Calling Into Question: Stellar Evolution Models

Since the early 1900s, astrophysicists have been trying to determine what makes the universe tick from beginning to end. They have come up with a story about how collapsing clouds of gas and dust produce stars that burn nuclear fuel until it runs out. The process of stars dying out varies because of their mass, such as red dwarfs that cool down slowly while supernovae and red giants push their mass outward into space.

So it is assumed that planets could not be too close to these stars during its evolution but one of the more recent discoveries has called into question this particular assumption being made.  Science Daily writes…

“University of Toulouse and University of Montreal researchers have detected two planets of sizes comparable to Earth orbiting around an old star that has just passed the red giant stage. This planetary system is located near Lyra and Cygnus constellations at a distance of 3900 light years.”

Theorists have their hands full with this falsified observation of a previous expectation.  Various speculation on how this could have happened has created more problems than solutions.  One of the speculations to come out is the planets are cores of gas giant planets which lost their gaseous envelopes. This suggests that planets can affect evolution of their parent star.  Now if they are survivors of star evolution in its ending stage, then they would have endured conditions that astronomers believed would have vaporized any planet!

Another problem for theorists who believe in Stellar evolution models is migration…

“Alternative scenarios may also be considered. Another way to form single sdB stars is through the merger of two helium white dwarfs, and planet formation following this event may be possible. We could speculate that the collapse of the extended envelope resulting from this merger could produce a circumstellar disk, where second generation planets may form. However, it seems unlikely that new, sufficiently dense, planets could have formed within a rather short period of time (less than ~18 Myr) in an environment that close to this hot star.”

These alternative scenarios lack more observations in order for one to make a reasonable inference from rather than creating a story out of it, but it does sound better than the actual hard data itself.

Most astronomers use what they call; “state-of-the-art stellar evolution models to determine the ages.” writes…

“New research by astrophysicists from the University of Rochester focused on stars in the north part of the constellation, known as Upper Scorpius, which is a part of the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association, one of our best studied groups of young stars and a benchmark sample for investigating the early lives of stars and the evolution of their planet-spawning disks. The Upper Scorpius stellar group lies roughly 470 light years from Earth.”

“While those stars have been thought to be just five million years old, the team concludes that those stars are actually more than twice as old, at 11 million years of age. The findings are surprising given Upper Scorpius’s status as one of the best-studied samples of young stars in the sky.”

One of the most best-studied stars is more than twice the age? Ok, a mistake happened with the models but this is not the first time nor the last that Stellar evolution models have been wrong. In fact, these models have been on a pace of more than 200 percent in revisions which calls into question the usefulness of these models.

Even though researchers from the University of Rochester believe their estimates concerning the stars age are based on better measurements of distance and mass, their ‘theory’ still drives the conclusions about how old the stars really are. There is a push for astronomers to reassess their assumptions about the ages of other clusters as well.

While it is difficult to go out into the unknown and be enormously successful with expectations and predictions, because surprises will happen as a result, but there is a difference between scientific exploration and explanation.  Discovering phenomena holds amazing promise with future discoveries.  It’s certainly part of science and non-confrontational. But one has to be beware of scientists who hype the discovery up (for like funding reasons or a belief), claiming he knows it all or on the verge of knowing exactly what the discovery entails.


4 thoughts on “Calling Into Question: Stellar Evolution Models

  1. So it is assumed that planets could not be too close to these stars [sic] during its evolution….

    Theorists have their hands full with this falsified observation [sic] of a previous expectation.

    Perhaps Michael assumes that, but no one else does. The cited Nature paper make no mention of such an “assumption.” And the Nature abstract mentions that other planets have previously been found to orbit post-red giant stars at comparable—altho slightly greater—distances.

    Michael no doubt nurses a mental image of the planets actually penetrating the star and emerging unscathed. Well, that is hokum. The air at the Earth’s surface is 10,000 times as dense as the envelope of a red giant. (Red giants have been called a “red-hot vacuum.”) Granted, these planets have been fried to a crisp—but there is no miracle in surviving such a trip.

    So we have another example of wishful thinking on Michael’s part.


    And we wonder, what is the purpose of this feckless calumny of astronomers?

    Does the observation have any impact on the age of the earth, or of the universe? NO. Does it provide any evidence of a special creation? NO. Does it confirm anything in the Bible? NO.

    It is passing strange how Michael can turn any unexpected scientific discovery into a non sequitur for creationism. It certainly demonstrates a great deal of desperation on his part.

  2. We’re glad you’re back, Michael, but take it easy!

    It’s Christmas, and the rest of us have things to do—family to entertain, services to perform at, getting Santa’s parcels ready to put under the tree….

  3. Another demonstration of the complete incompetence of Michael in actually understanding what is being written, and how science works.

    And no, I am not going to bother anymore to correct Michael’s numerous mistakes in this post. Not even the terminology is correct. He doesn’t care anyway, and only shows contempt to is readers by completely ignoring any criticisms. Harsh conclusion, but true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s