Requiem for Relativity

The Hertzsprung-Russell luminosity diagram in, inter alia, Inglis (3rd ed., op. cit.) suggests that, because of similar luminosities, long-period (Mira) variables might have Pop. II Cepheids inside, and Pop. I (classical, delta Cephei) Cepheids might have beta Cepheids (beta Canis Majoris stars) inside. Though the period vs. density formula in Strohmeier (op. cit., see previous post) gives "Q" values for classical Cepheids (for which Eddington originally devised the formula) the formula also is thought to apply to Pop. II Cepheids, though maybe with somewhat different Q values.

Thus variable stars seem to release energy via a kind of variable convection with period suspiciously similar to the Keplerian. At the simplest, a huge, repeating solar flare in a sun-grazing elliptical orbit cyclicly delivers energy to some outer surface which hides the flare. If the flare quickly cools to equilibrium temperature with solar radiation, then maximum luminosity occurs only slightly after perihelion because the orbit is so elliptical. The Blazhko effect occurs because the period is much more invariant than are the other cyclical features of the event.

Electrons sometimes disobey Special Relativity. As Thompson theorized a few years ago, electrons are agitated by Lorentz contraction. In several posts above, I quantified this energy, showing that there is a large latent heat for innermost-orbital electron pairs, analogous to melting, released at "electron melting temperatures" of thousands of degrees K for elements such as C, O, and Ne. In variable stars, it is efficient that each idealized flare (see previous par.) cross one of the surfaces at which solar radiation equilibrium temperature equals electron melting temperature for some common chemical element. Thus also this large latent heat can be carried away with the flare.

For the least luminous stars, the physical outer envelope surface, the aphelion of the flare, and the electon melting surface for some element, all are the same. When the outer melting surface is that of neon or carbon, the latent heat is a minor consideration: the surface tends to be a bit closer (hotter) for more luminous Beta Canis Majoris or Mira type stars, so the flare doesn't have to travel so far. On the other hand, oxygen is so abundant and its latent heat per atom so large, that its latent heat is a major consideration: the surface tends to be a bit farther (cooler) for more luminous Cepheids, so more latent heat can be extracted.

Generally, Ne < Ne' < O < O' < C < C', where Ne, etc., are the radii at which inner-orbital electrons of each element melt, and Ne', etc., are the aphelia of successive stages or stories of flares. For increasingly luminous stars, the primed quantities increase fastest, overtaking the next unprimed (except for C' or Ne' if outermost). This explains the classical Cepheids' Hertzsprung progression (Hertzsprung, BAstronINeth 3:115, 1926; Petersen et al, A&A 134:319-327, 1984, p. 319). As Ne' increases for more luminous classical Cepheids, the "bump" at which oxygen's electronic latent heat is released, moves "backward" (i.e., to the left on the time graph) from an almost 0.5 cycle (observationally, 0.4 cycle) "lead" (i.e., position to the right of the peak), into synchrony with the luminosity peak, and then even "behind" (i.e., left of) the peak, before becoming hidden by the Ne' surface itself. A disproportionate increase in Ne' might also make the waveform less sawtooth and more sinusoidal.

Let's combine some well-known variable star relations:

(1) deltaR / R = 0.25 deltaL / L

(Inglis, op. cit.). Here L is absolute, not logarithmic. This relationship is claimed only to be a rough average. R is inferred from the spectral line shift. This fits within about a factor of two (Delta Cephei, for example, misses by about a factor of 1.6). For classical Cepheids, the so-called RV curve, with peak "V0", is more sawtooth than sinusoidal. So,

(2) deltaR = V0 / 2 * Period / 4 * 1.35. (The last factor would be 1.5 geometrically, but is about 1.35 for visible light, due to "limb darkening". If the RV curve is sinusoidal, the "2" becomes "pi/2".)

(3) Q = Period * sqrt(density / solar density)

This is the theoretical Eddington relation. Empirically, it fits not only classical (Delta) Cepheids but also Beta Cepheids. Both types have Q typically 0.037 days within about a factor of two.

Combining these,

(4) deltaL / L = 1.91 * V0 / sqrt(2*M*G/R).

If the RV curve is sinusoidal instead of sawtooth, the 1.91 becomes 2.43. So, the variable star's power output is proportional to (Vesc + V0*cos(t) )^2.

Thesis. Cassiopeia A exploded twice, causing both the Spoerer & Maunder sunspot minima.

Sunspots. Many main-sequence stars in the sun's neighborhood, show evidence of starspot cycles of 4 to 20 yrs (vs. 11.1 yrs for the sun). When starspots are big enough, measurable luminosity changes due to stellar rotation, indicate a sunlike differential rotation and butterfly diagram (IY Alekseev, Solar Physics journal, 2004). If starspots are too small to detect, chromospheric activity, especially CaII emission, still often reveals the cycle (P Wilson, Cambridge Astrophysics Series #24, pp. 109, 114-118).

Jupiter's 11.86 yr period is only slightly greater than the 11.1 yr Schwabe sunspot cycle; Uranus' 84 yr period only slightly greater than the 82.2 yr (according to H. Kimura) Wolf (1862) cycle which Gleissberg found also in auroras (see Gleissberg's aurora article in: J. Schove, ed., "Sunspot Cycles"). Yet if the planets cause the cycles, then why does Saturn lack effect, and why do other stars generally have roughly the same (primary) starspot cycle length as the sun? Maybe the planets' periods and the sunspot cycles have, or originally had, a common cause.

Sedimentary rocks, inter alia, 680 million yr old, show cycles of from 8 to 15, or even 22 (!) yr, though now it is thought that some or all of these cycles are associated with lunar tides, not sun-caused weather (RY Anderson, NY Acad Sci Annals, 1961; in: Schove, op. cit.)(George Williams, 1980s, mentioned in: Brody, "Enigma of Sunspots", p. 163). Maybe the exact sunspot cycle length is determined by, say, the total mass of the solar system, but sunspot activity is maintained in disequilibrium despite damping, by an interstellar wave which limits the cycle length to a narrower range than would be expected from the diversity of stellar masses and planetary configurations.

From sunspot numbers (inter alia, the chart in Branley's Astronomy) and from the corroborating aurora records gathered by Agnes Clerk (see John Eddy, 1976, in: Schove, op. cit.) the Maunder sunspot minimum (discovered by Spoerer in 1887) occurred from about 1645 to 1715. There also is a Spoerer sunspot minimum from about 1480 to 1520; both the Maunder and Spoerer minima are confirmed by high (presumably due to lessened protection from cosmic rays) C14 levels in tree rings (Eddy, op. cit.).

Cassiopeia A. Cassiopeia A has the greatest apparent (not absolute) power (i.e., radio magnitude) of any radio source outside the solar system. At galactic coords. 111.7, -2.1, it lies near the galactic plane, only about 22 degrees away from the sun's presumed direction of travel around the galaxy (Tycho's supernova is at galactic coords. 120.1, +1.4). Cassiopeia A is thought to have been an exploding Wolf-Rayet star 11,000 lt yr away.

Flamsteed recorded a now-gone star, probably 6th mag, in 1680 near the location of Cas A. Flamsteed was a great astronomer and recorded his date of observation for this star. It's thought that a dust envelope might have caused its relative faintness vs. Tycho's or Kepler's supernovae. The most recent motion studies support the 1680 date: 1681 +/- 19 (Astrophysical Journal 645:283+, 2006); or 1671 +/- 1 if without deceleration of ejecta, a few (maybe 10) years later if with deceleration (Astronomical Journal 122:297+, 2001).

Two other recent motion studies support the date, c. 1505. These found 1539 +/- 30 (Aqueros & Green, MNRAS 305:957, 1999) and 1495 +/- 15 (Astronomy & Astrophysics, 339:201, 1998).

Discussion. Maybe two major explosions occurred at Cas A, c. 1505 and in 1680 (minus light travel time). These would have followed the beginnings of the Spoerer & Maunder sunspot minima by about 25 & 35 yr, resp., almost obliterating the sunspot cycle for 40 & 70 yr, resp., if the sunspot effect could arrive c. 30 yr prior to the light.

The supernova might send out a superluminal wave which disrupts a segment of the track of the underlying, lightspeed, interstellar wave regulating the sunspot cycle. If this track passes through Cas A, then the sunspot cycle disruption would be observed at the same time as the supernova, and plus or minus "X" yrs, depending on the size of the disruption. Indeed this occurred: [1480-1520] equals [1500-20, 1500+20]; [1645,1715] equals [1680-35, 1680+35].

Hi Joe,

Excellent data comparisons that show possible synchronicity between solar sunspot cycles, supernova and superluminal waves. I think you are on to something that has most definitely been overlooked by main stream science. Fluctuations in superluminal wave pressures may exist that have periodicity due to large scale interactions that change "windows" of polarity with in regions of space. Hence, polar magnetic field reversals act like a butterfly effect with 'lines of force migrations'[following lines of force of fluctuating wave patterns of greater universe] occuring on sun's surface creating super magnetic storms or sunspots that are actually aligned with superluminal wave/current interaction migrations [polar to equator migrations tip scale to a polarity reversal-butterfly effect] within our scale.

Just thought of something that really just blew my mind. What if these system wide fluctuations on sun spot migrations are revealing axis differentials of superluminal lines of force that 'are' the overall major axis centers moving around our point of reference with in our MEGA SCALE. Look at torque values of such a switching effect and measure scale probability by co-factoring other center migrations then measuring difference between to juxtaposition large scale structure rate of motion.

Just some thoughts.

John

Cosmicsurfer:


There's a wealth of ideas here. Thanks for your thoughts.

- JK

J Eddy's C14 tree ring data (see previous post) confirm ~40+70=~110 years of Maunder minima in the sun's latest 950 yrs. Measuring CaII line strengths has allowed about 2000 nearby sunlike stars to be checked to see if they are actively cycling, or in a Maunder minimum. Instead of the expected ~230, approximately none of these stars are in a Maunder minimum ("Do We Know of Any Maunder Minimum Stars?", JT Wright, AJ 128:1273+, 2004).

Type IV subgiants have different CaII measurements than do Type V dwarfs; in early surveys, subgiants comprised a large distinct minority: fictitious Maunder minimum stars. When subgiants were excluded, < 10 Maunder minimum "candidates" were found in collections of ~1000 solar-metallicity Type V dwarf stars, i.e., sunlike stars (Wright, op. cit.; Gray, AJ 126:2048+, 2003). These candidates have borderline measurements, do not form a bimodal peak, and might be merely a statistical tail.

Binary star companions affect starspot distributions; Jovian planets might affect sunspot cycles. This can't explain the absence of Maunder minima, because maybe 1/4 of sunlike stars, both lack binary companions and have Jovian planets. Either the sun or solar system has a rare unknown property causing Maunder minima, or the occurrence of Maunder minima in the sun and in nearby sunlike stars is synchronized.

The 1645-1715 Maunder minimum might be found, in measurement epochs c. 1995, in sunlike stars 43-54pc distant opposite Cassiopeia A (see previous post). Distance cutoffs in the above star collections, were 40-60pc (Wright op. cit.; Gray op. cit.; Henry et al, AJ 111:439+, 1996). Henry (op. cit.) also usually used an apparent magnitude cutoff of +9.00, which, he noted, corresponds to our sun at 50pc. Hipparcos gave distances for the 9 stars which Gray deemed his elite northern Maunder minimum candidates (Gray, op. cit., Table 6, p. 2057): the farthest was 30pc. The middle page, of Henry's list of southern observed stars (Henry, op. cit., p. 450) happened to show only 3/90 stars with apparent magnitudes dimmer than +8.674, which I infer to be our sun's magnitude at 43pc on Henry's scale.

The hypothetical locus for manifestation of the Maunder minimum is bounded by two very eccentric prolate spheroids, approximately paraboloids. The paraboloid through 43pc, passes beyond 60pc when 52deg away from the point opposite Cass A; this cap covers 19% of the sphere. Roughly, the fraction of sample stars, that are within the Maunder minimum locus, is then 3/90*19%*1/2 = 0.3%; i.e., 2000*0.3% = 6 stars. As sunlike stars near 50pc, these would be near Henry's magnitude limit. Instead of expecting 230 stars having good data, we expect 6 relatively distant, southern, mostly circumpolar (low altitude of observation) stars having poor data. The distance and magnitude limits of present studies might just barely fail to reach the stars that would be at Maunder minimum.