The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?  (Read 26652 times)

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #25 on: 10/08/2010 14:36:44 »
I am grateful to all of you who have replied to my latest post.
In general, you have claimed that I have used static magnetic and electric situations to replace the dynamic ideas that Faraday, Gauss and Maxwell dealt with.
I'm glad. It was my intention to consider steady states.

I regard an electron beam in a CRT as being similar in practice to a stream of ionised gas. Both can be compared directly with an unchanging current in a wire.
However, electrons in a beam and a stream of ionised gas move and therefore can be considered by some as being dynamic. However electrons in a wire carrying a steady current are no different in principle. They also move in a manner that not unlike the electrons in an electron beam.

I have chosen a steady state situation because the basis of my arguments concerning sunspots assumes that in the short term sunspots are more or less in a steady state. Some have existed for several weeks in the past. In my past work if something didn't change much in a minute, it was regarded as being in a steady state. (It is incredibly boring to look at a horizontal scan line on an oscilloscope for minutes on end.)

I have said that for some purposes, a sunspot can be regarded as being in a steady state. There is something else associated with the sun that is regarded it as being more or less in a steady state. That is the solar wind. It is considered to be so steady that it is only when a coronal mass ejection occurs in the form of a solar flare that a change in the strength of the solar wind becomes something of note. For my purpose, in the short term of a few hours, both sun spots and the solar wind can be considered to be in a more or less steady state.

These apparent steady states vary relatively slowly over periods of eleven and twenty-two years. They increase and decrease in step. If more sunspots are visible, the intensity of the solar wind is higher.

Here I will digress a little back to the time when I became aware of the variation in sunspots. I was playing with the radios I had built around 1947-1949 then. In Wireless World there was a regular forecast of the maximum usable frequencies (MUFs) for short wave propagation. The chart and graphs which showed the predictions also showed the sunspot number. The MUFs closely followed the sunspot numbers. In the terms of those days, the sunspots improved the reflectivity of the Heaviside and Appleton layers  that enabled short wave signals to be bounced around the Earth.  From that time onwards I knew that something which came from sunspots affected the ionisation of the upper atmosphere around the Earth.  The graphs and charts in Wireless World showed the diurnal variation and the frequencies that would probably be useful between London, Cape Town, Hong Kong, New York and other places. The MUFs were lower at night and lower when part of the route was in darkness. These charts and graphs gave an idea of the distribution of the ionisation around the Earth as the Earth rotated.

Now, since spacecraft have investigated the solar wind and the ionisation around the Earth, the terms Heaviside and Appleton layers have become obsolete. In addition, satellites and undersea cables have reduced the need for short wave communications. This reduction in the need for short wave radio has led to a decreased awareness of the relationship between sunspot numbers and the ionisation around the Earth. Technology may have improved a lot during the last 60-odd years but the sun hasn't changed very much on average. It still gets sunspots although some people were worried recently about a second (?) Maunder minimum.

It is partly because sunspots have been few recently that the reappearance of sunspots has become news.

60-odd years ago I learned that sunspots affected the ionisation around the Earth. Since then I have learned something about astronomy and the great number of misconceptions many astronomers have about the true natures of electricity and magnetism. I have mentioned some of them in my posts to this forum.

Since sunspots affect the ionisation around the Earth, the question is how?  Somehow or other sunspots send ionised particles out into space in rough proportion to their number. In modern times we have observed that the intensity of the solar wind is related to sunspot numbers. Since sunspots are a relatively steady state phenomenon, (at least, when considered over a week) there is no need to consider them in any other terms than a steady state to analyse their properties.

We know the following:
Sunspots increase the intensity of the solar wind in rough proportion to their number.
From this we must conclude that sunspots are launch sites for the emission of ionised particles out from the sun into space.
From this basic premise we now have a question to answer.
What causes sunspots to launch ionised particles?

The major energy source in the sun is heat. That is why I think that sunspots are sites of hot spots.
I think that the most likely explanation for sunspots appearing to be dark and cool is that there is an absence of light and heat photons since photons are the only form of electromagnetic radiation that we can detect to give us an indication of light and heat levels.

Whatever is thought about the nature of sunspots, I presume that all participants in this forum will agree that sunspots don't change much from minute to minute and probably for longer periods. For this reason they can be considered to be a short term steady state phenomenon. In consequence there is no need to complicate matters with dynamic considerations.

I have mentioned that the ionisation that makes up the solar wind is invisible. We routinely observe the sun through it as if it is more transparent than glass. We know it is ionised and does not emit many photons. If it did, our view of the sun would be obscured.  Is it a giant step to presume that one source of this ionisation is similar and does not emit many photons?

Since heat is the major energy source in the sun, other phenomena that are caused by heat and involve dynamics are a diversion from the fundamental energy source.  I know of no other form of energy in the sun that is capable of producing regions which are often thousands of miles in diameter. There is no such thing as "cool" energy and the fusion reactions which create the sun's heat are deep in the interior of the sun. The emissions from the fusion reactions are in the form of particles and photons. Photons liberated within the depths of the sun follow a random walk to get to the photosphere. It may be that some of these photons are what can be perceived as black body radiation within a sunspot - but that is pure conjecture.

I have said that the solar wind is invisible and that it is likely that one of its sources is invisible too. There is only one sort of solar phenomenon that is as persistent as sunspots. That is what is known as a prominence. Prominences are very dim when compared with the photosphere but their arcs could be the paths similar to the launch paths that the ionised particles take when launched from sunspots. Whatever is launched from sunspots must leave the apparent surface at a speed which is greater than the sun's speed of escape for anything to reach the Earth's orbit,

It is easy to think that prominences are launched from sunspots because they are generally arcs which fall back to the sun's apparent surface. A prominence could be launched from a hot dark hole and crash back down to make a second dark hole. Could it be more than a coincidence that sunspots generally appear in pairs.?
Are prominences dim because they are so hot that they do not emit many photons?

If prominences are not launched from sunspots, there must be some evidence of their launch and destination sites. I know of no sites of a nature that could launch prominences that have been observed - if a sunspot is not a prominence launch site.

The visible top of a prominence photographed by NASA in infra-red is around 215,000 kilometres above the sun's apparent surface. The energy needed to launch the prominence is colossal.  I have calculated that the energy needed to launch just one kilogram of material to a height of 215,000 kilometres above the sun's surface is  58,909,999,785 kilogram-metres per second.  Your guess is as good as mine about the number of kilograms in a prominence. The NASA image only shows what is visible in the infra-red. It is conceivable that some invisible particles launched in the same prominence reach heights greater than 215,000 kilometres or even have escape velocity.

My hypothesis is that one of a pair of sunspots is effectively a colossal solar volcano that ejects what we perceive as a prominence. The prominence creates a second sunspot when it gets back down to the sun's surface. A prominence arc is a reasonable model for the way ionised particles are launched from a sunspot fast enough to leave the sun. The darkness of sunspots and the dimness of prominences is not coincidental.

For many participants in this forum my ideas may be considered to be fanciful or even loony. If one or more of you can offer an alternative way to explain how sunspots can cause a major contribution to the solar wind by causing ionised particles to be launched from the sun at greater than the sun's speed of escape, I will be very interested.  Whatever method is suggested, it must be one which is continuous and more or less as static as the appearance of a sunspot or a prominence.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #26 on: 10/08/2010 16:00:57 »
Wilf, according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

The areas surrounding groups of sunspots are hotter than the average surface temperature. This correlates the total average temperature of the surface with the presence of sunspots even though the spots themselves are cooler regions.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #27 on: 10/08/2010 22:47:42 »
I have already explained this to you a possible route for this process a couple of days ago the magnetic confinement you describe forces the thermal particle velocities to bcome coherent (and hence cooler) and have a velocity in one direction.  You are half way there but your poor thinking resulted in the wrong conclusion.  If a process working inside something that is in an approximate thermal equilibrium is going to give some part of the material a great deal of energy in a particular direction it has to extract energy from somewhere (cool things down) to do this.  remember also adiabatic expansion into low pressure areas also causes cooling.  you are so used to thinking that things getting accelerated need to involve the release of energy like explosions in a gun to push things.

There are however violent releases of energy associated with the gradual twisting of the magnetic field due to the differential rotation of the fluid sun (this is where the "tangled lines of force" come into the theory
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #28 on: 11/08/2010 17:21:05 »
Dear Soul Surfer,
I find it hard to answer your most recent posting.
You mention the magnetic confinement implied in one of my precious posts. You also wrote:
"There are however violent releases of energy associated with the gradual twisting of the magnetic field due to the differential rotation of the fluid sun..."

I will put the point simply in a way I have not mentioned bedore.
Magnetism is a symptom or a sign or evidence that a current is flowing. Any description that refers to one thing or another being done by magnetism is almost like saying a football team wins by having red shirts.

I refer back to previous points made.
In the sun there is a lot of heat.
The inner regions of the sun are hotter than the outer regions.
The sun is made of gas.
The heat ionises the gas in proportion to the heat available.
Gas expands when it gets hotter if it is not contained by something or other.
The most likely and easiest way for gas to expand is outwards (upwards) from the sun.
A gas moving upwards from the sun will form an electric current that has a magnetic field around it.
The magnetic field will constrain the gas into a column or cylinder.
The gas has mass and the sun has a gravity of 28g.
A stream of gas going upwards from the sun's surface will decelerate.
This will cause the magnetic field around the stream to weaken but not usually enough to cause the stream of gas to break up.
The suns' gravity overcomes the stream's upward movement and the stream is pulled down again.

There is a lovely NASA image available of the phenomena at or just above the sun's surface.
The image shows a series of arcs of gas. The arcs appear to be going in both directions.
Please see http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/photos/sun-gallery/#/coronal-loops_905_600x450.jpg [nofollow]

The caption is:
Coronal Loops
Magnetism made visible: That describes virtually every feature on the sun, from sunspots to these soaring structures, called loops. Loops easily reach the height of ten Earths. Energy generated by the dynamics of smaller loops is likely the source of the solar corona's mysterious heat. The superheated gases that form the sun,
mainly hydrogen and helium, exist in an electrified state called plasma. Below the surface, plasma can push and drag magnetic field lines. But when lines are strong enough to arc out, wildly conductive plasma follows.

Sadly, here, as in most astronomy books I have read, these arcs are called magnetic loops. A magnetic field is as visible as a gravity field and the arcs in the NASA image are quite luminous. In addition, Magnetic fields exist between two opposite poles or are circular. These arcs conform to no magnetic field shape I have ever encountered in more than 60 years.

It seems in the image that the arcs are in pairs. The destination point of one arc is the emergence point for its pair. I am convinced that the arcs in the image are streams of gas that are maintained in relatively narrow paths by the magnetic fields around them. The nearest Earthly analogy to these arcs is a geyser that just squirts out of the ground a little bit sideways like a fire hose jet.

Unlike a geyser, these arcs maintain their paths for minutes on end. All the moving images of these arcs have shown them to appear to last for significant periods of time within the length of time that the moving pictures were taken. The NASA image seems to me to indicate that one arc of gas when it lands at its destination provides material and energy to sustain the parallel arc that flows in the opposite direction. As these arcs are electric currents flowing in opposite directions, they do not interfere with each other.

As with a geyser on Earth, these arcs of gas have no obvious sources that cause them to be projected upwards. Also like a geyser, something must cause them to squirt upwards from the apparent surface. The circumstances are totally different but the cause is the same. Heat drives the geyser and the arcs. As the arcs are currents of gas which have their own surrounding magnetic fields, if there was some agency driving them which involves a magnetic field, it would alter the forms of the arcs. All arcs are more or less rainbow shaped with little variation in their visible diameters from their origins to their desinations.

Also have a look at:
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/photos/sun-gallery/#/sunspot-loops_1236_600x450.jpg [nofollow]
The caption reads:
Sunspot Loops
It may look wild, but this image of the solar surface, captured by a NASA satellite called TRACE in 2000, was described by scientists as "a quiet day on the sun." In other words, spectacular loops but no storms.

In the two images there is no apparent "magic magnetic mechanism" that produces the jets of ionised gas. The author of the caption for the first image is using the same misused jargon for solar phenomena that has persisted for nearly 100 years. It is clear from your posts you are influenced by the same misuse of jargon.

I think that prominences are just bigger versions of the jet arcs seen in the first image.
The energy that produces them is the same - heat from the interior of the sun.

I will stick to what I have written until magnetic fields become visible and exist as separate entities as astronomers seem to think they do.
« Last Edit: 14/08/2010 21:21:21 by Wilf James »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #29 on: 11/08/2010 19:06:43 »
Bar magnets and iron filings render magnetic fields "visible" in exactly the same way as coronal arcs  you are being pedantic.
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #30 on: 12/08/2010 14:42:02 »
Dear Soul Surfer,
As far as I know, only ferrous materials offer a shorter magnetic path than free space.
Even they lose their magnetic properties when hotter than their Curie points. The sun is a geat deal hotter than than the Curie points of all ferrous materials.

The first of the two images in my last posting shows the arcs of gas clearly - through the sun's transparent 28g gravity field. Gravity fields contain no particles or photons and are therefore invisble. As far as I know, magnetic fields are likewise invisible for the same reasons.

If you can accept that magnetic fields are invisible and NEVER do things on their own, you should be able to see why I think that the caption with the first image is silly. You may now gather why I am having my private one man battle with those who continue to promulgate "Accepted wisdom" without doing the simplest check on the facts.

If it is being pedantic to state verifiable facts, I'm very pedantic.

Next ime you meet an astronomer who insists that magnetic fields do things, ask him or her what colour a magnetic field is.

You didn't like what I wrote about Babcock's sunspot theory. Maybe you might be beginning to understand now why I think it is ludicrous.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #31 on: 12/08/2010 21:48:30 »
"As far as I know, only ferrous materials offer a shorter magnetic path than free space."
Shows how little you know.

"Next ime you meet an astronomer who insists that magnetic fields do things, ask him or her what colour a magnetic field is."
Do you believe that hurricanes do things?
What colour is the wind?
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #32 on: 12/08/2010 23:07:15 »
To Bored Chemist
You said quoting me:
"As far as I know, only ferrous materials offer a shorter magnetic path than free space."
Shows how little you know.

The little I know has sufficed for more than 60 years. Please tell me what material or phenomenon offers a shorter magnetic path than free space at temperatures greater than 1,000 dgrees celsius. Such a material or phenomenon would be of great help to those working on the ITER Fusion reactor.

"Next ime you meet an astronomer who insists that magnetic fields do things, ask him or her what colour a magnetic field is."
Do you believe that hurricanes do things?
What colour is the wind?

The reason why I suggested that question is rhetorical.
Magnetic fields are invisible although many astronomers say that some visible phenomena on the sun are magnetic fields. The "magnetic loops" in the NASA image I have referred to are just one sort of example. As I have indicated to Soul Surfer, A lot written in many astronomy books and elsewhere implies that magnetic fields exist on their own and cause many observed phenomena.

The only properties of a magnetic field that I know of are to cause a current to flow in a moving conductor and to take the shortest path possible. A magnetic field can be transferred to some ferrous materials when they are below their Curie points. Some semiconductors work with magnetic fields by using the fact that like magnetic fields repel each other. (Hall effect.) Since all magnetic fields apart from those around permanent magnets on Earth are a property of an electric current, many of the things that they are alleged to do by astronomers are impossible.

The prime cause of most solar phenomena is heat. The same applies to hurricanes on Earth. I fail to understand why a hurricane can be considered relevant to the topics under discussion in this part of the forum.

My contention is that many phenomena on the sun are not caused by magnetism (as alleged by many astronomers) but are the results of the action of heat on gases.



 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #33 on: 13/08/2010 05:09:56 »
As a moderator here: This thread is bordering on name-calling.  Please keep it civil.

As a general commentator: Wilf, Soul Surfer really does know what he's talking about.  I suggest trying to understand what he's getting at, rather than dismissing it out of hand.
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #34 on: 13/08/2010 10:43:23 »
To JP,
The Name calling did not start with me.
Please check my posts.

I appreciate your point about understanding what Soul Surfer has written. However, in physics, particularly in the fields of electricity and magnetism, there is no way that any pair or group of people can come to a compromise on the facts.

For me, the bases for my arguments are that electricity and magnetism have clearly defined properties that can be tested very easily on Earth. Most of the arguments decrying what I have written are based on theories produced by very prominent astronomers more than 50 years ago. As one young lady astronomer graduate told me: "I know that a lot of the things taught about astronomy are wrong but one does not rock the boat by trying to put things right if one wants to get a good position and promotion. Bosses don't like being told that they are wrong."

I ask those who say that I am wrong in any part of any posting I have made, (apart from the odd spelling error) to do the most elementary of experiments to see what magnetism is really like.

I will sum up the facts as I know them to be here.
Then I will offer the conclusions that I have arrived at based purely on these facts.

An electric current is produced as a result of the expenditure of energy.
A property of an electric current is that it always has a magnetic field around it.
The magnetic field produced by a current is invisible.
Magnetic fields always take the shortest possible magnetic paths.
The way magnetism takes the shortest path can be observed in the way it constricts an electron beam or a current in ionised gas.
Magnetic fields cause a sort of stress in space-time that is comparable to the stresses in space-time caused by gravity and the electrostatic force.
The stress in space-time produced by gravity causes the lensing that enables a far distant object to be observed to some degree when it would otherwise be obscured by a closer object.
The stress in space-time caused by magnetism shows itself by splitting spectrum lines.
A magnetic field can induce a current into a moving conductor.
A photon is emitted when an electron falls toward the nucleus from a higher energy level to a lower one.
The heat of the sun causes many atoms to lose their outer electron shells.
The loss of electron shells is roughly proportional to temperature.
The solar wind as detected in the vicinity of the Earth's orbit is stronger when sunspots are visible on the sun's surface.
The solar wind at the Earth's orbit has an average unneutralised proton density of around five per cubic centimetre.
The solar wind is transparent and invisible.
The particles in the solar wind must have left the sun with a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. Since the intensity of the solar wind is related to sunspot numbers, sunspots must in some way be launch sites for the particles that make up the solar wind.

The main energy source in the sun is heat produced at its centre by nuclear fusion. The sun is hotter below its photosphere than the temperature of the photosphere.

A calculation based on an infra-red photo of a prominence produced by NASA indicates that the visible top of the prominence is 215,000 kilometres above the sun's apparent surface.
See: (I regret the long URL)
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9709/solprom1_eit.jpg&imgrefurl=http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970918.html&usg=__6oyAhcbnrWUKOfUSyLMcR5duqlA=&h=363&w=446&sz=28&hl=en&start=481&tbnid=FYrueclnC1Q4wM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=148&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnasa%2Bsun%2Bphotos%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D683%26bih%3D387%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C16816&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=317&vpy=87&dur=10073&hovh=202&hovw=249&tx=59&ty=223&ei=HQllTLy6BJKTjAeKyeDYCw&oei=oQdlTMzlCdGbOMHbwIcN&esq=83&page=60&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:481&biw=683&bih=387 [nofollow]

The minimum launch speed for something to reach that height against the sun's gravity is 213.285 miles per second if air resistance is excluded.

Prominences are generally very dim optically and are mainly observed during total eclipses of the sun.  The energy needed to launch the prominence in the NASA photograph is colossal. The main energy source in the sun is heat. The amount of heat needed to launch such a prominence is unimaginable (at least by me).

The jet arcs called "Magnetic Loops" in a NASA photo already referred to have no apparent causes yet they reach heights of around 130,000 kilometres. (10 Earth diameters).
They are akin to geysers that just squirt out of the ground.

My conclusions based on the foregoing.
The primary cause of most solar phenomena is heat.
I think that when the temperature is high enough, either atoms have lost all their electron shells or the excitement of the atoms due to extreme heat prevents electrons from falling from higher energy levels to lower ones. Since this action by electrons is the main (only?) source of photons, a lack of electrons falling towards nuclei will result in a scarcity of photons. A scarcity of photons will give the impression of dimness and coolness.

The image of a prominence referred to indicates that it was produced by an enormous expenditure of energy. I think that the energy source was heat. If that is the case, the material in the prominence must be extremely hot. Even so, like all other prominences it is dim optically. This leads me to think  that the material in prominences is too hot to emit many photons.

Since sunspots are one of the main sources of the solar wind, and the material in the solar wind has exceeded the speed of escape from the sun, the launch capability of sunspots must be enormous. I presume that the particles in the solar wind are launched in a manner that is similar to that which launches prominences. However, since the particles in the solar wind have exceeded the sun's speed of escape, they must have been launched with more energy than in the prominence referred to earlier. For me, more energy means the expenditure of more heat energy. More heat means that fewer photons will be visible. That is why I think that one sunspot of a pair is a source and is a hole that permits a view into the sun's hotter interior. As I think that electrons can't fall towards nuclei if the temperature is high enough, few if any photons would be emitted from the depths of the hole, giving an impression of darkness and coolness.

Referring back to the "Magnetic Loop" photo. The arcs of gas drop back to the sun's apparent surface. The arcs are like small prominences. Since the arcs of ionised gas are constrained by the magnetic fields around them, much of the material and energy which launched them is returned to below the sun's apparent surface.  I think that this material and energy forms the source for a second arc that may take a similar route in the reverse direction to the first arc. The two arcs becoming mutually supportive for a time.

If one sunspot is the source of a prominence-like launch site for material which leaves the sun, some of the material launched will not exceed the speed of escape and will fall back towards the sun's surface. Since an enormous amount of material was launched and much of it will be constrained by the magnetic field around it, it will be more or less together when it gets back to the sun's surface. A lot of the material and energy that was involved in the launch will hit the sun's surface at a speed downwards that is comparable with the original upward launch speed. I think that such a return of material will create a hole that will be less neat then the emergence hole.

The momentum of the returning material will carry it down to a significant depth below the sun's surface. I think that this returning energy and material will partially restore the energy source that was the cause of the original launch of material. It will be at one side of the energy source. This could be the reason why the original source of the launch is dragged a bit towards where the material fell. This would have the effect of the source and destination gradually moving across the face of the sun. If the returning material acts as replenishment for the original energy source, it could explain why a pair of sunspots is relatively long lived and why they move sideways together.

In conclusion I must say that most of the images I have seen of the sun produced by NASA show a lot of emissions of material. None of these images show any form of energy that produces these emissions apart from heat coming (invisibly) from the sun's interior.

Astronomers claim that much seen on the sun is the result of magnetic fields. In general, these astronomers do not say where these magnetic fields come from or what causes them.

I know that the ONLY causes of magnetic fields on the sun are the currents formed by streams of ionised gas which are in turn activated by heat, presumably from the hotter interior of the sun.

The caption of the image called "Magnetic Loops" is an example of an explanation based on buzz words. The facts I have mentioned can be independently checked. The conjectures I have made are based on what appears to occur on the sun while not contravening any known facts.

I rest my case.
« Last Edit: 15/08/2010 23:42:11 by Wilf James »
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #35 on: 17/08/2010 10:36:21 »
This is a sort of little addendum to my last posting.
After re-reading all the posts on this topic I came to the conclusion that one point that I had mentioned almost in passing deserves a bit more attention.

The solar wind is invisible. We see the sun through it. Much of the solar wind comes from sunspots. The solar wind as it emerges from sunspots is also invisible. We see the sunspots through it.

The particles in the solar wind leave the sun at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. They must be launched at least in part from sunspots. The launch mechanism for the particles at sunspots is not very obvious.

I presume that the particles are launched from one sunspot from what appears to be a hole. The interior of the sun is hotter than the exterior so if the launch sunspot is a hole it must be pretty hot in the hole.

As I think that sunspots are the sources and destinations of prominences, the second sunspot of a pair is formed by the material launched from the first sunspot that did not achieve the speed of escape from the sun.

In all my life working with electricity I have never seen it. I have often seen how it makes air luminous in lighting and other sparks. I have seen the effects of the magnetic fields caused by electric currents but I have never seen a magnetic field.
Electric currents are produced by the expenditure of energy. The solar wind is an electric current. What is the energy source for the solar wind if it is not heat?
« Last Edit: 17/08/2010 16:01:47 by Wilf James »
 

Online syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3810
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #36 on: 17/08/2010 11:35:07 »
Although magnetic fields are invisible their effect on electromagnetic radiation can be readily observed through the Zeeman effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #37 on: 17/08/2010 12:34:56 »
Wilf, I posted a while back that the temperature of sunspots is lower than the average surface temperature but that the presence of sunspots results in the surrounding areas having a higher than average temperature. This I found on the web. You did not reply to this although it is in contradiction to your assertion that sunspots are hotter. I don't think there is any dispute (at least from me) than sunspots are associated with greater emissions from the sun but I don't think it follows that the emissions emerge from the sunspots themselves.
 

Offline CreativeEnergy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • Eric's Journal
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #38 on: 17/08/2010 12:57:51 »
Graham.d is correct. Sunspots per se are cooler regions on the surface of the sun. That's why they appear darker than their surroundings. They are the direct result of the sun's lines of magnetic force breaking through the surface while the sun's magnetic field is in the process of reversing polarity.

It was first realized and demonstrated that sunspots represented magnetic lines of force by George Ellery Hale when he observed the Zeeman effect, the splitting of spectral lines in the presence of magnetism, while observing the sun using the Mount Wilson solar observatory.

« Last Edit: 17/08/2010 13:27:42 by CreativeEnergy »
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #39 on: 17/08/2010 17:09:14 »
syhprum
I have already covered the splitting of spectrum lines which has been given the name of the Zeeman effect. It is the example I used to illustrate how magnetism stresses spacetime

graham.d
The surrounding area of a sunspot may be hotter than the inner apparently dark area. Hoewver, I have yet to see an indication of how this higher than average (6,000K?) temperatue is being transferred to the apparently cooler and darker region. I think that one of the reasons why the solar wind is invisible is because there are no photons in it. The apparently darker and cooler area is also apparently short of photons.

CreativeEnergy
George Ellery Hale was one of the great early astronomers. Sadly he never did any work with magnetism on Earth. If he had, he would have discovered that there are no magnetic lines of force. (They are as common as gravitic lines of force.)

You also mention the Zeeman effect that I have already dealt with. Sadly the Zeeman effect only detects the presence of magnetism. It does not indicate in any way where the magnetism comes from or if it is bipolar or circular. As I have written before, magnetism is a PROPERTY of an electric current. It can only be produced by an electric current.

Hale and many of his contemporaries and successors have frequently described phenomena as having been caused by magnetism as if it could do things on it own or cause mechanical disturbances. It can do neither. It can induce currents into moving conductors and constrain the path of an ionised stream of gas.

The main motivational force on the sun is caused by the expansion of gas because of heat. This principle is what makes steam and internal combustion engines work. The sun has plenty of heat. As an expanding gas is one that has been heated, it is less dense than the gas around it so it convects upwards. As it is ionised the rising stream of hot gas is a current that has a magnetic field around it. The magnetic fields detected on the sun have all been caused by currents of heated ionised gas.

It is sad that so many students of astronomy have not dared to challenge those who taught them when what was being taught could so easily be shown to be wrong. The fact that some extremely famous astronomer said that x is y in the past has never made x into y even though a large number of people have quoted what he said as if it was the truth.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2010 20:40:02 by Wilf James »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #40 on: 17/08/2010 17:23:23 »
Strictly magnetism is a property of an electromagnetic field and it depends on the relative velocity of an observer whether it is perceived as a magnetic or electric field or a combination of both. That aside, I am sure that the magnetic fields on the sun are indeed generated by movement of hot ionised gas which would be an electric current. It is common to consider a field as "a line of force"; it refers to the force vector exerted upon a small test particle that can be introduced. In the case of an electric field, a small charge, gravity with a small mass and a magnetic field a theoretical small monopole (it can be calculated from a small dipole also).

I don't think there is much disagreemment other than your assertion about sunspots being hotter but I may be missing something.
 

Offline CreativeEnergy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • Eric's Journal
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #41 on: 17/08/2010 18:03:41 »
George Ellery Hale was well acquainted with the work of Michael Faraday and James Clark Maxwell. By that time, Maxwell's four light equations had been well established in the scientific community. Hale was well aware 1) that photons were the carrier of the electromagnetic force and 2) of electromagnetic induction, i.e., that a current could be generated by a magnetic field and a magnetic field could be generated by an electric current.

There is no doubt that the Sun generates a magnetic field by means of the dynamo process, i.e., resulting from the generation of electricity, which is not hard in a hot dense ball of plasma such as the Sun.

What causes the breaking up of the magnetic field approximately every 11 years is the differential rotation of the Sun's equator with respect to its polar regions. The magnetic lines of force get twisted around the equatorial regions because the equatorial regions are rotating considerably faster than the polar regions. You can actually see this with a moderately sized telescope with a white light solar filter or an H-alpha solar filter as sunspots move across the disk of the sun.

And if there are no magnetic lines of force along which plasma follows, then what do you call these from a TRACE image of our Sun?


« Last Edit: 17/08/2010 18:09:26 by CreativeEnergy »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #42 on: 17/08/2010 19:23:35 »
Re.
"To Bored Chemist
You said quoting me:
"As far as I know, only ferrous materials offer a shorter magnetic path than free space."
Shows how little you know.

The little I know has sufficed for more than 60 years. Please tell me what material or phenomenon offers a shorter magnetic path than free space at temperatures greater than 1,000 dgrees celsius. Such a material or phenomenon would be of great help to those working on the ITER Fusion reactor."
Catch the goal post as it flies past.
Suddenly "ferrous" has been replaced by "material or phenomenon offers a shorter magnetic path than free space at temperatures greater than 1,000 dgrees celsius."
Probably because I was perfectly correct in my initial comment.

So, to answer the question that you should have asked, Nickel, Cobalt, Gadolinium and a number of alloys such as the heusler alloys are not ferrous, but are ferromagnetic. (Gd stops being on a hot day)

Incidentally, to answer the question you chose to ask instead (and I suspect you were hoping to trip me up by doing so).
Any paramagnetic material will "shorten" the magnetic path.
One such material is atomic hydrogen (rather than the molecular form).
It may surprise you to find that this isn't in short supply on the surface of the sun.

"I fail to understand why a hurricane can be considered relevant to the topics under discussion in this part of the forum."
That says a lot.
Hurricanes don't have colour, but they certainly has an effect.
Magnetic fields don't have a colour, but they certainly have an effect.

« Last Edit: 17/08/2010 19:32:11 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #43 on: 17/08/2010 22:07:46 »
CreativeEnergy
The lovely image from NASA is one I have used myself as an illustration of almost the opposite of what you are trying to imply with the image. The version I referred to was brighter and yellower. If you go back through the various postings on this top you will find a  reference to "Coronal Loops"

The gravity field between our Earth and the Moon looks good, doesn't it? I wonder why no artists have ever painted it or no photographers have had exhibitions of photographs of it. I must be a defect in my eyes but I have never ever been able to see a gravity field or a magnetic field.
I have one of those very very useful disc magnets on the end of a telescopic stick that I have had a look at while writing this. I could not see any trace of the magnetic field that pulled at the metal casing of an AA cell, even with a powerful magnifying glass. I had my eyes photographed today because I am a type two diabetic. The photos looked good in 10 inch diameter views on the display. There may be something wrong with my eyes that the opticians won't tell me about because I can't see a magnetic field. As seeing is believing, I have never believed that magnetic fields are visible.

I think that the arcs in the image are of ionised gas. If they are ionised gas, they will have invisible magnetic fields around them like an invisible pipe which contains them. I know that an electron beam in a cathode ray tube is not the same as a stream of ionised gas but the behaviour of an electron beam in a CRT indicates that it is contained within a cylindrical magnetic field that squeezes it to become a very narrow beam when it reaches the screen. Since a stream of ionised gas behaves in a very similar manner to an electron beam I presume that the arcs of ionised visible gas in the image are comparably constrained.

Please, before you make further comment about what I have written in my postings do some of the very simplest of experiments to see what electricity and magnetism are really like. Please do not echo what some books have claimed about magnetism and its effects without checking if the claims can be verified.

I did a one year course on Solar System Astronomy with Ian Nicholson at Hatfield Polytechnic when I was 47 and a mature student in 1983-4. I argued with him a lot because a lot of what he said was is direct conflict with what I had learned and EXPERIENCED as an electronic engineer. I am 74 and it is 2010 now. In 2000 I started to put my thoughts about astronomers' misconceptions about what electricity and magnetism are really like on my website. I have clarified my ideas a bit since but the thrust is still the same.

Anyone who refers to a magnetic line of force in an explanation is just quoting what someone else has written or said. He or she has never ever seen or experienced a single magnetic line of force.

It is strange but only last Sunday a good blind friend asked me if I could explain something he had seen when he was a boy before he went blind. He referred to the demonstration done by putting iron filings on a piece of paper over a bar magnet. He said that the teacher could not explain why when the procedure was repeated, the pattern looked similar but was not the same. It was always different each time the demonstration was repeated. He and his teacher were observant.

Sadly, a lot of people who have only seen the demonstration done once, think that the lines caused by strings of filings are an indication of where the magnetic lines of force are. As my blind friend's teacher had noticed, the lines are always in different places. Either there are no lines or an infinite number of them. There is no electronic instrument that can detect a magnetic line of force.

Please, in future, CreativeEnergy, treat any astronomical explanation that implies that magnetism does anything to move anything as one which has never been tested empirically. Magnetism can only induce currents in moving conductors, constrict steams of ionised gas or electron beams, or cause the Zeemann effect. It can NEVER appear by itself as many astronomers imply.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8645
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #44 on: 17/08/2010 22:16:19 »
You have already answered your own question.
The iron filings fall initially under gravity. When they are in the magnetic field, not only are they influenced by it, but they influence it- as you put it "only ferrous materials offer a shorter magnetic path than free space."
Since they do that in a non-linear way you have a non linear positive feedback system.
that's pretty much the condition required for chaotic behaviour.
No wonder it's never the same twice.

