INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE
Abstract
There is no restriction for a celestial body to act as a nucleus or an orbital body or a space matter particle. The planets which are orbital body in the solar system become nuclei in planet-satellite systems. Likewise, the sun, the nucleus of solar system, becomes a space matter particle in the galaxy. The new interpretation of extra nuclear space structures of a celestial-body and that of atomic structure in two different domains revel remarkable similarity. Again, realistic analysis of the extra nuclear space structure of solar system vis-a-vis galactic system also reviles the hidden similarity in the structure and feature of systems in two different domains. Thus, it is rational to think that the centrally organized systems in same domain as well as in different domains are similar in all respects. This is quite tempting to look for similarity of structure, feature and state of matter of nuclei of systems in different domains. This paper, examines the state of matter of the sun in the light of better-known structure of the earth. According to this author, the sharp boundary of photo sphere and the undisturbed photo sphere during explosive events of solar flare is a strong evidence for the solid/liquid state of the sun. Hence the sun is not a ball of hot gas/plasma. The paper discusses as to how the solid and liquid states of sun is feasible despite high temperature.
Key words: sun, gaseous sun, neutral atom, charge start of sun, charge state of planets.
Introduction
In the present concept, the sun is known to be a hot ball of gas/plasma where the diameter of the photosphere is the diameter of the visible sun. The surface temperature of the sun is about 6000K (10,000oF). Since solids and liquids cannot exist at this temperature, the sun is considered to be entirely gaseous. The gaseous sun is not an established fact from observation but a conclusion drawn following the laws of thermodynamics. It may be seen subsequently that the observed facts are strong evidence for solid/liquid sun and the new theoretical analysis justifies the stability of solid/liquid state of matter on the surface of the sun.
It is seen that; the chromospheres and the corona exhibit dimensional variations while the shape of the photosphere exhibits no variation. Solar prominence is jolted out of eruptions from photosphere with violent phenomena whose effect can be felt as far away as the earth. Prominences are anchored to the Sun’s surface in the photosphere, and extend outwards into the Sun’s hot outer atmosphere, called the corona [3]. If sun is entirely gaseous then eruption from photosphere, like the volcanic eruption, is not feasible. The best and the most frequent observations of eruptions are made in H-alpha. It is observed that the H-alpha line of such a region is an emission feature rather than an absorption line as in the lower chromospheres, which indicates the emitting region is hot and dense. Again, an explosion taking place at the edge of the gaseous sun (photosphere) is likely to push matter in all directions as shown in (Fig.1). As shown in fig.1 the displacement of matter in different directions is not same due to the prevailing variation of density of gas in different directions.
But in reality, the flare extends only in outward direction without any inward depression (Fig.2). Only matter is seen to rise (moving radially outward) at high speed by the solar event, but no matter is seen to move inward (towards the centre of the gaseous sun) where it would have depressed the photosphere. It is, as if, the photosphere is the surface of solid/liquid sun.
In spite of the sun being active with solar eruptions, the edge of the sun has neither changed at any time nor even diffused its sharpness. The features of the sun are better explained if the sun is either solid or liquid. But the present knowledge of thermodynamics does not permit the sun to be in solid/liquid state for its prevailing high temperature. This is because we know from experiments on earth that all compounds would evaporate at sun’s temperature. This author gives emphasis on solid/liquid state of sun because it agrees well with observed facts. He then tries to justify the stability of solid/liquid state of matter at high temperature of the sun by appropriate modification of thermodynamics in solar frame of reference. The author believes that, theories are made to explain the facts of nature but, if the theory cannot explain a fact, the fact cannot be changed to accommodate the theory. A fact is a fact (reality); it does not require the approval of a theory for its existence. The fact-based observations reveal the solid/liquid state the sun. On the other hand, theory-based laws of physics and chemistry (thermodynamics) recommends the sun to be in gaseous/plasma state.
In this regard this author feels appropriate to narrate an event that happened long ago. In those days war was fought only during day time. As evening falls the war for the day ends. The tired soldiers take rest at night. The wounded are shifted to hospital for treatment and the dead soldiers are shifted to burial ground for their last deeds. Qualified doctors of medical science are employed to certify as to who needs treatment & who is dead and accordingly the doctor puts the labelling stamp. The attendant moves the wounded and dead soldiers to their respective location to follow up subsequent action. Once it so happened, that one soldier labelled with the dead stamp came forward saying, I am not dead, why are you taking me to grave yard? The attendant questioned, do you know more than a doctor? The purpose of narrating the above happening is that a fact is a reality, if science faces problem to understand the fact (reality) then reality cannot be changed as per the prediction of science. Hence, we need to augment science to justify the solid/liquid sun.
Any one, making a serious thinking on the constancy of the shape and size of the sun with a sharp boundary coupled with no radiation from underneath the gaseous matter below the photosphere and the shape of photosphere not deforming responding to solar eruptions, may not accept the sun to be a ball of gas/plasma. The assumptions that the boundary of the photosphere may not be that sharp from the consideration of scale factor, the energy radiation takes place only from the photosphere, the undesirable density variation at the boundary of photosphere and finally the consideration of opaqueness of the gas below photosphere due to high density appear, as if, these are the stretched explanations to somehow justify the science-based gaseous sun. One is bound to accept the logic and the suggested model as we do not find any plausible scientific explanation to keep the matters of the sun in solid or liquid state at high temperature. Unless the physics and chemistry of matter works differently on the surface of the sun and that on the surface of the earth it is difficult to accept the solid or liquid state of the sun at high temperature.
New Scientific Interpretation for Solid/Liquid Sun
If one is looking to formulate a universal law of matter (mass-space integral system), he has to consider all forms of matter in the entire universe or at least the major fraction. We know, 99.9% of matter of the universe is in plasma state and only 0.1% matter in neutral state [4]. The existing basic concept of matter and the atomic structure have been developed by studying matters on the surface of the earth, which belongs to 0.1% of the matter of the universe and this knowledge of matter is extended for understanding 99.9% matter content of the universe. This approach of understanding the universe and its constituents is likely to introduce error in our knowledge base. Instead, it would be rational to develop a theory of matter by studying 99.9% matter content of the universe and extend the same to 0.1% matter of the universe where error could be minimized. Thus, the true theory of matter (i.e. the universal law of nature) must come from the study of the plasma state of matter (ionic constituents), where the neutral state of matter can be understood as a case of special situation.
We know no current flows without electric potential difference, no heat flows without thermal potential difference and no fluid flows without pressure difference. A hot or cold particle (carrying thermal charge in the new concept) exhibit neutrality in an environment having same temperature but the said particle has the thermal charge interaction ability in an environment having a temperature difference (thermal charge potential difference). Extrapolation of this logic promotes- a proton or an electron in an environment of same charge particles (same potential) is expected not to interact between themselves while maintaining similarity between thermal charge and electric charge. But it is well known that similar electric charges repel in contrast to above predicted norm from the general trend of nature. The repulsion phenomenon of similar charges is established from the famous gold leaf experiment. The author examined the same gold leaf experiment critically and concludes that, there is no charge repulsion [1] among similar charges. Even with the consideration of charge repulsion phenomenon, a proton in an environment of only protons in its surrounding remains neutral. Thus, the said proton in said environment behaves as a neutral particle. In the new concept, electric charge exists in nature by virtue of non-equilibrium space holding in atomic and sub-atomic particles [2], thereby reducing two types of charges to only one [1] Hence, the established –ve and +ve charges belongs to one type of charge where their charge potential values are either lower or higher than the potential of the so-called neutral matter with zero relative charge potential.
Discussion
On the surface of the earth all matters behave neutral to one another. In the existing interpretation, the surface matters of the earth do not carry any charge therefore there is no charge interaction in zero charge state. Hence, they are neutral matter. This author, looking to 99.9% matter of the universe, assumes each matter of the universe carry charge and has an absolute charge potential. In this new concept the so-called neutral matters also carry charge at some absolute charge potential. Matters on the surface of the earth having the same absolute electric charge potential behave mutually neutral to one another. The absolute value of charge potential of so-called neutral matter has been assumed zero in the relative charge concept. The relative zero electric charge potential of neutral matters on the surface of the earth and the relative zero electric charge potential on the surface of another celestial body have different absolute charge potentials. The two different frames of reference (two reference zero electric potentials) used for two celestial bodies do not mean the two celestial bodies are at same absolute potential. Thus, according to the new concept, the celestial bodies are at different electric potentials. We have only taken the potential of the matters on the surface of the earth as reference zero like the melting point of ice on the surface of the earth is taken as the reference 0oC. According to the new concept, a neutral matter in one environment (frame of reference) is not neutral in other frames of reference.
Different atoms on the surface of the earth have different fixed number of electrons in their extra-nuclear structure in neutral state. Similarly, different atoms on the surface of the sun have different fixed number of electrons in neutral state. But the number of electrons in the extra-nuclear structure of a given atom on the surface of the earth and that on the surface of the sun are not same. If we shift abruptly a neutral atom from the surface of the earth to the surface of the sun, it would immediately loose the outer electron/s due to high temperature of the sun. The atom after removal of electron/s would come to equal charge potential state with all other solar atoms and behave as neutral atom on the surface of the sun. This implies the neutral atom in earthly frame of reference is an anion in solar frame of reference, which becomes neutral in solar frame of reference by removal of electron/s at high temperature. The process of removal of electron from an earthly neutral atom on the surface of the sun cannot be called ‘ionization process’ as the process leads to production of a neutral atom on the surface of the sun. In the new concept, electric charge in atom appears due to non-equilibrium association of extra-nuclear space structure with the nucleus in a local environment [2]. If all atoms in a locality have equilibrium space holding they behave mutually neutral to one another but if a positively charged atom enters into the assemblage of neutral atoms, the so-called neutral atoms will become active to interact with the positively charged atom by finding a difference in the state of space holdings of the nuclei. The same thing would happen if a negatively charged atom enters the assemblage of neutral atoms. Now if a cat-ion and an anion enter the assemblage of neutral atoms then both the charge particles would interact strongly among themselves and would interact weakly with all so-called neutral atoms due to differences in their states of space holdings. But the so-called neutral atoms will not interact among themselves as they are at same potentials due to the same status of space holdings by their nuclei. Similarly, two cat-ions or two anions would not react among themselves because of their same status of space holdings.
Our concept of neutral atom has developed primarily from the neutrality among matters on the surface of the earth. The electric potential of the surface of the earth is same everywhere. We have assumed the potential of the surface matters of the earth as our reference zero for measurement of artificially created electric potentials as well as the potentials of different levels of atmosphere with reference to the zero surface-potential. The zero potential of the surface of the earth is simply an assumed reference zero in a relative scale and we have no means to know the absolute charge potential of the earth. The relative zero charge potential of the earth does not give any information on the absolute potential but it gives definite information that the potential is same everywhere on the surface of the earth i.e. there is no potential difference between any two matters on the surface of the earth.
The very nature of charge neutralization of negative and positive charges puts both charges in one category where the positive and negative values appear only due to relative characterization. But we are unable to accept this due to our typical repulsion of similar charges. The author has discussed on the true significance of charge repulsion elsewhere [1]. Hence charge interaction in a charge potential difference and charge neutrality in equal potential condition may be regarded as the basic truth.
State of matter on the surface of the sun
The surface thermal potentials (temperatures) of different celestial bodies are different. Likewise, the surface electric potentials of different celestial bodies are different. The absolute electric potential of the surface of the earth is taken as reference zero for the earthly relative charge potential scale. Likewise, the surface absolute electric potential of another celestial body is also considered zero for relative characterisation of electric potential in the celestial body. The surface electric potential of different celestial bodies being different, the reference zero potential of different celestial bodies have different absolute values. Hence the relative charge potential scales are different for different celestial bodies. But we are misled by our erroneous concept of neutral matter with zero absolute charge potential which has made up our mind to believe that the surface electric potential of all celestial bodies is same having zero absolute value. In reality the absolute electric potential of the surfaces of different celestial bodies are different. The celestial bodies being located far off from one another, it is not possible to measure the potential difference between the surfaces of different celestial bodies.
The atoms on the surface of the sun have a smaller number of electronic shell/sub-shells due to thermal ionization and loss of electrons by the solar wind. The atoms in such a state are positive ions in earth-based characterization, but they are neutral atoms in the sun-based characterization. Therefore, the sun-based chemistry would differ from the earth-based chemistry. The sun based neutral atoms would have different energy states of valence electrons as compared to the energy states of valance electrons of earth-based- atoms. The inner electronic shell/sub-shell (electron) of earth based neutral atom appears as valence electron in sun based neutral atom. In the sun-based chemistry the bond energy of compounds will be higher as the bonding takes place through inner electrons in earthly condition. This would further result in increasing the melting point and the vapor point temperatures. Thus, scientists with the knowledge of earth-based chemistry would fail to perceive the solid or the liquid state of the sun at prevailing high surface temperature. As the features of the sun are straight forward in indicating the sun to be in solid/liquid state, and the new physics & chemistry supplements the same, the sun may be interpreted as a solid/liquid ball.
In this new concept, though the atoms on the surface of the sun behave mutually neutral to each other like the atoms on the surface of the earth, the sun’s surface is positively charged with respect to earth and the earth’s surface is negatively charged with respect to the sun. The neutral atoms on the surface of the sun are cat-ions with respect to the neutral atoms of the earth and the neutral atoms of the surface of the earth are anions with respect to the atoms of the sun. We now find that like the atomic system, in the solar system also, the sun is positively charged and the planets are negatively charged.
Thus, the fundamental constituents (mass and space) are uniformly present in atomic & solar systems and the charge state of matter of the nuclei of both systems is also similar. This shows the uniformity of nature having similarity of structure, feature and state of matter in different domains. We are one step closer in finding the total similarity of structure and features of atomic system and solar system.
Conclusion
Thermal charge states and electrical charge states of matter has many similarities. In both cases the charge transport phenomenon is a function of potential difference. We consider one type of thermal charge in matter. Matter in any state has an absolute thermal potential (temperature). When a body at definite absolute temperature (t) enters a chamber at higher than t, the body gains thermal charge from the chamber and when enters another chamber at temperature lower than t, it loses thermal charge. But when a body at temperature t enters a chamber at temperature t no thermal charge activity is noticed. We never characterize matter as thermally neutral matter but consider neutrality is a condition at equal thermal charge potential states. This author has also shown that the two types of electric charges is actually one type. The negative and positive values of charge appear in relative charge concept. Hence all bodies have a definite absolute electric charge potential which behaves neutral at equal electric charge potential. Though matter on the surface of different celestial bodies show neutrality but their absolute charge states are different. The physical laws are functions of both absolute thermal charge potential and absolute electrical charge potential. The physical laws framed with reference to one celestial body would need correction before applying the same in another celestial body. The structure of any nucleus may now be speculated from the internal structure of the earth following the uniformity of nature.
This article is a part of the original work published in the book “Universal Mystery Unfolded”, Volume-3 of the series “Dynamics of universe; interplay of matter, space and charge”, 2012 by the same author.
Reference
