Neptune Crescent? Discussion (APOD 18 Jun 2006)

sreitma · Post by **sreitma** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:44 am

Why does Neptune emit more light than it recieves?

bajan · Post by **bajan** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:21 am

Got me too!

Astrostitcher · Post by **Astrostitcher** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:16 pm

Please, I don't know the answer either but this MUST be very interesting. I hope someone can explain. What a great departure point for a SciFi novel...

ranjones1 · Post by **ranjones1** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:28 pm

Infrared light is light, yes? Maybe that's what it's referring to.

kingernie · Post by **kingernie** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:30 pm

I was going to ask the following question.
If Neptune emits more light than it receives from the Sun, then why do we see a shadow? It would seem that, were the generated radiation in the visible range, the solar radiation would be washed out.

Maybe, it's not visible light.
So what is it? IR? UV? Probably not gamma or xray.

Dana McPeek · Post by **Dana McPeek** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 7:18 pm

I would like to know the answer to that one too. There would be no dark side if it were emitting light...
D

l3p3r · Post by **l3p3r** » Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:51 pm

I suspect that the extra component of the light emitted is in the infrared region, a product of the planet heating from atmospheric effects, perhaps?

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... ons_2.html

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:39 am

Hello All

Neptune atomspheric tem is minus 150 C deg.

If it was not for the heat coming out of Nepture the temp would go below 200 C deg.

The heat comes from two main areas.

One is the original heat that came with Neptune 5 Billion years ago from the origin of our solar sytem. Our sun went through a process called a supernova where the entire sun exploded and reformed a Neutron star and the remaining matter forming the solar sytem and the planets.

The second heat comes from the plate movenets inside neptune. These plates under great pressure produce alot of heat creating convection currents between the crust and the mantle.

Thats my opinion

randall cameron · Post by **randall cameron** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:42 am

Yo, Harry,

Residual heat from planet formation, yes. Even the earth's geology is still powered by heat that has not yet escaped, and Neptune is far more massive. It is also in a much colder location, so it has lots more heat to lose to reach equilibrium.

Earth's moon (a smaller body) in contrast is geologically dead because substantially all of the original residual heat due to accretion and compression has long since been convected, conducted, and radiated out. Mars is not completely cold yet, but is getting there.

Incidentally the rate of heat flow versus how much heat could have been present in the original body for it to accrete in more or less solid form has implications for determining the age of the body, but I have never read whether anyone studied the problem and whether it would have any impact on the generally accepted age of the earth (4.6 bn years) that is based primarily on neodemium / samarium radioisotope dating.

The second heat comes from the plate movenets inside neptune. These plates under great pressure produce alot of heat creating convection currents between the crust and the mantle.

Not exactly. Convection and plate movements, like on earth, are just a means of heat transport. The source of the heat is the original compression of the planet during and after formation.

Also, while convection presumably occurs at a number of levels within Neptune, plate movements require a crust. Neptune is believed (based on density and other data) to have a small "rocky" (liquid?) core, surrounded by a lot of "ices" (under pressure and in various phases) mixed with some other elements, surrounded by a belt of liquids and gases, probably approximately adiabatic with local distortions due to convection. Neptune probably does not have any "plates".

Our sun went through a process called a supernova where the entire sun exploded and reformed a Neutron star and the remaining matter forming the solar sytem and the planets.

You meant to say our sun was formed out of part of the ejecta from some other supernova, right? Last time I checked, there is no neutron star in our solar system (not even one in our stellar neighborhood). Our sun never has and never will be part of a supernova, since it is insufficiently massive. Or did I miss something big?

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:08 pm

Hello All

Our sun went through a process that many stars go through.

For our solar sytem to have been formed 5 billion years ago.

The sun reached a critical point with Iron/silicon fusion the tail end before the supernova.

The compact core that was left behind was the seed to our sun and also to its long life.
Many scientists think that the main energy from the sun comes from fusion of H+ H >> He. This is not true. The main energy come from the core. Neutrons relased from the core.

If our sun's core was mostly Iron, than we would have less than a thousand years of life if that.

This is a very important point, I will discuss this to the cows come home.

But you will need to do research on the origin of our solar system. There are other options that may come into play.

There are topics on star formation
http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... e9993fd82b

Hey ! I could be wrong. If I'm I'd rather have someone tell me so with facts. So I don't waste my time.

One at a time.

ssala · Post by **ssala** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:33 pm

I am an elementary school teacher and was struck by the comment that Neptune is never seen as a crescent-shaped figure from Earth. I had never thought about this, so would this be true for all planets beyond Earth's orbit?
Thanks,
Scott

betsy · Post by **betsy** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:41 pm

Yes, because you see a crescent only when the other body is between you and the sun, but not in a totally straight line, and that never happens with any planet farther out than earth, as the sun is never "behind it" relative to us.

