[Wilf James (OP)]

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.

[JP]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Paradigmer]

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.

[Wilf James (OP)]

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.

[Wilf James (OP)]

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?

[JP]

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

[Bored chemist]

" 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

[yor_on]

You've seen this one Wilf?

Overview - where do we stand with helioseismology? By Juri Toomre.

[Bored chemist]

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).

[Wilf James (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

"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.

[Wilf James (OP)]

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.

[tommya300]

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

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1986ApJ...301..992L/0001003.000.html

[Bored chemist]

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

[tommya300]

When are we going to hear the marriage engagment announcment, people?

[Bored chemist]

When are we going to hear the marriage engagment announcment, people?

LOL

[Wilf James (OP)]

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.

[JP]

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.