1

New Theories / Re: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« on: 18/10/2010 12:08:39 »

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.

2

New Theories / Re: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« on: 17/10/2010 12:05:54 »

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.

3

New Theories / Re: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« on: 16/10/2010 00:19:47 »

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

4

New Theories / Re: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« on: 10/10/2010 13:42:09 »

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.

5

New Theories / Re: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« on: 06/10/2010 20:26:11 »

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.

6

New Theories / Re: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« on: 04/10/2010 17:13:39 »

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.

7

New Theories / Re: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« on: 29/09/2010 01:36:46 »

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.

8

New Theories / Re: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« on: 27/09/2010 21:51:03 »

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?

9

New Theories / Re: What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« on: 27/09/2010 12:10:20 »

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.

10

New Theories / What makes ionised paricles come from sunspots?

« 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.

11

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« on: 23/09/2010 00:28:34 »

To Ophiolite
As I mentioned in my previous post, I referred to a book I used when I started a degree as an electronics and computing mature student in 1983. (I was 47 then and I am 74 now.)
(It is strange how the meaning of the same two figures changes when they are reversed.)

The book is called "Electrical Engineering Science" by M.R.Ward of the South East London Technical College.
The book's course covers electrical engineering science for the Ordinary National Certificate. It is published by McGraw-Hill.

I have re-read the section dealing with magnetism very carefully. At no point is there any reference to magnetic energy. I know from very many empirical tests that there is absolutely NO energy in magnetism. Magnetism is a form of stress in spacetime that is normally experienced as a force. In some ways it is a force like gravity. There is no energy in gravity either.

The basic terms in physics relate to power, energy, force, friction (or resistance) and work. Energy is needed to to do work. It is applied through a force. These elements of the basic mechanics aspects of physics are so elementary that I would have thought that anyone participating in this forum should know the difference between energy and a force.

The only energy associated with magnetism is the energy used to create an electric current that in turn creates the magnetism. Stop the energy supply that creates the electric current and the magnetism disappears.

The basis for a lot of the points I have made in this forum is what I call "Astronomer's Magnetism". Many astronomers glibly claim that many astronomical phenomena are caused by magnetism. I happily challenge all astronomers to prove that the magnetism associated with ionised gases does anything except constrain a plasma current to a thin jet.

A changing magnetic field can induce a current in a conductor but energy must be expended to increase the current that causes a magnetic field to increase. Then, when energy has been expended to increase a current and the consequent magnetism to a certain level, the energy expenditure can be reduced, decreasing the current and the magnetism. There is no energy in the magnetism itself.

In a transformer magnetism is just a means of transmitting energy. In this sense it is comparable to a push rod in a car engine. the push rod transmits the power delivered to a piston to a crankshaft. There is no energy in a push rod.

Almost all forms of energy can be changed to another form. Heat energy can be used to power mechanical engines. Mechanical energy can be used to operate a generator of electrical energy. Electrical energy can be used to generate heat energy. There are losses when one form of energy is converted into another form. I am very curious to know how your "magnetic energy" is produced from heat, mechanical or electrical energy or how your "magnetic energy" can be used to create mechanical, electrical or heat energy.

You are right. I claim that there is no such thing as magnetic energy. There is only a magnetic force when energy is expended to create the current that produces the magnetism and thereby the magnetic force

12

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« on: 22/09/2010 01:58:25 »

It seems that some of my basic points have been ignored or deliberately misinterpreted. A lot of what has been written here since my previous post has little or nothing to do with the very basic issue.
SOMETHING launches ionised particles from the region around sunspots.

Someone mentioned a vortex.
A vortex is a form of motion caused by the expenditure of energy. What causes the vortex if it isn't heat?

I keep effectively asking any and all contributors to this forum - What form of energy can launch ionised particles away from the sun? I get no clear answer and some resort to what amounts to abuse.

I know that the fusion reactions within the sun generate an enormous amount of heat. I know that heat causes convection. I know that a lot of ionised particles leave the sun at greater than the sun's speed of escape. I know that the dark regions in sunspots apparently do not radiate as much light and heat as the rest of the photosphere.

I was prompted to rejoin this thread because of an email from Vincent. In my reply to Vincent I have asked:
'If the dark areas radiate X-rays, can they be detected from Earth?'

It is clear that radiation from sun spots is lower in the heat and light parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. I ask: Is the radiation higher in in the extreme high energy end of the spectrum? If it is higher, can the radiation be detected by present methods on Earth?

I have not mentioned previously something that a reference book reminded me of a couple of days ago. The electrical definition of an ampere is based on the attraction of two parallel wires one metre apart that are both carrying a current of one ampere. The attraction is the force of one newton multiplied by a factor. This supports what I have written previously in connection with the so-called "magnetic loops". I think that the arcs in the photo referred to previously in this thread are streams of ionised gas constrained by the magnetic fields around them. Magnetic fields are just as invisible as gravity fields. The arcs were photographed by NASA through a 28g gravity field. The loops are not magnetic but consist of matter that can be photographed. As these arcs are visible enough to be photographed, what is the form of the invisible ionised particles rising from around sunspots?

Any stream of ionised particles rising upwards from the sun is an electric current that will have a magnetic field around it. The magnetic field will do nothing except constrain the stream of particles. The energy involved is the energy that causes the electric current in the first place.

I don't care what mechanism makes the particles rise from around sunspots so fast that they leave the sun at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. I just want to know what the energy source is that drives the mechanism. As heat is the form of energy that the sun has in fantastic abundance I presume that the original energy source is heat. I am open to offers for alternative solar energy sources that can launch ionised paricles so that they reach the Earth's orbit.

The basic facts are:
The ionised particles that originate from around sunspots are invisible from when they are formed until they reach the Earth's atmosphere where they cause aurorae. That means they do not radiate in the visible part of the spectrum. Could it be that they are too hot to radiate in the visible part of the spectrum? I don't know. I do know that they have a lot of kinetic energy because of the way they react with the Earth's outer atmosphere.

13

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« on: 26/08/2010 16:39:22 »

To JP
You said:
"Put another way, when you suggest that sun spots are hotter than their surroundings, but don't emit light (or detectable radiation), you're creating new physics."

Please read EXACTLY what I said.
I said that the radiation is not detectable in the usual heat and light parts of the spectrum. I meant that we know there is SOMETHING there but we can't detect it as the heat and light we know about.

I left out a factor which relates to what I have been saying about sunspots being a source of ionised particles. Babcock claimed that sunspots were caused by magnetic fields. If Babcock's magnetic fields can create sunspots, that is NEW physics.
Magnetic fields on Earth can't do anything physical as I have repeatedly explained in previous posts. (I can repeat their properties again if needed.)

Babcock and maybe others detected magnetic fields around sunspots. As I have said, a magnetic field is a property of an electric current. All contributors to this forum who deny my claim that sunspots are hot have apparently accepted that a significant part of the invisible solar wind originates somehow from around sunspots. You have apparently accepted that the solar wind from sunspots is launched at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. You have accepted that it is ionised.  What is an ionised stream of particles if it is not an electric current?  The stream of particles is invisible but there are magnetic fields detectable around where the stream comes from.

It becomes a bit of a circular argument but the observable factors all fit together. Sunspots are a region from which ionised particles are somehow launched at greater than the sun's speed of escape. Magnetic fields are detectable around sunspots. A stream of ionised particles is an electric current. An electric current has a magnetic field around it. The logical conclusion is that the magnetic field detected
around a sunspot is produced by the stream of ionised particles emitted from a sunspot.  The properties of magnetic fields around streams of ionised gases are known. A stream of ionised gas is constricted by the magnetic field that surrounds it. This leads to the conjecture that the stream coming from a sunspot is in the form of a jet.

We are familiar with visible jets of the sort that come from geysers and fire hoses. Both of these types of jet are propelled by mechanical energy. The geyser's jet is propelled by the mechanical energy produced by the expansion of boiling water into steam. The fire hose has a mechanical pump to make it work. Some form of energy projects the stream of ionised particle upwards and outwards from the sun. What is that energy if it isn't heat?

To Soul Surfer
Is it mad to wonder what can cause a lot of ionised particles to leave the region around sunspots?  It is mad to wonder what energy source can provide the necessary energy to propel the particles outward from the sun when no obvious heat is detectable?  If it isn't heat that does it, please tell me what form of energy propels the particles. If you can't offer an energy source other than heat for what has been observed, what can you offer that can explain how the invisible ionised particles are projected away from the sun at a speed greater than the sun's
speed of escape?

14

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« on: 25/08/2010 10:40:07 »

To JP & Bored Chemist
There are things I know through experience about physics - particularly when electricity and magnetism are concerned.
There is one thing that I believe but can't prove.
I believe that all light (including comparable radiation outside the visible spectrum) is transmitted by what are known as photons. This spectrum ranges from below the apparent temperature of the much cooled down residue of the Big Bang to beyond x-rays.

I note the references to "Black Body Radiation". What strange emanation is provided by such a "Black Body" that does not consist of photons. How is it detected if photons are not involved?  Is the "Black Body Radiaton" referred to different from the photon emissions I have been concentrating on? Does it consist of muons, pions, kayons, neutrinos or some other emanation that does not include photons?

For me, the blackbody MODEL is one which THEORETICALLY reproduces the PHOTON emissions of an unknown body when raised to a particular temperature.

There may be photon emissions from the dark areas of sunspots that are well outside the observable light, heat and radio spectra that we on Earth can observe.  However, as we can't observe whatever is radiated as light or heat, the general conclusion has been that there isn't any light or heat. I have concentrated on what can be observed in the conventional ways. The dark spots radiate less photons in the conventional heat spectrum than the photosphere but that does not prove that they are cool.

I refer back to first principles.
Particles leave the sun at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape. These particles are invisible and a great number of them come from the regions associated with sunspots. These particles are launched outward from the sun by some means involving a great deal of energy. Whatever it is that launches these particles is invisible. As the main form of energy available in and on the sun is heat I conclude that the energy source which launches these particles is heat.

The "Black Body" radiation from the dark areas does not include many light and heat photons which is why they are considered to be dim and cool. Nevertheless, the circumstantial evidence indicates that an enormous amount of invisible energy is expended in or around sunspots. The fact that we can't detect it directly does not prove it is not there.

We have some basic facts. The sun is hot on its exterior. Because the heat is developed in the sun's interior, it is hotter inside than on its surface. The heat developed inside the sun is convected and radiated outwards. The particles coming from the regions around sunspots are also emitted outwards with an enormous amount of energy.

I refer back to Occam's Razor. The simplest cause for the emission of the particles is heat energy. I have yet to hear of another energy source that could launch the particles at the speeds necessary for them to leave the sun.

As I have said before, I can't see electricity or a magnetic field. The fact that I can't see these phenomena does not mean they are not observable through the effects they have. Something has the effect of launching particles at enormous speeds outwards from the sun. The fact that we can't see it does not mean it is not there. I think that something is heat.

If there was a Harry Potter and he could say "Accio charged particles" to draw them from the sun to the Earth, then a lot conventional physics would be different.  There isn't a Harry Potter and I have yet to hear of a launch mechanism for particles that does not involve the expenditure of a lot of energy. Could it be "Dark Energy" that launches the particles from sunspots? I don't think so. Unless there are some new fantastic discoveries about forms of energy we don't know about yet, I prefer to assume that the forms of energy we do know abut are responsible for what we observe happens.

15

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« on: 18/08/2010 16:58:34 »

To JP and others.
I have had the impression that the sun is to hot to permit molecules to remain as molecules like H₂ and O₂. I have had the impression that the heat is such that not only do molecules split into their separate atoms but many of the atoms lose the electrons that could  bind molecules together.
If I am wrong about this then I can accept that I am wrong by the same standard as CreativeEnergy demanded from me - if there is empirical proof.

The point about something being in Wikipedia about blackbody radiation is of interest.
However, until items like Babcock's theory of sunspots is dealt with in Wikipedia I would not rely on Wikipedia as an authoritative source.

As I have said in previous posts, a lot that has been claimed in astronomy by extremely prominent astronomers is in direct conflict with the way electricity and magnetism work on Earth. These claims have been repeated almost parrot fashion for decades. A lot of these claims have been repeated in posts on this topic to decry what I have written.  It is therefore why I revert when I can to the very basic first principles which can't be disputed.

My original reason for postulating that sunspots are hot is that it is the most likely explanation for  the origin of a large part of the solar wind. Heat can launch prominences and smaller jet arcs. Magnetism cannot. If it is not heat that can launch a lot of invisible ionised material at a greater speed than the speed of escape from the sun from the region around sunspots, what can?

My hypothesis is that the apparently dark regions of sunspots are too hot to emit visible and heat photons. If, as many claim, these dark regions are cooler than the photosphere, how can they survive for weeks without being warmed up?
I think that the claim that the dark regions of sunspots are cooler than the photosphere (and somehow remain cooler) needs some evidence to justify the claim.

16

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« on: 18/08/2010 10:01:58 »

CreativeEnergy
You wrote:

"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?"

The evidence I can offer is part empirical and part circumstantial.
1. There is an invisible solar wind that can be detected by its effects on the Earth's atmosphere.
2. The strength of the solar wind is greater when sunspots are visible on the sun.
3. The particles in the solar wind must have left the sun at a speed greater than the sun's speed of escape.
4. I deduce from 3 that there is a launching process for these particles at, in, or around sunspots.
5. The principal energy source in and on the sun is heat. I therefore think that heat is responsible directly or indirectly for the launching of the particles in the solar wind from the regions in or around sunspots.

According to quantum physics which I have no way of testing empirically, energy quanta in the form of photons are emitted from atoms when electrons in an atom fall from a higher energy level to a lower one.

I have read and believe that the heat of the sun is so high that some atoms lose their outer electron shells. This is partially confirmed by the fact that the solar wind is ionised. Ionised atoms are those which have lost electrons. Data from spacecraft indicate that the unneutralised proton density at the Earth's orbit is around 5 per cubic centimetre. This is confirmation (at least for me) that a lot of atoms that have left the sun have lost electrons.

Since the heat of the sun causes atoms to lose outer electron shells and thus become ionised, I PRESUME that more heat means more electrons lost.

If an atom is short of electrons, few if any electrons can fall from higher energy levels to lower ones. Consequently the ability of an atom to emit photons will be reduced. Since photon density is our way of determining if something is bright or dim, I DEDUCE that if something appears to be dim there aren't many photons coming our way from it.

Since a shortage of photons is associated with heat, and more heat means less photons, I DEDUCE that the darker parts of sunspots are regions where photons are scarce because of the enormous heat in these areas.

The solar wind does not emit photons and is invisible. There are no photons visible where at least part of the invisible solar wind is launched from sunspots. I PRESUME therefore that the sources of the solar wind at sunspots are also invisible. For me, invisibility means no photons. Where is the place on the sun where photons are scarcer than elsewhere on the sun?

17

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« 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.

18

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« 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.

19

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« 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.

20

New Theories / Are sunspots actually solar hot-spots?

« 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.