As a school teacher, you might try showing kids how the phases of the moon (and other bodies) change due to their position relative to us and the sun. A dark room, a flashlight, and a large dark-ish ball show this very well.

Here's a site that illustrates how the moon phases work:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... orbit.html

betsy

Beorn · Post by **Beorn** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:43 pm

ssala wrote:I am an elementary school teacher and was struck by the comment that Neptune is never seen as a crescent-shaped figure from Earth. I had never thought about this, so would this be true for all planets beyond Earth's orbit?
Thanks,
Scott

Scott,

Phases require the planetary body to pass between the sun and your observing position. Therefore, from Earth, all the interior worlds: Venus, Mercury and of course our own moon have observable phases and all outer planets from Mars outward do not have observable phases.

bajan · Post by **bajan** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:34 pm

I suppose some amount of radiation is emitted from all planets that have a hot interior. It is thus fair to say that Neptune emits more radiation than it receives but I think a bit misleading to classify the radiation as light and to suggest it is unique to Neptune.

randall cameron · Post by **randall cameron** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:13 am

Many scientists think that the main energy from the sun comes from fusion of H+ H >> He.

Which astronomers do not believe this? The sun is supposed to be a G2 class main sequence star, 92.1% hydrogen, 7.8%helium (easy inference: < 0.1% anything else).

http://solarsystem.jpl.nasa.gov/planets ... tem=Metric

The main energy come from the core. Neutrons relased from the core.

Where are the neutrons coming from, and what is the source of energy? And where do they go? The sun is not a major emitter of neutrons.

Neutron stars (left behind by supernovae) are supposed to be tiny (e.g., 20 km diameter), massive, very hot (700,000 C), and emit X-rays.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030201.html

We have to have a common vocabulary to have a discussion.

This is not true.

...is an absolute statement best reserved for God and others possessing perfect knowledge. Please, go ahead and challenge prevailing theories with some evidence. But remember, stellar composition is not nearly so shaky or vague as cosmological questions like how did the universe get here.

harry · Post by **harry** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:41 am

Hello All

Hello Randall

Have a read of this link please
http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

bajan · Post by **bajan** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:43 pm

Harry

The link doesn't work. If it relates to the University of Missouri can you provide more information please.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:18 pm

Harry, play nice!! Randall (hello) is of formidable intellect so please try not to act omnipotent (lol) when someone questions your statements.

Our sun has not gone supernova at any time in its past. This star of ours, like most others I know, burns Hydrogen to helium to carbon to magnesium all the way down to the heaviest element Iron –which is a dead end for all stars known.

Wadsworth · Post by **Wadsworth** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:34 pm

When trying to find more information on this topic I got referenced back to the APOD site from the encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune#_ref-11

The people updating Wickipedia are impressively quick, although this proved worthless in remedying my uncertainty on the matter at hand.

Surely they (APOD) were not referring to visible light. We can all agree on that, correct?
This leaves many other wavelengths to ponder.

Which frequency can Neptune be emitting more of than it receives from the sun..?

Cosmic - High speed protons and atomic nuclei.. If there is enough lightning on Neptune, perhaps.

Gamma - High energy electromagnetic radiation produced by nuclear transitions. Neptune does have very high winds (exceeding 2k km/hr) but I doubt it is producing any nuclear transitions (like the sun).

X - Same as gamma (electron acceleration).

Ultraviolet - Someone else chime in here.

Visible - I can’t see this being possible.. Pictures like this one would look completely different if Neptune was creating visible light.

Infrared - Definitely. Although Neptune’s internal heat source is small, it radiates more than twice as much energy as it receives from the sun.

Radar - Doubtful; I think I’ll stop here.

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:22 am

Hello All

Hi Martin

I always play nice,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thats the name of the game. We know very little about the ongoings of our sun and the universe and it will take a few more years to work things out.

As for the sun composition,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I will come back to that.

There is a standard model existing. As per your logic.

I disgree with that, but! it means little without backup info.

Galactic Groove · Post by **Galactic Groove** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:11 am

ya i'm sorry Harry, in all the years i've spent reading, i've never come across anything that said our sun has gone supernova before.

A supernova releases massive amounts of radiation that any known biomatter would obviously die. Whether our planet would even be habittable after something so devasting as an event like that I don't know. Whether or not the remaining neutron star continues to emit vast amounts of radiation i don't know. If it did, we definately wouldn't be here simply because of earth's proximity to our sun. Maybe someone has info on those 2 points??

And our sun definately doesn't fit the description as stated by Randall
Neutron stars are supposed to be tiny... e.g., 20 km diameter. I'm not sure a neutron star has an atmosphere either, considering it's immense gravity, but our sun does.

During the formation of the sun, the initiation of the inferno caused solar winds that blew all other primordial gases out of our solar system, leaving behind whatever planets managed to form before-hand. A supernova is somewhat similar in respect that there is a wave heading outwards from the star pushing gases, and anything else in our solar sytem away... but the act of solar winds blowing gases away is not a supernova.

If i thought you were confused, this would be the only thing i could think of that it would be with. Unfortunately I dont' think you're confused and that you really do think our sun is a neutron star...

harry · Post by **harry** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:52 am

Hello All

Not confused

A neutron star is formed after a supenova.

Compact star Encyclopedia II - Compact star - Exotic stars

Compact star: Encyclopedia II - Compact star - Exotic stars

Compact star - Exotic stars

Neutron stars also have a maximum mass, called the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit. It is currently thought to be about 3 times the mass of the Sun. The exact value depends on the forces between neutrons at high density that in addition to the degenerate neutron-pressure could add to the overall pressure. If more mass accretes onto a neutron star, eventually this mass limit is reached, and new equilibriums may be found.

Compact star - Strange stars
It is possible that the neutrons will decompose into their constituent quarks. The star will shrink further, but it may survive in this new state indefinitely if no extra mass is added. It has become the largest nucleon in the universe.

Compact star - Preon stars
If quarks and leptons are not the fundamental elementary particles but are themselves composed of preons, then even denser objects, preon stars, would not be unthinkable. Our star may collapse to one ten-thousandth of its size, bringing its radius to one meter or less. Its density will exceed 1020 g/cm³, and may approach 1030 g/cm³.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

Quote:
The Sun’s radiant energy and protons in the solar wind (SW) come from the collapsed supernova core, a neutron star (NS), on which the Sun formed. The cradle (Figs. 9-12) indicates that the energy of each neutron in the Sun’s central NS exceeds that of a free neutron by @ 10-22 MeV (Figs. 13-15) Solar luminosity and the flux of solar-wind protons are generated by a series of reactions (Fig. 16): a) escape of neutrons from the central NS, b) decay of free neutrons or their capture by other nuclides, c) fusion and upward migration of H+ through material that accreted on the NS, and d) escape of H+ in the SW. An example might be:

a) The escape of neutrons from the NS, <1n> –> 1n + 10-22 MeV

b) The decay of free neutrons, 1n –> 1H+ + e- + nanti + 0.78 MeV

c) Fusion of hydrogen, 4 1H+ + 2 e- –> 4He++ + 2 n + 26.73 MeV

d) Some H+ reaches the surface and departs in the solar wind

Reactions like a) and b) produce part of the Sun’s radiant energy and perhaps the luminosity of isolated neutron stars25. Note that reaction a) alone may release more energy per nucleon than is released by the sum of reactions b) and c), the decay or capture of neutrons plus H-fusion. The well-established Solar Neutrino Puzzle26 confirms that reaction c) generates only part of the Sun’s total luminosity. Most 1H+ from b) is consumed by H-fusion, but the anomalous abundance of H (See Fig.
shows that 1H+ also leaks from the interior, selectively carrying lighter nuclides to the solar surface (See Fig. 6) before departing in the solar wind at an emission rate of about 2.7 x 1043 1H/yr. Homochirality in living creatures26 was likely initiated by circularly polarized light (CPL) from the Sun’s early NS. Their fate and climate changes of planets27 may depend on the half-life of this massive nucleus at the Sun’s core.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sun evolved 5 billion years ago from a neutron core. Its composition at this moment is in question. I would assume after 5 billion years the neutron core would have undergone some changes.

The neutron core balance gives the sun a very high density, preventing over heating and keeping the sun from expanding into a red giant.

Just a hydrogen core is not enough to compact to a density high enough.
Neutrons have a neutral charge and can compact close together.

If the core was of Iron composition it would be unstable and its life span would be less than a thousand years.

Its amazing that many scientists do not see what I see.

I will keep on working on this,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,smile,,,,,and if I'm wrong so be it.

ranjones1 · Post by **ranjones1** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:37 am

Thank you Dr. Harry Velokovski. I'm outa here.
--Randy
--------------------------------------------
Those who cannot dance say the drum is bad.

Galactic Groove · Post by **Galactic Groove** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:55 pm

Harry that link doesn't work, as it didn't from the first post. Could you please copy the relevant info and post it here? I'd definately like to take a look at it!

.... but i do think you're crazy hahaha (joke joke)

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:22 am

Hello Galactic Groove

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I tried to get back in the link and they have stopped people going into the link unless you are registered with them ,,,,,,,,,I think.

Anyway I did copy the notes as previous posts. They are the relevant notes.

Starship Asterisk*

Neptune Crescent? Discussion (APOD 18 Jun 2006)

Neptune Crescent? Discussion (APOD 18 Jun 2006)

Neptune Discussion

Emitting more light?

Neptune Crescent? (APOD 18 Jun 2006)

Re: Neptune Crescent?

That's enough