Astronomers Say Dying Sun Will Engulf Earth 343
iamlucky13 writes "A minor academic debate among astronomers is the final fate of the earth. As the sun ages and enters the red giant stage of its life, it will heat up, making the earth inhospitable. It will also expand, driven by helium fusion so that its outer layers reach past the earth's current orbit. Previously it had been believed that the sun would lose enough mass to allow earth to escape to a more distant orbit, lifeless but intact. However, new calculations, which take into account tidal forces and drag from mass shed by the sun, suggest that the earth will have sufficiently slowed in that time to be dragged down to its utter destruction in 7.6 billion years. "
Global Warming (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Ah well... (Score:4, Funny)
My 2c.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ah well... (Score:5, Funny)
(/stupid misunderstanding nitpick)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe (Score:2, Funny)
Ahh, Robert Charles Wilson, you Spin me right round.
Not even close (Score:2)
By this time if humans have not established self sufficient colonies around many different stars they deserve to die out.
This is a test. This is the only test.
Last post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Last post (Score:5, Funny)
This is news? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I read about it in a 1960's science book.
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Informative)
TV isn't the final word (Score:5, Informative)
Therefore the popular notion was thought by many astronomers to be wrong. But in fact, nobody had ever done a really detailed model of the process until the subject of this article. It turns out, the professionals were wrong, and the common folk were correct, if only because we were a couple decades behind the times academically.
If you don't believe me, here's the archived wikipedia page for earth [wikipedia.org] from last Friday. It's since been updated.
Shell burning, not helium fusion (Score:5, Informative)
Unless there are some revisions in the laws of physics, the nuclear processes throughout stellar evolution are well known based on computer models.
When helium "ash" accumulates in the core, helium fusion is not the next thing that happens. The core starts contracting and heating up, but that lights off H2 fusion in the shell surrounding the core. That phenomenon changes the luminosity and heat transfer rates of the star, causing the outer atmosphere to swell up into the red giant stage.
When shell burning runs its course, again the core contracts and heats up some more, resulting in the helium flash. Based on computer models, the helium flash is a major disruptive event caused by the sudden onset of helium fusion, it does not cause the star to go nova or anything, but it causes the star to change modes as it were, becoming somewhat bluer and smaller, but still more luminous than Main Sequence. From the computer models, it is believed that the upper-righthand HR diagram stars, red giants, are H2 shell burners while the horizontal branch above the Main Sequence represents He core burners.
For a massive enough star, exhaustion of core He will initiate shell He ignition, sending the star back into the red giant range, perhaps as a red supergiant for a massive star.
The red giant phase is only one phase of an evolved star. Everyone just kind of assumed that a star that goes supernova would be a red giant, but it seems like the star that popped off in Supernova 1987a in the LMS was blue.
Re: (Score:2)
I was taught this in high school in the 1970s.
I got it in outside reading, my high school apparently wasn't as sophisticated as yours (California schools suck and the more money we seem to spend on them, the more they suck - by the time I graduated in 1980 the (new) physics teacher was asking me for help sometimes). My first thought was "When did they think this wasn't going to happen?"
Actually, I think the moon is more likely to destroy all life on earth long before the sun goes nova and/or red giant. Because of tidal forces, the moon will graduall
Interesting Note (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting Note (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know why your karma would suffer from this... there are some interesting parallels between theories concerning the technological singularity [wikipedia.org] and the Biblical book of Revelation [wikipedia.org] (at least in some peoples' opinions). Why not add another metaphorical spin to things?
Well, for one thing, it's not the Book of Revelation, it's 2 Peter 3:10 [bible.cc], but I digress.
Re: (Score:2)
First one is an interesting theory awaiting proof. The second is just wishful thinking of vengeful whackjobs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Melting all four elements (Score:2)
So, I take it that Fire will melt too. Hmmm, interesting concept.
Come on... (Score:2)
As long as I've been alive, this has been pretty much the inevitable conclusion. Was there a turnaround in the cocaine infested 80s perhaps that we missed, or have since forgotten?
By the way, this is even in New Zealand, waaaaaaay down at the bottom of the globe (not far enough down that we'd be safe from this, however)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhhh, this isn't news (Score:2, Insightful)
Not in Kansas (Score:2)
"As it was in the beginning (~6000 years ago), now is and always will be, world without end."
Shit. (Score:5, Funny)
Beer me.
Armageddon (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In 7.6 bln years time frame there is a 99.9 probability of a massive object hitting Earth and melting the outermost solid shell.
It's certain that it will happen at least 9 times and 90% certain that it will happen 10 times? Or did you mean that there is a 99.9% probability or a .999 probability?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.endofworld.net/ [endofworld.net]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Reminds me of this meteorite collision animation [youtube.com]; not realistic, but interesting nonetheless.
Re:Armageddon (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do you get these numbers? They appear suspect. We've gone more than half-a-billion years with *no* impact strong enough to wipe out the primary phyla of animals. That would suggest that mega-impacts are not near as likely as you say.
True, we may be in for some nasty human-ending impacts though, but not necessarily "outer shell melting", at least not the entire shell.
Didn't realise this was debated (Score:2)
This assumes we really know what powers the sun. (Score:2)
Thermonuclear reactions produce lots of neutrinos. However, the number of those little particles we actually measure and how many we should be measuring if indeed the sun is a giant controlled fusion reactor, is way different. The number we measure is far too sm
Re:This assumes we really know what powers the sun (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This assumes we really know what powers the sun (Score:3, Informative)
the coronal heating problem simply means the mechanism responsible for the increased temperature is a non-equilibrium process. the corona is also a near-vacuum so despite its high temperature there is relatively tiny amount of energy there.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the gravitational pull get worse as the sun expands, will it stay the same or could we possibly be pushed (either artificially or by said sun) away from it. All these theories seem to hinge on Terra staying x miles away from point 0 at the centre of the big shiny light in the blue room. What's stopping us just moving the planet out of the way somehow (remember, in 7 billion years w
Seems easy enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We just need to get all the robots to vent their exhausts in a single direction. We can use nuclear winter to cancel out global warming.
Re:Seems easy enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the fact that we only have 7.6 billion years to get the computations correct, I have a feeling that we'll be able to get it done right by then. (Either that or evacuate our Dyson Sphere. Whichever comes first.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you say that? Because of that y-chromosome repair fault thing?
That can't be! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, calculating THAT trajectory would be a bit more difficult than simply moving the Earth willy-nilly.
confusion re expanding to earth's orbit vs engulf (Score:5, Informative)
And some of the academic references are actually a decade old: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html [ohio-state.edu]
Gravity Assist (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Gravity Assist (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
By that time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At some point (Score:4, Funny)
No problem (Score:4, Funny)
By that time, mankind will be sufficiently advanced to relocate to an outer planet.....like Pluto.
What? Pluto isn't a planet anymore??
Oh No! We're doomed!!
Difficult to imagine... (Score:2)
Out of shear boredom, I decided to do some calculations, using the following (someone please fix my math, if it's wrong):
Avg. distance from Earth to the Sun (according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]) = 1.496x10^11 meters
Current mass of the sun (according to Google [google.com]) = 1.9889x10^33 grams
Current Diameter of the sun (according to Google [google.com]) = 1.4x10^9 meters
Volume of a sphere = (4/3)(r^3)
Density = mass/volume
Based on tha
someone ate my pi (Score:2)
Re:Difficult to imagine... (Score:5, Informative)
During the hydrogen burning phase, inert helium gradually builds up in the core and hydrogen becomes less common. This means the core has to contract and become hotter in order to produce enough energy to support itself and the surrounding envelope. The fusion rate depends on the square of the hydrogen density (since you need the hydrogen atoms to collide with each other), so if the hydrogen density goes down, the core has to become hotter and more generally dense in order to maintain the same energy production rate. (This is why stars gradually become more luminous over their main sequence lifetime, as the core actually has to produce more energy in order to support itself in its more compact configuration.)
As a star finishes exhausting its hydrogen, this actually reaches a very extreme configuration where the core becomes much more compact (and much hotter) trying to squeeze out the required energy with very little hydrogen remaining. The total energy being produced by the core (in order to keep itself from collapsing) increases very rapidly at this point, and the larger luminosity will then push the envelope outward, puffing it up. This is why stars expand into red giants, and this is the stage where the Earth will probably be engulfed.
