Thread keep going around in circle.

Lets start with the obvious. How did Eddington know that nothing solid exists under the photosphere?

Holy cow Mike, did you not read what Tim said? Have you looked at ANY of the material he has so painstakingly provided here and on his website?

Eddington set out how he arrived at his conclusions regarding the material making up the interior of stars in his book. Go read it!!

Really Mike, I am begging you, GO READ IT!!! Your question is non-sensical, and utterly off topic. You are assuming facts not in evidence, and you have worded it in a way that makes it impossible for Tim, or anyone else, to answer.

It is so badly stated, in fact, that I want to delete it.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

I've read what he's written Duane, but that isn't what I asked. I asked how Eddington *KNOWS* without any doubt that no stratification will occur, and no solids exist beneath the visible photosphere. You keep repreating Eddington's work as being authorative. I wish to understand exactly which part of his work dismisses all such possibilities from occuring in Tim's opinion.

This is nothing more than an appeal to authority and a handwave IMO. His book is not the definitive book on solar activity. It's THEORETICAL work in fact. None of you have addressed those running difference images or explained why this "layer" cannot be beneath the visible photosphere in the areas "heard" in heliosiesmology. You keep ignoring the observational evidence entirely. I can't ignore observation just because of THEORY.

I fail to undestand this attitude. You have ultimately created a religious belief out of a book. No book is beyond discussion, and no single piece of work defines solar physics. This whole attitude is irrational IMO. You have ASSUMED that nothing solid exists under the photosphere IN SPITE OF satellite images of this stratified layer, and in spite of doppler images of this stratified layer, and in spite of heliosiesmic evidence of this stratified layer. Now how did Eddington know the sun wasn't stratifed or separated by the weight of the elements?

Regardless of whether or not it's the definitive answer, this is yet another example of you expecting other people to do your research for you. You asked for someone's opinion on something, which is apparently clearly evident if you read that person's book. However, what you're asking here is for someone to read the book for you and provide you with Cliff Notes. This, for the record, is one of the many, many reasons you're having trouble convincing anyone that your hypothesis is correct--when you're backed into a corner, you show clearly that you have not read the pertinent literature that would, perhaps, answer questions about the current model and show why your own is flawed to the point of being obviously wrong.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Try reading it. Tim has told you exactly where to look. You are arguing for your theory, nothing more. This is off topic.

Actually, yes it is one of the definitive books on solar theory. Too bad you will never know that. You have been asked to keep your question to what you find objectionable about the SSM. You keep instead asking how you incorrect interpretations of your pictures can be explained. This is off topic.

You have no understanding of the argument you are trying to make. It has been pointed out to you time and again that you do not seem to understand the basic, underlying physics involved in the developement of the standard solar model. It has been explained to you that Eddington explains himself in his own words, and you have even been provided with the pages you can go to, to see the answer for yourself.

You have been asked to keep your questions to the topic at hand. Instead, you continually try to hijack the direction of the thread. You are now banned for one month.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

With all of the discussion centering on Eddington, it's worth noting here that while his work is of interest & significance, it is not the last word. It surely was Eddington who first put the study of stellar interiors on solid physical footing (despite the earlier thermodynamic work of Lane, for instance). But even Eddington did not like the idea of stars being mostly hydrogen, so much so that he was willing to believe that the physical theory of opacity was wrong. It was up to Stromgren, Russell, Chandrasekhar & others, to show that Eddington's reluctance was misplaced.

But it really is the case that we know a great deal more about stars now, than was known in Eddington's day. He could only guess at the energy source, stellar magnetism had only just been discovered, and helioseismology was a long way off in the future. So any realistic discussion of problems with standard solar/stellar theory, really should be more current. We should not be all over Eddington, but all over the more modern theory (which upholds much of what Eddington thought, but extends much farther).

With that in mind ...

I see that Mr. Mozina has managed to get himself banned again. Of course, his question is entirely off topic, and I have actually answered it already, in detail, several times, so the constant repetition is frustrating. But I do want to make an on topic answer, to try to get the basic idea clear.

