Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Is the neon a poison, that overwhelming the origin of life?

  1. #1 Is the neon a poison, that overwhelming the origin of life? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Sorry, but I don't really understand what you are asking? Can you elaborate?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Neon cannot be a threat to life as it is completely chemically inert. It is also extremely rare. Why do you ask?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    But why solar neon is deficit compared to other stars?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    I wasn't aware the Sun is deficient in neon when compared to other stars. Do you have a source for this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    And I don't know why that would be relevant to life on earth ...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Neon cannot be a threat to life as it is completely chemically inert. It is also extremely rare. Why do you ask?
    1967Obs....87..228L Page 228

    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And I don't know why that would be relevant to life on earth ...
    Solar system formed in a special way, not like other systems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Here is some more recent information on this: Chandra Press Room :: NASA's Chandra Neon Discovery Solves Solar Paradox :: July 27, 2005

    I'm still not sure why you think this would be relevant to the origin of life. It seems to be more important for understanding the dynamics of stars but this isn't an area I know anything about).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    I think Krups misunderstands the Chandra article:

    NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory survey of nearby sun-like stars suggests there is nearly three times more neon in the sun and local universe than previously believed. If true, this would solve a critical problem with understanding how the sun works.
    The accepted amount of neon in the sun has led to a paradox. The predicted location and size of the solar convection zone disagree with those deduced from solar oscillations. Solar oscillations is a technique astronomers previously relied on to probe the sun's interior. Several scientists have noted the problem could be fixed if the abundance of neon is in fact about three times larger than currently accepted.
    To probe the neon content, Drake and his colleague Paola Testa of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., observed 21 sun-like stars within a distance of 400 light years from Earth. These local stars and the sun should contain about the same amount of neon when compared to oxygen.
    However, these close stellar kin were found to contain on average almost three times more neon than is believed for the sun. "Either the sun is a freak in its stellar neighborhood, or it contains a lot more neon than we think," Testa said.
    These Chandra results reassured astronomers the detailed physical theory behind the solar model is secure. Scientists use the model of the sun as a basis for understanding the structure and evolution of other stars, as well as many other areas of astrophysics.
    So, for there to be no paradox we needed to find that there is three times more neon in the Sun than previously thought, and the Chandra results confirm this. Our previous estimates for the amount of neon in the Sun (which we cannot measure directly) were three times too small.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Please note that the paper you refer to is almost half a century old. Today the issue of neon abundance in the sun is both important and stilll poorly constrained.

    As recently as 2005 Drake and Testa remarked "we report neon-to-oxygen ratios measured in a sample of nearby solar-like stars, using their X-ray spectra. The abundance ratios are all very similar and substantially larger than the recently revised solar value. The neon abundance in the Sun is quite poorly determined. If the Ne/O abundance in these stars is adopted for the Sun, the models are brought back into agreement with helioseismology measurements"

    Source: Drake and Testa "The solar model problem solved by the abundance of neon in nearby stars" Nature 436, 525-528 (28 July 2005)

    There is no evidenceI am aware of that the solar system formed in some unique way. Certainly neon abundance is not evidence of this. Why do you think this may be the case?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    I think Krups misunderstands the Chandra article:
    I, on the contrary, think that you do not quite understand it correctly. These gentlemen theorists did not solve the paradox of the solar neon. After all, they measured the amount of neon in “sun-like” stars, but not in the Sun. So their conclusion that the sun contains three times more neon unfounded.

    To assert this, theorists had to either make their own measurements, or, at least, find the error in the measurement procedure of solar neon. Neither one nor the other was not be done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    The basic problem is that it is extremely difficult to measure the neon content of our own Sun, as the neon spectrum only shows up in the corona (the gas enveloping the sun). So we found 400 other distant Sun like stars where we could measure it and found it to be three times as much as previously assumed, for all those other 400 stars.

    So, unless we conclude that the Sun is very different from all the other stars like it, we have to conclude that there is also 3 times as much neon in the Sun as previously thought too.

    We have no reason to think the Sun is any different.

    That is what the Chandra article you quoted is actually saying, hence the statements:

    NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory survey of nearby sun-like stars suggests there is nearly three times more neon in the sun and local universe than previously believed. If true, this would solve a critical problem with understanding how the sun works.
    And

    These Chandra results reassured astronomers the detailed physical theory behind the solar model is secure. Scientists use the model of the sun as a basis for understanding the structure and evolution of other stars, as well as many other areas of astrophysics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    We have no reason to think the Sun is any different.
    Not really true. The Chandra data can be interpreted in two ways:
    1. The sun is no different from other G-type main sequence stars and therefore it must have the same neon abundance as they do. The researchers took this view.
    2. The sun is different from the other stars because, in KrupS's words "Solar system formed in a special way, not like other systems."


    So the evidence is there, just depending upon how you interpret it. KrupS, apparently, believes that something different about the formation of the solar system led to a different neon abundance and the appearance of life. I sense an ID argument coming on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    So the evidence is there, just depending upon how you interpret it. KrupS, apparently, believes that something different about the formation of the solar system led to a different neon abundance and the appearance of life. I sense an ID argument coming on.
    You are right. My arguments are ready. But I do not generates English text quickly. While I can only give a link to the topic:
    . - . 1

    And the translation Google:
    Google
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    64
    I begin to explain my idea. It is based on the following property of the nucleus of the main isotope of neon - Ne20. I wrote about it in the topic:Why is oxygen the third most abundance element on the sun? . In contrast to the very stable isotope oxygen-16, neon-20 is easy to enter into nuclear reactions (in particular with the alpha-particle - the nucleus of helium-4). Under certain conditions, almost all the neon-20 might be killed inside the star.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Between the sheets origin of life
    By skeptic in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 26th, 2010, 09:03 PM
  2. origin of life
    By deadcat in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: April 11th, 2009, 02:38 PM
  3. The origin of life - won't be found here
    By Theoryofrelativity in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: June 18th, 2008, 03:16 PM
  4. Origin of Life
    By AlexP in forum Biology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 5th, 2007, 10:53 PM
  5. Origin of Life
    By AlexP in forum Biology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 12th, 2007, 10:18 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •