1) the number of stars in the Milky Way is of order 10^11. That's all we can say. Affirming that there are exactly 3*10^11 or 4.75*10^11 is stretching it a bit too far.

2) the solar cycle is *not* determined at all by the number of stars in the galaxy. The internal workings of the Sun do not care at all about how many stars are there in total in the galaxy, or how far it is to the center. It is determined by how the internal solar dynamo works, how long does it take the generated magnetic fields to rise to the surface, how do those magnetic fields travel to the poles, etc.

3) the previous answer by Ray Butler is totally right. Neither galaxies nor the solar cycle care too much about which man-made time measurement we use or if there are any numerical coincidences.

Eric, I refer you to my answer to your other question here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_does_measuring_the_solar_cycle_in_milliseconds_roughly_equal_the_number_of_stars_in_the_Milky_Way_Galaxy

I'll just add this. Chasing numerical similarities or coincidences is pointless in general. It's particularly pointless in this case, because the unit of time you quote (milliseconds) is an arbitrary, man-made quantity. There is no fundamental, universal truth basis to using "the second" as the unit of time; one could just as easily use "the fortnight". Change the unit, and then your numerical similarity/coincidence collapses. It never had any significance to start with.

1) the number of stars in the Milky Way is of order 10^11. That's all we can say. Affirming that there are exactly 3*10^11 or 4.75*10^11 is stretching it a bit too far.

2) the solar cycle is *not* determined at all by the number of stars in the galaxy. The internal workings of the Sun do not care at all about how many stars are there in total in the galaxy, or how far it is to the center. It is determined by how the internal solar dynamo works, how long does it take the generated magnetic fields to rise to the surface, how do those magnetic fields travel to the poles, etc.

3) the previous answer by Ray Butler is totally right. Neither galaxies nor the solar cycle care too much about which man-made time measurement we use or if there are any numerical coincidences.

Ada Ortiz Ray Butler Thank you for your thoughtful answers to a difficult question. I didn't arrive at this question by chasing numerical similarities. In fact, I calculate the solar cycle in milliseconds because the observed pulsar rotation rate is on the order of a millisecond, and I am convinced that solar flares are pulsar bursts.

It seems to me that further research into the solar cycle of stars in other galaxies is required before confirming or rejecting the hypothesis. Definitively rejecting the hypothesis as a numerical coincidence based on arbitrary time constraints is far from a scientific approach, and I came to Researchgate to avoid that dismissive attitude.

Very Respectfully

Eric: Ok, I may have wrongly interpreted your question as a search for numerical similarities. It's just that is the way it looks; the way you phrased your question, you were linking the values of two disparate concepts without making any case for a causal relationship between them.

But your hypothesis still has major physics problems to overcome. There's just no way that a low-mass star like the Sun can be hiding one (or more?) internal pulsars that (a) is more massive than the Sun's 1-solar-mass, and (b) would completely reconfigure the core and atmosphere of the Sun into a different beast to what we see.

Solar flares are well understood as magnetic field reconnection events. Why do you see the need to reinvent that wheel?

This answer is simply : no.

Ray Butler Your initial response is fully justified and your second is insightful. I hope you can appreciate that instead of resorting to more numerical coincidences like septuple star systems & the Magnificent 7, I will try to consistently address your questions. I have never been a part of a true research collaboration, but I'd like to read more insightful responses on your part!

With all due respect, we can't see the sun's core because when we look into sunspots light "escapes" too quickly, nullifying spectroscopic approaches and telescope observations. I'd hazard a guess that 99% of the solar mass lies inside sunspots, and that there are magnetic mountains in there. (1) (2) I'd also argue that solar flares are poorly understood because space weather forecasters have an easier go at predicting the periodicity of quasars, pulsars, and neutron stars than solar particle events.

I am fairly certain that a quasar is an amalgamation of pulsars, but I don't know if there is 1 pulsar in the sun, a hundred pulsars, or perhaps none at all. However, this model solves Einstein's missing pulsar problem, the coronal heating problem, & explains the solar cycle. Furthermore, locating Einstein's missing pulsars and calculating their relative 2-D motion proffers the solution to Hilbert's 16th problem, which I joined this site to solve. My hope with every statement I make is that subsequent laws can be formulated to forecast solar activity so no astronaut comes to harm from predictable solar particle events.