One of the great achievements of 20th century science, I think, has been the development of the ability to progress from always studying simplified approximations of a problem, to versions that include realistic complications. In Eddington's day, it was slide rule & paper, with some calculating machinery available. In those days, "computers" were usually women, who spent all day "computing" (that's why, in the early days of modern computers, they were carefully referred to as electronic computers, so they would not be confused with female computers!).

So the simpler versions of Hertzspring, Russell, Eddington, Stromgren, and others (Chandrasekhar never did anything "simple"), has given way to detailed computational models of stellar dynamos, stellar convection, stellar radiative transfer (both in the interior & atmosphere), and stellar evolution (which matches even the small details of the HR diagram).

But even with all of the complications involved, we still know, as did Eddington, and those before him, that the fundamental laws of physics apply to stars as well as they do to anything else. Heat still flows from hot to cold, in the absence of pumps, no matter how complicated things get. So I maintain that any conclusion that is based on the proper applications of fundamentals is a lasting conclusion, that will remain true, even in the age of detailed models. Eddington's work on stellar interiors was necessarily based on the application of fundamentals. As a result, even though some famous contemporaries disagreed with him (Sir James Jeans, for instance), Eddington's work has, for the most part, stood the test of time, and is considered as valid today as it was 80 years ago.

It is noteworthy, I think, and an important point, that one can look at a star, and only by seeing how bright it is, what color it is, and how big it is, make profound conclusions about the state of the unseen interior. It all comes from the application of fundamental physics.

Excellent summary Tim!

To expand on Tim's points, which refer directly to main sequence stars (and some others), the application of physics to the stars didn't stop with matching static behaviour - the life history of stars could be understood, the causes of variability (e.g. Miras, Cepheids), stars composed of a form of matter we cannot generate - in bulk - on Earth (e.g. white dwarfs, neutron stars), explosive stars (e.g. classical novae, supernovae), interacting stars (polars, X-ray binaries), and more and more.

In each, the same principle applied (and still applies, to the on-going research) - start with the physics that looks as if it will be relevant, crunch the numbers and equations, compare with what the astronomers have found, adjust, and re-iterate.

You mean the heat to flow up? Or is there circulation.
What about coronal rain?
Then why is there a fusion signature in the loop if its cooling?
What drives the plasma in the loop?
You know the buoyant loop model does not work.


And you must also know that magnetic fields are caused by moving charges.
And fields are an effect not a cause.
That should be part of the standard model


Again from the TRACE Web site.
"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!"

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T1...4_bar_clip.gif


He calculated. He did not go to the suns interior.
Yes, assuming fusion in the interior. That says nothing for other(exterior) methods of producing light.

Did Eddington make allowances for this?

"As has already been mentioned(I-f), the elastic collisions undergone by the electrons in a gas discharge give these electrons velocities whose distribtion corresponds with that for free electrons in a gas which has been heated to a very high temeprature. These electrons emit electromagnetic radiation which is similar to that emitted by a thermal radiator of the same temperature, and which is picked up by the reciever as HF noise."
http://freespace.virgin.net/muko.muko/ch8.pdf


All the math for the standard model works beautifully, but that does not mean it is reality. If you go strictly by observation, there are problems.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Could you remind us all, please, upriver, what is the density of these coronal loops? What - at an OOM level - is the total mass of the corona (loops and all)? How does that compare with the mass of the Sun? In terms of the total energy emitted by the Sun, in the form of photons, what proportion comprises EUV and x-rays from the corona (you can add in the UV, optical, and IR if you like)?Indeed.

And this is true for all of science

Even for the most successful theory we have (QED, where experiment matches theory to at least a dozen decimal places)

In fact, just because some smart physicists and engineers can use the beautiful math of condensed matter physics (and the older electrical theory) to make your computer work, at the electrons and holes level, just the way they said it would, does not mean that your computer really works like that.In terms of the standard solar model, what would you say the top 3 (or 10) are?

I mean that the electron gas can flow into the loop, along magnetic field lines, and come back down.

There is no such thing that I am aware of in the loop. I have heard of gamma line emission near the footpoints that could indicate D+P fusion.

All you need is heat. The parallel magnetic field lines in the loop are what gives the plasma a direction to move in.

It is.

An indication that the complicated structures above the photosphere do not behave as expected. It is a problem, but not a fatal flaw, and not a problem that rises to the level of falsifying the bulk of the standard solar model. This problem shows that, as I indicated earlier, one must move forward from simplistic models, to those which include realistic complications. Not surprisingly, simplistic models of the chromosphere & above are more limited in their ability to explain. Now that we pursue more complicated models, we will get better at understanding this behavior.

Calculating is every bit as valid as going to the solar center, it is not a valid criticism of any science to say that a "calculation" is in any way weaker than an observation, as long as the calculation is based on principles derived from observation. This is exactly the case for Eddington, who used a calculational tool which, assuming it is properly derived, cannot be wrong, because it is derived from well established fundamental principles.

Fusion as an energy source is not at all relevant to Eddington's work. Any energy source will do; all you need is heat, where it comes from does not matter.

There are no known "exterior methods" for creating light, so there is no reason to take such things into account.

All this says is that collisions will thermalize an electron population that is non-thermally energized. That means magnetic waves (Alfven waves, for instance) can energize a plasma and, if the plasma is collisional, that non-thermal energy will be converted to thermal energy. And that means magnetic waves can heat a plasma, which is of course already built into the standard solar model.

Well, a model is never reality, that's just given for all of science. And all models have problems, that too is a given. But do the problems rise to a level of significance that threatens the foundations of the theory? Or do they only indicate that the theory is basically correct, but needs to be "cleaned up"? The answer lies in the relationship between the problem, and the fundamental physics of the theory. If the problem involves the fundamentals, it can threaten the theory with extinction. If the problem does not involve the fundamentals, then it is a sign that the theory is not threatened, but still needs work.

That is just so wrong. It is theory. Not reality. If you cant even
explain how coronal loops work how can you even begin to say what is happening inside.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Well, to be fair, it could be wrong, but for that to be the case, some of the most straightforward things we know about thermodynamics and how light and matter interact would have to be wrong. Well, worse, they'd have to work one way on Earth, and work a completely different way on the Sun. Well, worse still, the different way would have to coincidentally result in observations that look like they could be explained simply using known physics, but in fact are the result of some completely different laws of physics.

Have you ever seen the comedy routine where a waiter carries a stack of plates, then someone drops a glass nearby him so he tosses the entire pile of plates in order to save the one solitary glass?

Eddington's work involved limiting the elements found in the sun. If I understand correctly, that is. He used known physics and determined that the sun couldn't be made of heavier elements, including iron, based on calculations of its luminosity.

Since that lines up with the mass of the sun that we know from calculated observations of its gravity on the planets, its solidly correct to work from a light element model like hydrogen gas.

And finally, since we know the power output of hydrogen fusion and the sun happens to match those characteristics of a fusion reaction, we proceed further with trying to understand the interior of the sun based on that model.

It's simple and it fits like a jigsaw. Just because one small element may not initially fit the hydrogen gas model doesn't mean we can solve the problem by switching to an iron sun model. Don't drop a whole stack of known facts to solve a small problem.

Consequently, I don't even know what problems Mozina's model is supposed to solve anyway!

__________________
My son is my universe.

I think that this is entirely unacceptable. But I don't want to side-track this thread, from a discussion of the sun, into a general discussion of theory vs experiment. So, I have started another thread for that purpose: Physics, Mathematics & Science, in the General Science section. I have started that thread with reference to the comments here, and links to the posts here. I would like to carry on that topic there, if you please.

That's easy. The solar interior is a far easier environment to work with, and much simpler than the jumbled chromosphere. It is actually easier to tell what's going on deep inside the sun, because it is a much less variable environment. Besides, we don't know "nothing" about coronal loops. We do know "something" about coronal loops, and I would say we know quite a bit. But we have more to learn about them than we do about the solar interior.

I think this thread should be moved to the mainstream section. This goes against my understanding of a good ATM science were direct observation and falsification of theories are highly regarded. Seriously is the really the mainstream point of view?

As noted above, I have already done that.

To get more on topic here, from this paper (astro-ph/0511779) this quote tells us that our models of the solar interior are not well understood. Particularly strange is the comment that if the models match within 2 sigma, that is seen as "consistent". I mean 2 sigma is a lot of room.

And a 15 sigma level of "disagreement" is now found in this study, what's up here? If the solar atmosphere models fail to match the helioseismology model, what else is wrong?

Cheers.

I followed the link to your website last night and noticed you look like a band member of ZZ-Top. Nice beard!

"According to space weather theory--soon to be revised--this is how a proton storm develops:
It begins with an explosion, usually above a sunspot. Sunspots are places where strong magnetic fields poke through the surface of the Sun. For reasons no one completely understands, these fields can become unstable and explode, unleashing as much energy as 10 billion hydrogen bombs."

comment: Magnetic fields poke through the surface. That means the footprint is below the photsphere. All those foorprint pictures are below the photosphere.

"CMEs can account for most proton storms," says Lin, but not the proton storm of January 20th. According to theory, CMEs can't push material to Earth quickly enough."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...n_newstorm.htm

It seems that the only thing theory knows is that they exist.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0512072 shows precise measurements of a star system that allows the predictions of the standard solar model to be tested against another star, and the authors are surprised to see that for one of stars the predictions are way off (I think they mention 5 sigma deviation). Could the Solar model be wrong after all?

Cheers.

I asked this question on another thread but I believe it more appropriately goes here:

How can 'orderly' convective columns and an 'orderly' cellular structure exist in the 'turbulent and disorderly' solar photosphere, as assumed by the standard model contrary to accepted physics?

Don Scott explains why this isn't possible in terms of the Reynolds Number of convective fluids. He basically shows that since the photosphere is too violent and disorderly, it can't be possible for columns with the thickness of the photosphere to exist. I don't see how they could exist below the photosphere either.

How does the standard solar model explain the convective columns in the sun?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Not according to the abstract you linked to.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Really? I don't think they only point to "the usual suspect", magnetic fields. How does this stronger magnetic come about exactly, are stars identifiable by the strength of their magnetic fields? How can a star produce stronger magnetic fields? Why doesn't the standard model account for this in the predictions?

If you (the apper's authors actually) are correct, the whole paper is a bit of a straw-man argument, "there is a discrepancy of model predictions with observation, but we already knew this, the culprit is the strength of the magnetic field".

Cheers.

This issue is analyzed in section 5.2 of the paper, "Comparison with other stars: the activity-radius connection", here's the abridged version:

"A pattern that may explain why stars of very similar mass sometimes appear too large, while other times they conform well to theory, is seen in the activity level they present ... A direct relation is thus seen for stars of the same mass between the activity level and the increased stellar size compared to predictions from standard models (i.e., those adopting a mixing length parameter matching the Sun): active stars are larger, and inactive ones appear normal. The evidence for V1061Cyg and other later-type stars also indicates that active stars are cooler ... Mullan & MacDonald (2001) investigated the effects of magnetic fields on the sizes and effective temperatures of active versus inactive M dwarfs, and found empirical evidence that a higher activity level leads to larger radii and cooler temperatures ... Although their work focussed mainly on the consequences for the internal structure of fully convective stars, their initial attempts at modeling magnetic fields were successful in describing these effects to first order ... Strong magnetic fields commonly associated with chromospheric activity have been shown to inhibit the efficiency of convective heat transport (e.g., Bray & Loughhead 1964; Gough & Tayler 1966; Stein, Brandenburg & Nordlund 1992, and references therein), and as a result the size of the star must grow larger to radiate away the same amount of energy." (p18-20)

They blame the ratio of the convective envelope to the total mass of the star for the strength of the magnetic field, but say they need further study to verify the activity-radius connection.

EDIT: I think I see your problem now VanderL, that's a good question. The authors cite research from 1964.. why hasn't anyone in all this time ever considered this part of the standard model before, when it appearently seems so obvious to these current authors?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Also, modeling the magnetic fields of a star is the most difficult and least well described part of the solar model, I would be very curious to hear what mechanism defines the "activity" of a star. Fusion reactions are very difficult to modulate and the effects of variability of these reactions takes ages to become apparent at the star's surface. If magnetic field strength ( I don't know if there actually is such a parameter) is an indicator of a star's activity doesn't it make sense to catalogue stars using such a parameter?

Cheers.

Before I look at the sources given by Thompson, the first couple hits from a quick google search on the compositon of the sun claim:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...s/suncomp.html
"The table of elements at left was constructed from analysis of the solar spectrum, which comes from the photosphere and chromosphere of the Sun."