Also, since you haven't commented on my points I presume that you accept them ie
you shouldn't have moved the goalposts
and
hydrogen, which isn't rare, meets the criterion you set of being paramagnetic, even at high temperatures.
 

Offline CreativeEnergy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • Eric's Journal
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #45 on: 17/08/2010 22:28:42 »
Just because you can't see magnetic lines of force doesn't mean that I cannot infer their existence. I can't see quarks either or neutrinos, but I am pretty sure they exist.

You speak of an electron beam hitting a CRT. Have you ever seen an electron? Aren't you taking the word of someone else as to their existence?

And for the record, I have done plenty of experiments with electricity and magnetism....as a kid!

I also did plenty of experiments in physics classes in college. I, for one, found the evidence quite compelling.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2010 22:40:29 by CreativeEnergy »
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #46 on: 17/08/2010 22:38:29 »
Bored chemist
I regret that I used ferrous insted of ferromagnetic as a form of shorthand.
I am very familiar with most of the ferromagnetic materials as they were extensively used in my work before I retired.

The "colour" idea was sort of joke. Anything invisible has no colour. I intended to imply that anyone who says that a magnetic field is visible should be able to say what its colour is.

In my posting I have tried to confine my comments to the testable properties of electric currents and their magnetic fields.  Some people like to nit pick about shorthand expressions which may have been used to shorten an explanation.

For practical purposes almost all hydrogen on the sun is contained in thermally induced convective streams of ionised gas. These streams will have magnetic fields around them. The question of paramagnetism is unlikely to apply. Please note that I wrote on the sun and not in the sun.
 

Offline CreativeEnergy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • Eric's Journal
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #47 on: 17/08/2010 22:47:56 »
Do you have any evidence, contrary to the solid solar science that has been done, that sunspots are as you call them "solar hotspots", Wilf James? After all the title of this of this post is "Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?"

It would appear that it is you who have formed a hypothesis, therefore it is you who must provide empirical evidence to support that hypothesis. Do you have any empirical evidence to support this tacit assertion?

If not, then I think this discussion is over. Actually, I think this discussion is over--at least for me it is.
« Last Edit: 17/08/2010 22:50:42 by CreativeEnergy »
 

Offline Wilf James

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #48 on: 17/08/2010 23:21:38 »
CreativeEnergy
The point that I Have been trying to make is that magnetic fields are a PROPERTY of an electric current.
The do not exist by themselves.

All explanations referring to lines of force or just magnetic lines are explanations that claim that magnetism acts on its own and does something it can't do.

It seems that you have never read some of my earlier posts which explain why I am very happy to deal with electricity and magnetism that are invisible. There is the principle of Occam's Razor involved with electron streams. A cylindrical constrictive field around an electron beam is the only explanation for the way it behaves in a cathode ray tube.

Mr. Oersted was the one who demonstrated the presence of a magnetic field around a wire carrying a current. Then later the effect was found to apply to electron currents and streams of ionised gas. Much later still a strong magnetic field was used to deflect electrons into a circle around a cathode as they were attracted to an anode. the magnetron was developed. The operation of a magnetron can only be explained if electrons moving in a vacuum have a magnetic field around them in the same way that Oersted demonstrated the existence of a magnetic field around a wire.

There are a lot of things that I have observed in electronics that indicate the way electrons act in varying circumstances. Some people who observed the way energy and electricity act produced theories and laws that now are routinely used by all electrical and electronic engineers. These people include Oersted, Henry Faraday, Gauss, Tesla, Kirchoff, Ohm, Fleming, Ampere, Volt, Watt, Joule, Newton, Lenz and others.

We can never see electricity or magnetism but through countless experiments done by thousands of people the way these phenomena behave is extremely predictable.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #49 on: 18/08/2010 02:59:46 »
All explanations referring to lines of force or just magnetic lines are explanations that claim that magnetism acts on its own and does something it can't do.

Not true.  Magnetism can be observed by its interaction with matter, even if you don't know what currents have generated the field.  This is what is done in the sun, and it is inferred that the flow of plasma in the sun generates the fields. 

It would appear that it is you who have formed a hypothesis, therefore it is you who must provide empirical evidence to support that hypothesis. Do you have any empirical evidence to support this tacit assertion?

I completely agree with CreativeEnergy here.  You're using this thread to try to push your own theory about sun spots.  Can you provide scientific evidence for it?  In particular, can you address either of the following questions with actual calculations or formulae?

1) Why is the prevailing dynamo model for the generation of magnetic fields that Soul Surfer mentions wrong?  It explains the fields as resulting from the flow of plasma.

2) What predictions does your model offer that the current model doesn't?  Can you point to observations that your model makes that the current model doesn't account for?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?
« Reply #49 on: 18/08/2010 02:59:46 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums