Mixing
How do you non-catastrophically reduce the mass of the Sun by half?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In my previous question, I asked how much mass the Sun would have to lose in order for Saturn's orbital velocity to be it's escape velocity.
The answer proved to be somewhat unexpected - when the Sun loses about half of its mass, every planet will escape from the Sun's remaining gravity at about the same time.
So this is the promised follow-up question:
What plausible, believably feasible (not necessarily absolutely physically valid) method could be posited as a way for the Sun to lose 50% of its mass, without going through some catastrophic process?
Criteria and limitations:
A. Must occur within a millennium or two.
B. Should not involve intervention of some 'superior alien intelligence', but must be derived from some plausible natural event. (Somewhat lenient on this, but any alien intervention must be completely independent of the Solar System and not require any presence in the Solar System. That is, extraneous 'spooky action at a distance')
C. Must not create any phenomena that would have devastating consequences on life on the planets (i.e.: no radiation, excessive heat, energy surges) except for the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. The Sun just reduces in size, energy, and mass, but otherwise functions normally.
D. Once the planets are clear of the system, what happens to the sun thereafter is irrelevant.
E. The removed mass of the Sun must be done in such a way that the removed mass no longer contributes to the gravitational effects of the Sun.
F. The current position of the sun as the center of the Solar System can not be altered (Newtons' Laws must be enforced).
G. The ejected mass can not itself become an alternative gravitational center sufficient to influence the planets, but must be dispersed into the galactic void. However, it is allowable for it to collect again and form a significant gravitational source somewhere else. The ejected mass does not necessarily need to reach escape velocity, but by some effect widely dispersed or otherwise relocated.
H. It is allowable that, if the mass depletion occurs over time, the planetary orbits can correspondingly move away from the Sun until they reach escape velocity, with all attendant effects of doing so permitted.
Assume that the life on the planet is not dependent on energy from the Sun, but on independent locally sourced forms of energy. That is, life on the planet can be supported absent the Sun (No need for Solar light, heat, energy, gravity, or other Solar contributions). With that in mind, if any of these criteria are modified, then the modification must not effect the viability of life on or physical integrity of the planets, in any way.
The method does not necessarily have to be under the control of any intelligent intervention, preferably not from any intervention from within the Solar System. Note, this is not a criteria.
Note this does NOT have a hard science tag. The effect can be caused by some as-yet-unknown but plausible scientific concept.
EDIT
The Solar System does not absolutely have to be our solar system, but my planet-moon combo is based on Saturn or Jupiter. Humans are not a factor, and thus their intelligence and fate is inconsequential.
Another EDIT
Please also recall that, as the Sun loses mass, it's gravity decreases and further mass loss will take less energy. That is, the remaining mass is not as tightly held as the starting mass. This fact may or may not be useful in your answer.
science-fiction orbital-mechanics stars solar-system
asked 3 hours ago
Justin Thyme
6,7241734
 |Â
show 8 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In my previous question, I asked how much mass the Sun would have to lose in order for Saturn's orbital velocity to be it's escape velocity.
The answer proved to be somewhat unexpected - when the Sun loses about half of its mass, every planet will escape from the Sun's remaining gravity at about the same time.
So this is the promised follow-up question:
What plausible, believably feasible (not necessarily absolutely physically valid) method could be posited as a way for the Sun to lose 50% of its mass, without going through some catastrophic process?
Criteria and limitations:
A. Must occur within a millennium or two.
B. Should not involve intervention of some 'superior alien intelligence', but must be derived from some plausible natural event. (Somewhat lenient on this, but any alien intervention must be completely independent of the Solar System and not require any presence in the Solar System. That is, extraneous 'spooky action at a distance')
C. Must not create any phenomena that would have devastating consequences on life on the planets (i.e.: no radiation, excessive heat, energy surges) except for the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. The Sun just reduces in size, energy, and mass, but otherwise functions normally.
D. Once the planets are clear of the system, what happens to the sun thereafter is irrelevant.
E. The removed mass of the Sun must be done in such a way that the removed mass no longer contributes to the gravitational effects of the Sun.
F. The current position of the sun as the center of the Solar System can not be altered (Newtons' Laws must be enforced).
G. The ejected mass can not itself become an alternative gravitational center sufficient to influence the planets, but must be dispersed into the galactic void. However, it is allowable for it to collect again and form a significant gravitational source somewhere else. The ejected mass does not necessarily need to reach escape velocity, but by some effect widely dispersed or otherwise relocated.
H. It is allowable that, if the mass depletion occurs over time, the planetary orbits can correspondingly move away from the Sun until they reach escape velocity, with all attendant effects of doing so permitted.
Assume that the life on the planet is not dependent on energy from the Sun, but on independent locally sourced forms of energy. That is, life on the planet can be supported absent the Sun (No need for Solar light, heat, energy, gravity, or other Solar contributions). With that in mind, if any of these criteria are modified, then the modification must not effect the viability of life on or physical integrity of the planets, in any way.
The method does not necessarily have to be under the control of any intelligent intervention, preferably not from any intervention from within the Solar System. Note, this is not a criteria.
Note this does NOT have a hard science tag. The effect can be caused by some as-yet-unknown but plausible scientific concept.
EDIT
The Solar System does not absolutely have to be our solar system, but my planet-moon combo is based on Saturn or Jupiter. Humans are not a factor, and thus their intelligence and fate is inconsequential.
Another EDIT
Please also recall that, as the Sun loses mass, it's gravity decreases and further mass loss will take less energy. That is, the remaining mass is not as tightly held as the starting mass. This fact may or may not be useful in your answer.
science-fiction orbital-mechanics stars solar-system
asked 3 hours ago
Justin Thyme
6,7241734
I do not know enough for a proper answer, but it could be a hit from a small but fast object, going perpendicular to orbital plane of planets. It should knock enough material from the sun, and disperse it over in a cone on the other side. The object would have to be sturdy enough to survive passing through the sun, fast enough to knock material out before it can cause subtantial gravitational effect on planets, and heavy enough to knock out enough material. A black hole comes to mind, but what would make it go so fast, and aim it so precisely?
– Bald Bear
3 hours ago
@BaldBear You should post your comment as an answer! I was thinking exactly the same thing. However, a black hole comes with a lot of additional gravity, which would affect the orbits of all the planets as it got close. A related phenomenon: a steady stream of less massive objects could fly through the sun in a similar path. Each would drag some material out of the sun, but none of them would have enough mass to gravitationally affect the planets very much.
– BrettFromLA
3 hours ago
@Bald Bear Your comment WOULD make a very good answer. However, one thing - it would perhaps have to be a chain of objects hitting the sun over time, as I suspect an object large enough to split the sun in two equal parts would release too much energy all at once. Sort of like what BrettFromLA is suggesting. The objects would not have to survive the impact, they would just have to become part of the ejected detritus.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
I don't think the [orbital-mechanics] tag applies to this question (but I might be missing something). While orbital mechanics is involved in your reasoning behind the question, it seems to me that expertise in orbital mechanics does not help (or hinder) in answering this question, therefore the question is not about orbital mechanics.
– Michael Kjörling♦
1 hour ago
@Michael Kjörling♦ I added orbital mechanics as a tag because the answer has to preserve the orbital integrity of the Solar System right up until escape velocity is reached. That is, the method can not disturb the Sun's position as the center of the planetary system. Any movement of the planets due to the reduced gravity of the Sun has to follow normal orbital mechanics principles.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 8 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In my previous question, I asked how much mass the Sun would have to lose in order for Saturn's orbital velocity to be it's escape velocity.
The answer proved to be somewhat unexpected - when the Sun loses about half of its mass, every planet will escape from the Sun's remaining gravity at about the same time.
So this is the promised follow-up question:
What plausible, believably feasible (not necessarily absolutely physically valid) method could be posited as a way for the Sun to lose 50% of its mass, without going through some catastrophic process?
Criteria and limitations:
A. Must occur within a millennium or two.
B. Should not involve intervention of some 'superior alien intelligence', but must be derived from some plausible natural event. (Somewhat lenient on this, but any alien intervention must be completely independent of the Solar System and not require any presence in the Solar System. That is, extraneous 'spooky action at a distance')
C. Must not create any phenomena that would have devastating consequences on life on the planets (i.e.: no radiation, excessive heat, energy surges) except for the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. The Sun just reduces in size, energy, and mass, but otherwise functions normally.
D. Once the planets are clear of the system, what happens to the sun thereafter is irrelevant.
E. The removed mass of the Sun must be done in such a way that the removed mass no longer contributes to the gravitational effects of the Sun.
F. The current position of the sun as the center of the Solar System can not be altered (Newtons' Laws must be enforced).
G. The ejected mass can not itself become an alternative gravitational center sufficient to influence the planets, but must be dispersed into the galactic void. However, it is allowable for it to collect again and form a significant gravitational source somewhere else. The ejected mass does not necessarily need to reach escape velocity, but by some effect widely dispersed or otherwise relocated.
H. It is allowable that, if the mass depletion occurs over time, the planetary orbits can correspondingly move away from the Sun until they reach escape velocity, with all attendant effects of doing so permitted.
Assume that the life on the planet is not dependent on energy from the Sun, but on independent locally sourced forms of energy. That is, life on the planet can be supported absent the Sun (No need for Solar light, heat, energy, gravity, or other Solar contributions). With that in mind, if any of these criteria are modified, then the modification must not effect the viability of life on or physical integrity of the planets, in any way.
The method does not necessarily have to be under the control of any intelligent intervention, preferably not from any intervention from within the Solar System. Note, this is not a criteria.
Note this does NOT have a hard science tag. The effect can be caused by some as-yet-unknown but plausible scientific concept.
EDIT
The Solar System does not absolutely have to be our solar system, but my planet-moon combo is based on Saturn or Jupiter. Humans are not a factor, and thus their intelligence and fate is inconsequential.
Another EDIT
Please also recall that, as the Sun loses mass, it's gravity decreases and further mass loss will take less energy. That is, the remaining mass is not as tightly held as the starting mass. This fact may or may not be useful in your answer.
science-fiction orbital-mechanics stars solar-system
asked 3 hours ago
Justin Thyme
6,7241734
In my previous question, I asked how much mass the Sun would have to lose in order for Saturn's orbital velocity to be it's escape velocity.
The answer proved to be somewhat unexpected - when the Sun loses about half of its mass, every planet will escape from the Sun's remaining gravity at about the same time.
So this is the promised follow-up question:
What plausible, believably feasible (not necessarily absolutely physically valid) method could be posited as a way for the Sun to lose 50% of its mass, without going through some catastrophic process?
Criteria and limitations:
A. Must occur within a millennium or two.
B. Should not involve intervention of some 'superior alien intelligence', but must be derived from some plausible natural event. (Somewhat lenient on this, but any alien intervention must be completely independent of the Solar System and not require any presence in the Solar System. That is, extraneous 'spooky action at a distance')
C. Must not create any phenomena that would have devastating consequences on life on the planets (i.e.: no radiation, excessive heat, energy surges) except for the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. The Sun just reduces in size, energy, and mass, but otherwise functions normally.
D. Once the planets are clear of the system, what happens to the sun thereafter is irrelevant.
E. The removed mass of the Sun must be done in such a way that the removed mass no longer contributes to the gravitational effects of the Sun.
F. The current position of the sun as the center of the Solar System can not be altered (Newtons' Laws must be enforced).
G. The ejected mass can not itself become an alternative gravitational center sufficient to influence the planets, but must be dispersed into the galactic void. However, it is allowable for it to collect again and form a significant gravitational source somewhere else. The ejected mass does not necessarily need to reach escape velocity, but by some effect widely dispersed or otherwise relocated.
H. It is allowable that, if the mass depletion occurs over time, the planetary orbits can correspondingly move away from the Sun until they reach escape velocity, with all attendant effects of doing so permitted.
Assume that the life on the planet is not dependent on energy from the Sun, but on independent locally sourced forms of energy. That is, life on the planet can be supported absent the Sun (No need for Solar light, heat, energy, gravity, or other Solar contributions). With that in mind, if any of these criteria are modified, then the modification must not effect the viability of life on or physical integrity of the planets, in any way.
The method does not necessarily have to be under the control of any intelligent intervention, preferably not from any intervention from within the Solar System. Note, this is not a criteria.
Note this does NOT have a hard science tag. The effect can be caused by some as-yet-unknown but plausible scientific concept.
EDIT
The Solar System does not absolutely have to be our solar system, but my planet-moon combo is based on Saturn or Jupiter. Humans are not a factor, and thus their intelligence and fate is inconsequential.
Another EDIT
Please also recall that, as the Sun loses mass, it's gravity decreases and further mass loss will take less energy. That is, the remaining mass is not as tightly held as the starting mass. This fact may or may not be useful in your answer.
science-fiction orbital-mechanics stars solar-system
science-fiction orbital-mechanics stars solar-system
asked 3 hours ago
Justin Thyme
6,7241734
asked 3 hours ago
Justin Thyme
6,7241734
edited 1 hour ago
asked 3 hours ago
Justin Thyme
6,7241734
asked 3 hours ago
Justin Thyme
6,7241734
asked 3 hours ago
Justin Thyme
6,7241734
6,7241734
I do not know enough for a proper answer, but it could be a hit from a small but fast object, going perpendicular to orbital plane of planets. It should knock enough material from the sun, and disperse it over in a cone on the other side. The object would have to be sturdy enough to survive passing through the sun, fast enough to knock material out before it can cause subtantial gravitational effect on planets, and heavy enough to knock out enough material. A black hole comes to mind, but what would make it go so fast, and aim it so precisely?
– Bald Bear
3 hours ago
@BaldBear You should post your comment as an answer! I was thinking exactly the same thing. However, a black hole comes with a lot of additional gravity, which would affect the orbits of all the planets as it got close. A related phenomenon: a steady stream of less massive objects could fly through the sun in a similar path. Each would drag some material out of the sun, but none of them would have enough mass to gravitationally affect the planets very much.
– BrettFromLA
3 hours ago
@Bald Bear Your comment WOULD make a very good answer. However, one thing - it would perhaps have to be a chain of objects hitting the sun over time, as I suspect an object large enough to split the sun in two equal parts would release too much energy all at once. Sort of like what BrettFromLA is suggesting. The objects would not have to survive the impact, they would just have to become part of the ejected detritus.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
I don't think the [orbital-mechanics] tag applies to this question (but I might be missing something). While orbital mechanics is involved in your reasoning behind the question, it seems to me that expertise in orbital mechanics does not help (or hinder) in answering this question, therefore the question is not about orbital mechanics.
– Michael Kjörling♦
1 hour ago
@Michael Kjörling♦ I added orbital mechanics as a tag because the answer has to preserve the orbital integrity of the Solar System right up until escape velocity is reached. That is, the method can not disturb the Sun's position as the center of the planetary system. Any movement of the planets due to the reduced gravity of the Sun has to follow normal orbital mechanics principles.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 8 more comments
I do not know enough for a proper answer, but it could be a hit from a small but fast object, going perpendicular to orbital plane of planets. It should knock enough material from the sun, and disperse it over in a cone on the other side. The object would have to be sturdy enough to survive passing through the sun, fast enough to knock material out before it can cause subtantial gravitational effect on planets, and heavy enough to knock out enough material. A black hole comes to mind, but what would make it go so fast, and aim it so precisely?
– Bald Bear
3 hours ago
@BaldBear You should post your comment as an answer! I was thinking exactly the same thing. However, a black hole comes with a lot of additional gravity, which would affect the orbits of all the planets as it got close. A related phenomenon: a steady stream of less massive objects could fly through the sun in a similar path. Each would drag some material out of the sun, but none of them would have enough mass to gravitationally affect the planets very much.
– BrettFromLA
3 hours ago
@Bald Bear Your comment WOULD make a very good answer. However, one thing - it would perhaps have to be a chain of objects hitting the sun over time, as I suspect an object large enough to split the sun in two equal parts would release too much energy all at once. Sort of like what BrettFromLA is suggesting. The objects would not have to survive the impact, they would just have to become part of the ejected detritus.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
I don't think the [orbital-mechanics] tag applies to this question (but I might be missing something). While orbital mechanics is involved in your reasoning behind the question, it seems to me that expertise in orbital mechanics does not help (or hinder) in answering this question, therefore the question is not about orbital mechanics.
– Michael Kjörling♦
1 hour ago
@Michael Kjörling♦ I added orbital mechanics as a tag because the answer has to preserve the orbital integrity of the Solar System right up until escape velocity is reached. That is, the method can not disturb the Sun's position as the center of the planetary system. Any movement of the planets due to the reduced gravity of the Sun has to follow normal orbital mechanics principles.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
I do not know enough for a proper answer, but it could be a hit from a small but fast object, going perpendicular to orbital plane of planets. It should knock enough material from the sun, and disperse it over in a cone on the other side. The object would have to be sturdy enough to survive passing through the sun, fast enough to knock material out before it can cause subtantial gravitational effect on planets, and heavy enough to knock out enough material. A black hole comes to mind, but what would make it go so fast, and aim it so precisely?
– Bald Bear
3 hours ago
I do not know enough for a proper answer, but it could be a hit from a small but fast object, going perpendicular to orbital plane of planets. It should knock enough material from the sun, and disperse it over in a cone on the other side. The object would have to be sturdy enough to survive passing through the sun, fast enough to knock material out before it can cause subtantial gravitational effect on planets, and heavy enough to knock out enough material. A black hole comes to mind, but what would make it go so fast, and aim it so precisely?
– Bald Bear
3 hours ago
@BaldBear You should post your comment as an answer! I was thinking exactly the same thing. However, a black hole comes with a lot of additional gravity, which would affect the orbits of all the planets as it got close. A related phenomenon: a steady stream of less massive objects could fly through the sun in a similar path. Each would drag some material out of the sun, but none of them would have enough mass to gravitationally affect the planets very much.
– BrettFromLA
3 hours ago
@BaldBear You should post your comment as an answer! I was thinking exactly the same thing. However, a black hole comes with a lot of additional gravity, which would affect the orbits of all the planets as it got close. A related phenomenon: a steady stream of less massive objects could fly through the sun in a similar path. Each would drag some material out of the sun, but none of them would have enough mass to gravitationally affect the planets very much.
– BrettFromLA
3 hours ago
@Bald Bear Your comment WOULD make a very good answer. However, one thing - it would perhaps have to be a chain of objects hitting the sun over time, as I suspect an object large enough to split the sun in two equal parts would release too much energy all at once. Sort of like what BrettFromLA is suggesting. The objects would not have to survive the impact, they would just have to become part of the ejected detritus.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
@Bald Bear Your comment WOULD make a very good answer. However, one thing - it would perhaps have to be a chain of objects hitting the sun over time, as I suspect an object large enough to split the sun in two equal parts would release too much energy all at once. Sort of like what BrettFromLA is suggesting. The objects would not have to survive the impact, they would just have to become part of the ejected detritus.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
I don't think the [orbital-mechanics] tag applies to this question (but I might be missing something). While orbital mechanics is involved in your reasoning behind the question, it seems to me that expertise in orbital mechanics does not help (or hinder) in answering this question, therefore the question is not about orbital mechanics.
– Michael Kjörling♦
1 hour ago
I don't think the [orbital-mechanics] tag applies to this question (but I might be missing something). While orbital mechanics is involved in your reasoning behind the question, it seems to me that expertise in orbital mechanics does not help (or hinder) in answering this question, therefore the question is not about orbital mechanics.
– Michael Kjörling♦
1 hour ago
@Michael Kjörling♦ I added orbital mechanics as a tag because the answer has to preserve the orbital integrity of the Solar System right up until escape velocity is reached. That is, the method can not disturb the Sun's position as the center of the planetary system. Any movement of the planets due to the reduced gravity of the Sun has to follow normal orbital mechanics principles.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
@Michael Kjörling♦ I added orbital mechanics as a tag because the answer has to preserve the orbital integrity of the Solar System right up until escape velocity is reached. That is, the method can not disturb the Sun's position as the center of the planetary system. Any movement of the planets due to the reduced gravity of the Sun has to follow normal orbital mechanics principles.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 8 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
C. Must not create any phenomena that would have devastating consequences on life on the planets (i.e.: no radiation, excessive heat, energy surges) except for the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. The Sun just reduces in size, energy, and mass, but otherwise functions normally.
That is not possible, for three reasons.
About a third of the tidal influence on the Esrth comes from the sun. Even if Earth would not escape, the tides would be changed globally, too fast to be nice on coastal ecossystems worldwide, which would all be f... Rough-loved. Other neighbouring ecossystems could follow in collapse.
The sun protects planets from interstellar radiation with its solar wind. The fact that Earth's rotation axis is kinda orthogonal to its orbit helps us survive solar flares, which always hit us perpendicularly. Once exposed to interstellar wind, we will all be f.. fried by crazy amounts of radiation coming towards the poles. We don't need to escape the sun for that to happen - merely moving the heliopause in can terminate us.
If a rocky planet surface does not depend on the sun to achieve a life-sustaining temperature, then either it is going through a hadean phase or it is excessively radioactive - neither situation would allow for complex life, maybe not even any life at all.
answered 2 hours ago
Renan
34k876173
1
I didn't ask if it was possible, and I purposely did not make the question earth-centric or human-centric. Earth and human ecosystems are irrelevant. It is external extinction events that I am concerned with, not internal - making life impossible by Solar 'toxins'. I completely understand that Earth will leave it's 'Goldilocks' zone, and this will certainly effect life, but this is entirely due to the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. It sucks to be human, but the planet is left intact.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
Jupiter itself is a source of enough radiation and energy to maintain some form of life on its moons independent of the Sun, but that is another question.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
@JustinThyme tidal effects and perpendicular stellar wind will harm life in any fictional planet as well, independent of them being in a goldilocks zone.
– Renan
2 hours ago
Not if the planet has a sufficiently strong magnetosphere that protects the moons as well from intergalactic radiation. that is another question. This one is limited to any ADDITIONAL 'toxic' effects from the event itself, NOT a reduction of diminished current Solar effects, like Solar gravitational effects, light, Solar energy, etc.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
There are a number of ways a star can lose mass, and I think it's worth talking about them:
A normal coronal mass ejection may contain $sim10^-18M_odot$, which is also extremely low. Eta Carinae's Great Eruption averaged about $1M_odottext yr^-1$, but this is not an expected event in Sun-like stars.
Superflares are possible in Sun-like stars, although only in a very small population (1%), and likely would not remove as much mass.- The solar wind blows away mass at a rate of $sim10^-14M_odottext yr^-1$. Even the hottest O stars lose mass at $sim10^-5$ or $10^-7M_odottext yr^-1$ at the most. When the Sun becomes an AGB star near the very end of its life, it may lose mass at a rate of $sim10^-4M_odottext yr^-1$, and so an extended AGB phase is a possibility, maybe involving a late thermal pulse leading back to the asymptotic giant branch.
- I do like LarsH's suggestion of bipolar jets. They've been observed in T Tauri stars, pre-main sequence stars that often evolve to become Sun-like. In other words, the Sun may have developed jets within the first ten million years or so of its life. However, I suppose it's really not going to happen anytime soon; T Tauri stars are very active, and have strong stellar winds that aid outbursts.
I think superflares are your best choice if you want the event to occur at the present stage of the star's life. If you are willing to have the star be very young, pick a T Tauri wind and bipolar jets, dramatically enhanced by some unknown factor. If you are willing to have the star be older and more evolved, a strong AGB wind might work.
Let's look at the timescales $tau_1/2$ we'll need for the various processes, in order to lose $0.5M_odot$:
$$
beginarraychline
textProcess & textEvolutionary stage & dotMtext (M_odottext yr^-1) & tau_1/2text (textyears)\hline
textT Tauri wind^1 & textPre-main sequence & 10^-7 & 5times10^6\hline
textSuperflares^2 & textMain sequence & 10^-11 & 5times10^10\hline
textG star wind & textMain sequence & 10^-14 & 5times10^13\hline
textO star wind^3 & textMain sequence & 10^-5 & 5times10^4\hline
textAGB wind^4 & textAsymptotic giant branch & 10^-4 & 5times10^3\hline
endarray
$$
1Lecture notes, Ohio State University
2Osten (2015)
3Cohen et al. (2011)
4Lecture notes, University of Bonn
Your best bet, overall, would be a system with an AGB star rapidly losing mass. Note that I give the time it would take for an O star to lose $0.5M_odot$, but that would only be a small fraction of its total mass - not half. You'd need to extent that timescale by a factor of about 20 for it to lose half of its initial mass.
answered 1 hour ago
HDE 226868♦
61.1k12214393
As a note: This is a modification of a section of my answer to your other question. I removed the part there about mass-loss rates and have transferred it here, with some particular modifications.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I appreciate your time and effort to repost, as I had your answer in mind when I posited this new question.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
@JustinThyme I'm glad. I'm going to add some new calculations soon, talking about the necessary timescales to lose the amount of mass you want.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I do hope @LarsH posts as an answer.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
Since it turns out that the mass loss is the same for any planet in any star system, and the solution (50% loss) would apply equally throughout the galaxy, there is no requirement for the answer to be limited to our system.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Wormhole
[A,C,D,E,F,G] A traversalable wormhole would be an excellent mechanism to remove mass from the sun. A wormhole is consistent with general relativity while avoiding all of the pitfalls of violently moving mass from the center of the solar system (which could cause all kinds of orbital perturbations that would be chaotic or even fatal).
[B] Would you consider human construction natural? Perhaps humans build a wormhole. For convenience and efficiency they place it in the inner solar system (perhaps it requires a significant and constant stream of particles to remain stable so it's placed right next to the sun). Either by miscalculation or accident it falls into the sun. Unable to retrieve or destroy the wormhole it is left to silently eat away at the mass of the sun.
answered 2 hours ago
Skek Tek
1113
A novel plausible approach. I will allow that the wormhole could have resulted from alien intervention and manipulation, so long as it was not specifically directed at our Solar System. That is, any effects on our Solar System were unintended consequences of alien activity at a distance. It is my desire to keep any intelligent action completely external to the Solar System and completely unintentional. For instance, aliens wanted to 'starlift' material from our Sun for their own purposes, in an environmentally friendly non-destructive way, that left no presence behind, like through a wormhole.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
However, that is not to say that others seeking an answer to this question might not find your answer regarding human intervention and 'accident' suitable for their needs.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
C. Must not create any phenomena that would have devastating consequences on life on the planets (i.e.: no radiation, excessive heat, energy surges) except for the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. The Sun just reduces in size, energy, and mass, but otherwise functions normally.
That is not possible, for three reasons.
About a third of the tidal influence on the Esrth comes from the sun. Even if Earth would not escape, the tides would be changed globally, too fast to be nice on coastal ecossystems worldwide, which would all be f... Rough-loved. Other neighbouring ecossystems could follow in collapse.
The sun protects planets from interstellar radiation with its solar wind. The fact that Earth's rotation axis is kinda orthogonal to its orbit helps us survive solar flares, which always hit us perpendicularly. Once exposed to interstellar wind, we will all be f.. fried by crazy amounts of radiation coming towards the poles. We don't need to escape the sun for that to happen - merely moving the heliopause in can terminate us.
If a rocky planet surface does not depend on the sun to achieve a life-sustaining temperature, then either it is going through a hadean phase or it is excessively radioactive - neither situation would allow for complex life, maybe not even any life at all.
answered 2 hours ago
Renan
34k876173
1
I didn't ask if it was possible, and I purposely did not make the question earth-centric or human-centric. Earth and human ecosystems are irrelevant. It is external extinction events that I am concerned with, not internal - making life impossible by Solar 'toxins'. I completely understand that Earth will leave it's 'Goldilocks' zone, and this will certainly effect life, but this is entirely due to the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. It sucks to be human, but the planet is left intact.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
Jupiter itself is a source of enough radiation and energy to maintain some form of life on its moons independent of the Sun, but that is another question.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
@JustinThyme tidal effects and perpendicular stellar wind will harm life in any fictional planet as well, independent of them being in a goldilocks zone.
– Renan
2 hours ago
Not if the planet has a sufficiently strong magnetosphere that protects the moons as well from intergalactic radiation. that is another question. This one is limited to any ADDITIONAL 'toxic' effects from the event itself, NOT a reduction of diminished current Solar effects, like Solar gravitational effects, light, Solar energy, etc.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
C. Must not create any phenomena that would have devastating consequences on life on the planets (i.e.: no radiation, excessive heat, energy surges) except for the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. The Sun just reduces in size, energy, and mass, but otherwise functions normally.
That is not possible, for three reasons.
About a third of the tidal influence on the Esrth comes from the sun. Even if Earth would not escape, the tides would be changed globally, too fast to be nice on coastal ecossystems worldwide, which would all be f... Rough-loved. Other neighbouring ecossystems could follow in collapse.
The sun protects planets from interstellar radiation with its solar wind. The fact that Earth's rotation axis is kinda orthogonal to its orbit helps us survive solar flares, which always hit us perpendicularly. Once exposed to interstellar wind, we will all be f.. fried by crazy amounts of radiation coming towards the poles. We don't need to escape the sun for that to happen - merely moving the heliopause in can terminate us.
If a rocky planet surface does not depend on the sun to achieve a life-sustaining temperature, then either it is going through a hadean phase or it is excessively radioactive - neither situation would allow for complex life, maybe not even any life at all.
answered 2 hours ago
Renan
34k876173
1
I didn't ask if it was possible, and I purposely did not make the question earth-centric or human-centric. Earth and human ecosystems are irrelevant. It is external extinction events that I am concerned with, not internal - making life impossible by Solar 'toxins'. I completely understand that Earth will leave it's 'Goldilocks' zone, and this will certainly effect life, but this is entirely due to the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. It sucks to be human, but the planet is left intact.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
Jupiter itself is a source of enough radiation and energy to maintain some form of life on its moons independent of the Sun, but that is another question.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
@JustinThyme tidal effects and perpendicular stellar wind will harm life in any fictional planet as well, independent of them being in a goldilocks zone.
– Renan
2 hours ago
Not if the planet has a sufficiently strong magnetosphere that protects the moons as well from intergalactic radiation. that is another question. This one is limited to any ADDITIONAL 'toxic' effects from the event itself, NOT a reduction of diminished current Solar effects, like Solar gravitational effects, light, Solar energy, etc.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
C. Must not create any phenomena that would have devastating consequences on life on the planets (i.e.: no radiation, excessive heat, energy surges) except for the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. The Sun just reduces in size, energy, and mass, but otherwise functions normally.
That is not possible, for three reasons.
About a third of the tidal influence on the Esrth comes from the sun. Even if Earth would not escape, the tides would be changed globally, too fast to be nice on coastal ecossystems worldwide, which would all be f... Rough-loved. Other neighbouring ecossystems could follow in collapse.
The sun protects planets from interstellar radiation with its solar wind. The fact that Earth's rotation axis is kinda orthogonal to its orbit helps us survive solar flares, which always hit us perpendicularly. Once exposed to interstellar wind, we will all be f.. fried by crazy amounts of radiation coming towards the poles. We don't need to escape the sun for that to happen - merely moving the heliopause in can terminate us.
If a rocky planet surface does not depend on the sun to achieve a life-sustaining temperature, then either it is going through a hadean phase or it is excessively radioactive - neither situation would allow for complex life, maybe not even any life at all.
answered 2 hours ago
Renan
34k876173
C. Must not create any phenomena that would have devastating consequences on life on the planets (i.e.: no radiation, excessive heat, energy surges) except for the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. The Sun just reduces in size, energy, and mass, but otherwise functions normally.
That is not possible, for three reasons.
About a third of the tidal influence on the Esrth comes from the sun. Even if Earth would not escape, the tides would be changed globally, too fast to be nice on coastal ecossystems worldwide, which would all be f... Rough-loved. Other neighbouring ecossystems could follow in collapse.
The sun protects planets from interstellar radiation with its solar wind. The fact that Earth's rotation axis is kinda orthogonal to its orbit helps us survive solar flares, which always hit us perpendicularly. Once exposed to interstellar wind, we will all be f.. fried by crazy amounts of radiation coming towards the poles. We don't need to escape the sun for that to happen - merely moving the heliopause in can terminate us.
If a rocky planet surface does not depend on the sun to achieve a life-sustaining temperature, then either it is going through a hadean phase or it is excessively radioactive - neither situation would allow for complex life, maybe not even any life at all.
answered 2 hours ago
Renan
34k876173
answered 2 hours ago
Renan
34k876173
answered 2 hours ago
Renan
34k876173
answered 2 hours ago
Renan
34k876173
34k876173
1
I didn't ask if it was possible, and I purposely did not make the question earth-centric or human-centric. Earth and human ecosystems are irrelevant. It is external extinction events that I am concerned with, not internal - making life impossible by Solar 'toxins'. I completely understand that Earth will leave it's 'Goldilocks' zone, and this will certainly effect life, but this is entirely due to the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. It sucks to be human, but the planet is left intact.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
Jupiter itself is a source of enough radiation and energy to maintain some form of life on its moons independent of the Sun, but that is another question.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
@JustinThyme tidal effects and perpendicular stellar wind will harm life in any fictional planet as well, independent of them being in a goldilocks zone.
– Renan
2 hours ago
Not if the planet has a sufficiently strong magnetosphere that protects the moons as well from intergalactic radiation. that is another question. This one is limited to any ADDITIONAL 'toxic' effects from the event itself, NOT a reduction of diminished current Solar effects, like Solar gravitational effects, light, Solar energy, etc.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
I didn't ask if it was possible, and I purposely did not make the question earth-centric or human-centric. Earth and human ecosystems are irrelevant. It is external extinction events that I am concerned with, not internal - making life impossible by Solar 'toxins'. I completely understand that Earth will leave it's 'Goldilocks' zone, and this will certainly effect life, but this is entirely due to the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. It sucks to be human, but the planet is left intact.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
Jupiter itself is a source of enough radiation and energy to maintain some form of life on its moons independent of the Sun, but that is another question.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
@JustinThyme tidal effects and perpendicular stellar wind will harm life in any fictional planet as well, independent of them being in a goldilocks zone.
– Renan
2 hours ago
Not if the planet has a sufficiently strong magnetosphere that protects the moons as well from intergalactic radiation. that is another question. This one is limited to any ADDITIONAL 'toxic' effects from the event itself, NOT a reduction of diminished current Solar effects, like Solar gravitational effects, light, Solar energy, etc.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
1
1
I didn't ask if it was possible, and I purposely did not make the question earth-centric or human-centric. Earth and human ecosystems are irrelevant. It is external extinction events that I am concerned with, not internal - making life impossible by Solar 'toxins'. I completely understand that Earth will leave it's 'Goldilocks' zone, and this will certainly effect life, but this is entirely due to the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. It sucks to be human, but the planet is left intact.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
I didn't ask if it was possible, and I purposely did not make the question earth-centric or human-centric. Earth and human ecosystems are irrelevant. It is external extinction events that I am concerned with, not internal - making life impossible by Solar 'toxins'. I completely understand that Earth will leave it's 'Goldilocks' zone, and this will certainly effect life, but this is entirely due to the diminishing of the Sun's current Solar contributions. It sucks to be human, but the planet is left intact.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
Jupiter itself is a source of enough radiation and energy to maintain some form of life on its moons independent of the Sun, but that is another question.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
Jupiter itself is a source of enough radiation and energy to maintain some form of life on its moons independent of the Sun, but that is another question.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
@JustinThyme tidal effects and perpendicular stellar wind will harm life in any fictional planet as well, independent of them being in a goldilocks zone.
– Renan
2 hours ago
@JustinThyme tidal effects and perpendicular stellar wind will harm life in any fictional planet as well, independent of them being in a goldilocks zone.
– Renan
2 hours ago
Not if the planet has a sufficiently strong magnetosphere that protects the moons as well from intergalactic radiation. that is another question. This one is limited to any ADDITIONAL 'toxic' effects from the event itself, NOT a reduction of diminished current Solar effects, like Solar gravitational effects, light, Solar energy, etc.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
Not if the planet has a sufficiently strong magnetosphere that protects the moons as well from intergalactic radiation. that is another question. This one is limited to any ADDITIONAL 'toxic' effects from the event itself, NOT a reduction of diminished current Solar effects, like Solar gravitational effects, light, Solar energy, etc.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
There are a number of ways a star can lose mass, and I think it's worth talking about them:
A normal coronal mass ejection may contain $sim10^-18M_odot$, which is also extremely low. Eta Carinae's Great Eruption averaged about $1M_odottext yr^-1$, but this is not an expected event in Sun-like stars.