Very Respectfully

(1) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.1016.pdf

(2) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.3781.pdf

No. The solar cycle is caused by convective movements within the outer layers of the Sun. In addition to simple up-down motion of heated and cooling gases, there are latitudinal movements of large masses over a long period of time. When those movements are stronger, the solar cycle of activity has higher maximum sunspot numbers, while when they are weaker, the solar cycle has lower maximum sunspot numbers. But the period of the cycle appears to be controlled by the conditions inside the Sun, which are presumably due to its mass, size and brightness. Other stars similar to the Sun probably have similar cycles, while bigger, brighter stars and smaller, fainter stars may have slightly different cycles.

However, in any event, nothing outside the Sun has any influence on its behavior, in any way whatsoever, save for controlling its orbital motion around the galaxy.

Courtney Seligman wonderful explanation of the solar cycle and well correlated to sunspot activity! Unfortunately, I completely & utterly disagree with your assertion that nothing outside of the sun influences its behavior. Einstein demonstrated that light bends around stars, and most of the light for our galaxy comes from the quasar at the center orbited by Fermi Bubbles. Clearly the central quasar plays more of a role for stars than solely loosely being orbited.

Very Respectfully

Let's clarify a few misconceptions, as astronomical data, and inferences drawn therefrom, support none of your assertions.

1. As others state, the units-dependent numerical coincidence you notice has no casual physical basis and so has a very high probability of being accidental. It is disproven by the fact that many stars in our Galaxy, ranging from cooler (3000 K surface temperature) to hotter (7000 K surface temperature) than the Sun, show cycles of activity (starspot, magnetic, emission line) ranging from a few years to up to 25 years. Stars with parameters very like the Sun's have activity periods within the same range, i.e., not all stars like the Sun have the same activity period of 11 yrs.

2. Apart from serious confusion regarding the definition of pulsars--they are compact stars observed in our Galaxy, and a few nearby galaxies, with average masses ~ 1.5 of the Sun's--their rotation periods range from 0.1 sec. to 10 seconds with magnetic fields ranging from 10^10 to 10^15 Gauss and ages ranging from 1000 to ~ a billion yrs; these values are obtained from their periods and period derivatives (i.e. their spindowns). Millisecond pulsars comprise ~ 10% of all pulsars, their magnetic fields are weaker (10^8 to 10^9 Gauss), and they are older than longer period pulsars. No magnetic field on the Sun (the strongest are observed during flares) is observed to exceed a few 10^4 Gauss, as recent measures by the Parker Solar Probe indicate.

3. The bulk luminosity of our Galaxy of ~ 30 billion times the Sun's is based on star counts, and arises from the brightest stars, ranging from old (red giants) to young (supergiants). The nuclear region of our Galaxy is *not* a quasar by any astronomical definition and produces a miniscule fraction of the Galaxy's total luminosity. It does contain a supermassive black hole (SMBH) of a few million solar masses, scarce little optical activity, and some emission at radio wavelengths from gas complexes surrounding it. Radiation at short wavelengths (X-ray, gamma-ray) are remnant radiation due to past activity which was quasar-like, but on the low brightness end of most active galactic nuclei (quasars are the high brightness end). The very diffuse Fermi gamma-ray bubbles are likely a result of reservoirs of outflowing matter in that past quasar-like phase. They neither produce a significant luminosity (only 10,000 of the Sun's) nor 'orbit' the central SMBH; the matter emitting gamma-rays flows away from the accretion disk surrounding the SMBH, since X-ray spectroscopy and the bubbles' arc-shaped morphology both indicate they arise from shock wave collisions of outflowing matter with ambient halo gas. As an aside, the recent imaging of light bending by the SMBH in another galaxy's core has a mass of some 6 billion solar masses, so our Galaxy's SMBH is some 1000 times smaller. A long jet of of relativistic outflowing matter is directed away from it that radiates radio, optical, X-ray and gamma-ray photons. The galaxy itself is a giant elliptical with a mass some 30 times that of our Galaxy.

You would benefit by reading a current elementary astronomy text that presents the scope of subjects in a coherent way, with their associated spatial, temporal, luminosity and mass scales; you would also be well-served by doing some problems posed at ends of Chapters.