- Thank you received: 0
EPH and 'Mitchell stars'
19 years 5 months ago #13179
by Rudolf
Replied by Rudolf on topic Reply from Rudolf Henning
One interesting thought that can be inverred from this is that Mitchel stars should be 'warm' actually although that infrared radiation might not be visible from the outside for the same reason it is invisible to optical light. Would that be true?
It could then mean that at least part of the heat caused by infalling objects might be from the central body heat?
It could then mean that at least part of the heat caused by infalling objects might be from the central body heat?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 5 months ago #11355
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[Rudolf] "One interesting thought that can be inferred from this is that Mitchel stars should be 'warm' actually although that infrared radiation might not be visible from the outside for the same reason it is invisible to optical light. Would that be true?"
As a star's total mass increases it should absorb a larger and larger fraction of gravitons. And more and more energy. So I would expect Mitchel stars to be among the hottest of objects.
===
I'm not sure what you mean about IR not being visible.
LB
As a star's total mass increases it should absorb a larger and larger fraction of gravitons. And more and more energy. So I would expect Mitchel stars to be among the hottest of objects.
===
I'm not sure what you mean about IR not being visible.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 5 months ago #13416
by Larry Burford
[Rudolf] "It could then mean that at least part of the heat caused by infalling objects might be from the central body heat?"
(Note - I don't think infalling objects are a significant part of the energy budget of normal stars so they are probably not significant for Mitchel stars either. Of course as soon as you make an observation like this the universe gets busy building several exceptions. But infalling objects do add to the star's mass, some of which will absorb gravitons and/or fuse thus generating heat. And they can create some spectacular side effects like accretion disks and polar jets.)
To a first approxmation, yes. (In most cases first approximations are about as good as we can do at this stage of our understanding.)
The "central body" of a Mitchel star may be shielded from gravitons, but it is not shielded from the temperature and pressure of the star's outer layer. As a star grows to and beyond the point where a sheilded central mass begins to exist the conditions in that central region (pressure and temperature mainly) should continue to sustain fusion reactions as the sheilded region continues to grow.
The heat and other forms of energy from these reactions in the central body ought to influence the surface conditions of the star.
===
Hmmm. A Mitchel star might go through a "cool" phase. If fusion in the sheilded central mass keeps that central mass hotter than the surface, then when the central mass uses up all the available fuel it will stop generating heat.
After that heat flow from the central mass will drop to zero. The surface ought to cool a little as this happens. But it should still be pretty hot.
Hmmm again. All sorts of triggering events could occur in the central mass, but not cause an explosion. Since this region is sheilded, there is no energy source with which the triggering event can interact. Triggering events in the unsheilded shell region could cause "local" explosions but these would be small compared to the star itself.
LB
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[Rudolf] "It could then mean that at least part of the heat caused by infalling objects might be from the central body heat?"
(Note - I don't think infalling objects are a significant part of the energy budget of normal stars so they are probably not significant for Mitchel stars either. Of course as soon as you make an observation like this the universe gets busy building several exceptions. But infalling objects do add to the star's mass, some of which will absorb gravitons and/or fuse thus generating heat. And they can create some spectacular side effects like accretion disks and polar jets.)
To a first approxmation, yes. (In most cases first approximations are about as good as we can do at this stage of our understanding.)
The "central body" of a Mitchel star may be shielded from gravitons, but it is not shielded from the temperature and pressure of the star's outer layer. As a star grows to and beyond the point where a sheilded central mass begins to exist the conditions in that central region (pressure and temperature mainly) should continue to sustain fusion reactions as the sheilded region continues to grow.
The heat and other forms of energy from these reactions in the central body ought to influence the surface conditions of the star.
===
Hmmm. A Mitchel star might go through a "cool" phase. If fusion in the sheilded central mass keeps that central mass hotter than the surface, then when the central mass uses up all the available fuel it will stop generating heat.
After that heat flow from the central mass will drop to zero. The surface ought to cool a little as this happens. But it should still be pretty hot.
Hmmm again. All sorts of triggering events could occur in the central mass, but not cause an explosion. Since this region is sheilded, there is no energy source with which the triggering event can interact. Triggering events in the unsheilded shell region could cause "local" explosions but these would be small compared to the star itself.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 5 months ago #11630
by Rudolf
Replied by Rudolf on topic Reply from Rudolf Henning
Thanks again Larry.
Unfortunately it would be very hard to get any direct observations of any of this. It will probably remain theory until smaller scale events like in normal stars or planets could be shown.
Unfortunately it would be very hard to get any direct observations of any of this. It will probably remain theory until smaller scale events like in normal stars or planets could be shown.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.288 seconds