Does anyone know how to restart the sun with a bomb?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Astronauts in Sunshine ponder their next move. Last month, I caught a preview screening of Sunshine, Danny Boyle's sci-fi psycho thriller flick that opens today. It stomps along a trail laid down by 2001: A Space Odyssey and subsequently trodden by much lesser films: ship goes on an important mission; things go wrong; complex processing machine (carbon- or silicon-based) becomes unhinged; people start dying; lots of teeth-gnashing among moviegoers who want to yell to the actors, "why are you so stupid?" Sunshine's special effects, though, are quite amazing--it really feels hot in that cinematic sunlight. After watching the film, I couldn't help but wonder about the premise. The sun's about to die--but not the way conventional astronomy dictates, in which the sun consumes its supply of hydrogen in its core, swells out as a red giant (and boils away the earth's atmosphere), blows off its outer layer and turns into a white dwarf. But who wants to wait five billion years? Instead, Sunshine posits that Sol is just petering out like a dying charcoal ember, about to turn cold in a matter of decades. So much for Hertzsprung-Russell. Our intrepid heroes, led by Cillian "the Scarecrow" Murphy, have to deliver a bomb to reignite the sun and thereby save our planet. The media notes given out at the preview laughably referred to the delivery of a "nuclear bomb"--fortunately, in the film it is wisely referred to only as a "solar bomb." Unlike Star Trek's Heisenberg compensators (to get around the uncertainty principle) and inertial dampers (to avoid being squashed under warp acceleration), Sunshine makes no attempt to say how the bomb would restart the sun's thermonuclear engine. That's probably for the best, since the film is more about a study in psychology than science-fiction rationality (or rationalization). So I pose this question to all you who know more astrophysics than I: can you envision just how the sun's output might start declining suddenly and precipitously? And how a "solar bomb" might actually work to restart it? The moviemakers do say that the bomb has the mass of Manhattan, but I don't know if that helps or hurts.

Philip Yam is the managing editor of ScientificAmerican.com, responsible for the overall news content online. He began working at the magazine in 1989, first as a copyeditor and then as a features editor specializing in physics. He is the author of The Pathological Protein: Mad Cow, Chronic Wasting and Other Prion Diseases.

More by Philip Yam

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe