Evidence for God from Science

This is very interesting. I had a hard time understannding all of it b/c it's pretty complex. Share your thoughts.

EVIDENCES FOR A YOUNG SUN
by Keith Davies*
Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021
Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469

"Vital Articles on Science/Creation" June 1996
Copyright © 1996 All Rights Reserved


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

According to current models of stellar evolution, when a star like our
sun is very young, its enormous output of energy is provided by
gravitational contraction. As it grows older, the models show that the source
of its energy should change over to that of nuclear fusion as it slowly
develops a very hot and dense core. Where exactly does our sun fit
into this sequence?

The standard model of the sun assumes that it is around 5 billion years
old and that it has already passed into its nuclear burning stage.
This makes it all the more extraordinary that in 1976 a team of Russian
astronomers, writing in the respected British scientific journal Nature
showed how their research pointed clearly to the startling fact that the
sun does not even seem to possess a large dense nuclear burning core.
Instead, their results showed the sun as bearing the characteristics of
a very young homogeneous star that corresponds with the early stages
of the computer models.

The astronomers also proposed that nuclear reactions "are not
responsible for energy generation in the sun."[1] They said that such a
conclusion, "although rather extravagant," follows from their own research into
the analysis of the global oscillations of the sun and is quite
consistent with two other major observational findings. They cited these
other evidences as being the observed absence of appreciable neutrino flux
from the sun, and the observed abundance of lithium and beryllium in
the stellar atmosphere.[2]

So not only did the team of astronomers propose the startling idea that
nuclear reactions are not responsible for the source of the sun's
energy, but they also put forward the equally startling concept that the
sun, according to their data, could be homogeneous throughout.[3] Both of
these revolutionary ideas would fit in perfectly with the concept that
the sun is a very young star.

All three of these major discoveries that point towards a young sun
have since been confirmed by independent observations. This article will
evaluate and update these findings and point the way to recent
discoveries that show that the sun cannot possibly be the old nuclear burning,
main-sequence star that it was once assumed to be.

THE FIRST EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG SUN
The fundamental oscillation of the Sun matches the model for a young
star.
In the same way that seismology gives us information about the
structure of the Earth, so the relatively new discipline of helioseismology
also provides important information on the structure of the sun. If the
sun is an old star, then, according to the "standard model," it should
have a large core reaching out to a distance of around 175,000 km from
its center and having a density about fourteen times that of lead.[4] A
core of such a size and mass would, of course, have a substantial effect
on any global oscillations of the Sun. In particular, the presence of
such a large core would mean that the sun's global oscillations would
range up to a maximum fundamental radial mode of oscillation of around
one hour.[5] Oscillations greater than one hour would involve such
enormous amounts of energy that they would result in the complete disruption
of any large core that might be present in the sun.[6]

If, however, the sun is similar to a very young homogeneous star that
has not yet developed a large central core, then its spectrum of global
oscillations have been calculated as including a much longer
fundamental radial oscillation of 2 hours 47 minutes, together with a non-radial
fundamental oscillation of 59 minutes and either a second harmonic
radial oscillation of 47 minutes or a 42 minute, non-radial second harmonic
oscillation.[7]

The predicted oscillation of 2 hours 47 minutes is particularly
important as being a key distinguishing feature of a young homogeneous star.

The Russian astronomers were certainly startled to find that their
observations of the sun were showing large and remarkably stable global
oscillations with a period of 2 hours 40 minutes[8]—very close to that
predicted for a young homogeneous sun.

When trying to explain this quite unexpected observation, they stated
in their article that a "most striking fact is that the observed period
of 2 hours 40 minutes is almost precisely the same . . . as if the sun
were to be an homogeneous sphere."[9]

The concept of the sun's being an homogeneous sphere was so contrary to
all previous ideas that the Russians were anxious to find alternative
explanations. They kept on returning, however, to the conclusion that
their work, which involved the observation of systematic fluctuations in
very large portions of the sun's surface (comparable in size to the
radius of the sun's disc) "points definitely to pulsations of the sun as
a whole."[10]

Confirmations of their observations
A British group soon confirmed the 2 hour 40 minutes oscillation. They
also discovered further oscillations that included a 58 minute
oscillation and a 40 minute oscillation.[11] These three values are almost
precisely those predicted for a homogeneous star of the same size and mass
of the sun. When they published their results they stated that "Current
solar models predict a period of about 1 hour corresponding to a steep
density increase in the solar interior, in marked contrast to the
observed 2.65-hour period, which is consistent with a nearly homogeneous
model of the sun."[12]

Comments from other astronomers
The unexpected observations have gone solidly against the predictions
of the standard model of the sun. The solar astronomer Lain Nicholson,
said of the long period oscillation that if it was a true fundamental
period, then the "standard model could not be correct," and that the
"central temperature of the sun would be less than half the conventional
value."[13] Such a low temperature would, of course, again fit in with
the sun being a young star that has not yet achieved a sufficiently high
temperature for main-sequence hydrogen burning.

The British astronomers J. Christenson-Dalsgaard and D.O. Gough
commented that in order to account for the 2 hour 40 minute observation it is
"evident that a very drastic change in the solar model would be
necessary" and "it is unlikely that any such model can be found."[14]

This striking discovery of the sun's oscillations is not, however, the
only evidence of a young sun.

THE SECOND EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG SUN
The Solar Neutrino Emission is that of a young star.
The Russian team stated that the low neutrino flux, of the sun also
fits in with their proposal that the energy of the sun did not come from
nuclear sources.

The low neutrino flux is a well known and long standing problem for
modern astronomy. A group of solar physicists, writing in the National
Research Council publication Decade of Discovery, stated that the neutrino
emission from the sun is "a problem that has worried astronomers for
years" and that "the discrepancy is serious."[15]


A low neutrino flux which results in a correspondingly low[16], [17]
temperature of the sun's core, again fits in perfectly with the sun being
a young star that has not yet achieved full nuclear burning of
hydrogen, but is obtaining its energy from a slow gravitational contraction.

THE THIRD EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG SUN
The Lithium and Beryllium abundance in the sun is consistent with that
of a young star.
The article in Nature stated that "the abundance of lithium and
beryllium in the solar atmosphere is another confirmatory evidence that
nuclear energy is not responsible for the majority of the energy generation
in the sun."[18]

We know that lithium would be destroyed in around 7,500 years[19] when
the central temperature of a young star reaches 3 million degrees.[20]

Observations show that the sun has already lost all but around one
thousandth of its original abundance of lithium.[21] This implies that if
the sun had the expected initial abundance of lithium, then its central
temperature must, of course, be at least 3 million degrees.

However, the sun still has its normal abundance of beryllium, which is
destroyed at a temperature of 4 million degrees.[22] If the Russian
scientists are correct in assuming that the sun is homogeneous, then this
means that the temperature throughout the whole sun must be far lower
than the 15 million degrees required for the sun to be an old,
main-sequence star.

RECENT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES
There are a great many confirmatory evidences for a young sun. One of
the most recent was the announcement at a major scientific conference in
1995 that the temperature at the center of the sun seems to be varying
over a period of several months.[23] This is extremely hard to
understand if the sun has a huge central core with a resulting enormous heat
capacity. However, such rapid temperature changes are explicable if the
sun is young and homogeneous. In such a situation there can be very
rapid convective changes in temperature throughout the entire sun. (This
idea will be developed in a future article.)

CONCLUSION
The three major observational evidences described in this article
correlate with the expected characteristics of a young star that is
obtaining its energy from gravitational contraction. The sun simply does not
seem to have a large core that is very dense and has the high temperature
that can sustain hydrogen nuclear burning. In other words, the sun
definitely does not show the characteristics of a multi-billion-year-old
star, but instead shows the characteristics of an exceedingly young
star.

Hi M&M,

I read your contribution and agree it's hard to understand. About the 3 proofs offered:

1. These guys disagree with your guru about helioseismic dating:
"The age of the sun can be inferred with helioseismic studies. This method provides verification of the age of the solar system gathered from the radiometric dating of meteorites.[1]"

[edit] References
^ A. Bonanno, H. Schlattl, L. Paterní² (2002). "The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS". Astronomy and Astrophysics 390: 1115. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020749 .

2. From Wikipedia: "The solar neutrino problem was a major discrepancy between measurements of the numbers of neutrinos flowing through the earth and theoretical models of the solar interior, lasting from the mid-1960s to about 2002. The discrepancy has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics - specifically, neutrino oscillation. Essentially, as neutrinos have mass, they can change from the type that had been expected to be produced in the sun's interior into two types that would not be caught by the detectors in use at the time."

3. LITHIUM DEPLETION IN THE SUN: A STUDY OFMIXING BASED ON HYDRODYNAMICAL SIMULATIONST. BLOCKERMax-Planck-Institut fur Radioastronomie, Bonn, GermanyH. HOLWEGER and B. FREYTAGInstitut fur Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik, Universitat Kiel, GermanyF. HERWIGAstrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, GermanyH.-G. LUDWIGAstronomical Observatory, Copenhagen, DenmarkM. STEFFENInstitut fur Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik, Universitat Kiel, GermanyAstrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam, GermanyAbstract. Based on radiation hydrodynamics modeling of stellar convection zones, a diffusionscheme has been devised describing the downward penetration of convective motions beyond theSchwarzschild boundary (overshoot) into the radiative interior. This scheme of exponential diffusiveovershoot has already been successfully applied to AGB stars. Here we present an application to theSun in order to determine the time scale and depth extent of this additional mixing, i.e. diffusiveovershoot at the base of the convective envelope. We calculated the associated destruction of lithiumduring the evolution towards and on the main-sequence. We found that the slow-mixing processesinduced by the diffusive overshoot may lead to a substantial depletion of lithium during the Sun'smain-sequence evolution.1. IntroductionSince lithium is destroyed already at temperatures of 2:5 106K by nuclear burn-ing in stellar interiors, its surface abundances can be considerably affected by asufficiently deep reaching surface convection zone. The solar Li problem is thelong-standing conflict between the observed photospheric Li depletion of the Sunby 2.15 dex (Anders and Grevesse, 1989) and the predictions of stellar evolutionmodels based on the standard mixing-length prescription. The latter show onlymoderate Li depletion during the pre main-sequence (PMS) phase (0.3—0.5 dex)whereas the depletion during the main-sequence evolution is negligible. In con-trast, observations of open clusters indicate that effective Li depletion takes placeon the main-sequence. Consequently, in order to account for the observations, atleast one additional mixing mechanism must operate in the radiative regions belowthe bottom of the surface convection zone.Suggested solutions include mass loss to expose depleted matter from the interi-or (e.g. Schramm et al., 1990), microscopic diffusion leading to a leakage of Li outof the surface convection zone (e.g. Michaud, 1986), mixing due to internal grav-ity waves arising from pressure fluctuations in convective flows (e.g. Press, 1981),
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think that's bad, try reading the whole 8 pages. Bottom line, if you want to understand it, get a PhD in cosmological physics. Alternately, have faith in mainstream physicists. Or if you don't mind being way out of the mainstream, believe your guy, but there are undoubtedly good reasons why he's not publishing in mainstream journals.

DB

Davies article is already 12 years old and much of it has been rebuked

A pretty comprehensive and complicated rebuttal to the Young Sun argument.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html

Even if the ICR article made any sort of good point about the Sun, they are ONLY saying the Sun is "not 5 billion years old". It is a logical fallacy to assume that IF the Sun is NOT 5 billion years old, then automatically it is 6000 years old! They did not present any evidence for the Sun being dated to 6000 years.

Good post, Hman - you said it better than I did.

Himantolophus wrote:Davies article is already 12 years old and much of it has been rebuked

A pretty comprehensive and complicated rebuttal to the Young Sun argument.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html

Even if the ICR article made any sort of good point about the Sun, they are ONLY saying the Sun is "not 5 billion years old". It is a logical fallacy to assume that IF the Sun is NOT 5 billion years old, then automatically it is 6000 years old! They did not present any evidence for the Sun being dated to 6000 years.

That's one of the problems with a lot of YEC material. It is rhetorical rather than scientific. It usually doesn't keep pace with new information and"refutations" usually aren't addressed or incorporated. Such dissertations are treated as static and absolute.

I'm not so sure Blacklock's post or Hman's post refuted what I posted.
Blacklock, your info about 1 is not really enough to go on. Your info on 2 is interesting and is something to consider. But 3...
"We found that the slow-mixing processesinduced by the diffusive overshoot may lead to a substantial depletion of lithium during the Sun'smain-sequence evolution." - That is evidence for a young sun. A massive depletion of lithium in the sun's sequenced "evolution" would throw-off "this much lithium is burnt so the sun is X amount of year's old" idea. Also, you can't have an X-billion year old evolution scheme as evidence for an old sun. Your assuming what isn't proven to prove the same thing.

From the article Hman posted:
"Lithium and beryllium are two light elements, that are both estimated to have been part of the sun's original chemical composition at certain (low) concentrations. Both elements are easily consumed by fusion, lithium somewhat more so than beryllium — it takes a temperature of around 2.5 million degrees to "burn" lithium, whereas beryllium requires 4 million degrees (to be compared with the sun's present core temperature of some 15 million degrees).
Oddly enough, as Davies (1996) correctly points out, the sun's surface material still has all its original beryllium (Balachandran & Bell 1998), whereas the lithium is severely depleted. From this one may conclude that the surface material has been exposed to a temperature of 2.5 million degrees, but not 4 million degrees. Davies proceeds then to claim this as evidence that the core temperature of the sun has not yet reached 4 million degrees, implying, of course, that the sun is till young and hasn't got its fusion going properly yet.
Careful calculations of the amount of mixing of surface and core material in young stars result, however, in the prediction that no significant amount of either lithium or beryllium should be lost in stars of the sun's size during their early contraction phase, in which Davies wishes to place the sun. This prediction is borne out by observations of newborn stars, which still retain their original lithium. The lithium is lost later, during the stars' main sequence life (Bahcall & Pinsonneault 1995)."
Bahcall & Pinsonneault (1995) 'Solar models with helium and heavy element diffusion' Rev Mod Phys 67:781

Makes one think if we can't be sure on the sun, how do we know which stars are newborns?
Can anyone expalin why lithium isn't burnt up when it should be in the "newborn" stars. The article said it wasn't but didn't say why it wasn't.

From Davies:

"We know that lithium would be destroyed in around 7,500 years[19] when
the central temperature of a young star reaches 3 million degrees.[20]

Observations show that the sun has already lost all but around one
thousandth of its original abundance of lithium.[21] This implies that if
the sun had the expected initial abundance of lithium, then its central
temperature must, of course, be at least 3 million degrees."

Not refuted...also he didn't just from 4 billion to 6,000. Based on the amount of burnt lithium he calculated it an 7,500. And if "We found that the slow-mixing processesinduced by the diffusive overshoot may lead to a substantial depletion of lithium during the Sun'smain-sequence evolution.", you'd get a sun even younger than that.

uhhh mixing.... the Sun's surface is far from 15 million degrees, heck it's far from 2-6 million degrees

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-re ... llium.html

THE CASE OF THE MISSING BERYLLIUM

Astronomers have used the world's largest telescope to gain new insights into the hidden cauldron that lies beneath the foggy surface of stars. A team led by Prof. Ann M. Boesgaard of the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy has found large deficits of lithium and beryllium. These two light elements act as probes into the deeper reaches of stars because they are so fragile.

The team found that the youngest stars still have the lithium and beryllium that they were born with, but older stars have destroyed up to 99 percent of their lithium and up to 85 percent of their beryllium. Theoretical models of stars cannot account for this wholesale destructive behavior.

Lithium and beryllium atoms are destroyed by nuclear fusion in the hot interiors of stars. Lithium "burns" when the temperature is about 2 million degrees Kelvin, and beryllium atoms "burn" deeper in the stars, where the temperature is about 3 million K. The amount of these two chemical elements remaining on the surface indicates how deeply the surface layers penetrate into the interior. Strong convective currents and other mixing mechanisms transport the atoms at the surface of the star to its interior, where they can no longer survive.

The stars in the young Hyades star cluster in the constellation of Taurus, the Bull, have been studied extensively for the lithium content. At 700 million years of age, the Hyades cluster has a pronounced deficiency in lithium in stars that are 25 to 40 percent more massive than the Sun. This is known as the "lithium dip."

The new observations investigated the beryllium content of these stars. Is there a "beryllium dip"? These are a far more challenging observations to make, and so the team used the Keck I 10-meter telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii for its research. The twin Keck telescopes are the world's largest optical telescopes.

The team, which also includes Eric Armengaud, a French student working in Hawaii, and Jeremy King, assistant professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, looked for”¹and found”¹a beryllium dip in the Hyades and other young clusters. The beryllium dip is not dramatic as the lithium dip because not as much of the surface matter circulates down to the deeper level where beryllium can be destroyed.

The temperature of the surface of our Sun is about 6,000 K, and its core is about 15 million K. Measurements show that the Sun has lost all but one percent of its original lithium but retains most of its beryllium. This means the surface atoms have been mixed with the material in the inside of the Sun down to the region where the temperature is 2 million K, but not as deep as 3 million K. Studying both elements lets us see the degree of mixing between the surface and the interior of a star.

The destruction of lithium atoms takes time. Stars younger than the Sun have not destroyed as much lithium as the Sun. Like the Sun, they have not destroyed any beryllium.

The amount of destruction also depends on the mass of the stars and here the pattern for lithium differs from the pattern for beryllium. For the cooler, low-mass dwarf stars there are huge lithium deficiencies, but beryllium is unscathed. For the warmer stars that are between 25 and 40% more massive than the sun, both lithium and beryllium are destroyed. For stars in the middle of that range there is no lithium to be found at all, while beryllium is less affected, but is deficient. Stars that are more than 60% more massive than the sun have the full complement of both lithium and beryllium.

This strange pattern is not predicted by any theory about the circulation of surface material to the interior.

The new research shows that the beryllium dip is present in the intermediate-age clusters, Hyades, Coma, and Ursa Majoris. It mimics the lithium dip, but it is not as deep. For the Pleiades and Alpha Per clusters, which are one-tenth the age of the Hyades, there is no beryllium dip and only a minor lithium dip. From this, the team concludes that lithium and beryllium are "burned" while stars are in the most stable phase of their lives, not in the tumultuous period of formation. The effects of the "burning" are evident only after stars attain the age of about 200 million years.

Theorists will need to reexamine their ideas in light of this new beryllium data. The mix-master in the warmer dwarfs seems to be different from the mix-master in the cooler dwarfs. Extra mixing, induced by rotation, appears to be a possible explanation for the warmer stars. Those stars with higher initial rotation destroy more lithium and beryllium than those with slow rotation.

I always have problems with assumptions. The article is making assumptions that our standard model of a star is accurate.

"The standard model of the sun assumes.... "

It may very well not be accurate.

The "standard model" is backed by most astronomers and is based on the observed evidence. Unfortunately, assumptions are unavoidable until we can send something to the center of the Sun!

But, if you think there's another stellar model that is accurature (and supposedly lacks assumptions), have at it. That's what this thread is about...

Himantolophus wrote:The "standard model" is backed by most astronomers and is based on the observed evidence. Unfortunately, assumptions are unavoidable until we can send something to the center of the Sun!

But, if you think there's another stellar model that is accurature (and supposedly lacks assumptions), have at it. That's what this thread is about...

When they do finally send that probe to the center of the sun, they better do it at night!!

d'oh

(that sounds like an actual test answer for some students!!)

What really gets me is how they derive all this stuff like lithium and beryllium from our sun?

>>What really gets me is how they derive all this stuff like lithium and beryllium from our sun?<<

If you burn lithium or beryllium here on earth and spectroscope it, the readout (pattern) looks a certain way. When the spectroscopic readout from a star has the same pattern, they surmise it is the same element. That's how they figured it out.

Interestingly, they had all this spectroscopic data for about a hundred years before they knew what was causing it within the atom. Then Neils Bohr explained it with the model of electrons circling the nucleus of atoms. To simplify thing enormously, electron leaping from orbit to orbit, and emitting or absorbing a photon in the process is what caused the spectroscopic readings and the unique pattern of each element.

And the more they found out the more things fit together so they could make your cellphone.

DB

Now that's quite interesting!

I'd be interested in knowing in depth just how our cell phones work because of this science, can you elaborate a little more on this David?

And also what is your stance on the spectral readouts that astronomy receives? With all your knowledge in this area do you believe old Universe or young Universe?

To me all of astronomy is still a non-observable science - can that which cannot be observed be considered a science? I mean were still bickering about tangible evidence concerning transient forms like Lucy the hominid. Here we have touchable evidence in our own hands and we still cant prove otherwise.

Yes, the distances and timescales are so vast that directly observing most phenomenon in the Universe is very difficult. That's why events like comets, supernova, gamma ray bursts, and impacts are so exciting to astronomers. It actually allows them to test their theories. And the beauty of the Universe is that astronomers have a "snapshot in time" of the Universe. We can see stars and planets forming, stars at all stages of their lives, stars dying by supernovae, stars dying by planetary nebulae. We can see galaxies colliding, black holes consuming nearby stars, and intereactions between objects that take millions of years to develop and we are seeing a (geologically speaking) split second of that event. From all of this we can piece together how things work in space. Maybe not PROVE, but its strong evidence.