Dr. Manuel is a nuclear chemist, and he has reached his powerful and exciting finding by way of the forensic evidence contained in what may fairly be called the "Solar DNA": the isotope abundances found in the solar wind, meteorites, and the planets; in other words the pervasive evidence of the compostion of the "pre-solar nebula" that has always been in front of our faces but we've been too clever by half to acknowledge (not the first time 'mainstream science' has created an 'oxbow lake' for itself!). Before the fission/fusion era, astronomers reasoned, from the evidence then available, that the sun was, guess what: mostly iron and the other major sub-iron elements, the Even Seven. Some of the Hydrogen-collapse model chauvinism of the last half century is misdirection from the dominance of the Big Bang model and the Hydrogen heirarchy it dictates, and some is doubtless due to the sheer fearsome impressiveness of the unleashed nuclear genie. But it is surely true that "there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy," and I think Dr. Manuel has found one spectacular example right in our own front yard.
His hypothesis deserves a serious and sustained investigation by the planet's solar astronomers, in fact, I can't believe he hasn't already been acclaimed far and wide, especially since they admit they don't know half of what they need to know about how the sun operates, and his model solves many of the most intractable issues of solar science. I'd suggest they know maybe 38% of what they need to know. Dr Manuel has provided the rest. Here is his personal website. Lots more at both these sites, including journaled/refereed papers. As far as I'm concerned he's proven the case and deserves a Nobel Prize.
Why the Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun is Obsolete
Oliver Manuel, Nuclear Chemistry, U. Missouri-Rolla
Noting that the Earth’s crust and the Sun’s gaseous envelope may not represent the overall compositions of these bodies, Harkins1 showed in 1917 that 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites consists of seven, even-numbered elements - iron (Fe), oxygen (O), nickel (Ni), silicon (Si), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S) and calcium (Ca). He concluded that “... in the evolution of elements much more material has gone into the even-numbered elements than into those which are odd...” (p. 869). However, in the 1920s, Payne2 and Russell3 showed that the solar atmosphere is mostly hydrogen (H) and helium (He).
In 1938 Goldschmidt4 suggested that rocky planets and meteorites had lost volatile elements such as hydrogen and helium. He proposed an abundance table based on the solar atmosphere.
Hoyle5 maintained, however, that the results of Payne2 and Russell3 were for the atmospheres, not for the deep interiors of stars. He, Eddington, and other astronomers continued to believe until the end of World War II that “... the Sun was made mostly of iron ...” (p. 153). Research on hydrogen-fusion at Los Alamos during the war6 likely aided their conversion.
Goldschmidt’s proposed loss of light, volatile elements from meteorites and rocky planets4 seems reasonable from the view of planetary evolution. From the view of nuclear physics the difference between an iron-rich and a hydrogen-rich Sun is, however, drastic.
Iron (Fe) is an even-numbered element. It consists mostly of the intermediate-mass isotope, 56Fe. This has an ordinary charge density, (atomic number)/(mass number) = Z/A = 0.46. Its nucleons have the lowest7 known potential energy, 1.082 million electron volts (MeV) less than the average nucleon energy in the most abundant carbon isotope, 12C.
Hydrogen is an odd-numbered element. It consists mostly of the lightest isotope, 1H, with the highest charge density (Z/A = 1.00). Its nucleon has the highest7 potential energy (M/A) among stable nuclides, 7.289 MeV more than the average nucleon energy in 12C.
The hydrogen-rich Sun with its inherent nuclear instability thus violates, on a grand scale, Harkins’ prediction1 (p. 859) that “... the more stable atoms should be more abundantly formed ...”. However, adherents to the hydrogen-filled Sun model (e.g., Suess & Urey8) continued to use nuclear stability to try to explain the abundance of elements composed of nucleons with intermediate potential energies (MeV).
To try to explain the existence of a hydrogen-rich Sun, Burbidge et al.9 and Cameron10 assumed that the products of nucleosynthesis were mixed back into the hydrogen-rich interstellar medium before the solar system formed. The 1960 discovery11 of radiogenic xenon-129 from the decay of extinct iodine-129 in meteorites left little time for mixing12, and this mixing time became impossibly short as high sensitivity mass spectrometers13 later revealed the decay products of even shorter-lived nuclides and nucleogenetic isotopic anomalies in numerous elements that comprise meteorites.
My work on this project began in 1960 when, as a graduate student, I joined Professor Paul Kuroda’s research group at the University of Arkansas. It has continued to date. My conclusion of an iron-rich Sun appeared in a 1998 review14 and in the proceedings of an ACS symposium15 organized by Seaborg and Manuel in August, 1999. The experimental evidence is summarized in Section II. The conclusion that a hydrogen-filled Sun is obsolete, related observations, and the status of work on remaining issues are given in Section III.
II. Evidence for an Iron-Rich Sun
Samples collected by the Apollo missions to the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s revealed that lighter mass (mL) isotopes of helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), and xenon (Xe) are enriched in the solar wind (SW) relative to the heavier (mH) ones by a common mass-fractionation factor15,16 [See p. 281*], f, where
f = (mH/mL)4.56
When this empirical power law, defined by enrichments of light isotopes in the solar wind, was applied to solar atmospheric abundance, the most abundant elements in the Sun were found16 to be iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), oxygen (O), silicon (Si), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) [p. 283]. These elements all have even atomic numbers, they are made in the interior of supernovae9, and they are the same seven elements Harkins1 found in 1917 to comprise 99% of ordinary meteorites.
Could this be a coincidence? Hardly! If all 83 elements in the Sun’s atmosphere were equal in abundance, the probability for the chance selection of any set of seven elements would be 7! 76! /83! = 2 x 10-10. This differs little from zero. The actual probability for chance selection of these seven elements is orders-of-magnitude less, in fact less than 2 x 10-33 because the probability of selection would depend on the abundance of each of these trace elements in the solar atmosphere. Clearly the Sun’s most abundant elements are iron (Fe), nickel (Ni), oxygen (O), silicon (Si), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca).
Light isotopes of helium (He), neon (Ne), magnesium (Mg), and argon (Ar) are systematically less enriched in solar flares as if these energetic events by-pass 3.4 stages of mass-fractionation17 [p. 282]. Measurements with the Wind spacecraft recently confirmed18 that heavy elements are methodically enriched in material ejected by impulsive solar flares. The prevalence of solar wind implanted 6Li and 10Be in lunar soils is too high to be representative of the composition of the entire Sun according to the authors19,20.
Linked isotopic and elemental variations21,22 in meteorites first hinted that elements from deep in a supernova formed the interiors of the Sun and the terrestrial planets [pp. 593, 601]. Primordial helium from the outer layers of the supernova accompanies “strange” xenon23, with excess 136Xe and 124Xe, but not “normal” xenon from inside21,22,24,25 the supernova [p. 603]. Support for a supernova origin of the solar system [p. 593] came from findings of a) excess r- and p-products in other heavy elements26 that accompany the “strange” xenon [p. 361]; b) complementary isotopic components enriched in s-products27 [pp. 380, 619]; c) age dating28 based on extinct [pp. 616-617] and longer-lived [pp. 490-491] nuclides; d) terrestrial-type xenon29 in iron sulfide (FeS) of diverse meteorites, in planets like Earth and Mars that are rich in iron (Fe) and sulfur (S), and in the solar wind, where light isotopes are enriched by 3.5% per mass unit16 [p. 623]; and e) despite poor quality data from the Galileo mission to Jupiter, the finding30 of “strange” xenon in Jupiter’s helium-rich atmosphere [pp. 519-527] and isotopes of hydrogen (H) and helium (He) in Jupiter that could not be converted into those seen in the solar wind by deuterium-burning [pp. 529-543].
III. Conclusions, Related Observations, and Remaining Problems
The flux of neutrinos from the Sun is too low if one attributes solar luminosity entirely to the fusion of hydrogen. This has been a long-standing enigma31 for adherents to the model of a hydrogen-rich Sun. The observations reported here confirm that that model is now obsolete. On the other hand, an iron-rich Sun that formed from supernova debris offers a direct explanation for these observations and for:
t heterogeneous accretion of terrestrial planets32-34,
t primordial helium (He) and radiogenic xenon-129 (129Xe) inside the Earth today35,36,
t non-magmatic iron meteorites [pp. 385-406],
t isotopic anomalies and decay products of short-lived nuclides in iron [pp. 385-406] as well as in primitive [pp. 361-384] meteorites37,
t the iron gradient in planets and in the planetary system [pp. 608-611], and
t experimental affirmation38 of all three tests originally proposed to test the hypothesis that mass fractionation enriches lighter particles at the Sun’s surface16.
Thus, mass fractionation made the solar atmosphere that is 91% hydrogen (H, the lightest element), 8.9% helium (He, the next lightest element), and only about 0.1% of the 81 heavier elements that comprise the bulk of the Earth, the planets close to the Sun, and the meteorites (Fe, O, Si, Ni, Mg, S, Ca, etc.).
Two of three major objections to the iron-rich Sun have been resolved and a third is in progress. The discovery39,40 of pulsar planets confirmed that planetary systems can form directly from supernova debris41. The Hubble telescope verified the existence of axial ejections from supernovae [pp. 241-249]. Extrapolations of trends from the cradle of the nuclides [book cover15] indicate an inherent instability in assemblages of neutrons that may explain solar luminosity and the solar neutrino flux42,43.
After correcting for fractionation, solar abundance generally correlates with nuclear stability43, as Harkins1 had predicted in 1917, except for a large excess of the lightest hydrogen isotope, 1H. On Thursday, Cynthia Bolon will show that this anomalous 1H and the outflow of 1H+ ions in the solar wind are apparently by-products of solar luminosity42-46.
Many of the experimental observations which form the basis for this paper can be viewed on the web at http://www.umr.edu/~om/
_____
*All page numbers in brackets [ ] are in ref. 15, Proceedings of the 1999 symposium organized by Glenn T. Seaborg and Oliver K. Manuel. This book is available from the publisher at the AAS meeting or on the web at http://www.wkap.nl/book.htm/0-306-46562-0
This paper is in memory of my teacher, Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda, who discovered the presence of extinct 244Pu and reported the 244Pu and 26Al ages shown on the last page for the formation and early history of the solar system. The last names of Kuroda’s former students and successive generations --- students of Kuroda’s former students, etc. --- are underlined in the reference list.
References: [1] Harkins W.D. (1917) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 39, 856-879; [2] Payne, C.H. (1925) Stellar Atmospheres (Harvard Observatory Monograph #1, Cambridge, MA, USA) pp. 177-189; [3] Russell, H.N. (1929) Ap. J. 70, 11-82; [4] Goldschmidt V.M. (1938) Geochemische Verteilungsgestze der Elemente. IX. Die Mengenverhältnisse der Elemente und der Atom-arten, Skrifter Norske Videnskaps-Akad., Oslo I Math.-Naturv. Klasse, no. 4, 148 pp; [5] Hoyle F. (1994) Home Is Where The Wind Blows (University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, USA) pp. 153-154; [6] Teller E. (1987) Better A Shield Than A Sword (Macmillian, Inc., New York, NY, USA) p. 70; [7] Tuli J.K. (2000) Nuclear Wallet Cards (Sixth edition, National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, USA) 74 pp; [8] Suess H.E. & Urey H.C. (1956) Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 53-74; [9] Burbidge E.M., Burbidge G.R., Fowler W.A. & Hoyle F. (1957) Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 547-650; [10] Cameron A.G.W. (1957) Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 69, 201-222; [11] Reynolds J.H. (1960) Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 8-10; ibid., 351 354; [12] Fowler W.A., Greenstein J.L. & Hoyle F. (1961) Am. J. Phys. 29, 393-403; [13] Reynolds J.H. (1956) Rev. Sci. Instruments 27, 928-934; [14] Manuel O.K., Lee J.T., Ragland D.E., Macelroy J.M.D., Li, Bin, & Brown W. K. (1998) J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 238, 213 225; [15] Origin of Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post-1957 Observations, Proceedings of the 1999 ACS symposium organized by Glenn T. Seaborg and Oliver K. Manuel (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY, USA, ed., Manuel O.K., 2000), 646 pp.; [16] Manuel O.K. & Hwaung G. (1983) Meteoritics 18, 209-222; [17] Lee J.T., Li B. & Manuel O. K. (1997) Comments Astrophys. 18, 344; [18] Reames D.V. (2000) Ap. J. 540, L111-L114; [19] Chaussidon M. & Robert F. (1999) Nature 402, 270-273; [20] Nishiizumi K. & Caffee M.W. (2001) Science 294, 352-354; [21] Manuel O. K. & Sabu D.D. (1975) Trans. Mo. Acad. Sci. 9, 104-122; [22] Manuel O. K. & Sabu D.D. (1977) Science 195, 208-209; [23] Manuel O. K., Hennecke, E.W. & Sabu D.D. (1972) Nature 240, 99-101; [24] Manuel O. K. (1980) Icarus 41, 312-315; [25] Sabu D.D. & Manuel, O.K. (1980) Meteoritics 15, 117-138; [26] Oliver L.L., Ballad R.V., Richardson J.F. & Manuel, O.K. (1981) J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 43, 2207 2216; [27] Srinivasan B. & Anders E. (1978) Science 201, 51-56; [28] Kuroda P.K. & Myers W. A. (1997) Radiochim. Acta 77, 15-20; [29] Lee J.T., Li Bin & Manuel O.K. (1996) Geochem. J. 30, 17-30; [30] Manuel O.K., Windler K., Nolte A., Johannes L., Zirbel J. & Ragland D. (1998) J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 238, 119-121. [31] Bahcall J.N. & Davis R., Jr. (1976) Science 191, 264-267; [32] Eucken A. (1944) Nachr. d. Akad. d. Wiss. Göttingen, Math-Phys. 1, 1-25; [33] Turekian K.K. & Clark S.P., Jr. (1969) Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 6, 346-348; [34] Vinogradov A.P. (1975) Geokhimiya 10, 1427-1431; [35] Boulos M.S. & Manuel O.K. (1971) Science 174, 1334-1336; [36] Manuel O.K. & Sabu D.D. (1981) Geochem. J. 15, 245-267; [37] Alexander E.C., Jr. & Manuel O.K. (1968) Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 4, 113-117; [38] Manuel O.K. (1998) Meteoritics 33 (Supplement) A97; [39] Wolszczan A. & Frail D.A. (1992) Nature 355, 145-147; [40] Wolszczan A.: 1994, Science 264, 538-542; [41] Lin, D.N.C., Woosley, S.E., Bodenheimer, P.H.: 1991, Nature 353, 827-831; [42] Manuel O., Bolon, C., Katragada A. & Insall M. (2000) J. Fusion Energy 19, 93-98; [43] Manuel O., Bolon C., Zhong M. & Jangam P. (2001) Lunar and Planetary Sci. Conf. XXXII, abstract #1041, LPI No. 1080, ISSN No. 0161-5297; [44] Manuel O. & Bolon C. (2002) J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 251, ms. #5391 in press; [45] Manuel O., Bolon C. & Jangam P. (2002) J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 251, ms. #5415 in press; [46] Manuel O., Bolon C. & Zhong M. (2002) J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 251, ms. #5401 in press.