PDA

View Full Version : Suns life span + 40K background



khorgor
13-09-2005, 14:53
I had a thought the other day and wanted to put it here for the background people to think on.

By rights, the sun should die in maybe 20K years. The resulting explosion would incinerate Mars and most likely Earth as well. Or at least suck everything into a black hole.

Now, as I write this, I realise I can't remember if there is a sun in the star maps released with the 40K rulebook.

So can someone explain this to me? Please?

Mybe a missed something in the fluff, but I can't remember anything regarding to the sun.

Off topic thought of the day: would a black hole endanger the eye of terror or the other warp rift (or anything inside it for that matter)?

Sai-Lauren
13-09-2005, 15:03
Well, Terra = Earth.

The sun is currently believed to be roughly in the middle of it's life span.

Looking, as usual, on Wikipedia. (Important bit underlined by me ;))

Our Sun does not have enough mass to explode as a supernova. Instead, in 4-5 billion years it will enter its red giant phase, its outer layers expanding as the hydrogen fuel in the core is consumed and the core contracts and heats up. Helium fusion will begin when the core temperature reaches about 3×108 K. While it is likely that the expansion of the outer layers of the Sun will reach the current position of Earth's orbit, recent research suggests that mass lost from the Sun earlier in its red giant phase will cause the Earth's orbit to move further out, preventing it from being engulfed. Following the red giant phase, giant thermal pulsations will cause the Sun to throw off its outer layers forming a planetary nebula. The Sun will then evolve into a white dwarf, slowly cooling over eons. This stellar evolution scenario is typical of low to medium mass stars.

Answer your question? ;)

Asher
13-09-2005, 15:04
As far as I'm aware, the sun has about 4 to 5 billion years left to live from the present day. 38000 years don't do much of a difference.

Dakkagor
13-09-2005, 15:09
No, the sun won't explode in 20 thousand years. I think the last estimate was actually something like 10 billion years for a yellow star like Earth. Even in 40k, thats nearly 6 billion years of use, 4 billion if you haven't found a way of shielding a planet from the red giant expansion.

And sol won't go nova or turn into a black hole, its simply to small.

Seriously, google this stuff first. http://www.milky-way.com/gb/sevol.htm (Star lifecycle)

A massive (10 times larger) star MIGHT undergo the collapse needed to turn into a black hole or more likely a neutron star, pulsar, or other wierd celestial phenomena.

As for the effect of a black hole on a warp rift. . .difficult to say. Is the warp affected by strogn gravitational fields? The answer seems to be yes, as it seems dangerous to jump out of the warp near a planet (its afformentioned warpshadow) so a black hole might have an affect on the eye of terror, by sucking stuff up, crushing it, and spewing it out as radiation. Wether demons and the gods will be affected by this, well, thats another problem entirely.

Edit: beaten to it, but hey, my post has a link.

Inquisitor Engel
13-09-2005, 15:09
Yeah we've got a good few billion years before the sun dies.

charlie_c67
13-09-2005, 15:54
Plus a lot of the theories are just that, theories. There's no way to predict wat it'll do that far in advance.

Falkus
13-09-2005, 16:10
Plus a lot of the theories are just that, theories.

A THEORY, for those of us who are unversed is science, is a hypothesis that has been proven by overwhelming evidence. A theory is as close to a fact as you can get.


There's no way to predict wat it'll do that far in advance

Wrong, we've been observing other stars, and seeing what happens to them.

Decius
13-09-2005, 16:55
The area of space that the Eye of Terror occupies most likely has black holes in it. These black holes were probably there long before the Eye of Terror was. So, I don't think black holes have much of a negaative effect, at least not to the point of destroying the Eye of Terror.

Adlan
13-09-2005, 17:05
Possibly because the eye of terror is so much larger than a blackhole.

Vosk
13-09-2005, 17:55
Or because blackholes work on the physics of our dimension, where as the Warp (and therefore the Eye) don't. I would imagine this to be fairly similar to the interractions between the C'tan and the Warp - they just don't interract at all, because they are working off of seperate basic principles.

TheSonOfAbbadon
13-09-2005, 18:08
Since planets give off a 'warp shadow' wouldn't a black hole do the same?

athamas
13-09-2005, 18:18
depends if it is the population that generates the shadow [many sparks in the warp] so it would not or if it is the mass... in which case yes it would.

susu.exp
13-09-2005, 19:29
Wrong, we've been observing other stars, and seeing what happens to them.

Which is not what the estimate of our suns lifespan is based on. What we do know is the composition of the sun (due to spectrometric data) and its energy output (which allows us to acces the pressure of radiation from the suns core). There is a framework of equations for stars that describe them in their stable mode, when the gravitic pressure from the stars outer regions is in equilibrium with the radiation pressure. They also describe what happens when the radiation pressure decreases and stars collaps reasonably well (here´s where comparison with other stars is used to test their viability to predict such events). But for the estimate of the lifespan you only need to know how much Hydrogen is left and when its concentration falls below the required ammount for sustained fusion sufficient to keep the star from collapsing.

The equations are derived from basic natural laws governing fusion, gravity and radiation which are observable on earth.

How good are our estimates? There is room for error, but any way you turn the data, it won´t happen in the near future and even pessimist won´t get close to a billion years remaining.

Wiseman
14-09-2005, 02:35
id say a black hole would have some sort of effect on the warp, imagine how cool it would look to see the warp getting sucked into a black hole

Falkus
14-09-2005, 03:02
id say a black hole would have some sort of effect on the warp, imagine how cool it would look to see the warp getting sucked into a black hole

It'd have the same affect on the warp as any other source of gravity.

charlie_c67
14-09-2005, 09:43
A THEORY, for those of us who are unversed is science, is a hypothesis that has been proven by overwhelming evidence. A theory is as close to a fact as you can get.

Well sorry to disappoint you, but as a qualified engineer I have to say that I am versed in what a theory is and to prove my point, here's a dictionary's definition.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena <a theory of organic evolution>
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation

Nothing there to say it's definite. Facts are definite, theories are not and are always being overturned.


Wrong, we've been observing other stars, and seeing what happens to them.
Which are a) light years away and b) have been events that happened so far in the past and have taken so long to arrive that things can be misconstrued (sp?).

Falkus
14-09-2005, 12:55
Well sorry to disappoint you, but as a qualified engineer I have to say that I am versed in what a theory is and to prove my point, here's a dictionary's definition.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I took college level biology and physics. What'd you take?


Nothing there to say it's definite. Facts are definite, theories are not and are always being overturned.

Just because it's falsifiable does not mean it's not a fact. It's a fact based on our current understanding of how the universe works. If that understanding changes, so does the fact.


Which are a) light years away and b) have been events that happened so far in the past and have taken so long to arrive that things can be misconstrued (sp?).

Got a degree in astrophysics? If not, who the hell are you to make that claim.

Reinnon
14-09-2005, 13:01
hmmmm, in my science book it defines a theory as this:

"An explanation of an event that can be tested to produce simular/same results over an extended series of experiements"

by that definition, i would put my money on the following:

1) that our sun is not going to explode in 20K years

2) it won't produce a black hole.

and anyway, why would the distance matter? A few thousand light years is nothing to physics who can tell the mass of the star by how much energy it emits, and energy can't be destroyed (if i play enough attention to my physic lessons).

so, saying that the distance involved somehow disproves this theory is complete garbage to me, as if 5000 suns all do precisly the same thing and our sun happens to be like those 5000 its logical to assume that it will do the same.

I don't know how they worked it out, but they somehow worked out how long it will take for the sun to burn out, and i trust them as they clearly know more about it then i do.

just my 2 cents

neko
14-09-2005, 13:41
Just because it's falsifiable does not mean it's not a fact. It's a fact based on our current understanding of how the universe works. If that understanding changes, so does the fact.
Technically, Falkus is right. One of the dictionary definitions of the word fact is "Something believed to be true or real." In this respect, you can quite easily say that pink elephants are in charge of the local police force, and this will be a fact providing that just one person believes it. (Remember this trick when someone's claiming to be giving you the facts)

In short, it's a fact that the sun will blow up in 20,000 years. After all, someone's bound to believe it :p

Wiseman
14-09-2005, 14:00
i believe neko has 3 heads and a an elephants trunk, which means its a fact

susu.exp
14-09-2005, 14:12
Well sorry to disappoint you, but as a qualified engineer I have to say that I am versed in what a theory is and to prove my point, here's a dictionary's definition.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <the theory and practice of medicine>
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena <a theory of organic evolution>
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation

Nothing there to say it's definite. Facts are definite, theories are not and are always being overturned.


Well, dictionaries are not the best source if you want to tackle this particular problem, because they lack the space to discuss it in detail. Now I could go into Kuhn, Popper or even Weizäcker. Or I might point you to Feynman for a more functional and plain explanation. The question I have pertaining this post of yours is: What is a fact? How do you gain access to a fact? And you will not be able to give me an example of a "fact" that is independent of a theory.

Now the theory we´re talking about here, is one that falls under point 2 of you list of definition. It´s not a hypotheses, but rather a set of physical theories that combine to describe stars. Relativity and Quantum Physics are both very good approximations of reality. And they have been tested so much, that there´s little debate over their validity for this description. They are falsifiable, of course. That´s a basic requisition. But they have not been falsified for the case we´re talking about. I don´t know what you engineer, but I´m pretty shure you´re working with less solid theories.

precinctomega
14-09-2005, 15:54
And the rules of Realspace don't apply in the EoT, so ruling Daemon Princes could (within "reason") turn an irritating little Black Hole into - say - a tennis ball, then chuck it in the direction of Cadia hoping for it to turn back into a Black Hole when it arrives.

R.

The pestilent 1
14-09-2005, 16:59
Sol is far (far. far. FAR) to small to become a blackhole.
or go supernova.
heck, nova.
it will expand to a red giant, then shrink to a white dwarf.
unless someone buggers about with its mass anyways.

lord_blackfang
14-09-2005, 17:28
unless someone buggers about with its mass anyways.

Hey, who knows what our zany descendants might do to it :evilgrin:

Marshal Draziel
14-09-2005, 20:17
I'd like to check for you, but I dont think my lifespan's long enough... sorry

khorgor
05-10-2005, 15:17
wow - I forgot about this thread until today. Big thanks to everyone for their help on this topic.

regarding the sun: ah ok. So Sol doing something interesting won't be in the timeline of the 40K universe. Handy.
Wonder if anyone has ever thought of launching various missiles at Sol? I wonder what a vortex missile would do......
And for the record...something could happen to the sun before its time is up....but that requires a very hungry god and his sphere #evil smile#

regarding black holes: This si a hard one. Looking at what everyone has written here I tend to agree with everyone.
The EOT does have its own reality and time and space continueum, so if a black hole was to appear, I would say it would have to form inside the EOT as one moving into the eye would probably collapse when it hit the barrier of space and time. Although its quite probable that it would suck in some of the warp storms before it collapsed.
As for a hole in the EOT, daemon princes would probably just move their world out of the way while trying to figure out how to put everyone else in it.

Question for today: what would happen if you launched a vortex missile at a black hole?

Sai-Lauren
05-10-2005, 15:49
Question for today: what would happen if you launched a vortex missile at a black hole?
Nothing, it would pass beyond the event horizon and be shredded into sub-atomic particles by the gravitational forces before it could detonate, which may eventually be spat out as hawking radiation.

If you fired one at a star, it would be vaporised by the heat before it could detonate anywhere dangerous - or the radiation would interfere with the detonation systems, so it might detonae early or not at all.