Jump to content
Hello2

The Sun has an atmosphere that prevents particles from the universe to reach Earth?

Recommended Posts

Earth has an atmosphere that prevents particles to reach Earth’s surface,

and the Sun has an atmosphere that prevents particles from the universe to reach the Earth.

Or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hello2 said:

Earth has an atmosphere that prevents particles to reach Earth’s surface,

 

 

Yes but even more

Earth has an atmosphere that prevents  most dangerous  particles to reach Earth’s surface,

1 hour ago, Hello2 said:

and the Sun has an atmosphere that prevents particles from the universe to reach the Earth.

 

Not sure about this one.

What particles from the universe would they be ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, studiot said:

What particles from the universe would they be ?

A good question is worth somewhere between 5 and 10 good answers.

I think this is a good question. In my next-to-blank-slate mind, the Sun's magnetosphere could potentially protect us from supernova radiation, when the time comes.

As the situation stands, the most potentially harmful radiation that we get comes precisely from the Sun. But it's not inconceivable to me that its magnetosphere could act as a screen for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hello2 said:

Sun has an atmosphere that prevents particles from the universe to reach the Earth.

Are you asking if the sun's atmosphere protects the earth from cosmic radiation (radiation not from the sun)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solar wind blows away asteroids and comets that may have otherwise impacted the Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, drumbo said:

The solar wind blows away asteroids and comets that may have otherwise impacted the Earth.

Citation needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP asked about 'particles'

Not sure if comets and asteroids come into this category, and don't you mean meteoroids?

Nor am I sure if any part of the Sun's atmousphere prevents sub atomic particles like neutrinos and others from the cosmic background reaching anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, drumbo said:

The solar wind blows away asteroids and comets that may have otherwise impacted the Earth.

Solar wind is mainly made up of protons, electrons and Helium nuclei from reactions in the Sun.

How could that spray of particles essentially modify the orbit of an asteroid/meteorite/comet?

And if it did, why would it favour a miss instead of a collision or any other range of impact parameters?

Magnetospheres shield against ion rain because they drive them into localised aurorae, but ion rains carry no considerable momentum as compared to asteroids careening towards the centre of the Solar System from the Kuiper belt (mainly driven by Jupiter and Saturn perturbations and asteroid-asteroid impacts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, joigus said:

Solar wind is mainly made up of protons, electrons and Helium nuclei from reactions in the Sun.

How could that spray of particles essentially modify the orbit of an asteroid/meteorite/comet?

Protons and helium nuclei have mass which means they can impart momentum just like air molecules can impart momentum despite their small size:

tenor.gif

2 hours ago, joigus said:

And if it did, why would it favour a miss instead of a collision or any other range of impact parameters?

The solar wind radiates a current past the Earth and towards the asteroid and Kuiper belts which slows down objects originating from those belts and ultimately blows them away:

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Protons and helium nuclei have mass which means they can impart momentum just like air molecules can impart momentum despite their small size:

tenor.gif

The solar wind radiates a current past the Earth and towards the asteroid and Kuiper belts which slows down objects originating from those belts and ultimately blows them away:

tenor.gif

Imagine that, I'm blown away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, drumbo said:

tenor.gif

Typical speed of an asteroid when it reaches the inner Solar System ~ 100,000 miles/hour

Typical mass of an asteroid ~ 1021 Kg

Now take the solar wind momentum flux at Earth's distance by using the inverse-square law for flux and multiply by the cross section of a typical asteroid and tell me what we're talking about.

Solar wind is nothing in terms of momentum transfer against an asteroid or comet. It's in terms of ionization that does all its damage. I'm too lazy to do the calculation, sorry.

And again:

4 hours ago, joigus said:

And if it did, why would it favour a miss instead of a collision or any other range of impact parameters?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joigus said:

And if it did, why would it favour a miss instead of a collision or any other range of impact parameters?

I suspect @drumbo has overlooked the fact that some asteroids and comets can pass within the orbit of the Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I suspect @drumbo has overlooked the fact that some asteroids and comets can pass within the orbit of the Earth.

It seems one of the things he's overlooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sensei said:

10^21 kg mass has Ceres, which is 1/3 of the all asteroids in the entire Solar System..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid#Size_distribution

 

Yes, you're right. I should have noticed. ~10²¹ is the mass of the whole inner belt, that between Mars and Jupiter. The other 2/3 must be the Kuiper. I practically copied and pasted the data. Apologies.

 Thanks for the correction. +1

Itokawa, a quite small one, is 3.5x10^10 kg

The argument persists, I think.

Edit: Well, Itokawa is a relatively big one taking into account the enormous number of objects. I think it's more significant to take a relatively big one, in the spirit of what @drumbo was trying to argue.

Edited by joigus
Addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.