Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Wilf James on 25/09/2010 11:39:42
-
Re: Are Sunspots Hot?
To JP, Ophiolite & Bored Chemist.
As I have written in my previous post, one form of energy can be converted into another form of energy if losses can be accepted. I have yet to hear how "magnetic energy" can be converted into another form of energy.
A magnetic field is the PROPERTY of an electric current. If someone can provide a way to generate a magnetic field by some other means I would be willing to 'listen' to the misguided theories about "magnetic energy". For me, if a magnetic field exists, certainly when in connection with ionised gases, it must have been created by an electric current. An electric current can only be produced by the expenditure of some form of energy which will certainly not be magnetic.
Around sunspots there is evidence that energy is expended to propel ionised particles away from the sun. I do not and will not rely on any reference in Wikipedia while the Babcock theory is still promulgated by that source.
It is true that magnetic fields can be detected by the Zeemann effect. However, this does not in any way show how they are produced. The main effect of a magnetic field in connection with ionised gases is to constrain a stream of gas which forms the current that creates the magnetic field.
My other main reference book is 'Astrophysical Quantities' by C. W. Allen. In it it states that the strength of the whole magnetic field around a sunspot increases with the area of the sunspot. The figures are consistent with a stream of ionised particles emerging from the sunspot that has a cross sectional area that is proportional to the area of the sunspot.
We observe the effect of the stream of ionised particles coming from sunspots in the aurorae. The magnetic fields around sunspots indirectly indicate that streams of ionised particles emerge from them. We have the circumstantial evidence of what is happening at sunspots. This evidence indicates that SOMETHING makes the ionised particles emerge from sunspots. Whatever it is, it is extremely powerful. As the mean life of a sunspot is around six days, the source must be able to deliver the power consistently for a significant time.
In a simple minded way I presume that because the interior of the sun is an enormous heat generator and that heat causes convection to occur, this could provide an explanation for the emergence of vast streams of ionised particles from sunspots.
My Astrophysical Quantities book does NOT state what the electromagnetic emissions are from sunspots in the extreme ultra short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum. I presume that the energy level in this part of the spectrum is very high but it cannot be detected by instruments currently available. This may be because the sun's atmosphere acts as a shield or for some other reasn.
-
Sorry I locked the thread before you could finish, Wilf. It had derailed into personal attacks. I'll post a link to this thread in your old thread.
I've moved this to new theories as well, since its a continuation of your previous theory. I won't hesitate to delete posts with personal attacks in this new thread.
-
JP I got to say that this forum is the best moderated I've been on. The way you guys try to keep it clear from personal attacks, not giving advantage to anyone, just because the views implied are the ones 'accepted' is a joy to read. Some sweet ridicule in all friendliness is quite acceptable as I see it, but when it becomes a 'flame war' it loses all interest to me. And I did like the former thread Wilf put up, not saying that I agree though :) But it was interesting to read. And having it in 'new theories' is the absolute right place for it too, as it questions the way we look at it. Hope you'll get some informed opinions on your new one Wilf.
-
OK, first off, to the extent that it was my posting that got the thread locked I'm sorry; I get annoyed when people lie about me.
Meanwhile, back at the topic.
"As I have written in my previous post, one form of energy can be converted into another form of energy if losses can be accepted. I have yet to hear how "magnetic energy" can be converted into another form of energy."
If I drop a ball baring onto a magnet it goes "ping"; there's sound energy released and (though it would be tricky to measure) there's also heat energy released.
More directly; if I take two identical bits of steel and magnetise one of them then dissolve the two pieces of metal in acid, the magnetised one will release slightly more heat on dissolution.
Similarly if I were to put a magnet in a differential scanning calorimeter I would see an energy release as the material reached it's curie temperature and lost the magnetisation.
Magnetic energy is real and observable.
It is difficult to say that there is an electrical current flowing in the iron of the magnet in any meaningful way; if there were then the resistance of the iron would make the current fade away.
Also you write a lot about ionised particles leaving sunspots. Do you realise they leave the rest of the sun's surface too?
Also, you seem to have moved the goalposts since you earlier thread where you wrote "This is why I think that sunspots are extremely hot regions of the sun and NOT cooler regions as claimed in astronomy books..".
Do you now accept that sunspots are cooler regions of the sun's surface?
-
Dear Wilf,
Thousand apology for causing your thread to be locked. I am glad you was unfazed and started a new thread on it. And I like your new thread header better.
Would not post my view in your thread hereafter, but will follow your thread as it develop and privately discuss with you on the very interesting issue you had raised. Get back to you after I have absorbed the content posted in your website.
Best regards.
-
To JP,
I accept your apology.
To yor_on
Thanks for the compliments.
To all who read this.
I have based my ideas on two factors.
One is the misuse of the term magnetism for many astrophysical phenomena by astronomers. The most blatant of these is the theory propounded by Babcock for the origin of sunspots which has apparently been widely accepted. When it is understood that "magnetic lines of force" are as real as contour lines on a map or isobars on a weather chart it is becomes clear that the Babcock theory had misled hundreds if not thousands of people.
The second factor is invisibility.
Magnetism is invisible and so are the ionised particles that arise from sunspots. Whatever launches the particles is invisible in the normal visible and heat spectra. I speculate that there is abundant energy in the ultra short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum in the 'dark' regions of sunspots.
For a particle to leave the sun permanently it has to leave at a greater speed than the sun's speed of escape. This is around 618 kilometres per second or 384 miles per second at the sun's apparent surface. Since the sun's main energy source is deep within the sun, something must be able to accelerate an escaping particle to 618km/sec or more by the time it reaches the sun's surface. The escape speed is theoretical and does not allow for what would be called air resistance on Earth. Since a particle has to be accelerated to escape speed by the time it reaches the sun's surface, one can only speculate about the distance it travels from the point where it starts to be accelerated to the sun's surface.
It is impossible to determine the mass of the particles emerging from a sunspot but I think that it would be reasonable to assume that it is greater than a kilogram a second. I invite the contributors to this forum to work out how much energy is needed to accelerate 1 kilogram of particles to 618km/sec.
I think that the particles are ejected from a sunspot in a manner comparable to a volcano or a geyser on Earth.
I also think that one sunspot of a pair is the origin of a solar prominence and that the other sunspot of a pair is where a prominence descends. The images of prominences I have seen provide an indication of the way visible material is launched from the sun in a manner that is consistent with the way invisible particles are apparently launched from sunspots.
I come back to my original hypothesis. Since the sun's most abundant form of energy is heat, I think that heat is responsible for the way ionised particles are launched from sunspots.
-
To Bored Chemist
With regard to energy in bar magnets (irrespective of actual shape)
The amount of energy involved with magnetisation is one which is mainly faced by transformer makers. A small amount of energy is needed to magnetise an iron or steel core. In a transformer this energy is lost as heat when the magnetisation is reversed. I can't say that I have experimented with permanent magnets as you have described but I surmise that a small amount of energy is effectively stored in the steel when it is magnetised. Then, when the magnetism is lost, the small amount of energy used to align the domains and thus cause stress in the steel is released.
The energy that many astronomers refer to as magnetic energy in connection with ionised gases is a misnomer. All the energy invoved with magnetism in ionised gases is that which drives the current that produces the magnetism. It seems that because astronomers can detect magnetism in the sun and other stellar bodies through the Zeemann effect, they have just assumed that the magnetism is 'just there' without considering what causes the magnetism. As I have said before, I know of no way to produce magnetism except with an electric current. I am pretty sure that nobody can produce magnetism by any other method. Thus, if magnetism is detectable in or on a stellar body, it is an indication that ionised gases are moving.
I have written in earlier posts that the solar wind strength increases when sunspots are visible. I have never said that sunspots are the only sources of ionised particles coming from the sun.
I still have another mystery to solve.
Quantum theory gives an explanation of how photons are emitted from atoms when an electron drops from a higher energy level to a lower one. What happens when the energy level is so high that an electron cannot fall to a lower energy level? Is there a temperature at which electrons are no longer bound by their nuclei? I have read that at extremely high temperatures atoms lose their outer electron shells. If there are no electrons available to fall to a lower energy level, does that mean than an atom cannot emit photons? The particles leaving sunspots are invisible. They do not apparently emit electromagnetic radiation in a manner that makes them visible. We know that unneutralised protons exist in the solar wind at an average density at Earth's orbit of 5 per cc. Is there a way for bare protons to emit light or any other form of electromagnetic radiation?
I have the feeling that when temperatures get high enough for electrons to leave their atoms altogether, the nuclei they leave behind have no means of causing electromagnetic radiation. If electromagnetic radiation is not produced it could be an indication of heat at extremely high temperatures that can't be measured.
If we can't "see" any electromagnetic radiation at a given place with our eyes or instruments, we conclude that it is dark and cold.
The circumstantial evidence tends to support the idea that the matter in sunspots could be too hot to emit much electromagnetic radiation. Around the photosphere it is possible to see the disturbances in the solar atmosphere. No disturbances are apparently visible in the centres of sunspots. Can sunspots be the centres of calm zones?
-
I still have another mystery to solve.
Quantum theory gives an explanation of how photons are emitted from atoms when an electron drops from a higher energy level to a lower one. What happens when the energy level is so high that an electron cannot fall to a lower energy level? Is there a temperature at which electrons are no longer bound by their nuclei? I have read that at extremely high temperatures atoms lose their outer electron shells. If there are no electrons available to fall to a lower energy level, does that mean than an atom cannot emit photons? The particles leaving sunspots are invisible. They do not apparently emit electromagnetic radiation in a manner that makes them visible. We know that unneutralised protons exist in the solar wind at an average density at Earth's orbit of 5 per cc. Is there a way for bare protons to emit light or any other form of electromagnetic radiation?
I have the feeling that when temperatures get high enough for electrons to leave their atoms altogether, the nuclei they leave behind have no means of causing electromagnetic radiation. If electromagnetic radiation is not produced it could be an indication of heat at extremely high temperatures that can't be measured.
Please see:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=33333.msg318563#msg318563
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=33333.msg318782#msg318782
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=33333.msg320039#msg320039
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=33333.msg320696#msg320696
There's also a very in depth explanation here: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html
-
" I speculate that there is abundant energy in the ultra short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum in the 'dark' regions of sunspots."
Your speculation is at odds with, or at least unsupported by, the evidence.
"Is there a way for bare protons to emit light or any other form of electromagnetic radiation?"
Yes, the same as for bare electrons and any other charged particle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation
Any charged particle moving across a magnetic field will emit radiation.
The same goes for any particle accelerated by an electric field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
-
You've seen this one Wilf?
Overview - where do we stand with helioseismology? By Juri Toomre. (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?journal=ESASP&year=2003&volume=.517&letter=.&db_key=GEN&page_ind=11&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES)
-
I was in a bit of a hurry this morning so I'd like to clarify what I meant by
" I speculate that there is abundant energy in the ultra short wavelength end of the electromagnetic spectrum in the 'dark' regions of sunspots."
Your speculation is at odds with, or at least unsupported by, the evidence.
There's still hydrogen present at the surface of the sun, (spotty or otherwise) there are also free electrons and protons.
If there were something generating lots of short wavelength radiation then one of two things could happen to it.
It could escape and reach the instruments that we have sent into space to look at the sun or it could be absorbed by the hydrogen plasma in the sun's surface.*
If the former happened we would "see" it with instrumentation.
If the latter happened then the radiation would heat up the sunspots and cause them to get hotter. If this happened they would glow more brightly.
They don't.
So, the speculation does not accord with the reality and it isn't reality that's wrong.
It seems to me that Wilf's ideas are based on a speculation which is demonstrably false.
That really should be the end of them.
(* if the wavelength is small enough then Compton scattering is important too- but it leads to the same outcome- the spots get hot and glow brighter).
-
To yor_on.
Thanks for the reference to the article.
I found the piece interesting but it suffers from one basic problem. The writer seems to forget that ALL magnetic fields are caused by electric currents. Parts of the description seem at first reading to confuse phenomena attributed to magnetism with the violent movement of gases. In my last contribution I referred to the way astronomers talk about magnetism as if it is 'just there'. The article seems to refer to magnetism as if it is a separate phenomenon from the movements of solar gases.
I have already said that I will not accept Wikipedia as an authoritive source. I am very familiar with the concept of black body radiation as a THEORETICAL MODEL and how it does not apply in circumstances where radiation is apparently absent.
I challenge anyone to define the blackbody radiation provided by the ionised particles in the solar wind or the ionised particles emitted in the vicinity of sunspots. These particles do NOT emit any easily detectable form of electromagnetic radiation. There is no apparently no disagreement in this forum about the particles being invisible.
I have offered my speculative thoughts why I think that ordinary radiation is apparently undetectable at the levels consistent with the energy needed to launch great masses of ionised particles from sunspots. I think that radiation isn't emitted from this region. The answer may be similar to that for the ionised particles in the solar wind that do not apparently radiate heat or light in a form that can be easily detected.
If the ionised particles coming from the sun are matter in a state that does not radiate electromagnetic energy, one of two conclusions can be drawn. Either the matter is too cold to radiate or it is too hot. As it comes from an extremely hot body I doubt very much if it is cold.
-
"The writer seems to forget that ALL magnetic fields are caused by electric currents. "
"It is difficult to say that there is an electrical current flowing in the iron of the magnet in any meaningful way; if there were then the resistance of the iron would make the current fade away"
Also, consider an MRI machine.
It depends on the magnetic properties of the protons.
There is no current flow inside a proton, yet it has a definite magnetic field.
As I said, this theory keeps relying on things that are not true.
-
To Bored Chemist
In the context of sunspots and the ionised particles leaving them there is no iron.
Iron is only involved with magnets on the Earth and then generally with permanent magnets or transformers. I consider the properties of iron in this discussion is off topic.
Where there is a flow of ionised particles there is an electric current. Where there is an electric current magnetism is created. There is evidence that Ionised particles are somehow launched from sunspots. My original point is that the something that launches them is a consequence of the heat outflow from the sun.
Magnetic fields in MRI scanners are also off topic.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1986ApJ...301..992L/0001003.000.html
-
Wilf,
You seem to consider anything that shows you to be wrong as "off topic"
You said that "The writer seems to forget that ALL magnetic fields are caused by electric currents.
I pointed out that you are simply flat out wrong.
Saying I'm off topic doesn't stop me being right and you being wrong.
There may not be much iron in the sun, but there are quite a lot of protons.
Each one has a magnetic field but no current.
You are wrong on roughly 120000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 counts.
Is this some sort of record?
(estimate based on this http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1182086&page=10
-
When are we going to hear the marriage engagment announcment, people?
-
When are we going to hear the marriage engagment announcment, people?
LOL
-
To Bored Chemist
There is no iron in any form of magnetism in connection with ionised gases.
ALL magnetism in connection WITH IONISED GASES is caused by the flow of gases forming an electric current.
The fact that you deliberately try to take the attention of other forum participants away from the REAL subject under discussion makes you a potential forum wrecker.
The subject was originally "Are sunspots hot?" until side trackers caused dissension on that topic. The current subject is "What makes ionised particles come from sunspots?"
You claim I have made errors in TOPICS YOU HAVE CHOSEN! I know I have not made errors in the topic I have chosen.
Any topics you choose to argue about that do not concern ionised particles coming from sunspots are definitely OFF TOPIC in this forum.
Moderator, please stop further off topic denigrations about my topic.
-
Wilf, I shrank posts that were off-topic. From reading the posts here, I believe that Bored Chemist has brought up points that are relevant to your theory in that they show flaws in the scientific foundations of your theory. Whether you choose to respond to his points is up to you, but they're relevant enough that the moderators won't delete them for straying off topic.
-
"I know I have not made errors in the topic I have chosen."
You chose to write "ALL magnetic fields are caused by electric currents" Which is still wrong.
Then you wrote "ALL magnetism in connection WITH IONISED GASES is caused by the flow of gases forming an electric current."
Which is still wrong- there's the diamagentic interaction with the free electrons for example.
And you started off by saying "I have the feeling that when temperatures get high enough for electrons to leave their atoms altogether, the nuclei they leave behind have no means of causing electromagnetic radiation. "
Which is wrong
and
"If electromagnetic radiation is not produced it could be an indication of heat at extremely high temperatures that can't be measured."
Which is wrong.
-
To Bored Chemist
You wrote:
You chose to write "ALL magnetic fields are caused by electric currents" Which is still wrong.
As I appear to be wrong and ignorant of what you know, please tell me how magnetic fields are generated by other means than by an electric current - AND - what are the most useful applications of these magnetic fields. Please also state the strength typically obtained in these magnetic fields in Gauss, Teslas or Webers per square metre. It would also be interesting to know what energy source produces such magnetic fields.
Then you wrote "ALL magnetism in connection WITH IONISED GASES is caused by the flow of gases forming an electric current."
Which is still wrong- there's the diamagentic interaction with the free electrons for example.
Please explain how diamagnetic interaction with free electrons will affect the magnetic field created by a stream of ionised gas. (Note: a stream of ionised gas is ionised because it is deficient in electrons.)
A basic part of the definitions concerning electricity and magnetism is the definition of the ampere. The attraction between two infinitely long straght conductors, one metre apart, each carrying one ampere in the same direction is 2 times 10 raised to the minus 7 newtons per metre length.
As a stream of ionised particles is electrostatically positive and electrons are electrostatically negative, free electrons travelling parallel to a stream of ionised particles will be repelled as they will effectively be a current travelling in the opposite direction to the current formed by the ionised particles. The force on the stream of ionised gas will be the same as the force on the (stream?) of electrons. If the ionised gas consisted of (say) helium nuclei with a few electrons missing, The electron stream would be deflected away from the ionised particles around 7200 times as much as the ionised particles are deflected away from the electrons. Thus I fail to see how any diamagnetic interaction with free electrons would be significant in relation to a stream of ionised particles. The most likely result of free electrons encountering a stream of ionised particles would be to neutralise some of the particles. The magnetic or diamagnetic influence of such 'free' electrons has never been referred to as being of any significance in any of the electrical engineering text books I have read.
In other circumstances where only electrons are involved, as in a CRT, no significant diamagnetic effects are noticeable.
And you started off by saying "I have the feeling that when temperatures get high enough for electrons to leave their atoms altogether, the nuclei they leave behind have no means of causing electromagnetic radiation. "
Which is wrong
and
"If electromagnetic radiation is not produced it could be an indication of heat at extremely high temperatures that can't be measured."
Which is wrong.
I have no anwer for the reason why there are circumstances where no detectable radiation occurs. I have SPECULATED that atomic nuclei may not radiate and that this could be because all electrons have left the atomic nuclei because of extreme heat. What I do know, and nobody in this forum has denied this point, is that the ionised particles in the solar wind and in the vicinity of sunspots are INVISIBLE. To me that means they do not radiate light. I PRESUME they they don't radiate much heat. (The solar wind particles do not apparently radiate any heat.) I think that nobody would deny that these particles come from a very hot place. I have not said that atomic nuclei do not radiate electromagnetic energy. I have said that there is apparently no radiation that can be detected from what may well be atoms stripped of electrons.
-
"As I appear to be wrong and ignorant of what you know, please tell me how magnetic fields are generated by other means than by an electric current "
What?
You want me to tell you again?
OK.
Protons have an innate magnetic field. It's not due to a current.
Please make a note of this and don't ask me again.
"what are the most useful applications of these magnetic fields"
Almost certainly MRI imaging (as I said before- were you paying attention?)
They have a magnetic moment of about 14*10^-27 J/T
The field will depend on how far away from you make the measurement.
"(Note: a stream of ionised gas is ionised because it is deficient in electrons.) "
Wrong. it's ionised because the electron are no longer closely associated with the atoms. If the electrons were not there, the stuff would repel itself so much it would fly apart.
"I have SPECULATED that atomic nuclei may not radiate "
And I have pointed out that they certainly can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
"this could be because all electrons have left the atomic nuclei because of extreme heat."
The electrons won't have got far because of the electrostatic attraction so, from time to time, they will collide and this will radiate energy. Plasma physics is notoriously complicated.
Who cares?
The solar wind is a whole different ball game, partly the interesting question of the sun's corona.
The original question was about sun spots. The fact is that, even after all this talk, they are still colder than the rest of the Sun's surface.
-
To Bored Chemist
"As I appear to be wrong and ignorant of what you know, please tell me how magnetic fields are generated by other means than by an electric current "
You wrote:
Protons have an innate magnetic field. It's not due to a current. Please make a note of this and don't ask me again.
"what are the most useful applications of these magnetic fields"
Almost certainly MRI imaging (as I said before- were you paying attention?)
The main actions of protons in an MRI scanner are the way they flip and unflip in a magnetic field causing detectable radiation at around 97MHz. Protons in all elements have a random orientation so that their net magnetic effect is nil. I repeat, NIL, ZERO! The flip effect is ONLY observable when protons are subjected to an EXTERNAL magnetic field. There is NO WAY that protons alone can GENERATE a magnetic field.
(Did you read what I wrote or do you deliberately misread what I have written?)
For all practical purposes the actions of protons in an MRI scanner have ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE to ionised particles leaving sunspots or the solar wind.
"(Note: a stream of ionised gas is ionised because it is deficient in electrons.) "
Wrong. it's ionised because the electron are no longer closely associated with the atoms. If the electrons were not there, the stuff would repel itself so much it would fly apart.
You show your extreme ignorance here. Ask yourself what ionisation means.
As there are a lot of hydrogen atoms in the sun I will explain how they become ionised.
(This means that electrons leave the nuclei in case you didn't know.)
[Quoting from my physics book:]*
The ionization energy of hydrogen is 13.6 eV.
Using the approximation E = (10^-4 eV/K)T,
we have T = 13.6eV/(10^-4eV/K) = 10^5K.
Temperatures in excess of 10^5 K are found in the interior of the sun, so the hydrogen there is predominantly ionized.
[End of quote]
(Note American spelling of ionised. The quote is from an American book.)
"I have SPECULATED that atomic nuclei may not radiate "
And I have pointed out that they certainly can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
(I have repeatedly said that I NEVER accept wikipedia as an authoritive reference. You obviously refer to Wikipedia again to annoy me.)
My physics book says:*
Bremstrahlung relates to the production of X radiation produced when materials are subjected to intense electron bombardment.
Using quantum concepts, an electron has charge -e and gains kinetic energy eVAC
when accelerated through a potential increase VAC. The most energetic photon (highest frequency and shortest wavelength) is produced when all the electron's kinetic energy goes to produce one photon; that is,
eVAC = hƒmax = hc/λmin (bremsstrahlung)
Note that the maximum frequency and minimum wavelength in the bremsstrahlung process do not depend on the target material. The atoms are left in excited levels; when they decay back to their ground levels, they may emit x-ray photons. Since each element has a unique set of atomic energy levels, each also has a characteristic x-ray spectrum. The energy levels associated with x rays are rather different in character from those associated with visible spectra. They involve vacancies in the inner electron configurations of complex atoms. The energy differences between these levels can be hundreds or thousands of electron volts, rather than a few electron volts as is typical for optical spectra.
[End of quote]
This is yet another of your irrelevant (off topic) digressions. There is no known mechanism that produces intense electron bombardment in the vicinity of the sun.
You wrote:
"this could be because all electrons have left the atomic nuclei because of extreme heat."
The electrons won't have got far because of the electrostatic attraction so, from time to time, they will collide and this will radiate energy. Plasma physics is notoriously complicated.
You show your extreme ignorance again here.
My physics book says:*
Coulomb found that the electric force is proportional to l/r^2 . That is, when the distance r doubles, the force decreases to 1/4 of its initial value; when the distance is halved, the force increases to four times its initial value.
[End of quote]
This indicates that when an electron has left an atom, it does not need to go far before the force to attract it back to tha atom becomes negligible.
You wrote:
Who cares?
I care that a person like you is allowed to continually post irrelevant and destructive comments about the topic under discussion. I have to waste my time pointing out that the points youi have raised are based on your ignorance and your intention to introduce digressions.
You wrote:
The solar wind is a whole different ball game, partly the interesting question of the sun's corona.
The original question was about sun spots. The fact is that, even after all this talk, they are still colder than the rest of the Sun's surface.
Here you go again, bringing up another irrelevant topic. I have never mentioned the sun's corona in this forum.
You claim that what is apparently true about the coolness of sunspots is definitely true. The whole point of all my postings here has been to speculate why and how, if this is the case, a lot of ionised particles are emitted from sunspots at greater than the sun's speed of escape?
You ducked a major point I made. The solar wind is invisible and does not apparently radiate heat. It therefore appears not to produce any electromgnetic radiation we can detect. The same is apparently true for the ionised particles leaving from sunspots. Is it too big a stretch to think that there may be regions of the sun which have similar properties to the invisible ionised particles?
*My physics reference book is:
Sears and Zemansky's University Physics with Modern Physics by Hugh D.Young and Roger A. Freedman 2009
ISBN-13: 978-0-321-50121-9
-
"There is NO WAY that protons alone can GENERATE a magnetic field."
so you say; however, they still are magnetic dipoles and so they still have a magnetic field. If they don't generate it, what does.
I invite you to go and learn some physics.
I didn't cite wiki to annoy you; I cited it because it's easy to find and generally very reliable. Of course for some things, notably politics, it can be hellishly biassed.
Feel free to look wherever you like; bremsstrahlung is real and it is a means by which any charged particle (including nuclei) can emit radiation.
You can ignore this fact if you like, but it means that you are leaving the realms of science and so, perhaps, you should leave this site since its about science.
BTW, please don't waste your time or the website's bandwidth quoting school text books. I already know that stuff and, it seems, I understand it better than you do.
-
To Bored Chemist.
The facts you have quoted about protons in MRI scanners and bremstrahlung causing X-rays under intense electron bombardment may be very interesting topics but they have NOTHING to do with ionised particles leaving sunspots and forming a part of the solar wind.
As I have said before THEY ARE OFF TOPIC!
I have yet to discover any reference to protons using their dipoles to PRODUCE an electric current. The fact that they have random magnetism has NOTHING to do with the TOPIC in question.
YOU first referred to WIKIPEDIA. I just retaliated with an up-to-date reference book. Talk about pots calling kettles black! The quotations I used proved that a lot of what you had claimed was wrong. Is that why you don't like me quoting from a reference book?
Why don't you start another forum of your own so that you can use your alleged scientific knowledge to upset more people with more irrelevant nit-picking sidetracks. It seems to be your aim in life to be a forum WRECKER! If you were a TRUE scientist you would have offered reasonable possible alternative explanations for what is at least a very strange phenomenon.
If you are such a knowledgeable person as you claim to be, please answer my original question.
What launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots if it isn't heat?
(Magnetism is not a valid answer because it begs the question. It just changes the question to 'What causes the magnetism that launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots?')
Please also answer my subsidiary questions.
Why don't the ionised particles in the solar wind give off any detectable radiation?
Do the ionised particles leaving sunspots have the same properties as the ionised particles in the solar wind?
Is there a possibility that a region of the sun has similar properties to the ionised particles in the solar wind?
You have ducked these questions at least twice before. You deserve the title COWARD not HERO because you have NEVER made any attempt to provide an intelligent answer to these questions. You have just tried to nit-pick to develop irrelevant OFF-TOPIC sidetracks when I have made statements that apply to the general case.
Judging from the way you have contributed NOTHING useful to this topic, I would like to suggest to the moderator that destructive contributors like you should lose a star for every destructive comment you make about the topic in question. Then your status should change from hero to WRECKER.
-
"The facts you have quoted about protons in MRI scanners"
A proton does not know that it is an an MRI machine. It acts in the same way where ever it is. It is always accompanied by a magnetic field, but no current. It is therefore a counter example you your central hypothesis.
I think it is on-topic to point out that your assumption is simply wrong.
"bremstrahlung causing X-rays under intense electron bombardment"
I didn't say anything about electron bombardment. You seem not to have understood that the radiation is emitted whenever any charged particle is made to accelerate, such as by collision with another particle. This is a process that will happen quite often in the solar wind. There is, therefore a mechanism for radiation to be emitted.
It's just that you refused to do the research and find out how.
"I have yet to discover any reference to protons using their dipoles to PRODUCE an electric current. "
You didn't seem to ask.
Anyway, the free induction decay that takes place inside an NMR machine is just such a current.
I know you don't seem to like NMR, but that doesn't stop protons producing currents; the protons are not fussy.
"The fact that they have random magnetism has NOTHING to do with the TOPIC in question"
Hardly "random" since I cited a value for it and, anyway it is clearly related to the topic as I have pointed out before and others have agreed.
"The quotations I used proved that a lot of what you had claimed was wrong. "
No, they did not.
I still say that if you had a bunch of protons with no electrons near them the electrostatic repulsion would make them fly apart.
You seem to not understand that if I take a hydrogen atom and take the electron to the far side of the galaxy there is still an attraction- strictly speaking it is a highly excited state- it isn't ionised and it never will be. We talk about ionisation where the residual binding energy of the electron is small compared to the other influences.
"Is that why you don't like me quoting from a reference book?"
No, as I said, it's because it's pointless. I think it's clear that I know more about ionisation than you do so quoting a school book isn't the issue. I think there's a relevant quote in "A fish called Wanda" but I can't bring it to mind right now. Perhaps someone else can help me out.
"If you were a TRUE scientist you would have offered reasonable possible alternative explanations for what is at least a very strange phenomenon."
No, a true scientist knows there is no way to prove a theory to be right and accepts that the way to make progress is to ensure that theories that are clearly wrong are weeded out. A theory that depends on, for example, the idea that ions cannot emit radiation is wrong and should be dumped.
"It seems to be your aim in life to be a forum WRECKER!"
Dear me! At the most I might be a thread wrecker. If the thread says "No scientist drinks beer" and I point out that there are several documented incidents of beer drinking scientists, then I accept I have wrecked the thread. On the other hand I don't feel that I have done anything wrong.
"If you are such a knowledgeable person as you claim to be, please answer my original question.
What launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots if it isn't heat?
(Magnetism is not a valid answer because it begs the question. It just changes the question to 'What causes the magnetism that launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots?')"
Which do you want?
Do you want me to try to answer the question? How can I do that when you have banned the right answer?
Mind you I think you are getting closer to the truth when you realise the question you ask is equivalent to "What causes the magnetism that launches masses of ionised particles away from sunspots".
I think the answer to that is a combination of convection currents and the sun's magnetic field- as I said before, plasma physics is very complicated. You need to study it before you can tackle these questions. I don't know enough to give a detailed answer. Good luck in your research.
"Why don't the ionised particles in the solar wind give off any detectable radiation?"
It does.
http://www.asiaoceania.org/abstract/ST/58-ST-A0996.pdf
"Do the ionised particles leaving sunspots have the same properties as the ionised particles in the solar wind?"
what properties do you have in mind? They are small particles- they don't have many properties. The only ones that I can think of that might matter are their translational velocity, their temperature and their elemental make-up. To take the last of these first, I think that both sets are almost entirely hydrogen.
I believe their temperatures will be similar a and that any differences are likely to be washed out due to the sun's corona.
I think their translational velocities may be different - pretty much by definition- the solar wind escape the sun so it must have exceeded the escape velocity. On the other hand many particles from the sun spots may well fall back.
"Is there a possibility that a region of the sun has similar properties to the ionised particles in the solar wind?"
for a given definition of "similar" the answer must be yes.
I really don't see how these properties can matter much but you now have your answers.
You might understand that I didn't duck them- I ignored them because they couldn't matter.
The first simply illustrates that, once again, you are wrong. The second and third demonstrate that you can't ask a properly defined question.
Since the rest of your theories rely on things that are not true - like the lack of radiation from the solar wind, I didn't feel inclined to waste time on them/
May I remind you that, since you are putting forward a new theory, it falls to you to prove that it is true rather than anyone else to show that it is false. That's the way science works.
"Judging from the way you have contributed NOTHING useful to this topic, I would like to suggest to the moderator that destructive contributors like you should lose a star for every destructive comment you make about the topic in question. Then your status should change from hero to WRECKER."
I have every confidence in the moderators' ability to judge what label should be given to whom.
Among other things they may wish to consider inappropriate use of capital letters and exclamation marks.
They may also wish to have a quick look here.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200503/zero-gravity.cfm
-
To Bored Chemist
You wrote quoting me:
"Why don't the ionised particles in the solar wind give off any detectable radiation?"
It does.
http://www.asiaoceania.org/abstract/ST/58-ST-A0996.pdf
The above shows how truthful you have been in most of your posts to my topic.
It starts: "The Solar Probe will fly"
In my English the word WILL applies to a future occasion..
The piece refers to a prediction or a forecast or a prophecy that you claim as a fact.
As a result of this indication of the lack of your general veracity I will regard any future comments that you make on my topic as irrelevant noise that should be ignored.
-
This is becoming far too personal. Thread locked.