Poll: Could a sun still burn underwater?

[Farther than stars]

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.

 

[Farther than stars]

However, you're writing a sci-fi/fantasy book, do what you want, ignore realism if you have to.

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.

 

[tsb247]

If we could somehow transplant the sun underwater, it would certainly still burn, and it would instantly evaporate all of the water with it.

 

[Zantos]

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.

 

[babinro]

Based on no research or knowledge of how the sun works I'd say no.

I simply assumed the gasses required to perform the chemical reactions to produce heat would no longer occur because of the dilution of the water.

 

[Saltyk]

The sun could not burn underwater because there would BE NO WATER.
I don't think you fully grasp how GODDAMN HOT a sun is.

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.

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.

snip

The sun would actually get hotter. I know it seems counter-intuitive but it's true.
You have to remember there are no "chemical" reactions going on in the sun, only nuclear. It is not on fire.
Fire works like this. In general
Element+Oxygen+Energy->Elementoxide+more energy.
if you smother ^this energy. Or prevent the Oxygen reaching the fuel. the fire stops, no more energy released.

Nuclear fusion works like this
Light Nucleus+Light nucleus+pressure=heavier nucleus+a fuckton of energy.
Nothing you can do can smother a a nuclear fusion. It would only add to the pressure. Add to that Water being H20, and Hydrogen being the easiest element to undergo fusion, you are literally piling fuel onto the fire (i mean fusion)

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.

 

[PureChaos]

the sun is, what, 5,500C on the surface? as others have said, the water would evaporate LOOOOONG before the sun got close to the water so, no, a sun could not burn underwater.

 

[sooperman]

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.

 

[winginson]

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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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)

 

[AngryMongoose]

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.

 

[true story]

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

 

[GundamSentinel]

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.

 

[KiKiweaky]

I know its for a book but still no, no, no and no.

There isnt a "what would happen" at all, the large blob of water you talk about would evaporate before the red dwarf got anywhere near it.

 

[Snotnarok]

Assuming you have the vast amount of water it would take to submerge a sun and then have more to span a body of water? The heat is too massive to really compare I'd say but maybe the Leidenfrost Effect would save the water for a time.

 

[Seneschal]

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.

 

[Kaltazraza]

The planet gets set on fire!

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Wouldn't the water be sucked up towards the sun as it approaches, and then evaporte? I know that you said the planet was bigger, but I though the mass of a star was proportionally a lot more than a planet of the same size? Wouldn't the gravitational pull of the sun outweigh that of the planet, and pull the water off of it, like a temporary upwards waterfall that dissapears into a cloud of stream....?

Possibly that is just something my mind wants to happen, so is trying to justify it, but it would look pretty cool!

 

[The White Hunter]

I think the body of water would evaporate before it got anywhere near a star similar to what we regard as the sun.

But cool concept

 

[Yopaz]

I honestly can't believe that almost 80% have said yes... It is kinda obvious that water that gets closed to a star wont be there for long. Oh well, I guess physics isn't the strong suit of people...