Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:08, 14 October 2024

This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 26, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted October 15, 2006 Featured topic candidate Promoted July 30, 2009 Featured article review Kept June 13, 2021 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted June 20, 2022 Featured topic candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This  level-2 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Top-importance). Weather: Space Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Space weather task force (assessed as Low-importance). Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

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

Reference: Retraction Note: Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale

What is the actual solar (effective) temperature?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article gives several conflicting values:

1. 5772 K in the infobox
2. 5777 K in the second paragraph of the Sun#Photosphere section
3. 5778 K in the Sun#Sunlight_and_neutrinos section
4. 5772 K (again) in the Sun#Main_sequence 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). 69.165.195.198 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent thanks. In one case I edit the value away in the process of cleaning up some refs. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:36, 25 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. Johnjbarton (talk) 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 here) 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. 69.165.195.198 (talk) 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."

But I agree this seems to be the best we can do. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Too much on one ref outdated ref?

This one ref from 1977 with 22 citations is used 7 times in the article.

• Abhyankar, K. D. (1977). "A Survey of the Solar Atmospheric Models". Bulletin of the Astronomical Society of India. 5: 40–44. Bibcode:1977BASI....5...40A. Archived from the original on 12 May 2020. Retrieved 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. Johnjbarton (talk) 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. PeanutbutterCat6Meow (talk) 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. PeanutbutterCat6Meow (talk) 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. 69.165.195.198 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"The Sun" or "Sun"?

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? 2001:1388:1B8E:BBB1:9CBC:C8B4:1DCC:4732 (talk) 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. 80.135.118.117 (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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. Tarl N. (discuss) 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. Texluh1138 (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Texluh1138 In general, per MOS:LEAD 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 sunlight supports almost all life on Earth by photosynthesis,("The Sun's Energy: An Essential Part of the Earth System". Center for Science Education. Retrieved 24 May 2024.) and drives Earth's climate and weather.("The Sun's Influence on Climate". Princeton University Press. 23 June 2015. Retrieved 24 May 2024.)

Johnjbarton (talk) 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. Texluh1138 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

References

1. Hydrothermal vent communities live so deep under the sea that they have no access to sunlight. Bacteria instead use sulfur compounds as an energy source, via chemosynthesis.

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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages featured article review candidates
• 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