Superflares are possible in Sun-like stars, although only in a very small population (1%), and likely would not remove as much mass.- The solar wind blows away mass at a rate of $sim10^-14M_odottext yr^-1$. Even the hottest O stars lose mass at $sim10^-5$ or $10^-7M_odottext yr^-1$ at the most. When the Sun becomes an AGB star near the very end of its life, it may lose mass at a rate of $sim10^-4M_odottext yr^-1$, and so an extended AGB phase is a possibility, maybe involving a late thermal pulse leading back to the asymptotic giant branch.
- I do like LarsH's suggestion of bipolar jets. They've been observed in T Tauri stars, pre-main sequence stars that often evolve to become Sun-like. In other words, the Sun may have developed jets within the first ten million years or so of its life. However, I suppose it's really not going to happen anytime soon; T Tauri stars are very active, and have strong stellar winds that aid outbursts.
I think superflares are your best choice if you want the event to occur at the present stage of the star's life. If you are willing to have the star be very young, pick a T Tauri wind and bipolar jets, dramatically enhanced by some unknown factor. If you are willing to have the star be older and more evolved, a strong AGB wind might work.
Let's look at the timescales $tau_1/2$ we'll need for the various processes, in order to lose $0.5M_odot$:
$$
beginarraychline
textProcess & textEvolutionary stage & dotMtext (M_odottext yr^-1) & tau_1/2text (textyears)\hline
textT Tauri wind^1 & textPre-main sequence & 10^-7 & 5times10^6\hline
textSuperflares^2 & textMain sequence & 10^-11 & 5times10^10\hline
textG star wind & textMain sequence & 10^-14 & 5times10^13\hline
textO star wind^3 & textMain sequence & 10^-5 & 5times10^4\hline
textAGB wind^4 & textAsymptotic giant branch & 10^-4 & 5times10^3\hline
endarray
$$
1Lecture notes, Ohio State University
2Osten (2015)
3Cohen et al. (2011)
4Lecture notes, University of Bonn
Your best bet, overall, would be a system with an AGB star rapidly losing mass. Note that I give the time it would take for an O star to lose $0.5M_odot$, but that would only be a small fraction of its total mass - not half. You'd need to extent that timescale by a factor of about 20 for it to lose half of its initial mass.
answered 1 hour ago
HDE 226868♦
61.1k12214393
As a note: This is a modification of a section of my answer to your other question. I removed the part there about mass-loss rates and have transferred it here, with some particular modifications.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I appreciate your time and effort to repost, as I had your answer in mind when I posited this new question.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
@JustinThyme I'm glad. I'm going to add some new calculations soon, talking about the necessary timescales to lose the amount of mass you want.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I do hope @LarsH posts as an answer.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
Since it turns out that the mass loss is the same for any planet in any star system, and the solution (50% loss) would apply equally throughout the galaxy, there is no requirement for the answer to be limited to our system.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
There are a number of ways a star can lose mass, and I think it's worth talking about them:
A normal coronal mass ejection may contain $sim10^-18M_odot$, which is also extremely low. Eta Carinae's Great Eruption averaged about $1M_odottext yr^-1$, but this is not an expected event in Sun-like stars.
Superflares are possible in Sun-like stars, although only in a very small population (1%), and likely would not remove as much mass.- The solar wind blows away mass at a rate of $sim10^-14M_odottext yr^-1$. Even the hottest O stars lose mass at $sim10^-5$ or $10^-7M_odottext yr^-1$ at the most. When the Sun becomes an AGB star near the very end of its life, it may lose mass at a rate of $sim10^-4M_odottext yr^-1$, and so an extended AGB phase is a possibility, maybe involving a late thermal pulse leading back to the asymptotic giant branch.
- I do like LarsH's suggestion of bipolar jets. They've been observed in T Tauri stars, pre-main sequence stars that often evolve to become Sun-like. In other words, the Sun may have developed jets within the first ten million years or so of its life. However, I suppose it's really not going to happen anytime soon; T Tauri stars are very active, and have strong stellar winds that aid outbursts.
I think superflares are your best choice if you want the event to occur at the present stage of the star's life. If you are willing to have the star be very young, pick a T Tauri wind and bipolar jets, dramatically enhanced by some unknown factor. If you are willing to have the star be older and more evolved, a strong AGB wind might work.
Let's look at the timescales $tau_1/2$ we'll need for the various processes, in order to lose $0.5M_odot$:
$$
beginarraychline
textProcess & textEvolutionary stage & dotMtext (M_odottext yr^-1) & tau_1/2text (textyears)\hline
textT Tauri wind^1 & textPre-main sequence & 10^-7 & 5times10^6\hline
textSuperflares^2 & textMain sequence & 10^-11 & 5times10^10\hline
textG star wind & textMain sequence & 10^-14 & 5times10^13\hline
textO star wind^3 & textMain sequence & 10^-5 & 5times10^4\hline
textAGB wind^4 & textAsymptotic giant branch & 10^-4 & 5times10^3\hline
endarray
$$
1Lecture notes, Ohio State University
2Osten (2015)
3Cohen et al. (2011)
4Lecture notes, University of Bonn
Your best bet, overall, would be a system with an AGB star rapidly losing mass. Note that I give the time it would take for an O star to lose $0.5M_odot$, but that would only be a small fraction of its total mass - not half. You'd need to extent that timescale by a factor of about 20 for it to lose half of its initial mass.
answered 1 hour ago
HDE 226868♦
61.1k12214393
As a note: This is a modification of a section of my answer to your other question. I removed the part there about mass-loss rates and have transferred it here, with some particular modifications.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I appreciate your time and effort to repost, as I had your answer in mind when I posited this new question.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
@JustinThyme I'm glad. I'm going to add some new calculations soon, talking about the necessary timescales to lose the amount of mass you want.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I do hope @LarsH posts as an answer.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
Since it turns out that the mass loss is the same for any planet in any star system, and the solution (50% loss) would apply equally throughout the galaxy, there is no requirement for the answer to be limited to our system.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
There are a number of ways a star can lose mass, and I think it's worth talking about them:
A normal coronal mass ejection may contain $sim10^-18M_odot$, which is also extremely low. Eta Carinae's Great Eruption averaged about $1M_odottext yr^-1$, but this is not an expected event in Sun-like stars.
Superflares are possible in Sun-like stars, although only in a very small population (1%), and likely would not remove as much mass.- The solar wind blows away mass at a rate of $sim10^-14M_odottext yr^-1$. Even the hottest O stars lose mass at $sim10^-5$ or $10^-7M_odottext yr^-1$ at the most. When the Sun becomes an AGB star near the very end of its life, it may lose mass at a rate of $sim10^-4M_odottext yr^-1$, and so an extended AGB phase is a possibility, maybe involving a late thermal pulse leading back to the asymptotic giant branch.
- I do like LarsH's suggestion of bipolar jets. They've been observed in T Tauri stars, pre-main sequence stars that often evolve to become Sun-like. In other words, the Sun may have developed jets within the first ten million years or so of its life. However, I suppose it's really not going to happen anytime soon; T Tauri stars are very active, and have strong stellar winds that aid outbursts.
I think superflares are your best choice if you want the event to occur at the present stage of the star's life. If you are willing to have the star be very young, pick a T Tauri wind and bipolar jets, dramatically enhanced by some unknown factor. If you are willing to have the star be older and more evolved, a strong AGB wind might work.
Let's look at the timescales $tau_1/2$ we'll need for the various processes, in order to lose $0.5M_odot$:
$$
beginarraychline
textProcess & textEvolutionary stage & dotMtext (M_odottext yr^-1) & tau_1/2text (textyears)\hline
textT Tauri wind^1 & textPre-main sequence & 10^-7 & 5times10^6\hline
textSuperflares^2 & textMain sequence & 10^-11 & 5times10^10\hline
textG star wind & textMain sequence & 10^-14 & 5times10^13\hline
textO star wind^3 & textMain sequence & 10^-5 & 5times10^4\hline
textAGB wind^4 & textAsymptotic giant branch & 10^-4 & 5times10^3\hline
endarray
$$
1Lecture notes, Ohio State University
2Osten (2015)
3Cohen et al. (2011)
4Lecture notes, University of Bonn
Your best bet, overall, would be a system with an AGB star rapidly losing mass. Note that I give the time it would take for an O star to lose $0.5M_odot$, but that would only be a small fraction of its total mass - not half. You'd need to extent that timescale by a factor of about 20 for it to lose half of its initial mass.
answered 1 hour ago
HDE 226868♦
61.1k12214393
There are a number of ways a star can lose mass, and I think it's worth talking about them:
A normal coronal mass ejection may contain $sim10^-18M_odot$, which is also extremely low. Eta Carinae's Great Eruption averaged about $1M_odottext yr^-1$, but this is not an expected event in Sun-like stars.
Superflares are possible in Sun-like stars, although only in a very small population (1%), and likely would not remove as much mass.- The solar wind blows away mass at a rate of $sim10^-14M_odottext yr^-1$. Even the hottest O stars lose mass at $sim10^-5$ or $10^-7M_odottext yr^-1$ at the most. When the Sun becomes an AGB star near the very end of its life, it may lose mass at a rate of $sim10^-4M_odottext yr^-1$, and so an extended AGB phase is a possibility, maybe involving a late thermal pulse leading back to the asymptotic giant branch.
- I do like LarsH's suggestion of bipolar jets. They've been observed in T Tauri stars, pre-main sequence stars that often evolve to become Sun-like. In other words, the Sun may have developed jets within the first ten million years or so of its life. However, I suppose it's really not going to happen anytime soon; T Tauri stars are very active, and have strong stellar winds that aid outbursts.
I think superflares are your best choice if you want the event to occur at the present stage of the star's life. If you are willing to have the star be very young, pick a T Tauri wind and bipolar jets, dramatically enhanced by some unknown factor. If you are willing to have the star be older and more evolved, a strong AGB wind might work.
Let's look at the timescales $tau_1/2$ we'll need for the various processes, in order to lose $0.5M_odot$:
$$
beginarraychline
textProcess & textEvolutionary stage & dotMtext (M_odottext yr^-1) & tau_1/2text (textyears)\hline
textT Tauri wind^1 & textPre-main sequence & 10^-7 & 5times10^6\hline
textSuperflares^2 & textMain sequence & 10^-11 & 5times10^10\hline
textG star wind & textMain sequence & 10^-14 & 5times10^13\hline
textO star wind^3 & textMain sequence & 10^-5 & 5times10^4\hline
textAGB wind^4 & textAsymptotic giant branch & 10^-4 & 5times10^3\hline
endarray
$$
1Lecture notes, Ohio State University
2Osten (2015)
3Cohen et al. (2011)
4Lecture notes, University of Bonn
Your best bet, overall, would be a system with an AGB star rapidly losing mass. Note that I give the time it would take for an O star to lose $0.5M_odot$, but that would only be a small fraction of its total mass - not half. You'd need to extent that timescale by a factor of about 20 for it to lose half of its initial mass.
answered 1 hour ago
HDE 226868♦
61.1k12214393
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
HDE 226868♦
61.1k12214393
answered 1 hour ago
HDE 226868♦
61.1k12214393
answered 1 hour ago
HDE 226868♦
61.1k12214393
61.1k12214393
As a note: This is a modification of a section of my answer to your other question. I removed the part there about mass-loss rates and have transferred it here, with some particular modifications.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I appreciate your time and effort to repost, as I had your answer in mind when I posited this new question.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
@JustinThyme I'm glad. I'm going to add some new calculations soon, talking about the necessary timescales to lose the amount of mass you want.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I do hope @LarsH posts as an answer.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
Since it turns out that the mass loss is the same for any planet in any star system, and the solution (50% loss) would apply equally throughout the galaxy, there is no requirement for the answer to be limited to our system.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
As a note: This is a modification of a section of my answer to your other question. I removed the part there about mass-loss rates and have transferred it here, with some particular modifications.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I appreciate your time and effort to repost, as I had your answer in mind when I posited this new question.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
@JustinThyme I'm glad. I'm going to add some new calculations soon, talking about the necessary timescales to lose the amount of mass you want.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I do hope @LarsH posts as an answer.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
Since it turns out that the mass loss is the same for any planet in any star system, and the solution (50% loss) would apply equally throughout the galaxy, there is no requirement for the answer to be limited to our system.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
As a note: This is a modification of a section of my answer to your other question. I removed the part there about mass-loss rates and have transferred it here, with some particular modifications.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
As a note: This is a modification of a section of my answer to your other question. I removed the part there about mass-loss rates and have transferred it here, with some particular modifications.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I appreciate your time and effort to repost, as I had your answer in mind when I posited this new question.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
I appreciate your time and effort to repost, as I had your answer in mind when I posited this new question.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
@JustinThyme I'm glad. I'm going to add some new calculations soon, talking about the necessary timescales to lose the amount of mass you want.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
@JustinThyme I'm glad. I'm going to add some new calculations soon, talking about the necessary timescales to lose the amount of mass you want.
– HDE 226868♦
1 hour ago
I do hope @LarsH posts as an answer.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
I do hope @LarsH posts as an answer.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
Since it turns out that the mass loss is the same for any planet in any star system, and the solution (50% loss) would apply equally throughout the galaxy, there is no requirement for the answer to be limited to our system.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
Since it turns out that the mass loss is the same for any planet in any star system, and the solution (50% loss) would apply equally throughout the galaxy, there is no requirement for the answer to be limited to our system.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Wormhole
[A,C,D,E,F,G] A traversalable wormhole would be an excellent mechanism to remove mass from the sun. A wormhole is consistent with general relativity while avoiding all of the pitfalls of violently moving mass from the center of the solar system (which could cause all kinds of orbital perturbations that would be chaotic or even fatal).
[B] Would you consider human construction natural? Perhaps humans build a wormhole. For convenience and efficiency they place it in the inner solar system (perhaps it requires a significant and constant stream of particles to remain stable so it's placed right next to the sun). Either by miscalculation or accident it falls into the sun. Unable to retrieve or destroy the wormhole it is left to silently eat away at the mass of the sun.
answered 2 hours ago
Skek Tek
1113
A novel plausible approach. I will allow that the wormhole could have resulted from alien intervention and manipulation, so long as it was not specifically directed at our Solar System. That is, any effects on our Solar System were unintended consequences of alien activity at a distance. It is my desire to keep any intelligent action completely external to the Solar System and completely unintentional. For instance, aliens wanted to 'starlift' material from our Sun for their own purposes, in an environmentally friendly non-destructive way, that left no presence behind, like through a wormhole.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
However, that is not to say that others seeking an answer to this question might not find your answer regarding human intervention and 'accident' suitable for their needs.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Wormhole
[A,C,D,E,F,G] A traversalable wormhole would be an excellent mechanism to remove mass from the sun. A wormhole is consistent with general relativity while avoiding all of the pitfalls of violently moving mass from the center of the solar system (which could cause all kinds of orbital perturbations that would be chaotic or even fatal).
[B] Would you consider human construction natural? Perhaps humans build a wormhole. For convenience and efficiency they place it in the inner solar system (perhaps it requires a significant and constant stream of particles to remain stable so it's placed right next to the sun). Either by miscalculation or accident it falls into the sun. Unable to retrieve or destroy the wormhole it is left to silently eat away at the mass of the sun.
answered 2 hours ago
Skek Tek
1113
A novel plausible approach. I will allow that the wormhole could have resulted from alien intervention and manipulation, so long as it was not specifically directed at our Solar System. That is, any effects on our Solar System were unintended consequences of alien activity at a distance. It is my desire to keep any intelligent action completely external to the Solar System and completely unintentional. For instance, aliens wanted to 'starlift' material from our Sun for their own purposes, in an environmentally friendly non-destructive way, that left no presence behind, like through a wormhole.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
However, that is not to say that others seeking an answer to this question might not find your answer regarding human intervention and 'accident' suitable for their needs.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Wormhole
[A,C,D,E,F,G] A traversalable wormhole would be an excellent mechanism to remove mass from the sun. A wormhole is consistent with general relativity while avoiding all of the pitfalls of violently moving mass from the center of the solar system (which could cause all kinds of orbital perturbations that would be chaotic or even fatal).
[B] Would you consider human construction natural? Perhaps humans build a wormhole. For convenience and efficiency they place it in the inner solar system (perhaps it requires a significant and constant stream of particles to remain stable so it's placed right next to the sun). Either by miscalculation or accident it falls into the sun. Unable to retrieve or destroy the wormhole it is left to silently eat away at the mass of the sun.
answered 2 hours ago
Skek Tek
1113
Wormhole
[A,C,D,E,F,G] A traversalable wormhole would be an excellent mechanism to remove mass from the sun. A wormhole is consistent with general relativity while avoiding all of the pitfalls of violently moving mass from the center of the solar system (which could cause all kinds of orbital perturbations that would be chaotic or even fatal).
[B] Would you consider human construction natural? Perhaps humans build a wormhole. For convenience and efficiency they place it in the inner solar system (perhaps it requires a significant and constant stream of particles to remain stable so it's placed right next to the sun). Either by miscalculation or accident it falls into the sun. Unable to retrieve or destroy the wormhole it is left to silently eat away at the mass of the sun.
answered 2 hours ago
Skek Tek
1113
answered 2 hours ago
Skek Tek
1113
answered 2 hours ago
Skek Tek
1113
answered 2 hours ago
Skek Tek
1113
1113
A novel plausible approach. I will allow that the wormhole could have resulted from alien intervention and manipulation, so long as it was not specifically directed at our Solar System. That is, any effects on our Solar System were unintended consequences of alien activity at a distance. It is my desire to keep any intelligent action completely external to the Solar System and completely unintentional. For instance, aliens wanted to 'starlift' material from our Sun for their own purposes, in an environmentally friendly non-destructive way, that left no presence behind, like through a wormhole.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
However, that is not to say that others seeking an answer to this question might not find your answer regarding human intervention and 'accident' suitable for their needs.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
A novel plausible approach. I will allow that the wormhole could have resulted from alien intervention and manipulation, so long as it was not specifically directed at our Solar System. That is, any effects on our Solar System were unintended consequences of alien activity at a distance. It is my desire to keep any intelligent action completely external to the Solar System and completely unintentional. For instance, aliens wanted to 'starlift' material from our Sun for their own purposes, in an environmentally friendly non-destructive way, that left no presence behind, like through a wormhole.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
However, that is not to say that others seeking an answer to this question might not find your answer regarding human intervention and 'accident' suitable for their needs.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
A novel plausible approach. I will allow that the wormhole could have resulted from alien intervention and manipulation, so long as it was not specifically directed at our Solar System. That is, any effects on our Solar System were unintended consequences of alien activity at a distance. It is my desire to keep any intelligent action completely external to the Solar System and completely unintentional. For instance, aliens wanted to 'starlift' material from our Sun for their own purposes, in an environmentally friendly non-destructive way, that left no presence behind, like through a wormhole.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
A novel plausible approach. I will allow that the wormhole could have resulted from alien intervention and manipulation, so long as it was not specifically directed at our Solar System. That is, any effects on our Solar System were unintended consequences of alien activity at a distance. It is my desire to keep any intelligent action completely external to the Solar System and completely unintentional. For instance, aliens wanted to 'starlift' material from our Sun for their own purposes, in an environmentally friendly non-destructive way, that left no presence behind, like through a wormhole.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
However, that is not to say that others seeking an answer to this question might not find your answer regarding human intervention and 'accident' suitable for their needs.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
However, that is not to say that others seeking an answer to this question might not find your answer regarding human intervention and 'accident' suitable for their needs.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126018%2fhow-do-you-non-catastrophically-reduce-the-mass-of-the-sun-by-half%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I do not know enough for a proper answer, but it could be a hit from a small but fast object, going perpendicular to orbital plane of planets. It should knock enough material from the sun, and disperse it over in a cone on the other side. The object would have to be sturdy enough to survive passing through the sun, fast enough to knock material out before it can cause subtantial gravitational effect on planets, and heavy enough to knock out enough material. A black hole comes to mind, but what would make it go so fast, and aim it so precisely?
– Bald Bear
3 hours ago
@BaldBear You should post your comment as an answer! I was thinking exactly the same thing. However, a black hole comes with a lot of additional gravity, which would affect the orbits of all the planets as it got close. A related phenomenon: a steady stream of less massive objects could fly through the sun in a similar path. Each would drag some material out of the sun, but none of them would have enough mass to gravitationally affect the planets very much.
– BrettFromLA
3 hours ago
@Bald Bear Your comment WOULD make a very good answer. However, one thing - it would perhaps have to be a chain of objects hitting the sun over time, as I suspect an object large enough to split the sun in two equal parts would release too much energy all at once. Sort of like what BrettFromLA is suggesting. The objects would not have to survive the impact, they would just have to become part of the ejected detritus.
– Justin Thyme
2 hours ago
I don't think the [orbital-mechanics] tag applies to this question (but I might be missing something). While orbital mechanics is involved in your reasoning behind the question, it seems to me that expertise in orbital mechanics does not help (or hinder) in answering this question, therefore the question is not about orbital mechanics.
– Michael Kjörling♦
1 hour ago
@Michael Kjörling♦ I added orbital mechanics as a tag because the answer has to preserve the orbital integrity of the Solar System right up until escape velocity is reached. That is, the method can not disturb the Sun's position as the center of the planetary system. Any movement of the planets due to the reduced gravity of the Sun has to follow normal orbital mechanics principles.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago