How to shut down the Sun?

Wondering whether anyone has come up with a scheme for shutting down
the Sun. That is, a way to stop the nuclear reactions that make the
sun shine. Are there any elements that could be sent into the Sun in
a space probe that would significantly alter its reactions? Is there
any way to de-stabilize the Sun's reactions? And, then, has anything
like this appeared in science fiction?

Dear Earnest Questioner:

"Earnest Questioner" wrote in
message
...
Wondering whether anyone has come up with a
scheme for shutting down the Sun. That is, a
way to stop the nuclear reactions that make the
sun shine. Are there any elements that could be
sent into the Sun in a space probe that would
significantly alter its reactions?

A delivery of anything with a higher atomic number than carbon,
mass roughly Jupiter's (or more of course).

Is there any way to de-stabilize the Sun's reactions?

Yes, a near flyby by anything more massive than the Sun would
shred it, its temperature would drop, and it could take a some
long time to recongeal.

And, then, has anything like this appeared in
science fiction?

Yes, ever since the 1930s or so. E.E. "Doc" Smith had some
star-busters, I believe.

You could drop its temperature a bit and kill everything in its
current "Goldilocks zone". Say, just enough that it makes a lot
more UV-B than it does UV-C, which would prevent any significant
ozone formation and DNA-based life would essentially end on
Earth's surface.

You could simply shade the target planet, or focus additional
light on it.

You could push the star about 5 minutes into the future, and the
resulting instability would play heck with all the orbits for
millions of years. (Given that our solar system is moving at
~300 km/sec, 5 minutes would put the Sun *way* out of center.)

You could spin it up, so that it started flinging out flaming
gibbits.

You could add lots of "ice" to the local equivalent of the Oort
cloud, and cook all the in-system planets with the "Easy-Bake
Oven" you will have created.

David A. Smith

"Earnest Questioner" wrote in message
...
Wondering whether anyone has come up with a scheme for shutting down
the Sun.

Wondering whether anyone has come up with a scheme for shutting down
****ing idiots.

Earnest Questioner wrote:
Wondering whether anyone has come up with a scheme for shutting down
the Sun. That is, a way to stop the nuclear reactions that make the
sun shine. Are there any elements that could be sent into the Sun in
a space probe that would significantly alter its reactions? Is there
any way to de-stabilize the Sun's reactions?

Since the Sun's reactions are nuclear, there is no chemical element in
existence that can affect those. In fact, chemical elements are what are
created inside nuclear reactions.

It's like asking if anybody's mother stopped existing if her son was
never born? Obviously, the son depends on the mother existing for his
own existence, but the mother doesn't depend on the son existing.

And, then, has anything
like this appeared in science fiction?

Just look at every second Star Trek The Next Generation episode. :-)

Yousuf Khan

On Jul 22, 12:44*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
Dear Earnest Questioner:

"Earnest Questioner" wrote in
...

Wondering whether anyone has come up with a
scheme for shutting down the Sun. *That is, a
way to stop the nuclear reactions that make the
sun shine. *Are there any elements that could be
sent into the Sun in a space probe that would
significantly alter its reactions?

A delivery of anything with a higher atomic number than carbon,
mass roughly Jupiter's (or more of course).

Wouldn't the hydrogen atomic fusion simply continue in a shell on top
of the introduced carbon+ core? The carbon+ core would just sink to
the centre of the Sun, but the hydrogen fusion region would just wrap
itself around the core. This is what would happen to the Sun naturally
anyways once it reaches its red giant stages.

Then if you drop a carbon+ white dwarf core into the Sun, of at least
0.5 solar masses, then you'll get a Type Ia supernova. That'll affect
the nuclear reactions, in a big way. :-)

Is there any way to de-stabilize the Sun's reactions?

Yes, a near flyby by anything more massive than the Sun would
shred it, its temperature would drop, and it could take a some
long time to recongeal.

If a star is big and close enough to put the Sun inside its Roche
Limit, where the Sun would break up, then the Sun would enter into
orbit around this star as a ring, and then eventually it would
precipitate down onto the other star and become part of it.

I suspect stars don't simply turn themselves into rings easily though.
So it's more likely that the Sun would just merge with the other star,
like a couple of blobs in a lava lamp.

Yousuf Khan

Dear YKhan:

On Jul 22, 9:15*am, YKhan wrote:
On Jul 22, 12:44*am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)"
wrote:
"Earnest Questioner" wrote in
...

Wondering whether anyone has come up with a
scheme for shutting down the Sun. *That is, a
way to stop the nuclear reactions that make the
sun shine. *Are there any elements that could be
sent into the Sun in a space probe that would
significantly alter its reactions?

A delivery of anything with a higher atomic
number than carbon, mass roughly Jupiter's
(or more of course).

Wouldn't the hydrogen atomic fusion simply
continue in a shell on top of the introduced
carbon+ core?

No. Hydrogen fusion requires a great number of neutrons, and carbon
will absorb much of that.

The carbon+ core would just sink to the
centre of the Sun,

I'd expect it to diffuse pretty well, as heavier elements do in our
Sun.

but the hydrogen fusion region would just wrap
itself around the core. This is what would
happen to the Sun naturally anyways once it
reaches its red giant stages.

I don't believe so.

Then if you drop a carbon+ white dwarf core
into the Sun, of at least 0.5 solar masses,
then you'll get a Type Ia supernova. That'll affect
the nuclear reactions, in a big way. :-)

Well, yes. Adding that much extra mass will end all life (that we'd
recognize), since orbital momenta are then only sufficient for highly
elliptical orbits.

Is there any way to de-stabilize the Sun's
reactions?

Yes, a near flyby by anything more massive
than the Sun would shred it, its temperature
would drop, and it could take [a long] time to
recongeal.

If a star is big and close enough to put the Sun
inside its Roche Limit, where the Sun would
break up, then the Sun would enter into orbit
around this star as a ring, and then eventually
it would precipitate down onto the other star
and become part of it.

I suspect stars don't simply turn themselves
into rings easily though. So it's more likely
that the Sun would just merge with the other
star, like a couple of blobs in a lava lamp.

Think about pulsars and such, where one companion feeds the other over
very large distances. Much larger than Roche's limit.

Stars are always blowing off mass. Increasing that draw off rate is
not terribly hard (if you can move other stars)...

David A. Smith

In article ,
Androcles wrote:

Wondering whether anyone has come up with a scheme for shutting down
****ing idiots.

A self-refuting posting.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

On Jul 22, 5:08*pm, dlzc wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:15*am, YKhan wrote:
Wouldn't the hydrogen atomic fusion simply
continue in a shell on top of the introduced
carbon+ core?

No. *Hydrogen fusion requires a great number of neutrons, and carbon
will absorb much of that.

Oh, you mean like in a Russian nuclear reactor.

The carbon+ core would just sink to the
centre of the Sun,

I'd expect it to diffuse pretty well, as heavier elements do in our
Sun.

But if hydrogen fusion is hindered, the Sun will begin to contract
under gravity. The diffuse carbon would then precipitate to the center
quicker, and concentrate there, pushing lighter elements above it. It
might even get hot enough to begin helium fusion in a layer above the
carbon, and continue hydrogen fusion above the helium.

Is there any way to de-stabilize the Sun's
reactions?

Yes, a near flyby by anything more massive
than the Sun would shred it, its temperature
would drop, and it could take [a long] time to
recongeal.

If a star is big and close enough to put the Sun
inside its Roche Limit, where the Sun would
break up, then the Sun would enter into orbit
around this star as a ring, and then eventually
it would precipitate down onto the other star
and become part of it.

I suspect stars don't simply turn themselves
into rings easily though. *So it's more likely
that the Sun would just merge with the other
star, like a couple of blobs in a lava lamp.

Think about pulsars and such, where one companion feeds the other over
very large distances. *Much larger than Roche's limit.

Yeah, as I said, I don't think stars necessarily adhere to the Roche
Limit, since the Roche Limit is mainly about the tensile strength of
solid bodies rather than gas bodies.

However, you did say "shred the Sun", as opposed to simply "feed off
the Sun". To shred the Sun, the other star would need to get pretty
close to the Sun. Don't know if there is a calculation available that
would determine what distance would be required to shred a star, so I
am assuming the Roche Limit for solid bodies as a close approximation
to an equation for shedding a gas body like a star or a gas planet,
call it a "Gas Roche Limit" for now.

Actually a good test of this might be to one day see if any of those
"Hot Jupiters" in orbit around other stars are within their Gas Roche
Limit, and if they're being shredded by their stars. I think one of
the Hot Jupiters is said to be having its atmosphere blown off by its
star.

Yousuf Khan

"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Androcles wrote:

Wondering whether anyone has come up with a scheme for shutting down
****ing idiots.

A self-refuting posting.

-- Richard

****witted snipping trolls like you I can manage easily.
*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

In article ,
Androcles wrote:

*plonk*

If you had a real kill-file, you wouldn't always be forgetting who you
had already pretended to put in it.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.