For trivia purposes, the central core eventually runs entirely out of hydrogen and sits there as an inert clump while the upper edges of the core burn hydrogen. When the hydrogen is exhausted for a large enough fraction of the core, the center eventually becomes hot and dense enough to fuse helium into carbon. At this point, the overall luminosity drops again (because the star doesn't need to keep frantically burning just hydrogen to support itself) and the star contracts a bit. The process then starts over again, with a shell of helium fusion surround an inert carbon core that (for stars more massive than the Sun) eventually ignites to fuse into neon, oxygen, etc.
Re:Difficult to imagine... (Score:4, Insightful)
For empirical evidence, I'll note that one of us sounds like a pedantic nerd with a tweed fetish, while the other is currently modded at +5. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I know, nuclear fusion happens only inside the core of a star. What happens when the sun reaches its red giant phase is that the core shrinks to maintain the pressures needed to sustain helium fusion. The sun itself may become less and less dense but the core at the center where fusion takes place gets more and more dense. The sun growing to such a large size is simply the first phase of the sun's gradually shedding off its outer layers.
I think I'm more interested in an estimate of (Score:2)
While I have all my life shared the deep desire to know the "ultimate end" (if there even is such a thing), the more I pay attention the more I feel the cognitive resources spent on these kinds of calculations are almost shameful - the astrophysical equivalent of gunning down buffalo from the back of the train.
If we weren't trying to solve these problems I'd be the voice saying that we should. It was just that in a world of such instability, in reading this
Just think of Kurzweil (Score:2)
Thus, in a couple billion years, we can either download our minds into probes or we'll have been replaced by robots or something like that. In any case, clinging to a physical existence will be considered highly overrated.
Or we'll just have killed ourselves off in some way and some other species can scratch their heads about it. 70-something million years for mammals to evolve into
Can't wait that long (Score:2)
Re:Can't wait that long (Score:5, Informative)
Hey KDawson.... (Score:2)
Uhmmm, next how about posting something that is actually news ok? I mean for fucks sake I learned this in grade school and that was over 35 years ago!/p
Re: (Score:2)
I might be old, but you are STILL a coward, asseyes.
In other news (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry about it... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh my fsm (Score:2, Offtopic)
This is the most informed and educated post I have seen on slashdot for some time.
Mod parent up! Long before solar expansion is an issue the earth will have been struck by extinction level asteroids multiple times.
This is a test: Escape your planet of origin or die out. End test.
The Earth will be dead much sooner than that (Score:3, Informative)
WTF.....? (Score:2, Insightful)
What's next? An article telling us gasoline is flammable?
Somebody please tag this noshitsherlock.
Phew... 7.6 billion.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could move the earth (Score:2)
I mean, sure, the sun "looks" larger but is it really?
I've got 10 industry funded studies that says it's an optical illusion.
Figure It Out Soon! (Score:2)
I sure hope they figure this out soon.
Should I spend a bunch of money to freeze my corpse for later revival, or would I just be throwing that money away?
Depends on your point of view (Score:2)
Science may cure death for the few. For the many is a more difficult question.
If your estate can sustain your corpse reliably for 200 years then improvements in medical science can be a fair bet. If your estate can endow a foundation to provide for your arousal then it is closer to a sure thing. Nothing is certain though. In 40 years the concept of ownership of property can vary considerably.
In the term TFA is speaking of nothing can save you on this planet. Y(our) only hope is to escape this solar s
Quick! (Score:2)
fate of earth (Score:2)
I don't know, but I bet the Cylons will have something to do with it.
Finally (Score:2)
As opposed to... (Score:2)
However, a major debate is the final fate of the Universe - will it expand indefinitely, leading to the thermal death? Or it will be crushed together by the force of gravity, in a reverse of the Big Bang? This might take a little longer than 7 billion years
This is old news (Score:3, Insightful)
If evolution is a myth... (Score:3, Insightful)
Message from 100 Years into Future (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't believe it. (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, it's probably not a problem, probably, but I'm showing a small discrepancy in... well, no, it's well within acceptable bounds again. Sustaining sequence.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> someone will do something crazy or stupid and destroy the entire planet.
Panel member: If you were to meet these Vegans, and were permitted only one question to ask of them, what would it be?
Ellie Arroway: Well, I suppose it would be, how did you do it? How did you evolve, how did you survive this technological adolescence without destroying yourself?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only in the Special Edition version Lucas has planned.
The man was WAY ahead of his time. (Score:2)
..But where would earth's orbit be then? (Score:2)
Still, as others have noted, the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies