Poll: Could a sun still burn underwater?
- Thread starter Gennaroc
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is correct. A star has the heat and pressure for fusion at its' center, while the surface radiates away the heat. In a red dwarf, there is not much fusion so the surface is fairly cool. A star could even be cold enough on the surface to freeze water.Regnes said:
However, if this star is colliding with a planet, both of which are absolutely massive, the energy caused by collision will heat both bodies by many thousands of degrees. That said, the energy released will never be enough for all the steam to escape the gravity well of the two bodies.
What you'll end up with is a larger body with even more hydrogen (from the water) and the mass is likely to end up burning brighter than ever.
Scientific explanation (roughly)
Water is made of H2O. Hydrogen and Oxygen. The sun is a massive fusion reactor fusing hydrogen into helium and onwards up the masses of the periodic table, fusing elements up to the mass of silicon; or all the way up to iron in heavier more energetic stars. Any elements from Iron and heavier are only created when a star collapses and goes supernova; where they are expelled into the surrounding space to form another heavier solar system.
Now, any body of water that can remain a liquid within proximity to the sun defies any kinds of science and would rip logic entirely in two for a sci-fi or fantasy. As the body of water and the star get closer, the molecules in water would start to rip apart at a quantum scale; creating plasma. This would get pulled into the star to feed more fusion reactions.
My approach to this odd situation of a submerged sun
Your best bet to cause a star to become submerged would be to use magic, or have the water be a significantly more massive substance in terms of weight and nuclear force than the star could rip apart. This way the sun is "incapable" to completely destroying the water.
In this impossible situation, anything is possible. So make it up. I would say the star creates its own singularity and event horizon with the plasma formed from water that was close by, thus creating a barrier of plasma holding back the rest of the water; where the is sun now in harmony with the liquid around it. Anything that passes the horizon gets pulled into the submerged sun and ripped apart. Anything beyond it just feels it's gravitational pull like planets in a solar system, and it's warmth radiating through the defiant liquid.
Water is made of H2O. Hydrogen and Oxygen. The sun is a massive fusion reactor fusing hydrogen into helium and onwards up the masses of the periodic table, fusing elements up to the mass of silicon; or all the way up to iron in heavier more energetic stars. Any elements from Iron and heavier are only created when a star collapses and goes supernova; where they are expelled into the surrounding space to form another heavier solar system.
Now, any body of water that can remain a liquid within proximity to the sun defies any kinds of science and would rip logic entirely in two for a sci-fi or fantasy. As the body of water and the star get closer, the molecules in water would start to rip apart at a quantum scale; creating plasma. This would get pulled into the star to feed more fusion reactions.
My approach to this odd situation of a submerged sun
Your best bet to cause a star to become submerged would be to use magic, or have the water be a significantly more massive substance in terms of weight and nuclear force than the star could rip apart. This way the sun is "incapable" to completely destroying the water.
In this impossible situation, anything is possible. So make it up. I would say the star creates its own singularity and event horizon with the plasma formed from water that was close by, thus creating a barrier of plasma holding back the rest of the water; where the is sun now in harmony with the liquid around it. Anything that passes the horizon gets pulled into the submerged sun and ripped apart. Anything beyond it just feels it's gravitational pull like planets in a solar system, and it's warmth radiating through the defiant liquid.
A planet larger than a red giant? If such a thing did even exist, evidence suggest that it would be a gas giant; i.e. existing completely out of water vapour (not liguid) already. All the presence of a star would do is expand the planet once it had been consummed by the gas giant.
P.S. I voted "no" for the reason that in this situation you are describing, it's not feasible for there to even be any liquid water for the sun to burn under.
P.P.S. I seem to have written down "red dwarf". I have no idea why I did that. I'll correct it now.
P.S. I voted "no" for the reason that in this situation you are describing, it's not feasible for there to even be any liquid water for the sun to burn under.
P.P.S. I seem to have written down "red dwarf". I have no idea why I did that. I'll correct it now.
I disagree with this statement, at least as far as sci-fi goes. I think that fact that science fiction is grounded in actually science makes it that much more involving and wonderful. Moreover, it has the chance to actually teach people something about the way the universe works.spartan231490 said:
It would definitely still burn underwater. The circumstances required to get a star submerged are definitely up for question, but why the hell not. I've never seen or read a sci-fi that doesn't take ludicrous liberties with science, actual science really doesn't let you get away with that much.
I've read of some stars that are thought to be really cool. Like no hotter than your body temperature. So you could pretty much touch it without fear. They are incredibly small, too. Still bigger than a planet, though.albinoterrorist said:
If we assume it was a star such as this and say that it is possible for the star to exist in a planet without anything approaching Armageddon occurring, I see no reason that it wouldn't keep burning. It's a fusion reaction, not a fire. I don't even think this would cause steam, though the water would probably be fairly warm.
Actually if this is true (I confess I know next to nothing about nuclear fusion), it would be like a time bomb of sorts. Kinda cool idea.Doitpow said:
Personally I think you're going about the location idea wrong. Instead of a water planet, which would be effectively destroyed by the sun, you should go for a location where the water surrounds the sun, like a cloud or a free-floating blob of water.
This link [http://www.space.com/12400-universe-biggest-oldest-cloud-water.html] describes the discovery of the largest collection of water we have ever observed. Check it out and see if you can draw some inspiration. Good luck and have fun with it.
This link [http://www.space.com/12400-universe-biggest-oldest-cloud-water.html] describes the discovery of the largest collection of water we have ever observed. Check it out and see if you can draw some inspiration. Good luck and have fun with it.
Red dwarfs have a surface temperature of between 2000K and 4000K. That planet would be screwed before it even got close to landing in the ocean. However with enough Sci-Fi gubbins to stop the water from evaporating/escaping a star should work underwater and could make a pretty kick-ass turbine.
Sun's average temperature is 5778 Kelvin
Water becomes vapour at 373K
You've got to remember that in a star, anything other than Hydrogen and Helium are from the surrounding matter - so even the constituents of water wouldn't exist.
If you brought a Red Dwarf NEAR an Ocean Planet (within 1AU), the water would instantly vapourise. Even with the Van Allen Belt, you've seen the effect our Sun has on the Equator - and we're 1AU out.
It's not that water could ever put out a Red Dwarf; it's that water could never get within 100 million miles of a Red Dwarf.
(Approximately - just for scale)
There wouldn't be much water.
Anyway, it's not fire, it's fusion. Starving it of oxygen wouldn't do much.
Really, the water should crush down into the center of it, but, then, a giant ocean in space should be doing that anyway (or splitting apart). Before you work out how the star would react in the water, you have to answer to yourself how the water is staying like that in the first place.
Anyway, it's not fire, it's fusion. Starving it of oxygen wouldn't do much.
Really, the water should crush down into the center of it, but, then, a giant ocean in space should be doing that anyway (or splitting apart). Before you work out how the star would react in the water, you have to answer to yourself how the water is staying like that in the first place.
well to answer the problem of the planet being bigger than the sun. you could have it be because of galactic cannibalism forcing a liquid state planet coming into the system of a red dwarf. but how a planet bigger than a sun wouldn't just convert into a sun as stated before i don't know. but who gives a shit trow science out to make the story work. cool idea what if you had a
geo-centric solar system instead of a helio-centric
geo-centric solar system instead of a helio-centric
Well, the sun isn't exactly burning to begin with. It's nuclear fusion because of extreme pressure. If anything, putting it under water would actually encourage the fusion progress by increasing pressure and feeding fresh fuel.
If it's established that gods and prophecies exist in the universe, that's already enough to fool around without much concern with physics. I don't agree with the poster that said you shouldn't use it because it's more embarrassing than The Core - that movie tried to be some sort of speculative disaster movie and ended up being just a disaster because the audience couldn't suspend their disbelief. Fantasy automatically requires a suspension of disbelief.
Let's say a god magicks-up a "star" 1 kilometre in diameter, and holds it together through magical gravity (otherwise it would never get dense enough to fuse). You now essentially have a 1 km fusion reactor without containment. Dump it in an ocean, watch millions of tons of water evaporate instantly, take pictures.
There's really NO realistic way you can pull this off without some anticlimax, so I suggest you don't even try. E.g. planets aren't solid balls that you can pick up and move around, their consistency is more like... a snowball held together by gravity. If you put a strong source of gravity beside them, they'd just crumble and disperse. So any scenario with that star of yours would result in a disaster long before it touches the ocean, which wouldn't be very dramatic.
I say, have a god teleport the aforementioned 1-km-fusion-reactor into the ocean and describe the catastrophe in a way that suits your story.
Let's say a god magicks-up a "star" 1 kilometre in diameter, and holds it together through magical gravity (otherwise it would never get dense enough to fuse). You now essentially have a 1 km fusion reactor without containment. Dump it in an ocean, watch millions of tons of water evaporate instantly, take pictures.
There's really NO realistic way you can pull this off without some anticlimax, so I suggest you don't even try. E.g. planets aren't solid balls that you can pick up and move around, their consistency is more like... a snowball held together by gravity. If you put a strong source of gravity beside them, they'd just crumble and disperse. So any scenario with that star of yours would result in a disaster long before it touches the ocean, which wouldn't be very dramatic.
I say, have a god teleport the aforementioned 1-km-fusion-reactor into the ocean and describe the catastrophe in a way that suits your story.