the sun explosion in 5 billion years

[jasen]

So i'm actually just getting into science, and i mainly study psychology and neuroscience at the moment but i was wondering about something and i'm hoping someone in this field of science could maybe help me out.

so i'm very interested in ways we can stop the sun from exploding due to its "fuel" and lack thereof and since it will be caused by lack if hydrogen 

and again i'm not really sure it just peaked my interest but could we artificially put hydrogen into the sun's atmosphere and core when we have the technology available to get that close to the sun's core? and would it keep the sun from exploding in the future if we are able to do it?

i'm sure i'm not the first with this sort of question.

but i'm kinda curious as to if that would even be possible and if we could develop something that would allow us to do such things if we don't already have something like that.    

[Sensei]

Quote

the sun explosion in 5 billion years

The Sun won't explode, but it will expand. From current radius ~700,000 km to over hundred millions radius.

 

[jasen]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The Sun won't explode, but it will expand. From current radius ~700,000 km to over hundred millions radius.

 

so it expands from lack of hydrogen to bond. my question is if we add the hydrogen would we be able to prevent it from killing life on earth?

 

[Sensei]

2 minutes ago, jasen said:

so it expands from lack of hydrogen to bond.

No. It will expand as the core temperature rises due to the fusion of Helium-4 and other heavier elements.

2 minutes ago, jasen said:

my question is if we add the hydrogen would we be able to prevent it from killing life on earth?

..not by adding even more Hydrogen..

[jasen]

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

No. It will expand as the core temperature rises due to the fusion of Helium-4 and other heavier elements.

..not by adding even more Hydrogen..

so would we be able to stable it or something like that in the future or is it inevitable?

[Sensei]

41 minutes ago, jasen said:

so would we be able to stable it or something like that in the future or is it inevitable?

You don't need the Sun to expand its radius so much, to kill the all life on the Earth. Just raising the surface temperature of the Sun by several to several dozen percent would cause the death of all animals and plants.

Years ago, I said what should be done. And made long before it can be used… A network of artificial satellites with mirrors controlled from the Earth. Mirrors reflect an abnormal amount of sunlight, preventing it from reaching the Earth's surface and preventing the temperature from rising.

 

Check out what is denaturation temperature of proteins and other organic compounds. It is a long before water boiling temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturation_(biochemistry)

The closer the Earth's average temperature is to the denaturation temperature, the fewer animals and plants can live on its surface.

At least currently known animals and plants, not talking about extremophiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

 

 

Temperature of water influences amount of dissolved gases: Oxygen and CO₂, which are essential compounds for underwater living organisms.

https://www.google.com/search?q=water+temperature+dissolved+gases

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by Sensei

[Endy0816]

3 hours ago, jasen said:

so would we be able to stable it or something like that in the future or is it inevitable?

In theory. There is the Star Lifting concept along these lines.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting

 

Isaac Arthur did a good video on it.

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, jasen said:

so it expands from lack of hydrogen to bond. my question is if we add the hydrogen would we be able to prevent it from killing life on earth?

 

Even if this were the solution, the answer would be “no”

the sun’s mass is 2 x 10^30 kg, and largely hydrogen. The earth’s mass is 6 x 10^24 kg, and only a tiny fraction of that mass is hydrogen.

So where would you get enough hydrogen to make any noticeable difference?

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, jasen said:

so would we be able to stable it or something like that in the future or is it inevitable?

I think it would be more probable to move the Earth gradually into an orbit that keeps us habitable but takes us out of the path of the sun's expansion.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So where would you get enough hydrogen to make any noticeable difference?

Amazon, Google???

[Endy0816]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Even if this were the solution, the answer would be “no”

the sun’s mass is 2 x 10^30 kg, and largely hydrogen. The earth’s mass is 6 x 10^24 kg, and only a tiny fraction of that mass is hydrogen.

So where would you get enough hydrogen to make any noticeable difference?

Could in theory move it elsewhere and supply it with gas giants and material from other stars.

Personally I suspect it'll become more a matter of how economic man-made Fusion reactors end up being though.

[MigL]

The Sun is mostly Hydrogen/Helium in 4/1 ratio.
Even in 5 billion years, it will be mostly Hydrogen.
The problem is that fusion takes place in the core, so while there will be plenty of Hydrogen, the heavier fusion products accumulate in the core.
These heavier products ( deuterium, helium, lithium, beryllium, carbon, etc. all the way up to iron ) require higher and higher temperatures, or kinetic energies, to overcome the separation and allow fusing. The temps cause the expansion.
The only way to keep the temps from increasing is to remove the heavier elements accumulating in the core, so that lighter, cooler fusing Hydrogen, outside the core, could fall in to take their place.

If you can think of a way to do that, you can extend the life of the sun until it is too light, and can't supply the pressure required to produce Hydrogen burning temperatures.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Could in theory move it elsewhere and supply it with gas giants and material from other stars.

How would you move a star several LY to get to another star? 

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

How would you move a star several LY to get to another star? 

For a Stellar engine, you would use a portion of a star's own energy to do so.

Basic ideas are to either use the mother of all solar sails or deliberately caused mass ejections.

Would be slow though which might still pose a problem.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Endy0816

[MigL]

I can see other problems also.
The gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, are sizeable enough that inertial effects on acceleration ( of the Sun ), would cause disruptions to their orbits; which would, in turn, affect even the smaller 'rocky' planets.
You might move the Sun, but it may arrive at its destination without planets.

[Endy0816]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

I can see other problems also.
The gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, are sizeable enough that inertial effects on acceleration ( of the Sun ), would cause disruptions to their orbits; which would, in turn, affect even the smaller 'rocky' planets.
You might move the Sun, but it may arrive at its destination without planets.

Yeah this would definitely be more K2 Civilization type stuff.  I'd dread to see the math you would have to do to figure out how to do it safely, not to mention when your civilization finally arrived somewhere.

Edited December 22, 2020 by Endy0816

[Sensei]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

The Sun is mostly Hydrogen/Helium in 4/1 ratio.

Actually, it is 75% Hydrogen to 25% Helium by mass (so ratio is 3:1), and 12 to 1 by quantity/moles (because Helium-4 is approximately 4 times heavier than Hydrogen-1)

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

For a Stellar engine, you would use a portion of a star's own energy to do so.

Basic ideas are to either use the mother of all solar sails or deliberately caused mass ejections.

Would be slow though which might still pose a problem.

Where does the solar sail attach?

Mass ejection just compounds the problem you are trying to solve.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

I can see other problems also.
The gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, are sizeable enough that inertial effects on acceleration ( of the Sun ), would cause disruptions to their orbits; which would, in turn, affect even the smaller 'rocky' planets.
You might move the Sun, but it may arrive at its destination without planets.

I figure that if you could move the sun, moving the planets would be trivial in comparison. But I don’t see how you move the sun in any way consistent with the problem at hand.

[Endy0816]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Where does the solar sail attach?

Be via gravity.

Quote

Shkadov thruster (named after Dr. Leonid Shkadov who first proposed it), or a Class A stellar engine.^[4] Such an engine is a stellar propulsion system, consisting of an enormous mirror/light sail—actually a massive type of solar statite large enough to classify as a megastructure—which would balance gravitational attraction towards and radiation pressure away from the star. Since the radiation pressure of the star would now be asymmetrical, i.e. more radiation is being emitted in one direction as compared to another, the 'excess' radiation pressure acts as net thrust, accelerating the star in the direction of the hovering statite. Such thrust and acceleration would be very slight, but such a system could be stable for millennia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine#Class_A_(Shkadov_thruster)

 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Mass ejection just compounds the problem you are trying to solve.

The alternative Caplan thruster, would cost some of your hydrogen and mass, but you would be headed to 'fill-up' and need to lose some byproducts anyways(if the size is to be maintained).

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Endy0816

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Be via gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_engine#Class_A_(Shkadov_thruster)

That’s basically the opposite of a sail.

 

 

[Endy0816]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s basically the opposite of a sail.

How do you mean?

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Endy0816 said:

How do you mean?

A sail exerts a force from an external source (the wind)

This works by taking the emanations of the sun and pushing them back onto the sun.

[Endy0816]

On 12/23/2020 at 5:15 PM, swansont said:

A sail exerts a force from an external source (the wind)

This works by taking the emanations of the sun and pushing them back onto the sun.

  I think it is supposed to count as it is itself using the sunlight to remain stationary.

Had a thought that you could shield the sun, bringing the heliosphere in and perhaps truly sail via the passing interstellar medium. I've never seen analysis for that one though.