Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Er, it is not. It is a statement of the physics of the Sun as understood by scientists (and as interpreted by the Wikipedia authors!).

So your argument is "Scientists say that Michael is wrong, but that is not an appeal to authority fallacy." Is that it?

Your description seems to be "it is hot because it is hot and moving fast" which does not sound right.

No, my description is it hot because it is a "current carrying thread" and it is moving fast. Is the loop continuous, yes or no? Is it thermally the same everywhere, yes or no? If not, where is it "heating up"?

My impression that there is no heating in the coronal loop. Sorry if I did not state this clearly before.

Then if it's hot everywhere, including under the surface of the photosphere, why would we not observe it to at least 500KM again?

What we are talking about is the temperature of the plasma that is in the coronal loop.

Yes, and why it is OOM's hotter than the photosphere.

This plasma comes from the environment so it is temperature of the plasma in the photosphere (~6,000 K),

If that were true we would not see these loops in the 171A images at all. The loops must be a MINIMUM of 160,000K to be seen in iron ion wavelengths and most likely over 1 million degrees to be "bright" in any given image.

temperature minimum region (~4,100 K), chromosphere (risunbg to ~20,000 K),

Why is it rising and not falling as we move away from the photosphere? Where's that extra heat coming from?

transition region,

How can the "transition region" be 20,000 and emit bright points during solar moss events?

(rising to ~1,000,000 K) and corona (1–2 million kelvins, however, in the hottest regions it is 8–20 million kelvins).
A real astronomer will probably correct this.

Well, actually that is pretty much the "dogma" alright, but then there are all those unanswered questions. Shall I start my own thirty question list on the holes in standard theory?

That leads to the coronal heating problem (which is little to do with coronal loops) where mechanism behind the temperature of plasma at various heights is currently unknown.

That is because it is "unknown" to them that "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are the same physical process. It is also "unknown' to them that the solar atmosphere is electrically active and experiences electrical discharges. The only "problem" is their unwillingness to embrace *ANY* of Alfven's solar theories, or *ANY* of Bruce's solar theories or *ANY* of Birkeland's solar theories. Anything with the word "current flow" or "electrical discharge" is never going to get published. Therefore it is a big 'mystery' even though Birkeland explained it over 100 years ago.

FYI, I understand the significance of those white footprint patterns in the photosphere. That demonstrates that the loops are "hot" (compared to the sunspot with ~4000 K) and energetic and pump energy into the photosphere in the area where the magnetic field exits upward, and also where it comes back through the photosphere on the other side.

It's "hot" compared to the whole photosphere too because it's "brighter" in the areas where the "current sheet" comes up and through the photosphere and back again.

Um, in science, you can't point to the claim in question to try to support your point.

Er, no, I pointed to a specific observation that *DEMONSTRATES MY POINT*.

In other words, I see strong physical evidence that loops *DO NOT PASS THROUGH* the photosphere in those WL images.

If no loops paassed through the photosphere, why is the photosphere lit up like that? You have no such evidence.

I see nothing in those images to suggest that the loops start *below* the photosphere.

Except the plasma that gets blown off the surface, except the LINES along the base of the current sheet that comes up and through the photosphere, and except for those NASA animations.

You are missing a key point here. The WL image proves that the *WHOLE VISIBLE* loop (i.e. visible in WL) has a temperature between 4,000 and 10,000 K.

Er, no. By that logic a lightening bolt is only 4-10,000 Kelvin. Is that your argument? Just because it happens to emit some white light doesn't mean it doesn't emit x-rays and gamma rays too.

Then the discharge theory is wrong. as my emphaisis shows. The temperature varies a lot in a small region of the coronal loop. Thus it is not an electrical arc.

Which small region? The loop is hot until it reaches the photosphere, it cools back down really fast until it hits a magic land called the "Transition region" where it suddenly heats back up again? What are you saying? Is the loop uniformly heated or not? If not, what is the heating mechanism?

But you can prove me wrong - just cite or show the calculation that an electric arc can change temperature from ~4000 K to ~1,000,000 K in a distance of about 15,000 km, retain that temperature for many 1000's of km and then drop back to ~4000 K.

Er, you don't want much do you?

http://www.prod.sandia.gov/zmachine/

Sorry, that's the best I could do.

It is the heating that they actually measure.

The heating from "what"?

One more time: No one is stating that coronal loops do not rise out of the photosphere as in the NASA conceptual animation.

At what temperature does it rise out of the photosphere and why is it rising? Where does it "heat up" and more importantly *WHAT* is the heating mechanism?

LMSAL do not assume that the loops become visible somewhere above the photosphere.

Er, yes they do. They assume that they are not visible in 171A until far *ABOVE* the photosphere. Why?

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/

Their scientists know basic physics and so know that the 171A pass band is imaging radiation from heated plasma above the photosphere. The 171A pass band can never detect the photosphere.

No, but it can detect a million degree loop flowing *THROUGH* the photosphere. That is my whole point. At these wavelengths is is likely even by standard theory that million degree loops would be visible at these wavelengths from many hundreds of kilometers under the surface of the photosphere. There is no reason to assume these loops suddenly "heat up" to millions of degrees at some magic point, high in the solar atmosphere.

 

[Ziggurat]

Er, how do you define "thermal insulation" in the mist of million mile per hour "current flows"?

Easy: the solid surface cannot radiate heat into deep space.

Are you even going to admit that "magnetic reconnection" can be "translated" to "particle reconnection" yet so that it is congruent with QM and particle physics theory?

Your obsession with the semantics remains of no interest to me. Use whichever term if you want to, I don't care.

We also have a "current flow" that is one directional, always away from the sun.

And this provides refrigeration.... how?

So how is that chromosphere emitting at a higher temp than the photosphere? You thermodynamic requirements go up in smoke as we move away from the photosphere and into *HIGHER* temperature plasma.

No, Michael. I've pointed this out to you MANY times now. The chromosphere and corona are both largely transparent, and so do NOT insulate the layers beneath them. So no, my thermodynamic requirements do not go up in smoke. But you demonstrate your cluelessness yet again.

How does that photosphere remain cooler than the corona?

Easily: because the corona is largely transparent, it outputs very little radiative power (relatively speaking). So it doesn't heat the photosphere very quickly. The photosphere, in contrast, is able to radiate a LOT of power out into deep space. So the photosphere can (and does) lose heat far faster than the corona can heat it, because it can radiate through the corona. This has been explained to you before.

I'm afraid that is your own personal lingo. A quick search on Google would suggest that you are the only living human being on Earth to ever use that term.

Because nobody but you would think up such a stupid idea. Doesn't mean it's not an accurate description of your idea.

Did you mean "Thermionic Refrigeration"?

This is a more specific term. If you think that's the mechanism at work, then we can use that term instead. And we can redo the calculations based on this idea, and see what we get. Is that what you would like to do, Michael?

 

[Reality Check]

So your argument is "Scientists say that Michael is wrong, but that is not an appeal to authority fallacy." Is that it?

You have it right ! The appeal to authority fallacy requires that the source be authoritative. Wikipedia is definitely not that!

No, my description is it hot because it is a "current carrying thread" and it is moving fast. Is the loop continuous, yes or no? Is it thermally the same everywhere, yes or no? If not, where is it "heating up"?

That is your theory so you can answer the questions:

• Is the loop continuous, yes or no?
• Is it thermally the same everywhere, yes or no?
• If not, where is it "heating up"?

Then if it's hot everywhere, including under the surface of the photosphere, why would we not observe it to at least 500KM again?

Because it has the same temperature as the plasma in the photosphere an outputs the same light.

Yes, and why it is OOM's hotter than the photosphere.

If that were true we would not see these loops in the 171A images at all. The loops must be a MINIMUM of 160,000K to be seen in iron ion wavelengths and most likely over 1 million degrees to be "bright" in any given image.

The plasma in the coronal loops is at the various temperatures of the levels of the atmosphere.


IMO: There are two resaons that the coronal loop is brighter than the Sun's atmosphere.

1. The light is brighter than the plasma because the plasma is concentrated in the coronal loop.
2. In hindsight saying that there was no heating was a mistake. If you squeeze a gas it heats. So the plasma is actually hotter than the surrounding plasma.

Why is it rising and not falling as we move away from the photosphere? Where's that extra heat coming from?

From coronal heating. Scientists do not know the mechanism for coronal heating yet but they do have a couple of possible mechanisms and are researching the issue.
You seem to think that the corona is created from coronal loops. It is correlated with sunspot activity and thus coronal loops but it does not vanish when there are no sunspots or coronal loops.

How can the "transition region" be 20,000 and emit bright points during solar moss events?

I do not know.

Well, actually that is pretty much the "dogma" alright, but then there are all those unanswered questions. Shall I start my own thirty question list on the holes in standard theory?

If you want to do this then do it in another thread. This is the "Electric universe theories thread". Remeber that evidence against theory A is not evidence for theory B unless you can prove that theories A and B are the only possible theories. Should I mention Bruce (theory C) , a guy called Oliver Manuel (theory D) and Wallace Thornhill (theory E)?

It's "hot" compared to the whole photosphere too because it's "brighter" in the areas where the "current sheet" comes up and through the photosphere and back again.

How much hotter?

Er, no, I pointed to a specific observation that *DEMONSTRATES MY POINT*.

Er, no, You pointed to a specific observation that *YOU INTERPRETED AS" "DEMONSTRATES MY POINT*.

If no loops paassed through the photosphere, why is the photosphere lit up like that? You have no such evidence.

The loops pased through the photosphere. I (like you) interpret the pretty picture. as a specific observation that *DEMONSTRATES MY POINT*.
That is my evidence. This is as valid as your evidence. Which is of course not valid at all since neither of us has numbers.

Except the plasma that gets blown off the surface, except the LINES along the base of the current sheet that comes up and through the photosphere, and except for those NASA animations.

I see plasma being sucked off the surface of the photosphere.

Er, no. By that logic a lightening bolt is only 4-10,000 Kelvin. Is that your argument? Just because it happens to emit some white light doesn't mean it doesn't emit x-rays and gamma rays too.

It does.
Now take a photo of a lightening bolt using white light. Do you see the x-rays and gamma rays?
Now take a photo of a lightening bolt using the 171A pass pand. Do you see the white light?

Coronal loops emit light along their length accodring to their temperature and that light is detacted accoring to teh filter applied to the detector. They emit white light, UV, EUV, emit x-rays and gamma rays too

Which small region? The loop is hot until it reaches the photosphere, it cools back down really fast until it hits a magic land called the "Transition region" where it suddenly heats back up again? What are you saying? Is the loop uniformly heated or not? If not, what is the heating mechanism?

The small region between the photosphere and the transition zone (~15,000 km out of 200,000? km).
The loop has no temperature. It is the plsama in it that has the temperature.

Is the electric arc uniformly heated or not?
If not, what is the heating mechanism?

...snipped inane heating mechanism rant...

Er, yes they do. They assume that they are not visible in 171A until far *ABOVE* the photosphere. Why?
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/

You know why. You have been told about this basic physics for many years now and many times in this forum. I tis your failure to understand that the 171A pass band can only detect plasma at temperatures between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. The phososphere is at ~6000 K and its optical depth means that you cannot not detect radiation from depths of more than a few hundred km depending on wavelength (and the sensitivity of your detector).

Solar moss is an interesting observation. No one is sure whay causes it. It seems to be some kind of local heating in the transition zone.
Moss on the limb

This composite TRACE image shows a layer of moss seen at the Solar limb. The yellow image is a visible light image of the Sun and shows the "solar surface" or photosphere. The blue image is a TRACE 171 Angstrom image showing 1 to 2 million degree coronal loops and a bright "layer" of moss just above the surface. The moss layer is located between about 1500 to 4000 km (1000 - 2500 miles) above the solar surface, much lower than the typical coronal loop apex heights.

No, but it can detect a million degree loop flowing *THROUGH* the photosphere. That is my whole point. At these wavelengths is is likely even by standard theory that million degree loops would be visible at these wavelengths from many hundreds of kilometers under the surface of the photosphere. There is no reason to assume these loops suddenly "heat up" to millions of degrees at some magic point, high in the solar atmosphere.

Still wrong MM.
The 171A pass band can detect a million degree loop flowing *THROUGH* the Sun's atmosphere above the photosphere.

You do get this correct:
If there was a million degree loop flowing through the photosphere then it would be detected for a few hundred km below the photosphere (not down to your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust at 4,800 km).
But astronomers are not dumb.
AFAIK: They do things like look at features on the limb of the Sun. They take images at various wavelengths and in short time intervals (e.g. minutes). They note that features are further out from the Sun whan they go to shorter wavelengths (higher temperatures).

ETA
It is actually good old spectrosopy that provides the evidence for the variation of temperature with distance, e.g.
New Light on the Heart of Darkness of the Solar Chromosphere

Solar carbon monoxide spectra indicate the existence of a cool (less than 4000 kelvin) component to the solar chromosphere coexisting with the hot, bright gas at 6000 to 7000 kelvin. However, both the existence and the location of the cool component have been controversial. New high-resolution spectra show that carbon monoxide goes into emission just beyond the limb, allowing it to be probed without photospheric contamination. The cool component has temperatures as low as 3000 to 3500 kelvin and appears to cover 50 to 85 percent of the quiet solar surface. There is a steep temperature rise to normal chromospheric temperatures at a height of 900 to 1100 kilometers. Large horizontal velocities are seen, suggesting that the cool component is maintained by the supersonic adiabatic expansion of upwelling gas in overshooting granules.

And I am failry sure that astronomers do the same thing for coronal loops.

IMO: The movie you are so fond of disproves this. If all of the loops that we see in the 171A pass band were at temperatures of a million degrees and penetrating the photosphere then the white light movie would demonstrate this. There would be holes all over the sunspots corresponding to the million degree loops entering and exiting the photosphere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Coronal loops emit light along their length accodring to their temperature and that light is detacted accoring to teh filter applied to the detector. They emit white light, UV, EUV, emit x-rays and gamma rays too

Ok, fine. I think since my time is restricted, rather than go through your post line by line, I'd like for you and I to return for a moment to those 1600A images. These 1600A "green" images have a 'surface' which for sake of argument we are both willing to call that surface the photosphere. These images are "better" at showing the relationship between the surface of the photosphere and loops. During flare activities, it it clear that the loops come up and through the photosphere and leave their energy signature on the surface of the photosphere as 'bright patterns' where the loops and current sheets flow. The loops are also "bright lit" suggesting that they radiate at high temperatures relative to this wavelength's temperature sensitivities. Just like here on Earth, any discharge through the photosphere will leave it's mark on the plasma, and it could radiate a very high range of temperature related wavelengths. In other words we can be sure it's "hot" compared to the photosphere, but we can't say *how hot* it might be.

Would you agree or disagree that the 1600A images show a clear pattern of energetic coronal loops traversing the surface of these images?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Easy: the solid surface cannot radiate heat into deep space.

Let's start with this idea first. Why not? Let's start with say a "cool" surface at 1200K and 'space' as defined by cooler plasma. Why can't such a solid surface radiate heat into the plasmas around the sun?

Your obsession with the semantics remains of no interest to me. Use whichever term if you want to, I don't care.

Fine. I will use the term "circuit reconnection" since it conveys the importance of the *entire* circuit, not just the kinetic energy at the point of particle 'reconnection'. It is also consistent with Alfven's use of wiring diagrams and other representations of "circuit" in plasma.

And this provides refrigeration.... how?

The process constantly moves heat away from the sun.

No, Michael. I've pointed this out to you MANY times now. The chromosphere and corona are both largely transparent,

So that overlay image shows *something* blocking the Yohkoh x-rays from lower down the loop. What is that "layer" and how do you know for a fact that it is not the photosphere?

and so do NOT insulate the layers beneath them.

So as long as the photosphere isn't fully "opaque" and it's thinner than the plasma under that layer, it may not fully insulate the layers under it either, correct?

So no, my thermodynamic requirements do not go up in smoke. But you demonstrate your cluelessness yet again.

You're simply *RANDOMLY* deciding what can and cannot be an "insulating" plasma and you are arbitrarily deciding that the whole photosphere must be 6000K, not just the particles flowing through it.

Easily: because the corona is largely transparent, it outputs very little radiative power (relatively speaking). So it doesn't heat the photosphere very quickly. The photosphere, in contrast, is able to radiate a LOT of power out into deep space. So the photosphere can (and does) lose heat far faster than the corona can heat it, because it can radiate through the corona. This has been explained to you before.

Yes, and I've also explained to you before that I don't believe that the photosphere is "opaque" as you claim too, and that the layer under the photosphere work just like the layers above it too, but you keep rejecting that idea with a handwave. All the plasma layers emit more heat than is reflected back at them.

 

[Reality Check]

Ok, fine. I think since my time is restricted, rather than go through your post line by line, I'd like for you and I to return for a moment to those 1600A images. These 1600A "green" images have a 'surface' which for sake of argument we are both willing to call that surface the photosphere. These images are "better" at showing the relationship between the surface of the photosphere and loops. During flare activities, it it clear that the loops come up and through the photosphere and leave their energy signature on the surface of the photosphere as 'bright patterns' where the loops and current sheets flow. The loops are also "bright lit" suggesting that they radiate at high temperatures relative to this wavelength's temperature sensitivities. Just like here on Earth, any discharge through the photosphere will leave it's mark on the plasma, and it could radiate a very high range of temperature related wavelengths. In other words we can be sure it's "hot" compared to the photosphere, but we can't say *how hot* it might be.

Would you agree or disagree that the 1600A images show a clear pattern of energetic coronal loops traversing the surface of these images?

That is what I see in the movie - lots of activity on the surface of the photosphere (actually the surface of the sunspots).
It is also what scientists say is really happening, i.e. magnetic flux tubes are floating to the surface of the Sun (the photosphere) and filling with plasma.
Did you know that astronomers have actually measured the movement of plasma into the coronal loop's magnetic flux?

Solar plasma feeding these structures is heated from under 6000K to well over 1×106K from the photosphere, through the transition region, and into the corona. Often, the solar plasma will fill these loops from one foot point and drain from the other (siphon flow due to a pressure difference, or asymmetric flow due to some other driver). This is known as chromospheric evaporation and chromospheric condensation respectively. There may also be symmetric flow from both loop foot points, causing a buildup of mass in the loop structure.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's start with this idea first. Why not? Let's start with say a "cool" surface at 1200K and 'space' as defined by cooler plasma. Why can't such a solid surface radiate heat into the plasmas around the sun?

You can't solve the thermodynamic impossibility of your solid layer by adding a thermodynamically impossible plasma layer. While the solid layer could indeed lose heat to such a plasma layer, the question simply becomes what keeps the cold plasma layer from heating up to around 6000 K? The fundamental problem of having something cold surrounded AND insulated by something hot remains.

The process constantly moves heat away from the sun.

That's not an answer, Michael. A blowtorch is constantly moving heat away from the nozzle, but you will find that the nozzle is not chilled when you turn it on and light it. Furthermore, how much heat do you think can be carried away like this?

So that overlay image shows *something* blocking the Yohkoh x-rays from lower down the loop. What is that "layer" and how do you know for a fact that it is not the photosphere?

What on earth are you talking about, Michael? X-rays are completely negligible for thermal radiation at 6000 K and below. Whatever emission, absorption, or transmission is going on, it won't make any difference to my thermodynamic arguments.

So as long as the photosphere isn't fully "opaque" and it's thinner than the plasma under that layer, it may not fully insulate the layers under it either, correct?

Correct. But we KNOW that whatever is between your proposed solid surface and space is almost entirely opaque (this is a hard requirement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, given the blackbody spectrum that is produced), and so is an EXCELLENT insulator. Perfect? No, but it doesn't need to be. Whatever is under it cannot possibly radiate nearly enough through it to keep colder than it.

You're simply *RANDOMLY* deciding what can and cannot be an "insulating" plasma

Not at all. In fact, I've made the criteria explicit before. If it's opaque to the relevant wavelengths (in this case, UV to IR), it's insulating. If it's transparent to the relevant wavelengths, it's not insulating. The corona and the chromosphere are largely transparent at these wavelengths, therefore they are not insulating. Something between your proposed solid surface and the chromosphere is not transparent. It MUST be opaque, because it emits as a blackbody.

and you are arbitrarily deciding that the whole photosphere must be 6000K, not just the particles flowing through it.

No, I'm not arbitrarily deciding that. Rather, the distinction doesn't matter.

Yes, and I've also explained to you before that I don't believe that the photosphere is "opaque" as you claim too

It doesn't matter if it's the photosphere or not. It's SOMETHING, or (if you insist) some things. And yes, it must be opaque, because it emits as a blackbody. That, again, is a hard requirement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

All the plasma layers emit more heat than is reflected back at them.

Not possible if the inner layer is colder than the outer layer AND the outer layer is a blackbody.

 

[Reality Check]

So that overlay image shows *something* blocking the Yohkoh x-rays from lower down the loop. What is that "layer" and how do you know for a fact that it is not the photosphere?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

You cannot tell from this compostite image whether "*something* blocking the Yohkoh x-rays from lower down the loop".

Firstly this is a 2D image. There is no way to tell by just looking how high the features in it are. To do that you have to analyze the two original images to extract numbers and compare them. I think that astronomers may have some method of extracting the heights from the images. Why don't you do some research and apply the technique to the images?

Secondly in general loops imaged in the soft X-rays that Yohkoh detects will start to be imaged above the same loops detected in the TRACE 171A pass band. You have been told this many times before before.

Thirdly note that the actual caption to the image (whic you never seem to post) does not mention anything blocking the Yohkoh x-rays.

The same image as "moss7" but with the co-temporal Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telescope image overlaid. Note that the patches of moss seen in the previous images (See Trace Spacecraft Discovers Moss on the Sun) occur only beneath areas of high intensity soft x-ray emission as imaged by the SXT instrument.

The caption does mention that the Yohkoh Soft X-ray Telescope image is overlaid.
What if they had reversed the overlay?
Would you then be talking about *something* blocking the TRACE EUV from lower down the loop?

 

[brantc]

You have it right ! The appeal to authority fallacy requires that the source be authoritative. Wikipedia is definitely not that!



That is your theory so you can answer the questions:

• Is the loop continuous, yes or no?
• Is it thermally the same everywhere, yes or no?
• If not, where is it "heating up"?

Because it has the same temperature as the plasma in the photosphere an outputs the same light.


The plasma in the coronal loops is at the various temperatures of the levels of the atmosphere.


IMO: There are two resaons that the coronal loop is brighter than the Sun's atmosphere.

1. The light is brighter than the plasma because the plasma is concentrated in the coronal loop.
2. In hindsight saying that there was no heating was a mistake. If you squeeze a gas it heats. So the plasma is actually hotter than the surrounding plasma.

From coronal heating. Scientists do not know the mechanism for coronal heating yet but they do have a couple of possible mechanisms and are researching the issue.
You seem to think that the corona is created from coronal loops. It is correlated with sunspot activity and thus coronal loops but it does not vanish when there are no sunspots or coronal loops.


IMO: The movie you are so fond of disproves this. If all of the loops that we see in the 171A pass band were at temperatures of a million degrees and penetrating the photosphere then the white light movie would demonstrate this. There would be holes all over the sunspots corresponding to the million degree loops entering and exiting the photosphere.

Coronal heating in its most basic form is acceleration of electrons(ions) from a fraction of an eV to 100eV... Acceleration of particles is most easily achieved with a potential difference in voltage across 2 points.
Anything else is just blabber that does not recognize the root cause.

The light at 171 requires a certain energy to be produced. This energy is indicative of 100eV iron plasma. At 11,000 per eV that is 1million degrees. That is what 171A(almost EUV) is good at looking at!! You cannot see that wavelength in white light. Look at the coronal white light. You can see all of the activity. I dont think you have to have a sunspot to have a coronal loop in 171?


From the TRACE website.

"On the left (top) is a TRACE image taken on 9 August 1999, around 23:00 UT, in the 171Å passband (characteristic of 1 million degree gas; shown as the square root of the measure intensity). High-arching loops stand out, to a height of appriximately 120,000 km, visible along their entire length. The image on the right is a ratio of 195Å to 171Å, and serves as a measure of temperature. This image shows the loops as green along most of their length, demonstrating that the temperature varies little along them (which is why they can be seen in the 171Å image in the first place). The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so.

If the temperature does not vary much along aloop, and lies around 1 million degrees along most of its length, the gas should sag into the bottom of the loops under the influence of gravity. Consequently, the gas density should decrease by a factor of almost three every 50,000 km; the emission (which scales as the square of the density) should drop by that factor every 25,000 km. The right-hand bar in the lower image on the left shows how radidly the emission should have dropped off in the case of such simple gravitational stratification; the observed situation is closer to the intensity profile in the left-hand bar, for which the scale height has been doubled. Clearly, the emission drops off much more slowly than expected from a simple static model. The assumptions that are generally made that solar coronal loops are essentially stationary (evolving slow compared to the time they can adjust to a new situation) and that they are uniformly heated have been demonstrated to be fundamentally untenable: many loops evolve very rapidly, and none of them is heated uniformly!"

 

[brantc]

You can't solve the thermodynamic impossibility of your solid layer by adding a thermodynamically impossible plasma layer. While the solid layer could indeed lose heat to such a plasma layer, the question simply becomes what keeps the cold plasma layer from heating up to around 6000 K? The fundamental problem of having something cold surrounded AND insulated by something hot remains.

Correct. But we KNOW that whatever is between your proposed solid surface and space is almost entirely opaque (this is a hard requirement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, given the blackbody spectrum that is produced), and so is an EXCELLENT insulator. Perfect? No, but it doesn't need to be. Whatever is under it cannot possibly radiate nearly enough through it to keep colder than it.



Not at all. In fact, I've made the criteria explicit before. If it's opaque to the relevant wavelengths (in this case, UV to IR), it's insulating. If it's transparent to the relevant wavelengths, it's not insulating. The corona and the chromosphere are largely transparent at these wavelengths, therefore they are not insulating. Something between your proposed solid surface and the chromosphere is not transparent. It MUST be opaque, because it emits as a blackbody.

You are assuming that it is the plasma emitting as a blackbody. And the idea that all the process in the sun line up to produce a blackbody from all the emission lines is ridiculous. BB only comes from a dense plasma.

That is a logical fallacy. Solid matter emits as a blackbody. So the photosphere is thin enough to allow some of that blackbody curve to show through. It is not the intervening(between the photosphere and the solid surface) plasma that causes the BB. Its just not dense enough.

All the particles start out with a fraction of an eV at the surface and gain energy as the head towards the corona. If they go the other way the lose energy. 99% of the energy of the sun is traveling away. The rest is radiated through the better than the best vacuum on earth, called the photosphere at IR wavelengths from the solid surface of the sun.

 

[Reality Check]

Coronal heating in its most basic form is acceleration of electrons(ions) from a fraction of an eV to 100eV... Acceleration of particles is most easily achieved with a potential difference in voltage across 2 points.
Anything else is just blabber that does not recognize the root cause.

That is right. In solid materials, acceleration of particles is most easily achieved with a potential difference in voltage across 2 points. That is how particle accelerators work.

It is a pity that there are no solid materials in the photosphere (~6000 K) or above the photosphere. The photosphere, etc. are plasma. Plasmas are behave differently from solid materials.

The light at 171 requires a certain energy to be produced. This energy is indicative of 100eV iron plasma. At 11,000 per eV that is 1million degrees. That is what 171A(almost EUV) is good at looking at!! You cannot see that wavelength in white light. Look at the coronal white light. You can see all of the activity.

No one argues with this. The 171A pass band filter was chosen for the TRACE spacecraft to image plasma at tempertaures of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K and so emission from detect Fe IX ions.

Look at the coronal white light. You can see all of the activity that emits white light.
As MM would ask: Have you downloaded the FlareDVD.img and looked at the difference between the WL movies and other pass band movies?
The WL movies are actually very boring wrt coronal loops. The 1 to 3 frames that MM picked up are the only interesting ones in 1000's of frames in that WL movie. The other WL movies are even more boring wrt coronal loops.

I dont think you have to have a sunspot to have a coronal loop in 171?

Right - they are just found more often with sunspots as their footprints.

...snipped the well known and already posted a couple of times TRACE result temperatures are constant along most of a coroanl loop,,,

 

[Reality Check]

You are assuming that it is the plasma emitting as a blackbody. And the idea that all the process in the sun line up to produce a blackbody from all the emission lines is ridiculous. BB only comes from a dense plasma.

He is not assuming this.
A nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K is measured. This is means that the material emitting the light is at a temperature of 5777 K. Solids cannot exist at 5777 K. Liquids cannot exists at 5777 K. That leaves gas or plasma. The temperature means ionization so we have an ionized gas or a plasma.

You do not even need "all the process in the sun" to line up. All you need the the formation of H-, i.e. free electrons in an almost thermal distribution emitting photons as they join a H atom.
Photosphere

The visible surface of the Sun, the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light.[56] Above the photosphere visible sunlight is free to propagate into space, and its energy escapes the Sun entirely. The change in opacity is due to the decreasing amount of H− ions, which absorb visible light easily.[56] Conversely, the visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions.[57][58]

 

[sol invictus]

You are assuming that it is the plasma emitting as a blackbody.

Here's my understanding of this "debate". MM thinks (?) the sun has a solid iron surface, and that we can image it. The problem is, iron melts at 1800K and boils at 3000K, and the sun emits blackbody radiation with a temperature of nearly 6000K. Same problem for any other substance I know of.

So, how is this possible? Well it's obviously not, but let's be generous and examine the possibilities. Here's a list of facts:

1. The sun's light is coming from some surface in thermal equilibrium at ~6000K.
2. That surface is nearly opaque to all frequencies of radiation (if it wasn't, it wouldn't emit as a near perfect black body).
3. That surface is either above or below this putative iron surface.
4. If it's above, we couldn't see the iron, because the surface is opaque.
5. If it's below, the iron would either melt or equilibrate at a temperature below 1800K.
6. Since solid (and molten) iron is opaque, if it didn't vaporize it would emit BB radation at a temperature below 6000K, which would mean sunlight would have a BB spectrum below 6000K, which it doesn't.
7. I think we're stuck....

And the idea that all the process in the sun line up to produce a blackbody from all the emission lines is ridiculous.

Eh? The sun does have a BB spectrum. Do you find the sun ridiculous?

 

[Ziggurat]

You are assuming that it is the plasma emitting as a blackbody.

No, I'm not. I'm observing that something is. Michael has claimed that the solid surface is not at 6000 K, and so cannot be the source of this blackbody radiation. Therefore, it MUST be something above his solid surface, according to Michael. I make no claims about what it is.

And the idea that all the process in the sun line up to produce a blackbody from all the emission lines is ridiculous.

Then it's a good thing nobody suggested that.

BB only comes from a dense plasma.

Is a substance which absorbs 1% of incident light per millimeter and transmits 99% of it going to emit close to a blackbody? Well, not if you've only got 1 mm of it. But what if you've got a meters of it? Then you're going to absorb over 99.99 % of any incident light, and it WILL act very close to a blackbody. What matters is the optical depth compared to the size of your material. It doesn't matter how dense a plasma is, if the optical depth is shorter than the plasma's volume, it will act as a blackbody. Tell me: what's the optical depth for plasma in the photosphere? And how thick is the photosphere? Those are the questions we need to answer if you want to determine whether or not the photosphere can act as a blackbody. Without answering those questions, you have no grounds on which to conclude it cannot act as a blackbody source.

That is a logical fallacy. Solid matter emits as a blackbody.

Well, no. Some solid matter does. Mirrors, for example, do not. But as has been demonstrated for you already, solids are not the only things capable of acting as blackbodies.

So the photosphere is thin enough to allow some of that blackbody curve to show through.

What you suggest contradicts what Michael has been saying. If the blackbody radiation we see comes from a solid surface of the sun (and BTW, it's not just the shape that matters in the current context, the absolute intensity does too), then that solid surface must be around 6000 K. Tell me, what material do you think can remain solid at that temperature? Even Michael recognizes that won't work.

All the particles start out with a fraction of an eV at the surface and gain energy as the head towards the corona. If they go the other way the lose energy. 99% of the energy of the sun is traveling away. The rest is radiated through the better than the best vacuum on earth, called the photosphere at IR wavelengths from the solid surface of the sun.

Are you claiming that the photosphere is a vacuum, or did you just have a brain fart when you wrote this?

 

[Ziggurat]

Eh? The sun does have a BB spectrum. Do you find the sun ridiculous?

brantc claimed before that plasmas can only emit light at atomic spectral lines. I spent a number of posts detailing how xenon plasma arc lamps falsified this claim (and where he continued to deny the evidence that was presented to him in a rather amusing fashion), but I'm not sure he really gets the implications of this yet.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is right. In solid materials, acceleration of particles is most easily achieved with a potential difference in voltage across 2 points. That is how particle accelerators work.

Plasma form "circuits" and z-pinch filaments that act like conductors. What's the difference? As long as there is a charge difference between them the discharge process occurs. Birkeland did this with his cathode sphere and took images of that process. It's not a "mystery" as to what might heat plasma to millions of degrees, it's called an "electrical discharge". We see them here on Earth all the time. The areas inside that discharge process are all hot.

It is a pity that there are no solid materials in the photosphere (~6000 K) or above the photosphere.

In suspot activity they routinely find temperatures less than 4000K.

The photosphere, etc. are plasma. Plasmas are behave differently from solid materials.

Plasma is a conductor like many solids. It's "different", but it has similar properties to liquids.

No one argues with this. The 171A pass band filter was chosen for the TRACE spacecraft to image plasma at tempertaures of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K and so emission from detect Fe IX ions.

The point is that you wouldn't see such emissions were it not for the electrical discharge that heats the plasma! You keep sort glossing over the heat source issue in a big way.

Look at the coronal white light. You can see all of the activity that emits white light.
As MM would ask: Have you downloaded the FlareDVD.img and looked at the difference between the WL movies and other pass band movies?

Yes. I'm wondering if Zig will ever do that. Note those 1600A images also show the loops come from under the photosphere. There is no way that these loops would not be visible under the photosphere in 171A.

The WL movies are actually very boring wrt coronal loops. The 1 to 3 frames that MM picked up are the only interesting ones in 1000's of frames in that WL movie. The other WL movies are even more boring wrt coronal loops.

Ya, I sat through the whole video for you and picked out the three images that showed us anything useful in WL that related to this conversation.

Right - they are just found more often with sunspots as their footprints.

Coronal loops appear with or without sunspots. In fact it takes a *LOT* of 171A activity to generate a sunspot. The loops are not directly related to sunspot activity other than the fact that no sunspots form without 171A activity. 171A activity happens constantly without any sunspots.

I really want you to look at those 1600A images and notice that the plasma is *hot* as it traverses the surface of these images. It's "hot", not cold as it passes through the photosphere. There is no "heating mechanism" above the photosphere as LMSAL claims. All the heating takes place as a result of the discharge process, but most of those discharge processes occur completely under the photosphere and typically never rise up through the photosphere. Only the "big loops" do that and they leave a definite mark on the photosphere as they pass through that is indicative of a hot plasma discharge.

 

[Michael Mozina]

brantc claimed before that plasmas can only emit light at atomic spectral lines. I spent a number of posts detailing how xenon plasma arc lamps falsified this claim (and where he continued to deny the evidence that was presented to him in a rather amusing fashion), but I'm not sure he really gets the implications of this yet.

If he doesn't, then neither do you IMO. I'm willing to concede that there are "discharge events" that can release a BB spectrum. You seem to believe that is now impossible as it relates to the sun. Why?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's not an answer, Michael. A blowtorch is constantly moving heat away from the nozzle, but you will find that the nozzle is not chilled when you turn it on and light it. Furthermore, how much heat do you think can be carried away like this?

Plenty. Would you rather have your finger sitting 1/4 inch in front of the flame for two or three seconds, or 1/4 inch behind the nozzle?

 

[GeeMack]

Coronal loops appear with or without sunspots. In fact it takes a *LOT* of 171A activity to generate a sunspot. The loops are not directly related to sunspot activity other than the fact that no sunspots form without 171A activity. 171A activity happens constantly without any sunspots.

So it takes a lot of 171Å activity to generate a sunspot, eh? I've heard those solid surface of the Sun proponents say a lot of very, very stupid things over the years, but this has to be one of the stupidest. You couldn't possibly have actually meant to say that, Michael.

 

[Reality Check]

Plasma form "circuits" and z-pinch filaments that act like conductors. What's the difference? As long as there is a charge difference between them the discharge process occurs. Birkeland did this with his cathode sphere and took images of that process. It's not a "mystery" as to what might heat plasma to millions of degrees, it's called an "electrical discharge". We see them here on Earth all the time. The areas inside that discharge process are all hot.

The difference is the scale upon which charge separation happens in the solar plasma.
The difference is that Sun is not the Earth.

In suspot activity they routinely find temperatures less than 4000K.

They might (citation needed) - the usual tempertaure quoted is 4,000 K to 1,500K. Still no solids at ~4,000 K.

Plasma is a conductor like many solids. It's "different", but it has similar properties to liquids.

That is right. It is even treated as a fluid in magnetohydrodynamics.

The point is that you wouldn't see such emissions were it not for the electrical discharge that heats the plasma! You keep sort glossing over the heat source issue in a big way.

I have been quite clear aboout the source of coronal heating. No one knows what it is. That is not "glossing over" - that is stating what the situation is.
You cannot have electrical discharges from a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust that does not exist. You cannot have

Yes. I'm wondering if Zig will ever do that. Note those 1600A images also show the loops come from under the photosphere. There is no way that these loops would not be visible under the photosphere in 171A.

There is every way that these loops would not be visible under the photosphere in 171A.

I really want you to look at those 1600A images and notice that the plasma is *hot* as it traverses the surface of these images. It's "hot", not cold as it passes through the photosphere. There is no "heating mechanism" above the photosphere as LMSAL claims. All the heating takes place as a result of the discharge process, but most of those discharge processes occur completely under the photosphere and typically never rise up through the photosphere. Only the "big loops" do that and they leave a definite mark on the photosphere as they pass through that is indicative of a hot plasma discharge.

The plasma is as "hot" as the 1600A filter allows - a maximum of 10,000 K.

LMSAL claim is:

The image on the right is a ratio of 195Å to 171Å, and serves as a measure of temperature. This image shows the loops as green along most of their length, demonstrating that the temperature varies little along them (which is why they can be seen in the 171Å image in the first place). The fact that the temperature is so nearly constant along the length requires that most of the heating is concentrated low down, in the bottom 15,000 km or so.

(emphasis added)
and the pass bands are:

Thus the minimum plasma temperature that LMSAL are talking about is 160,000 K (anything cooler than this is not in the 2 images).