The Sun is the source of most of the energy on Earth--the power source for plants, the cause of flows of atmosphere and of water, the source of the warmth which makes life possible. None would exist without it. At the Earth's orbit, neglecting absorption by the atmosphere, each square meter of area facing the Sun receives about 1380 joules per second (nearly 2 horsepower). That quantity is known as the solar constant and sensors aboard NASA's satellites suggest it varies very little.
But what powers the Sun itself? How much longer will it shine, before its fuel runs out? For how long has it given out its energy?
The first to consider these questions seriously was the great German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz, who noted in 1854 that the Sun's own gravity could supply an appreciable amount of energy. If the Sun were gradually shrinking--if all its matter was gradually falling towards its center--enough energy could be released to keep it radiating for a fairly long time. He calculated that this source could provide the Sun's energy for times of the order of up to 20 million years.
Then radioactivity was discovered, the decay of heavy elements into lighter ones through the emission of fast particles, containing a great deal of energy. As it turned out, it was this energy, from radioactive elements in rocks, that provided the internal heat of the Earth. Radioactivity also allowed new estimates of the age of the Earth, since the amount of accumulated decay products in ores indicated how long the process had been going on. This suggested the Earth was much older than Helmholtz'es estimate, perhaps billions of years old. Could perhaps the new source of internal energy also supply the Sun's needs for such a long time?
Nuclear PhysicsGradually the picture became clearer. Atoms were found to consist of heavy nuclei, consisting of electrically positive protons and uncharged neutrons, while around the nuclei swarmed lightweight electrons, with a negative electric charge. An electron has about 1/1840 the mass of the proton, which is also the nucleus of hydrogen.
Electrons and nuclei were kept together by electric attraction (negative attracts positive). Furthermore, electrons were sometimes shared by neighboring atoms or transferred to them (by processes of quantum physics), and this link between atoms gave our world its many chemical compounds.
But something else was needed to hold nuclei together, since all protons carried positive charges and repelled each other. Electric forces are definitely not the glue that holds nuclei together, they act in the wrong direction! Besides, binding neutrons to nuclei clearly requires a non-electrical attraction.
All that suggested a different kind of force, a nuclear force, was holding nuclei together. That force had to be stronger than the electric repulsion at short distances, but weaker far away, or else different nuclei might have tended to clump together, too. In other words, it had to be a short-range force, like the force between two small magnets--very hard to separate when stuck together, but once pulled a short distance apart, the force between them drops almost to zero (please do not take this analogy too literally!).
Actually there exist two kinds of nuclear force, known simply as the "strong force" and the "weak force. " The weak force mediates between protons and neutrons, which except for their electric charge are very similar particles (diferent kinds of "nucleons"). Nuclear structure (in light nuclei, at least) favors nuclei containing equal numbers of protons and neutrons, and although moderate inequalities can also exist (in "isotopes"), when they get too big, the weak force can convert nucleons of one kind to the other, emitting an electron (or a positron, its positive counterpart) in the process. That is known as beta radioactivity and will not be discussed any further.
The strong nuclear force (the only nuclear force considered from here on) can bind protons and neutrons into bigger nuclei. Being positively charged, all these nuclei repel each other, and therefore, except in the presence of extreme temperatures and pressures--such as exist in the core of the Sun--two different nuclei are not likely to combine into one. Their electric repulsion does not allow them to get close enough for the nuclear force to take over.
The Binding Energy of NucleiNature contains nuclei of many different sizes. In hydrogen they contain just one proton, in heavy hydrogen ("deuterium") a proton and a neutron; in helium, two protons and two neutrons, and in carbon, nitrogen and oxygen--6, 7 and 8 of each particle, respectively. The weight of all these nuclei has been measured, and an interesting fact was noted: a helium nucleus weighed less than the sum of the weights of its components. The same held even more for carbon, nitrogen and oxygen--the carbon nucleus, for instance, was found to be slightly lighter than three helium nuclei.
The reason for this "mass defect" has to do with Einstein's famous formula E=mc2, expressing the equivalence of energy and mass. By this formula, adding energy also increases mass (both weight and inertia), removing energy, decreases it.
If a combination of particles contains extra energy--for instance, in a molecule of the explosive TNT--weighing it will reveal some extra mass (compared to its end products--an unmeasurably small difference, for TNT). If on the other time we need invest energy to separate it into its components, the weight will be less than that of the components.
The latter is the case with nuclei such as helium: to break them up into protons and neutrons, we would have to invest energy. On the other hand, if a process existed going in the opposite direction, by which hydrogen atoms could be combined to form helium, a lot of energy would be released-- namely, E=mc2 per nucleus, where m is the difference beween the mass of the helium nucleus and the mass of four protons (plus 2 electrons, absorbed to create the neutrons of helium).
As we go on to elements heavier than oxygen, the energy which can be gained by assembling them from lighter elements decreases, up to iron. For nuclei heavier than iron, one actually gains energy by breaking them up into 2 fragments. That, of course, is how energy is extracted by breaking up uranium nuclei in nuclear power reactors.
The reason the trend reverses after iron is the growing positive charge of the nuclei. The electric force may be weaker than the nuclear force, but its range is greater: in an iron nucleus, each proton repels 25 other nuclei, while (one may argue) the nuclear force only binds close neighbors.
As nuclei grow bigger still, this disruptive effect becomes steadily more significant. By the time uranium is reached (92 protons), nuclei can no longer accomodate their large positive charge, but emit their excess protons in the process of alpha radioactivity--emitting helium nuclei, each containing two protons and two neutrons, a rather stable combination. Still heavier nuclei are not found naturally on Earth.
The Sun's Energy SourceIt is believed that the Sun is about 5 billion years old, formed when gravity pulled together a vast cloud of gas and dust, from which the Earth and other planets also arose. The gravitational pull released energy and heated the early Sun, much in the way Helmholtz had proposed.
Heat is the motion of atoms and molecules: the higher the temperature, the greater is their velocity and the more violent are their collisions. When the temperature at the center of the newly-formed Sun became great enough for collisions between nuclei to overcome their electric repulsion, nuclei began to stick together and protons were combined into helium, with some protons changing in the process to neutrons (plus positrons, positive electrons, which combine with electrons and are destroyed). This released nuclear energy and kept up the high temperature of the Sun's core, and the heat also kept the gas pressure high, keeping the Sun puffed up and stopping gravity from pulling it together any more.
That, in greatly simplified terms, is the kind of process which still takes place inside the Sun. Different nuclear reactions may predominate at different stages, including the proton-proton reaction and the carbon-nitrogen cycle which involves heavier nuclei, but whose final product is still the combination of protons to form helium. A more detailed qualitative account, by astrophysicists of the University of California at Berkeley, can be reached here.
A branch of physics, the study of "controlled nuclear fusion," has tried since the 1950s to derive useful power from "nuclear fusion" reactions which combine small nuclei into bigger ones--power to heat boilers, whose steam could turn turbines and produce electricity. Unfortunately, no earthly laboratory can match one feature of the solar powerhouse--the great mass of the Sun, whose weight keeps the hot plasma compressed and confines the "nuclear furnace" to the Sun's core. Instead, physicists use strong magnetic fields to confine the plasma, and for fuel they use heavy forms of hydrogen, which "burn" more easily. Still, magnetic traps can be rather unstable, and any plasma hot enough and dense enough to undergo nuclear fusion tends to slip out of them after a short time. Even with ingenious tricks, the confinement in most cases lasts only a small fraction of a second.
The Sun today still consists mostly of hydrogen. The fuel supply which has seen it through its first 5 billion years should be good for about as long in the future.
The Evolution of StarsApart from the 5 planets, every star we see at night is a sun: some are bigger than ours, some smaller, some are at an earlier stage of their developments, some at a later one, and some have evolved altogether differently, for a variety of reasons. The telescope allows astronomers to observe and compare stars of different size, at different stages of evolution. Their smooth spectra tell about their temperatures, their spectral lines reveal some of their composition, and based on these a general theory of "stellar evolution" has been formulated, which also applies to our own Sun, a typical "main sequence" star.
All such stars burn hydrogen to produce helium, where "burn" refers to nuclear processes, not to the (completely inadequate) chemical process of fire. Big stars burn rapidly and brightly, like the candle in Edna St. Vincent Millay's poem
My candle burns at both its ends;|
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends
It gives a lovely light!
Small stars last longer and many are dim; but whatever a star's size, ultimately it runs out of hydrogen. It can still release energy by "burning" heavier nuclei and combining them into bigger ones, up to iron: theory suggests this does happen, but it provides much less energy and does not greatly extend the star's lifetime. When all the fuel is gone, gravity again becomes the dominant source of energy, and the star again begins collapsing inwards. |
The Earth keeps its size because its gravity is not strong enough to crush the minerals of which it consists. Not so with a star massive enough to sustain nuclear burning. A small star may crush all its atoms together, creating a "white dwarf"--e.g. of half the mass of the Sun, but only as big as the Earth. Some energy release continues (hence "white") but ultimately, the star probably becomes a dark cinder.
SupernovasStars as big as the Sun have enough gravity to crush together not just atoms but nuclei, compressing all their matter to a sphere perhaps 15 kilometers across. After their collapse they become "neutron stars" consisting only of neutrons (the protons all switching form), giant nuclei as dense as the ones in atoms. A huge amount of energy is liberated in that final collapse which is quite rapid, blowing off the top layers of the collapsing star and also producing elements heavier than iron.
That catastrophic event is known as a supernova explosion (technically, a "type 2 supernova"). Tycho Brahe was fortunate to have seen one that occured in our galaxy, outshining Venus and visible even in the daytime. The Chinese observed one in the year 1054, in the Crab constellation of the zodiac, and still another occured in Kepler's lifetime. Since then, however, none seemed to have occured close to Earth. The most notable event of this type was observed (quite extensively) in 1987 in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a small galaxy neighboring ours (see image above; the inner cloud is the one produced in the explosion, the rings seem older). For more about supernovas, see here
The material blown off by a supernova explosion ultimately scatters throughout space, and some of it is incorporated in clouds of dust and gas which later form new suns and planets. All elements on Earth heavier than helium (except, possibly, a small amount of lithium) must have arrived that way: products of nuclear burning in some pre-solar star, released or created in the explosion accompanying its final collapse. Our bodies are made of star stuff--carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and the rest have all been produced by nuclear fusion.
As for the "supernova remnant" left over from the collapse, its fate depends on its mass. A star somewhat bigger than the Sun (and possibly the Sun, too) may produce a neutron-star remnant, and if it originally rotated around its axis, that rotation would be enormously speeded up; the remnant of the supernova of the year 1054 (its ejected cloud, the "Crab Nebula," is shown on the left) is spinning at about 30 revolutions per second! Any magnetic field of the original star will also be enormously amplified, and associated phenomena can make it beam radio waves. Pulsars, pulsed radio sources with remarkably stable pulsation periods, are produced that way.
A star appreciably more massive than the Sun will collapse even further and become a black hole. What happens in it can only be guessed and calculated, not observed: its gravity in the collapsed state is so strong that no light and no information can return from it to the outside world. Though astronomers cannot see such objects, they have considerable evidence that they exist, at least at a number of locations--including perhaps a very massive black hole at the center of our galaxy--and probably at the centers of other galaxies--helping to hold them together.
This concludes our discussion of the Sun. " From Stargazers to Starships" continues with sections dealing with spaceflight and spacecraft, starting with The Principle of the Rocket
Author and curator: David P. Stern
Last updated 20 August 1999