Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Perpetual Student]

Michael - please re-read my post. The idea is to forget the sun for a little bit, and just think about plasma opacity. Again, opacity is independent of intensity. As for coronal loops, they have nothing to do with the question at hand - right?

Please confirm that you think the relevant plasma is 90%Ne, 10%H, and specify whether you mean by mass or by number.

OK, let's go Mr. Mozina.

 

[brantc]

No, that's not what happens. It is without doubt the magnetic field that rearranges its topology before the change in currents. The energy lost to the field is transferred to kinetic energy of the plasma. Electric currents by themselves cannot all gain energy, that clearly violates the fundamental conservation of energy principle. Rather, there has to be a mix of currents & magnetic fields, and there has to be a transfer of energy from the field to the current. That transfer of energy cannot come from common induction because the time scale for that is too long (see, e.g., Magnetic Reconnection Redux V). A rearrangement in the topology of the magnetic field, which can release energy on a much shorter time scale consistent with observation, is the only alternative physical process available. And since we can observe it to happen in situ in laboratory plasma experiments, despite Mozina's erroneous claims to the contrary, and since there is copious evidence for magnetic reconnection in observed astrophysical plasma (see, e.g., Magnetic Reconnection Redux XI), it's the obvious way to go.


No, this is exactly the opposite of what really happens. The magnetic field drives the process and the current goes along for the ride. The field changes first and the currents gain energy second, in that specific order. If the currents were actually driving the process, it would work the other way around.

Just for grins. Here is the newest paper on the Large Plasma Device website.
Maybe you have already seen it....

The source of all magnetic fields in a plasma are current systems, although in experiments some of the current can be in conductors entrained in the plasma. From this perspective it is obvious that reconnection can occur in dynamic current systems. For example, reconnection has been observed in three-dimensional current systems in the aftermath of a collision of two dense plasmas in a background plasma [10]. In the Sun, coronal mass ejections can lead to flux ropes [11] that emerge from the corona and can reach Earth. They may remain anchored on the Sun, or break away to become plasmoids [12]. A single flux rope carries a current which makes the magnetic field surrounding it helical. Two or more adjacent flux ropes can interact via their J
B force. This may lead to merging as was seen in an early experiment [13] in which the process lead to a force free state where the magnetic fields and plasma currents became parallel.

http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/papers//Lawrence_PhysRevLett_QSL.pdf

No, no right here, look at this. From the same paper.

"A recent experiment using washer stack guns to produce initially parallel current carrying plasmas showed that magnetic field reconnection occurs when two flux ropes merge [14]."


Which is pretty much what I have been claiming the whole time. Curl >0 and the whole bit. Flux ropes touch the magnetopause first(anchored on the iron solar surface, which supplies the current, no doubt) and then there is a reconnection.

The magnetic field comes from the current following the RIGHT HAND RULE.
"The source of all magnetic fields in a plasma are current systems,"[1]
There is a disturbance in the Force and "magnetic field reconnection occurs when two flux ropes merge."[1]
Bang!!! Reconnection!!!!

Plasmoids happen after reconnection in the magnetotail as well as an observed substorm and increase in Auroral brightness.

1 (Refs)Identification of a Quasiseparatrix Layer in a Reconnecting Laboratory Magnetoplasma PRL 103, 105002 (2009)

So what do you say to that Tim and Tusenfem?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Opacity

The problem sol is that the way GM (not necessarily you by the way) use the term "opaque'. He makes it sound like *ALL* the light is completely blocked, not simply a set percentage, making it impossible for me to see beyond that point. That's not the way you've defined "opaque". Now what?

I have zero expertise in all of this. My definition of opaque is the normal English usage. I have no idea to what extent that is consistent with the scientific definition. I'm about to learn, thanks to Sol.

Well, both GM & Sol are correct, but certainly Sol's definition is more precise

Opacity is defined by what fraction of the intensity is attenuated passing through the substance.

Now, to some extent all light is blocked, but the percentage of light that gets through any substance is wavelength (or frequency) dependent.
The blocking is done by a combination of scattering and absorption.
Continuum opacity results from scattering of photons, mostly off of electrons, or from ionization, where any photon energetic enough will encounter an atom and lose energy, or be completely absorbed, in the act of kicking an electron away from the atom.
Line opacity results from complete absorption of a photon in the act of moving an electron bound to the atom from one energy to a higher energy.
It's the line opacity, or absorption, that creates the dark lines in the solar spectrum ( http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/asras/chemcomp_i/solar_spectrum_big.jpg a big image 8192x5464 pixels might load slow).
So in detail opacity can be a complicated affair. I am sure that the general idea of the present exercise is to try to avoid as much of the complication as possible and keep it simple. A continuum opacity should do for that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, both GM & Sol are correct, but certainly Sol's definition is more precise

No, as usual, sol's definition is correct and GM hasn't a clue. There's a huge difference between 90 and 100 percent. It's an error of "infinity' in terms of distance.

 

[dasmiller]

( http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/asras/chemcomp_i/solar_spectrum_big.jpg a big image 8192x5464 pixels might load slow).

Kewl - I just set that as my desktop

 

[Reality Check]

Do you understand how fluorescent tubes ("neon bulbs") work

Even that's another of your gross oversimplifications related to "black bodies" and "opaqueness". You "need" that to be true, but the neon bulbs in my office glow white light too. They aren't 6000 degrees at the surface of the glass..

There you go again with looking at something and not understanding it.

First asked 23 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Do you understand how fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescent lamps ("neon bulbs") work?

The answer seems to be no since you posted this on 18 July 2009
QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Well, I don't even have to leave my office to see that effect of a mostly neon plasma emitting white light. Both the bulb and the photosphere have metals and impurities of course, but the white light we observe from the photosphere is related to the elemental composition, not the temperature.
[/quote]
were corrected and are still repeating your misconception.


FYI:

• The light in fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescent lamps (your "neon bulbs") is generated from mercury vapor (not neon plasma).
• The tubes usually contain neon as a filler gas - thus alternative description as neon tubes or neon bulbs.
• This light is converted into visible light by a phosphor coating.
• The resulting light is not qute white light:
  

  Good quality consumer CFLs use three or four phosphors to achieve a 'white' light with a CRI (color rendering index) of around 80, where 100 represents the appearance of colors under daylight or a black-body (depending on the correlated color temperature).

 

[D'rok]

Well, both GM & Sol are correct, but certainly Sol's definition is more precise

Now, to some extent all light is blocked, but the percentage of light that gets through any substance is wavelength (or frequency) dependent.
The blocking is done by a combination of scattering and absorption.
Continuum opacity results from scattering of photons, mostly off of electrons, or from ionization, where any photon energetic enough will encounter an atom and lose energy, or be completely absorbed, in the act of kicking an electron away from the atom.
Line opacity results from complete absorption of a photon in the act of moving an electron bound to the atom from one energy to a higher energy.
It's the line opacity, or absorption, that creates the dark lines in the solar spectrum ( http://spiff.rit.edu/richmond/asras/chemcomp_i/solar_spectrum_big.jpg a big image 8192x5464 pixels might load slow).
So in detail opacity can be a complicated affair. I am sure that the general idea of the present exercise is to try to avoid as much of the complication as possible and keep it simple. A continuum opacity should do for that.

If we're talking about continuum opacity for Sol's exercise, does that leave Michael the wiggle room that he imagines he has? In other words, can he still claim to "see" through plasma that is opaque in the relevant sense?

 

[GeeMack]

If we're talking about continuum opacity for Sol's exercise, does that leave Michael the wiggle room that he imagines he has? In other words, can he still claim to "see" through plasma that is opaque in the relevant sense?

Of course in this graph it looks like it should become opaque to any radiation pretty close to somewhere below 400 kilometers.

But Michael is going to, how'd you put it, Michael?...

Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.

... destroy mainstream solar theory. He's going to show us mathematically how that opacity opens back up below 400 kilometers and becomes more and more transparent until it gets down to somewhere between 2100 and 3500 kilometers where he can see his solid iron surface plain as day.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It sounds loony, but OK. 90% neon, 10% standard solar model elements. Since the standard solar model says the photosphere is around 90% H, 9% He, plus trace - shall we just say 90%Ne, 10%H? Is that what you meant?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant by the way. That works for me. You'll eventually need the metals and other elements to explain the "white light', but I doubt they'd have much effect on the opacity in any relevant way, whatever simplified scenario works for you is fine by me. FYI, I appreciate what you're doing actually, and I'm looking forward to your results.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If we're talking about continuum opacity for Sol's exercise, does that leave Michael the wiggle room that he imagines he has?

Believe it or not, I'm not even interested in wiggle room, I'm interested in facts and very interested in sols numbers. The "opacity" definition sol provided is correct. GM's definition is pathetically misleading, just like about every other statement that comes out of his mouth. A "layer" that blocks 90+ of the light isn't blocking all the light. If the light source is bright enough, it might still be able to be seen below that "depth" depending on the intensity of the light source. A lightening discharge lights up the clouds and that illumination can often be seen from space. Nothing is 100 SPF infinity as GM would have you believe.

Stick with sol. Even I trust his math and physics skills.

In other words, can he still claim to "see" through plasma that is opaque in the relevant sense?

Yes. If the intensity is great enough, I might still be able to "see" something below that point (sol's definition), if only 'faintly". It would be like shining a flashlight through a sock in a dark room and blocking 90% of that light. You *would* still see a dim outline of the flashlight, even if at a reduced rate. If you played that sock game out in the darkest cave, you might see a light source where 99% of the light was blocked and only a few photons were reaching your eye. It all depends on the intensity of the light source and how much light is actually blocked and how much reaches your eye.

 

[Reality Check]

Believe it or not, I'm not even interested in wiggle room, I'm interested in facts and very interested in sols numbers. The "opacity" definition sol provided is correct. GM's definition is pathetically misleading, just like about every other statement that comes out of his mouth.

Actually GM's deffinition is exactly how opacity (no quotes needed "Michael Mozina" ) is defined - it is the decrease in intensity of light with how far it travels through a material. You like pictures so look at the ones hae has posted before and posted again.

Not that we have to worry about this because Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!

 

[sol invictus]

Please confirm that you think the relevant plasma is 90%Ne, 10%H, and specify whether you mean by mass or by number.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant by the way. That works for me. You'll eventually need the metals and other elements to explain the "white light', but I doubt they'd have much effect on the opacity in any relevant way, whatever simplified scenario works for you is fine by me. FYI, I appreciate what you're doing actually, and I'm looking forward to your results.

OK.

I still need to know whether you mean 90%Ne by mass or by number. In other words, you might mean that if I weigh some plasma, 90% of the weight comes from Ne and 10% from H. Or, you might mean that if I count atoms, 90% will be Ne and 10% will be H. Those are very different, because a typical Ne atom weighs 20x as much as an H atom (i.e. a proton).

 

[sol invictus]

So to match the 5800 Kelvin layer, one might want about 10^-7 for mass density and 10¹³ electron density, the latter being I think more significant than the mass density due to photon scattering off the free electrons.

Thanks.

But of course the mix Mozina wants to use makes no sense to anyone but him anyway. Still, if one can show that his favorite silly mix is "opaque", so much the better I guess.

He said to use the standard model densities, but it remains to be seen if that's possible - we might not be able to use SM numbers for electron density and mass density and keep his He/H ratio, in which case we'll have to ask him what to do. But maybe it will work out - first I need the answer to my previous question.

One should also keep in mind that the continuum opacity of the solar photosphere is actually dominated by the H^- ion; yep, negative hydrogen, believe it or not (e.g., The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres; David Gray, 3rd edition 2005, page 154; Wildt, 1939; Chandrasekhar, 1945 & citations thereto).

Weird. Where are the extra electrons coming from to make H^-? What's the ionization fraction? And didn't you just say above that the electron density is what matters most?

So in detail opacity can be a complicated affair. I am sure that the general idea of the present exercise is to try to avoid as much of the complication as possible and keep it simple. A continuum opacity should do for that.

Yeah - I'm aware of some of the complexity, but not many of the details. If we ignore things like line opacity we should be underestimating the opacity, which favors Michael. I will try to err on that side whenever I make a simplifying assumption.

Is there an analytic formula we can use to estimate continuum opacity in this plasma mix Michael wants, or is there a table or numerical calculator on the web that can handle it? I looked around and found some tables, but they're intended for stars, so I didn't see anything with anywhere near that much neon. Do you know of one?

 

[Dancing David]

http://adrianmott.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/hurricane9.jpg

Oh look, another 3D feature in an 'atmosphere' of a body in this solar system that looks very similar to the sunspot images. Is that a 2D feature or a 3D feature? Is that cloud layer "opaque" too because it reflects(earth)/emits(solar) visible light?

Oh, and don't try to tell me that the sun's atmosphere doesn't experience tornadoes.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_991127.mov

Hi Michael, I am sorry but you forget something here, that shape of the hurricane is verified by many means.

And the things that you claim in sunspot images are not.

So try to verify your assertions with something other than 'it looks like'.

So far we have your claims about teh composition of the sunspot as unverified, and the depth of the events that you claim as unverified.

 

[Dancing David]

Both of those issues are entirely irrelevant.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080327-saturn-hurricanes.html

Oh look, *ANOTHER* such structure around *ANOTHER* body in the solar system. Is that 2D or 3D? Is that surface "opaque" too?

Michael, the clouds in a hurricane are opaque.

 

[Dancing David]

Ya, "illuminated" by that bright shiny layer of the sun!

By design, our human eyes evolved *BECAUSE OF* the light from that surface. There isn't any structure in nature more turned, and more designed to observe that bright surface than our eyes and our brains. The wavelength in question falls into the visible spectrum of our human eyes. That surface is the "external light source" that eyes evolved to be able to observe from the moment eyes began to evolve in the very first creatures on Earth.



Our eyes didn't evolve based on a light source on Earth, but from the very surface we're looking at in the visible spectrum in gband images.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/gband_pd_15Jul2002_short_wholeFOV-2.mpg

Our human eyes, and our human brains have "evolved" *because of" that surface. There are no better tools in this solar system with which to study that layer than our human eyes and our human brains.

This is just ridiculuos and silly, your statements Michael, not you.

Our eyes are not evolved to look at the surface of the sun, if you satre at the sun you will damage your eyes.

The rest of it is just you changing teh subject, Michael there is a lot of psych research that says you are wrong, the interpretation of visual fields in fraught with error.

It seems that either you are being humorous or desperate.

For millenia people believed that gods existed, as well as the four elements and spirits because of apperances.

 

[Dancing David]

Michael, the discussion of your iron sun model seems to be deadlocked (to put it mildly). It's that way for many reasons, among them that no one other than you (and possibly brantc) believes that any of the available imaging techniques could possibly see very far down into the sun.

So I have a suggestion. Let's forget about the sun for a little bit, and just focus on how light propagates through plasma. The question we'll try to come to a consensus on is how opaque the plasma is to light, as a function of the frequency of the light, the temperature and density of the plasma, and any other parameters that may be relevant. To be clear, by "how opaque" I mean what fraction of the intensity of light gets absorbed as it passes through some thickness of plasma.

Since we're ultimately interested in solar physics, we'll focus on plasmas that are at least roughly of the type one finds in the top layers of the sun, and on light with frequencies in the bands observed by these satellites.

If you agree, let's start by choosing some parameters for the plasma - its temperature and its density to start with. Then we'll either look up or try to estimate its opacity to (say) 200 angstrom light (since that's one of the EIT bands). This is intended in the best spirit possible - I think we would all learn something from this, and if we can keep the discussion focussed on physics it might be more pleasant for everyone.

What do you say? Do you want to propose some numbers for the plasma parameters, or should one of us and you can critique? Is 200A good?

Thanks Sol!

 

[Dancing David]

That sounds reasonable and potentially productive, but we'll have to start with my parameters, not yours, otherwise you won't be able to stuff the numbers in my face at the end.

We'll need to agree upon the intensity of the light source too I suppose.

Seems to me we should use 171A wavelength since that Yohkoh/Trace composite is based on a 171A image, and we should probably start with a 90/10 percent mixture of neon/(standard model elements) in terms of the plasma with a density that matches the standard model at the surface of the photosphere. How does that sound?

The umbra however is not neon. It's silicon with roughly the same density as the photosphere, so that part would need to be calculated separately in a similar 90/10 mixture of mostly silicon.

[aside]
There is your statement about the composition of the areas of the sun, but spectroscopy does not show your 90/10 ratio in either case. Neither neon or silicon.

Which is why you won't verify your assertion.
[/aside]

 

[Dancing David]

OK, let's try that.



Opacity is defined by what fraction of the intensity is attenuated passing through the substance. The idea is that the fraction is independent of the intensity of the source. If you send 10^20 photons through something and 90% scatter and don't make it through, then if you sent 10^21 in through the same thing, 90% of those would scatter. Make sense?



OK



It sounds loony, but OK. 90% neon, 10% standard solar model elements. Since the standard solar model says the photosphere is around 90% H, 9% He, plus trace - shall we just say 90%Ne, 10%H? Is that what you meant?

We might also try the standard mixture, but I don't think it's going to matter all that much. We'll see.

About the temperature, the standard model effective temperature in the photosphere is 5800K more or less. Are you OK with that?

The SM photosphere density should be somewhere around 10^-6g/cm^3. Maybe someone has a more accurate number (I got that from this plot).

OK so far?

Go Sol!

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, what?

MM believes opacity is related to intensity of the source light. A brighter light is less effected by opacity.