:
nightbat

Don't you mean fruitbat? Sorry, couldn't resist...

nightbat wrote

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

nightbat wrote:
nightbat

Don't you mean fruitbat? Sorry, couldn't resist...

nightbat

Believe me, been called worst Greg, ha, ha, but ultimately its
your positive contribution that counts, not made for fun net names. How
about Batty du Nuit, batgoof, nightbutt, Sir Bat, ha, ha, or batduffus.
When the original profound model predictions come in however, I'm the
one laughing all the way. Try to help and if you're called names, means
somebody is reading and hopefully getting it. I personally and
respectfully never call anyone a name, ha, ha, I think, heck, what if
somehow I'm distant related to them?


the nightbat

"nightbat" wrote...
in message ...

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

Don't you mean fruitbat? Sorry, couldn't resist...

nightbat

Believe me, been called worst Greg, ha, ha, but ultimately its
your positive contribution that counts, not made for fun net names. How
about Batty du Nuit, batgoof, nightbutt, Sir Bat, ha, ha, or batduffus.

And let us not forget "nocturnal flying mammal!" g

When the original profound model predictions come in however, I'm the
one laughing all the way. Try to help and if you're called names, means
somebody is reading and hopefully getting it. I personally and
respectfully never call anyone a name, ha, ha, I think, heck, what if
somehow I'm distant related to them?


the nightbat

All the more reason?... to call them a name? g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Our heads up in the sky,
We're so clueless of our worth...
Whose sky no longer shines
As we lose our Mother-Earth?

As people we must learn
About the care of planet parts,
To leave the world a better turn--
Empower brand new hearts!

Paine Ellsworth

Painius wrote:
"nightbat" wrote...
in message ...

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

Don't you mean fruitbat? Sorry, couldn't resist...

nightbat

Believe me, been called worst Greg, ha, ha, but ultimately its
your positive contribution that counts, not made for fun net names. How
about Batty du Nuit, batgoof, nightbutt, Sir Bat, ha, ha, or batduffus.


And let us not forget "nocturnal flying mammal!" g

When the original profound model predictions come in however, I'm the
one laughing all the way. Try to help and if you're called names, means
somebody is reading and hopefully getting it. I personally and
respectfully never call anyone a name, ha, ha, I think, heck, what if
somehow I'm distant related to them?


the nightbat


All the more reason?... to call them a name? g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!


So did you change your email address just to defeat my kill file? How
pathetic!

Ok, PLONK again.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply have a physician remove your spleen

In article ,
says...
"nightbat" wrote...
in message ...

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

Don't you mean fruitbat? Sorry, couldn't resist...

nightbat

Believe me, been called worst Greg, ha, ha, but ultimately its
your positive contribution that counts, not made for fun net names. How
about Batty du Nuit, batgoof, nightbutt, Sir Bat, ha, ha, or batduffus.

And let us not forget "nocturnal flying mammal!" g

And let us not forget the reason why the "Batman" movies failed in the
Nordic countries and German-speaking countries. I mean, just how
intimidated are *you* gonna be if someone confronts you and announces
that he is called "Fluttering Mouse Man!"...? (That's the literal
translation of "Fliedermaus.")

Doug

(Ron) wrote in message . com...
Contact: James Hathaway

480-965-6375
Arizona State University
May 20, 2004


Critical to the team's argument is the recent discovery in meteorites of
patterns of isotopes that can only have been caused by the radioactive decay
of iron-60, an unstable isotope that has a half life of only a million and a
half years. Iron-60 can only be formed in the heart of a massive star and
thus the presence of live iron-60 in the young Solar System provides strong
evidence that when the Sun formed (4.5 billion years ago) a massive star was
nearby.

Elsewhere I read it is nickel-60, decaying from iron-60, that is found
in meteorites on earth. Is this true? Are there any other elements
that would provide the telltale signs of having been formed in massive
stars?

Interesting post - thank you.

Bob Carlson

"BC" == Bob Carlson writes:

Critical to the team's argument is the recent discovery in
meteorites of patterns of isotopes that can only have been caused
by the radioactive decay of iron-60, an unstable isotope that has a
half life of only a million and a half years. Iron-60 can only be
formed in the heart of a massive star and thus the presence of live
iron-60 in the young Solar System provides strong evidence that
when the Sun formed (4.5 billion years ago) a massive star was
nearby.

BC Elsewhere I read it is nickel-60, decaying from iron-60, that is
BC found in meteorites on earth. Is this true? Are there any other
BC elements that would provide the telltale signs of having been
BC formed in massive stars?

There's been a long standing puzzle that aluminum-26 decay products
also are found in some meteorites. Aluminum-26 has a very short
half-life (9 million years?) which has been interpreted as implying
that a massive star must have gone supernova within a few million
years of the formation of the solar system. More recently, however,
Frank Shu and others have proposed that the X-ray activity of the
young Sun may have been enough to produce the Al-26. It would be
interesting to hear that team's thoughts on this new proposal.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

BC Elsewhere I read it is nickel-60, decaying from iron-60, that is
BC found in meteorites on earth. Is this true? Are there any other
BC elements that would provide the telltale signs of having been
BC formed in massive stars?

There's been a long standing puzzle that aluminum-26 decay products
also are found in some meteorites. Aluminum-26 has a very short
half-life (9 million years?) which has been interpreted as implying
that a massive star must have gone supernova within a few million
years of the formation of the solar system. More recently, however,
Frank Shu and others have proposed that the X-ray activity of the
young Sun may have been enough to produce the Al-26. It would be
interesting to hear that team's thoughts on this new proposal.


something sounds fishy...

Co60 decays to Fe60 as demonstrated in the light curves of SN1987a
(the one in the Megallanic CLoud) as a supernova product.

from the physics i understand, xrays can't cause nuclear reactions, so
i'm hard pressed to understand how a youthful xray intense star can
produce Al26, unless its being produced in the star and blowing out of
it with the solar wind...