Talk:Sun

Template:WP1.0

Sun or The Sun

I'm sure that the Sun's astronomic name is not "the Sun", but merely Sun, as it is simply the local star in our solar system (we don't call Sirius The Sirius and we don't call Alpheratz the Alpheratz).

If what I'm saying makes sense, than this article requires some editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.80.15 (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, my first edit so sorry if I've done it wrong. "The Sun (Latin: Sol), a yellow dwarf, is the star at the center of the Solar System." Shouldn't this read "the center of "our" Solar System?

Yes. Furthermore, the star in question is actually called Sol. The star Sol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.112.18 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article states Use of "Sol" as a name for the Sun is largely confined to works of science fiction.[164], there is an error here. The quoted reference states that the term Sol is used by scientists and this is correct. The term Sol is used by scientists when discussing or comparing Sol with other stars. Sol is accepted as the proper name of our star just as Musca domestica is the proper name for the housefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.71.10 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

almost. Galilleo, for instance, refers to the sun as "Solis" rather than "Sol" meaning "the Sun" rather than the roman god of the same name from which our word for sun derives. This is in contrast to "Jupiter", which he refers to as is. I can think of many fascinating ecclesiastical reasons why Gallileo would do this, but thats not within the scope of this article. perhaps if he knew of other gas giants we would call them jupiters, after all he refered to the moon as "luna", but thats definately OR.Outerstyx (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"0.3 watt per m3"

The calculation is not consistent. The actual valvue should be higher, do the math!

Regards, Bart Bozon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.234.183.218 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I second this. I did the calculation with the numbers given for core radius and solar output and got 35w/m3. -- Grady

Off-topic and science-challenged rant collapsed

68.231.190.2 (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC) The entire discussion of the sun, beginning with einstein theory, which was first postulated by lorentz, which he discarded because it was incorrect, was the right thing to do. The sun , like all the other physical bodies, has resonant frequencies, which vibrates as it passes around the galaxy at about 200 meters per second, its resonant frequencies are that of the varying light energies we receive as these vibrations pass through the media that exists between the sun and the two planet system, the moon and the earth. In the days before the particle theory of light which has been taught for a hundred years is BS, The substance filling the space was once refered to as aether, a complex mixture of materials through which all vibrations in the electromagnetic spectrum are made up of. This substance is everywhere, thus ( The wave theory of light ) new discoveries from the colliders of more than 100 new materials in existence, occupying all space in the solar system, completely destroy the particle theory of light,the physical bodies in our solar system compose around 1.4 % of the solar systems mass. The sun is left without true description because we have yet ti develop materials that will not perish in its atmosphere, nor will we try if we believe the einstianian garble that dominate the pseudo-scientific/ quasi-medical/ legalinsurancefraud/academic caste system that is nothing but academic venture in the business to make money. They say anything. When you descend to the point of teaching theory as fact, then you have lost sight of true education, and are no longer fit for the use intended. The internet can teach a kid in a week what he can learn in a symester, without turning him into a drunk, junkie, or hooking him up with a sexual predatory for a professor. Academia is dead, its time to bury it and start over with learning and data mining techniques. La regime de la pedagogque is over. The information revolution will change the world. all the land is holy land and all the children are equal " goyim " is not a word, stop treating us like one---to the directors of wikipedia

Same problem with the numbers here (not with the theory, like the previous post!) I added an "expert-needed" notice to that section... the numbers are odd. I have my own consistent numbers, but they might be wrong as well. Probably there are uncertainties also. We really need an expert for this task, not some self appointed one... (been there, done that, not again!) Rnbc (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the power density is not correct. The 0.27 Watts per cubic meter represents an overall average of the Sun. I'm getting 33.9 watts per cubic meter in the core. The point that humans generate substantial more power per cubic meter is still valid. -- Charlie Moquin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.155.72 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for fusion

Question for the experts:

What (if any) actual experimental evidence do we have to support the idea that the core of the sun contains hydrogen, and that the primary source of energy is fusion? There's no cite, and no explanation -- and I haven't been able to find anything elsewhere. Ungtss (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Question #2: It is mentioned that the photon travel time is something like 10,000 years to 170,000 years from the core to the surface. It is said that a photon is absorbed and re-emitted multiple times before it reaches the surface. What is the evidence that the 'same photon' is being absorbed and re-emitted? Slight explanation will benefit us. 57.67.164.37 (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Question 2:: It's not the "same" photon. It's just that the energy given to the body it was absorbed is then re-emitted, one could see in a way that it's the same energy, thus the "same" photon. But, in reality, it's a new photon because the energy levels have changed. The question is really one of semantics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.137.225 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question #1: First, you might go to NASA's site and explore the data from project SOHO (There are articles in Wiki about it...). Other evidence is found in the data from other probes, such as Galileo. One can draw quite a bit of evidence for what is inside a star by examining what is inside the gas giants. Much has been detected through filtration of the light waves eminating from the planets and the star, compared to what we learn about this planet through our terrestrial satellites. The deeper essence of your question enters into my own research area, that being the helium content of the sun. This is because I have contentions with continuous fusion as the power source and predict we will someday reside to stars powered by pulsed fusion. Much of this concept is supported by research we now have about Bose-Einstein Condensates (BEC's) and superfluid ⁴He that forms BEC's, albeit not famously, as quantum vortices. The purposes for my own research involves a somewhat wide scope of astrophysics, but tends to interleave with nuclear power research, so to prove one area experimentally will likely evidence the other as well. DrCWho (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Summer and Winter

The head of the article mentions Summer and Winter when talking about ~the sun's distance to the earth. Yet those seasonal notions are only relevant relative to one's hemisphere. Shouldn't the article be more precise as to which "summer" or "winter" it is referring to ?

Since this article is "semi" protected I am unable to indicate which hemisphere's season the article is indicating myself. Please someone who has the appropriate authority make the necessary correction ?

PS : I also happen to live in the same hemisphere where earth happens to be the farthest from the sun when it's summer for me, as stated in the article, so it's not personal !

PPS : Is there really a relevant relation between the equinoxes/solstices - the min/max (0°/~23°) angle between the earth' rotation axis and the earth/sun orbiting plane) and the major/minor axis of the earth/sun orbit - except for sensationalism - because the northern summer happens to be further from the sun than when it is winter in the northern hemisphere - contrary to popular belief ?

However, despite my opinion this might be irrelevant, my proposal is simply to append a "northern" qualification to the initial "summer" part in the article.

Ivan Scott Warren (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the bit to

from a minimum of .... on 3 January, to a maximum of ..... on 4 July.

I don't know whether this is too much detail, but it is better than say summer in the northern hemisphere etc. Martin451 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question, there is no relationship between equinoxes and the earth-sun distance. See Earth's orbit, Precession (astronomy) and Milankovitch cycles Martin451 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}} The radius and circumference data is incorrect, check the linked citation for the correct values. I am just going to assume all the other data about The Sun in this "featured article" is also incorrect, but I'm not going to bother with it since this is a "protected page". Nice job ruining hundreds/thousands of children's school reports ya small-brained amateur nazis, lol. No big deal, just a couple orders of magnitude. Of course these errors would have been fixed in seconds by someone like me if it was not a "protected" page. {{editsemiprotected}}—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.82.241 (talk • contribs)

From what i can see (checking the NASA reference) both radius and circumfence are correct - have you noticed that the figures are in meters - not kilometers? (ie. 10³ larger figures). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for the laugh. Your "edit request" is a fine example of why Wikipedia protects this article from being "fixed" by new or anonymous editors. Priceless! Celestra (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please add an external link to the animated multimedia resource 'The Structure of The Sun' on the Alien Worlds website. This resource was awarded second prize in the UK Association for Learning Technology 'Learning Object Competition 2008'. Please use the following for the link: "An animated explanation of the structure of the Sun, University of Glamorgan" NB.First time request for an edit to a semi-protected page, hope I've submitted correctly, apologies if not. Urbanclearway

Radius and circumference should be expressed in kilometers, see Earth's Physical characteristics for example. <irony>Oh wait, make it in terms of Angstroms, or even better, convert it to hogsehead/kilobyte just to make more sense. </irony> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.54.171 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Magnitude

• 4.86 The Magnitude of the Sun, the Stellar Temperature Scale, and Bolometric Corrections. Kuiper, G. P. 1938
• 4.85 Stellar parameters 1986
• 4.84 A planetary system for Gamma Cephei? 1989
• 4.84 Main-sequence photometry, color-magnitude diagrams, and ages for the globular clusters M3, M13, M15, and M92 1970
• 4.83 Three Double-lined Class B Spectroscopic Binaries 1925
• 4.82 Sun Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2000
• 4.81 Model atmospheres broad-band colors, bolometric corrections and temperature calibrations for O - M stars 1998

Now sombody has to choose one.--Stone (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote 'em all (1970+) and write ~4.83 (or whatever is the rounded average).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

mass

The quoted number Sun, which by itself accounts for about 98.6% of the Solar System's mass looks strange Physics and chemistry of the solar system by John S. Lewis gives 99.9%.--Stone (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Sun contains 98.85% of the mass of the solar system but only about 2% of its angular momentum
• the entire mass of the solar system — 99.86 percent — is that of the Sun.
• Whereas more than 99.9% of the total mass of the solar system is concentrated in the Sun, more than 99% of the angular momentum
• The Sun contains almost 99.9% of the total mass of the solar system.
• The total mass of the solar system is 1.9918- 1030 kg, of which 99.86% is contributed by the Sun.
• Since the Sun accounts for 99.6% of the mass of the Solar System

I suspect that depends on how exactly you define "solar system". Do you include only the major bodies or all the interplanetary gas, the Kuyper belt, and the Oort cloud? I would also assume that the total mass of the solar system is not known that well.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Brightness of Core

So, if you imagine for a moment that the core of the sun was visible from earth, how bright would it look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.170.82 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

More user friendly units of measure please

I found myself having to pull out the calculator repeatedly to make sense of the units in this article. The worst offender is the description of the core whose units are given in solar radii!!! That's self referential! It would be good to include more conventional units (miles and km) in many places. I would even suggest that the speed of the sun's rotation around the galactic center be translated from km/s into both km/hr and miles/hr, and that Kelvin be translated into both C and F. Keep mind that not only scientist read an encyclopedia article about the sun. American (and metric) kids do too and it would be nice if this article were more approachable. Yes translating the units in this way results in huge numbers but it also helps lay people grasp the magnitude of the sun. Cshay (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're complaining, Cshay, this thing is *not* supposed to be a science research paper. (Likewise, too many of the references are not suitable for intelligent laypeople - not even science undergrads.) But it's easy to forget that while trying to keep things up to date.
I'd encourage you to try to estimate rather than whip out the calculator. If it helps, K is very close to C for large temperatures. A km is very close to 2/3 of a mile.
It's hard to write science articles that are accurate, up-to-date, and readable for the average educated person. (And ... at what level?!) Definitely, too many tech/science articles on WP are too complex. (Many of the bio articles make me gasp.) But science uses hundreds of units, and it's hard to be 'science-literate' without grasping the common ones. Twang (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. And besides this has been discussed before. If we start putting all sorts of different unit conversions in for every measurement we will get an extremely cluttered article. This makes it highly unreadable. Science works in SI (aka metric). All over the world. There are standard units sometimes used in a particular field outside metric (e.g. astronomical unit which is the earth/sun distance) and it is appropriate to use those figures in an article. For example "The sun is 149.6 million km (1 AU) from the Earth". Also including miles, yards, feet, centimetres (or whatever takes one person's fancy) in brackets is just silly. If you need an accurate figure for a calculation then you are going to use the SI number. Other than that, in astronomy you can probably look at 15 million K and say "that's hot". Jim77742 (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed before? Well don't even get me started on my dislike for archivebots. They lead to repetitious discussion pages don't they? Anyway, you are looking at this issue as a scientist and also as someone concerned with clutter? How about being concerned about the 95% of the audience who are not scientists? How come the worldbook encyclopedia I read as a kid didn't use Kelvins in place of Celcius? That's right, and it's because they were trying to make something readable by lay people. It seems a cabal of scientists has banded together and decided that Wikipedia will read like a university research journal, everyone else be damned (this is not the only article with this problem) Cshay (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision 301516691

For this revision I made, I meant to say '/* Observation and eye damage */ how-to guide-ish. Mainly the last paragraph, but a bit in second para after its cited content as well. last para's source is listed as "juvenile nonfiction"; is there a better source?' (For the last issue, see Google Books.) --an odd name 08:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction Tag

Someone place a contradiction tag in the article with regards to the absolute magnitude in the right-hand box. This tag is now in the backlog for the Category:Self-contradictory articles. Since this article is semi-protected, would someone who has access, please review the information and/or contradiction and either fix and remove the tag, or if no contradiction exists, please remove the tag so the backlog can be cleared. Thanks much! Kjnelan (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How many languages use the word "Sol" for the Sun?

Not sure that this issue is of central importance to what is an article about the sun, not linguistics, I've taken the bold step of moving a lengthy list of languages that use the word "Sol" for the Sun to a footnote. It could be restored; I'd like to hear if people think it belongs in the main section.hgilbert (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly calls the Sun "Sol" in English? When have you ever heard it used, apart from in scifi novels? Your alteration gives the impression that the name Sol is used for the Sun in English as a matter of course. Now I have no doubt that some written sources have used the name and that dictionaries across the English speaking world have cited the definition, but it is not in any way common usage in English and this article should reflect that. Serendi^podous 07:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick with verified sources. It is an accepted usage and there is no indication that it is obscure or rare in the dictionaries I cite. We have no source that claims it is special to sci-fi novels. hgilbert (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not good for determining the prevalence of words in any language. All they do is say that someone, somewhere, wrote that word down using that definition. One mention in a thousand years is good enough for a word to end up in a dictionary. Serendi^podous 13:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

the reference for the section about Sol being restricted to science fiction actually states "However, hidebound by tradition as we are, you generally only see scientists, nerds, and science fiction fanboys - wait, I'm being redundant. Well, you get the point; most people still just call it the sun." The same source also say's "They are (Sol and Luna), however, pretty much the only proper names in common use for these two stellar bodies among English-speaking folk." Although why straight dope is being used as a reference is beyond me.Outerstyx (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Who first regarded the sun as a star?

The article is well-written, but it misses an information. Who first regarded Sun as a star, and stars as suns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.178.111 (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The first time the Sun was regarded as a star (in the modern sense of the word) was in the 1850s with the advent of spectroscopy. I believe Fr. Angelo Secchi was the first person to make that connection, though I don't know for sure. Serendi^podous 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

confused

I am slightly confused why this article has kilometers instead of miles, and Celcius instead of farenheit???? South Bay (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a scientific article. Science uses metric. Serendi^podous 07:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some countries don't use kilometers or Celcius and it could be hard for those people to translate.. South Bay (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Far more countries use metric, so that's hardly a compelling argument for using traditional measures. Kiore (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and what countries are you speaking of?? South Bay (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Countries where the metric system is official (according to the CIA World Factbook) are shown in green.

Everywhere except Burma, the USA, and limited informal use in the United Kingdom. Kiore (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, do you just make up the map yourself??? South Bay (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The map of countries where the metric system has been officially adopted isn't much use in this context. In science, the Système international is universal. --TS 16:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

if you need the miles, don't open this
What about amu's? Are they deprecated for atom masses? Or AU's? Or g/cm3 when we're not trying to be prissy correct like in papers with kg-1/m-3? They're used because they're conveniently sized. We certainly don't use Imperial, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Any user is free to copy the article into their userspace, change the units, and post a link to it on this talk page. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Short scale or long scale?

I'm guessing this uses the short scale but aint the long scale more appropiate for scientific data? It has a constant with an homogenous proportion unlike the short scale, just like the metric system is better to handle data than the imperial system...Undead Herle King (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Science uses short scale. As far as I'm aware the long scale is only really widely used in France these days. Serendi^podous 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1/1250th of a revolution?

In the middle of the third paragraph in section 1 ("The Sun's motion and location within the galaxy"), you can read:

>>It takes the Solar System about 225–250 million years to complete one orbit of the galaxy (a galactic year),[32] so it is thought to have completed 20–25 orbits during the lifetime of the Sun and 1/1250th of a revolution since the origin of humans.

1/1250 of a revolution gives at most 250 million years / 1250 = 200 000 years elapsed since the origin of humans. Doesn't it look more like the actual number of revolutions completed since then is either 1/125 or 1/250? By the way, they could be written, respectively, as "one 125th" and "one 250th", but not "1/125th" (that could even be interpreted to mean the reciprocal of one 125th, i.e., 125) and "1/250th". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.55.88 (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the origin of humans as it isn't a useful astronomical measure. There are also uncertainties about that date relating to how we interpret the fossil and DNA evidence of our ancestors. --TS 22:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction to reference 126

Reference 126 needs to have its page numbers corrected. The correct page numbers should be 388-393 instead of 288-293. This can be verified by looking at the Google PDF of this journal at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9e1C_nqprmsC&oe=UTF-8

71.56.155.182 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)