Revision as of 16:36, 14 October 2024 editJohnjbarton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,318 edits →Question about the chemical abundances of the Sun: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:01, 3 January 2025 edit undo50.127.5.36 (talk) →How does this work?: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply | ||
(34 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
⚫ | |||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
{{Article history|action1=FAC | {{Article history|action1=FAC | ||
Line 33: | Line 32: | ||
|maindate=March 20, 2006 | |maindate=March 20, 2006 | ||
|currentstatus=FA | |currentstatus=FA | ||
|action6 = FAR | |||
|action6date = 2024-11-02 | |||
⚫ | |action6link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Sun/archive2 | ||
|action6result = kept | |||
|action6oldid = 1254894033 | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1= | {{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1= | ||
Line 70: | Line 74: | ||
Reference: | Reference: | ||
== What is the actual solar (effective) temperature? == | |||
{{edit semi-protected| answered=yes}} | |||
The article gives several conflicting values: | |||
# 5772 K in the infobox | |||
# 5777 K in the second paragraph of the ] section | |||
# 5778 K in the ] section | |||
# 5772 K (again) in the ] section. | |||
Now, of course, all these values are clearly well within any reasonable error margin of each other, but it's sloppy editing to give three different values. I suggest the above (and other numbers, ) be normalised to the nominal values from IAU 2015 Resolution B3 (i.e. Table 1 in Andrej Prša et al 2016 AJ 152 41, DOI: 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/41; the pre-print of which is already cited as Ref no. 12). ] (]) 22:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | : |
||
::Hmm... Now that I have read the reference again I am not so sure. The "nominal values" in that publication serve a specific purpose: | |||
::* "These nominal values should be understood as conversion factors only—chosen to be close to the current commonly accepted estimates (see Table 1)—not as the true solar properties." | |||
::So for example, (as I understand this sentence), the temperature is really a value derived from a formula using measured luminosity and radius, not a "true" experimentally measured temperature. ] (]) 01:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::As you doubtlessly know, we can't just stick a thermometer into the solar photosphere, and there aren't too many different ways to measure things when the object in question is a sphere of very hot hydrogen at an astronomical distance... As far as I know, applying Stefan-Boltzmann (as described in the IAU resolution paper and ]) is the usual method to get the solar effective temperature. The nominal value (being close to the "commonly accepted estimates") is probably as close to a "true" value as we can get, unless someone decides to re-do the necessary experimental measures with currently available instruments. ] (]) 11:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Indeed. But the description in the paper of these "nominal values" is very puzzling. What does "commonly accepted values" even mean? "conversion factors only"? "true solar properties"? Bizarre choice of words for what should have been "based on our review, these are the most accurate values of these properties at this time." | |||
⚫ | :: |
||
== Too much on one ref outdated ref? == | |||
This one ref from 1977 with 22 citations is used 7 times in the article. | |||
* {{Cite journal |last=Abhyankar |first=K. D. |date=1977 |title=A Survey of the Solar Atmospheric Models |url=http://prints.iiap.res.in/handle/2248/510 |url-status=live |journal=] |volume=5 |pages=40–44 |bibcode=1977BASI....5...40A |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200512151641/http://prints.iiap.res.in/handle/2248/510 |archive-date=12 May 2020 |access-date=12 July 2009}} | |||
It seems to me that something like | |||
* Mullan, D. J. (2009). Physics of the Sun: A First Course. United States: CRC Press. | |||
would be much better as a source. ] (]) 01:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Equatorial Radius == | |||
Isn't it kind of misleading to put meters as the equatorial radius unit because you would expect the unit to be kilometers instead. ] (]) 14:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Also I noticed that the surface area is in square kilometers instead of square meters which you would expect if radius is in meters. ] (]) 15:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I don't know which unit one should "expect". With the metric system, in any case, conversion is trivial (10^8 m = 10^5 km; 10^12 km^2 = 10^18 m^2). For what it is worth, the units are the same as in the given sources, which have (resp.) the radius in meters and the surface area in kilometers. ] (]) 22:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | == |
||
Why do we call "The Sun" and not just simply called "Sun", like other stars names (Spica, Arcturus, Vega, etc) that don't have "The" word accompanying them? ] (]) 18:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Once outside the Sun's surface, neutrinos and photons travel at the speed of light. == | |||
To me this figure label makes no sense. Neutrinos are believed to have a mass, so if special relativity is right, they cannot travel at speed of light. | |||
On the other hand photons should always travel at speed of light, regardless if the photon is in the sun or outside. | |||
The speed of light and especially time progression in the sun might be different from the normal value on earth and the mean free path is short, but photons should still travel with speed of light. | |||
⚫ | ] (]) |
||
:For what it's worth, this is referring to the diagram in the "Sunlight and neutrinos" section. The diagram isn't particularly interesting, is imprecise, and the caption is obscure. The fourth paragraph of that section explains what the caption refers to, but is a factoid largely irrelevant outside supernova explosion studies. ] (]) 22:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Source of Energy == | |||
In the introduction, without citation, there is a claim that The Sun is by far the most important source of energy for planet Earth. What does this mean? It does not relate to kilocalories or kilojoules or calories, clearly. Does it provide the greatest amount of solar power, literally, to animals and machines that store or use it? Or is it that the total volume of photosynthesis energy for plants exceeds animal and plant calorie consumption? Or do solar effects create weather systems, waves etc with overriding kinetic energy? Etc etc. An explanation of 'energy' or a citation is required. Or else this is genuinely vague beyond comprehension. ] (]) 23:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] In general, per ] the intro paragraphs don't need citations if the article supports the content with verifiable refs and the topic is not controversial. The actual sentence is: | |||
:* It is by far the most important source of energy for life on Earth. | |||
:which in my opinion cannot be controversial. Note "life on Earth". | |||
:This is supported by the ref in the "General characteristics" section. | |||
:* The energy of this ] supports almost all life<ref group="lower-alpha">] live so deep under the sea that they have no access to sunlight. Bacteria instead use sulfur compounds as an energy source, via ].</ref> on Earth by ],({{cite web |title=The Sun's Energy: An Essential Part of the Earth System |url=https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/energy-from-sun |website=Center for Science Education |access-date=24 May 2024}}) and drives ] and weather.({{cite web |title=The Sun's Influence on Climate |url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691153834/the-suns-influence-on-climate |date=23 June 2015 |publisher=Princeton University Press |access-date=24 May 2024 |language=en}}) | |||
:] (]) 23:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Agreed that it's in the general characteristics sections and I'd overlooked that, and I'm happy to withdraw the comment. ] (]) 12:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{Reflist-talk|group="lower-alpha"}} | |||
== faint young Sun paradox == | == faint young Sun paradox == | ||
Line 141: | Line 84: | ||
== Question about the chemical abundances of the Sun == | == Question about the chemical abundances of the Sun == | ||
The Composition section says the following: | <s>The Composition section says the following: | ||
* At this time in the Sun's life, they account for 74.9% and 23.8%, respectively, of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere. | * At this time in the Sun's life, they account for 74.9% and 23.8%, respectively, of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere. | ||
* Originally it would have been about 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements. | * Originally it would have been about 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements. | ||
I'm puzzled about why the Sun would lose helium mass at the photosphere. Was it a diffusion process? (Cf. ].) The article needs to explain it. ] (]) 15:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | I'm puzzled about why the Sun would lose helium mass at the photosphere. Was it a diffusion process? (Cf. ].) The article needs to explain it.</s> ] (]) 15:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
:Not a loss of helium but a gain of heavier elements. See Introduction: | :Not a loss of helium but a gain of heavier elements. See Introduction: | ||
:* Lodders, K. (2021). Relative atomic solar system abundances, mass fractions, and atomic masses of the elements and their isotopes, composition of the solar photosphere, and compositions of the major chondritic meteorite groups. Space Science Reviews, 217(3), 44. | :* Lodders, K. (2021). Relative atomic solar system abundances, mass fractions, and atomic masses of the elements and their isotopes, composition of the solar photosphere, and compositions of the major chondritic meteorite groups. Space Science Reviews, 217(3), 44. | ||
:] (]) 16:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | :] (]) 16:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
:: The H + He account for 98.5% at the start and 98.7% at present. Hence, the heavier elements have decreased in mass. Hmm. ] (]) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: Okay, it's covered by the next paragraph: heavy element settling from the photosphere. ] (]) 20:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | == Norman or Joseph? == | ||
The article refers to "Norman" Lockyer and later to "Joseph" Lockyer even though the same person is indicated. | |||
Some consistent name should be chosen and used consistently. ] (]) 19:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I did not find any mention of "Joseph Lockyer". The person named "Joseph Norman Lockyer" went exclusively by "Norman Lockyer". See ]. ] (]) 00:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I simplified the mention of 'Joseph Lockyer' earlier to just 'Lockyer' since Norman Lockyer was mentioned just a couple sentences above. ] (]) 00:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | :::Ok great, I saw that. So fixed! {{done}} ] (]) 00:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
== Nearly perfect sphere? == | |||
Is a tennis ball "a near perfect sphere"? A Class A ball bearing has an oblateness of under 3 ppm. The Sun's oblateness is nearly 3 times worse than that. And that's assuming the only thing we're concerned about is its GROSS physical dimensions (i.e. the major and minor axes). This is real life, not a 3D geometry exercise. Characterizing is as "near perfect" is totally vacuous. It serves no purpose and is wrong by many measures. Turns out, who knew?, that texture matters. The Photosphere can vary by 100's of km (according to the article) Do the math: 100 ÷ 7000 = 0.014 or 1.4% This isn't even reasonably near what could be made in the early 18th Century, let alone the 21st. That description should be removed. (And of course, anyone who claims that its surface is "near perfect" hasn't seen a Solar Prominence or a Coronal Mass Ejection. And never mind the fact that the heliopause not even close to spherical and varies by orders of magnitude more than the Sun's radius. (But the article does -sorta- qualify that it's talking about the visible surface of the Sun, i.e. the Photosphere, so it could be worse.)] (]) 09:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It matters because it is related to the Sun's internal rotation, which is discussed in the very next subsection. Perhaps that connection could be made more explicit. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 09:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | ::I rewrote that paragraph, please review. I did not make the connection to rotation but the Gough ref could be used to do so. ] (]) 20:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
== How does this work? == | |||
hello I am merely 11 so some off my info may be wrong. How does the sun connect to earth in a way that could hurt earth. The sun is a part of global warming and too my knowledge and love off planets the Sun should not be getting any closer. How does this work? ] (]) 16:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Well, the light from the sun is needed for life on Earth in the first place. The Sun is not generally getting closer to the earth (there's small change that repeats each year but it's not trending closer.) may be easier to understand. --] (]) 00:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | ::Thank you for this information Noreen! ] (]) 18:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:01, 3 January 2025
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sun article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Sun is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sun is part of the Solar System series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 20, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-2 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unsafe conclusion in Motion and location
Under the subtitle "Motion in the Solar System"
There is an unsupported conclusion with an orphan reference. To wit: " The orbits of the inner planets, including of the Earth, are similarly displaced by the same gravitational forces, so the movement of the Sun has little effect on the relative positions of the Earth and the Sun or on solar irradiance on the Earth as a function of time. "
Checking footnote 140 reveals:
Retraction of: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-45584-3, published online 24 June 2019 The Editors have retracted this Article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the interpretation of how the Earth-Sun distance changes over time and that some of the assumptions on which analyses presented in the Article are based are incorrect.The analyses presented in the section entitled “Effects of SIM on a temperature in the terrestrial hemispheres” are based on the assumption that the orbits of the Earth and the Sun about the Solar System barycenter are uncorrelated, so that the Earth-Sun distance changes by an amount comparable to the Sun-barycenter distance. Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because the motions of the Earth and the Sun are primarily due to Jupiter and the other giant planets, which accelerate the Earth and the Sun in nearly the same direction, and thereby generate highly-correlated motions in the Earth and Sun. Current ephemeris calculations show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. As a result the Editors no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented. S. I. Zharkov agrees with the retraction. V. V. Zharkova, E. Popova, and S. J. Shepherd disagree with the retraction.
Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., Boggs, D. H., Park, R.S. & Kuchynka, P. The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431. "The Interplanetary Network Progress Report", Volume 42–196, February 15, 2014.
JPL Horizons on-line solar system data. Horizons System
faint young Sun paradox
@Praemonitus removed the summary of Faint young Sun paradox, but in my opinion this topic is a great application of our understand (or lack) of the Sun's life history and should be included in this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do see the point that it is related to the Sun's life history. OTOH, the predominant theory according to Faint young Sun paradox has a lot more to do with the Earth (greenhouse effect) than it does with the Sun, so maybe it's not actually that revealing a data point regarding the Sun's evolution. Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, I think that is what Praemonitus was getting at. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the point about the increases to the Sun's luminosity and radius are already covered in the "Main sequence" section, so I didn't see a need to repeat that. There is a chart on the Solar luminosity article that provides useful information on the topic. Praemonitus (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, I think that is what Praemonitus was getting at. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Question about the chemical abundances of the Sun
The Composition section says the following:
- At this time in the Sun's life, they account for 74.9% and 23.8%, respectively, of the mass of the Sun in the photosphere.
- Originally it would have been about 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements.
I'm puzzled about why the Sun would lose helium mass at the photosphere. Was it a diffusion process? (Cf. chemically peculiar star.) The article needs to explain it. Praemonitus (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not a loss of helium but a gain of heavier elements. See Introduction:
- Lodders, K. (2021). Relative atomic solar system abundances, mass fractions, and atomic masses of the elements and their isotopes, composition of the solar photosphere, and compositions of the major chondritic meteorite groups. Space Science Reviews, 217(3), 44.
- Johnjbarton (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- The H + He account for 98.5% at the start and 98.7% at present. Hence, the heavier elements have decreased in mass. Hmm. Praemonitus (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, it's covered by the next paragraph: heavy element settling from the photosphere. Praemonitus (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- The H + He account for 98.5% at the start and 98.7% at present. Hence, the heavier elements have decreased in mass. Hmm. Praemonitus (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Norman or Joseph?
The article refers to "Norman" Lockyer and later to "Joseph" Lockyer even though the same person is indicated.
Some consistent name should be chosen and used consistently. 71.128.242.202 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I did not find any mention of "Joseph Lockyer". The person named "Joseph Norman Lockyer" went exclusively by "Norman Lockyer". See Talk:Norman Lockyer. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I simplified the mention of 'Joseph Lockyer' earlier to just 'Lockyer' since Norman Lockyer was mentioned just a couple sentences above. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok great, I saw that. So fixed! Done Johnjbarton (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I simplified the mention of 'Joseph Lockyer' earlier to just 'Lockyer' since Norman Lockyer was mentioned just a couple sentences above. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Nearly perfect sphere?
Is a tennis ball "a near perfect sphere"? A Class A ball bearing has an oblateness of under 3 ppm. The Sun's oblateness is nearly 3 times worse than that. And that's assuming the only thing we're concerned about is its GROSS physical dimensions (i.e. the major and minor axes). This is real life, not a 3D geometry exercise. Characterizing is as "near perfect" is totally vacuous. It serves no purpose and is wrong by many measures. Turns out, who knew?, that texture matters. The Photosphere can vary by 100's of km (according to the article) Do the math: 100 ÷ 7000 = 0.014 or 1.4% This isn't even reasonably near what could be made in the early 18th Century, let alone the 21st. That description should be removed. (And of course, anyone who claims that its surface is "near perfect" hasn't seen a Solar Prominence or a Coronal Mass Ejection. And never mind the fact that the heliopause not even close to spherical and varies by orders of magnitude more than the Sun's radius. (But the article does -sorta- qualify that it's talking about the visible surface of the Sun, i.e. the Photosphere, so it could be worse.)40.142.176.185 (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- It matters because it is related to the Sun's internal rotation, which is discussed in the very next subsection. Perhaps that connection could be made more explicit. Remsense ‥ 论 09:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I rewrote that paragraph, please review. I did not make the connection to rotation but the Gough ref could be used to do so. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
How does this work?
hello I am merely 11 so some off my info may be wrong. How does the sun connect to earth in a way that could hurt earth. The sun is a part of global warming and too my knowledge and love off planets the Sun should not be getting any closer. How does this work? 50.127.5.36 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, the light from the sun is needed for life on Earth in the first place. The Sun is not generally getting closer to the earth (there's small change that repeats each year but it's not trending closer.) This page may be easier to understand. --Noren (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this information Noreen! 50.127.5.36 (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages featured articles
- FA-Class Featured topics articles
- Misplaced Pages featured topics Solar System featured content
- High-importance Featured topics articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- FA-Class level-2 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-2 vital articles in Physical sciences
- FA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- FA-Class physics articles
- Top-importance physics articles
- FA-Class physics articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class Astronomy articles
- Top-importance Astronomy articles
- FA-Class Astronomy articles of Top-importance
- FA-Class Astronomical objects articles
- Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
- FA-Class Solar System articles
- Top-importance Solar System articles
- Solar System task force
- FA-Class Weather articles
- Low-importance Weather articles
- FA-Class Space weather articles
- Low-importance Space weather articles
- WikiProject Weather articles