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...astronomy/sun/
"The composition of the Sun is studied using spectroscopy in which the visible light (the spectrum) of the Sun is studied."

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PLANETS/Geochem.htm
"The Sun is a pretty typical star whose composition is known from spectroscopy."

So if spectrocopy is not how the composition of the sun is determined, then more than a few people are confused about it.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

The standard model makes no such prediction. Convection in the sun is known to be turbulent by direct observation of the behavior of granules in the photosphere, and standard solar theory has modeled this convection as turbulent, ever since it became practical to model convection at all. Eddington pretty much avoided the topic in 1926, and Chandrasekhar had little more to say about it in 1939. As far as I can tell, Martin Schwarzschild's book (Structure and Evolution of the Stars, 1958) was the first to include a discussion of convection, which had already been developed earlier in the journal literature.

Standard theory has not changed its mind since then, and so can be fairly represented as having always modeled convection as turbulent. Claims to the contrary are false.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

I have some questions and comments about the paper "On the Composition of the Sun's Atmosphere" (Russell, 1929). Following this paper is kind of confusing, because Russell rarely specifies when he is talking about compositions of the entire sun, and when he is just referring to the solar atmosphere. From the title of the paper I've assumed he is always talking about the atmosphere.

"One non-metal presents a real and glaring exception to the general rule. The hydrogen lines of the Balmer series are very strong in the sun, though the energy required to put an atom into condition to absorb these series is higher than for any other solar absorption lines. The obvious explanation--that hydrogen is far more abundant than the other elements--appears to be the only one." (p.22)

So there is a good case that the Sun's atmosphere is mostly hydrogen. Now, I feel really dumb because I am missing something obvious here. Can someone translate Table XVIII on p.67, "Abundances of Elements in Sun and Earth" for me? Russell states, "For those in the first column, Clarke and Washington give specific estimates of percentage." Those can't be percentages, because they add up to over 80% of the atmosphere, so I'm not sure how to read this table at all.

Another problem. There is a table on p.69 titled "TABLE XIX Limits of Abundance of Elements Not Observed in the Sun" and the very first element listed... is helium?! Helium does not appear to be listed or mentioned among any of the other observed elements in the paper, even in a comparison with other results that DO have He abundances (Table XVI, p.65). Was Mozina correct that perhaps these papers are a tad outdated?

"According to Table XIV, oxygen is four times as abundant by weight and eight times by volume as all the metals together. Miss Payne (Table XVI) makes it 1.5 times as abundant by volume as all the metals. This determination is probably better than ours, which suffers from difficulties in calibration ... The abundance of helium is very hard to estimate, even in the stars, for its lines appear to be abnormally strong like those of hydrogen, though to a less degree. It is probably conservative to suggest it is at least as abundant as oxygen." (p.72) -- that's quite a discrepancy.

Somewhat related quote from the paper: "It is probable that the earth and the meteorites were formed by condensation from matter ejected from the sun, as first suggested by Chamberlin and Moulton. The ejected material must have been intensely hot, and would be likely to lose constituents of low atomic weight, hydrogen most of all. Moulton long ago suggested that the low density of the major planets might be explained by the hypothesis that such losses were less important for the larger bodies. In the outer parts of the sun, on the other hand, there are certain diffusional and electrostatic effects which tend to concentrate the hydrogen at the surface. Thus, for divers [sic] reasons, we might expect to find hydrogen much more abundant in the sun's atmosphere than on earth." (p.66-67)

Finally, I found these closing remarks pretty interesting: Note on the departure from thermodynamic equilibrium: "Professor Eddington makes a very important suggestion regarding the excess of intensity of lines of high excitation potential. [quotes Eddington and discusses other possibilities] Another possibility deserves discussion. Compare a solar atmosphere composed solely of metallic atoms (neutral and ionized) and electrons with another which contains the same numbers of each of these constituents in each unit volume diluted with an excess of hydrogen. [explanation] This qualitative argument is not presented as conclusive, but in the hope that the problem will be attacked in detail by some competent investigator." (p.74-76)

Russell appears to believe that an alternative explanation for the observed properties of the solar atmosphere is that it is composed mostly of metal with an injection of excited hydrogen? I'm not competent in any of these issues, what do you guys think?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere