'13-07-22, 20:01 Charles Chandler	Here is an introduction to the solar model that I'm developing, posted here to encourage critical reviews. ---------------------------------------- The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. For example, we can tell from spectroscopy that at its visible surface, the Sun is 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with just traces of heavier elements. Figure 1 shows the surface of the Sun on the limb, and in the primary wavelength emitted by hydrogen. Notice that the edge of the photosphere is very distinct, topped by the tenuous plasma in the chromosphere and transition region.1 Above that, the solar atmosphere is transparent. The full transition, from opacity to transparency, occurs in only 7 Mm. Figure 1. The solar limb seen in H-α (6563 Ã…), 2007-05-27, courtesy Fred Bruenjes. Further evidence of a distinct surface are the s-waves sometimes caused by solar flares. S-waves only occur at the boundary between layers with dramatically different densities.2:73 (See Figure 2.) Figure 2. Waves propagating after a solar flare, 1996-07-09, courtesy SOHO. The images show an area 200 Mm across. Yet in the standard model, a distinct surface just isn't possible. If the organizing principle is gravity, balanced only by hydrostatic pressure, the density gradient should be set deterministically by the ideal gas laws. (See Figure 3.) Figure 3. The density gradient of the Sun in the Dalsgaard model, based on the ideal gas laws, with gravity supplying the pressure. The X axis shows the decimal of the solar radius starting from the center, and above is the percentage of the solar volume, starting from the surface. The Y axis shows g/cm3. The densities of liquid platinum, iron, helium, and hydrogen are shown for reference. The model density at 1.0 R⊙ is 2 × 10âˆ'4 kg/m3 (i.e., a good laboratory vacuum), increasing steadily to the density of STP air at a depth of 13.22 Mm. In such a gradient, there is no distinct edge. Analogously, the Earth's atmosphere traverses the same gradient from the top of the mesosphere (i.e., the dashed red line in Figure 4) down to sea level.3 Even when only partially back-lit by the Sun, the mesosphere is transparent. In full daylight, even the troposphere is transparent. Figure 4. Earth's atmosphere back-lit at sunrise, courtesy NASA. The pale blue-green color is from water vapor in the troposphere. The dark blue is from nitrogen and oxygen in the stratosphere. The dashed red line shows the top of the transparent mesosphere. Hence the plasma on the limb of the Sun should still be quite transparent at a depth 13.22 Mm, and the opacity should increase steadily with depth, without producing a distinct edge. With an internal light source, the Sun should look like headlights in the fog, with the luminosity gradually tapering off to nothing at some distance from the center, similar to the luminosity from elliptical galaxies (for different reasons), as in Figure 5. Figure 5. ESO 325-G004 Since the ideal gas laws leave no room for reinterpretation, the only possible conclusion is that forces other than just gravity and hydrostatic pressure are responsible for the sharp increase in density going from the chromosphere to the photosphere. At the macroscopic level, there are two candidates: the electric force, and the magnetic force. We can rule out the magnetic force by several lines of reasoning. First, the Sun's magnetic field averages 1 Gauss, which is merely twice the strength of the Earth's average field, and there is no distinct density drop-off in the Earth's atmosphere. Second, hydrogen plasma doesn't have much of a magnetic dipole, so it wouldn't respond much, even to a strong field. Third, if it did, the surface of the Sun would vary with the strength and polarity of the magnetic field, which it does not. That leaves only the electric force. Since it's the only candidate, its presence need not be proved any other way. We can then ask what configuration of the electric force would produce such a distinct edge. We know that for the electric force to have that much influence, the top layer has to be charged. We can also deduce with confidence that there has to be a strong field between it and an underlying layer. If the Sun only had one charge (positive or negative), the Coulomb force would simply add to the hydrostatic pressure, somewhat more vigorously, and the density would thin out over a much greater distance. The only way to get densely packed plasma that suddenly stops at its outer extent is with an opposite charge below that is pulling it down forcefully. Charged double-layers wouldn't seem possible, since hydrogen plasma at 6,000 K is an excellent conductor. There are only two forces that can maintain a charge separation inside a conductor: the magnetic force, and compressive ionization. We already ruled out the magnetic force, so compressive ionization is the only candidate. At extreme pressures (easily achieved inside the Sun), atoms are forced closer together than their electron shells allow, resulting in the expulsion of the electrons.4 The free electrons congregate at a higher altitude, where the reduced density provides enough space between atoms to accommodate them. The negative layer so produced might go on to induce a positive charge in the layer above it, which will likewise be a current-free double-layer, still in the presence of excellent conductivity. The positive double-layer will be attracted to the negative layer, but repelled by the positive layer below that (i.e., the one created by compressive ionization), and all three will be stable in a PNP configuration. Such layers created simply by induction can continue ad infinitum, though in spherical layers, the charge density relaxes with each inversion. At some point away from the primary charge separation, the next induced double-layer will not be bound firmly enough to stay organized. So we have deduced with confidence the following facts. The electric force is responsible for the extreme density of the photosphere compared to the chromosphere. The photosphere is electrically charged. There is at least one other layer below it, with the opposite charge, supplying the force necessary to compress the photosphere far beyond the expectations of the ideal gas laws. The primary charge separation is caused by compressive ionization, setting up the first two charged double-layers. Additional layers might also be caused by induction. We can also deduce the sign of the photosphere's charge, and the relative strength of its charge compared to the underlying layer. There are six possible configurations. There are two possible stacking orders (positive over negative, or negative over positive). Then there are three variations for the relative strengths of the charges (top layer is stronger, underlying layer is stronger, or the charges are perfectly matched). We can dismiss the possibility that the top layer has more charge, since the excess charge would simply drift away. We can also dismiss the possibility that the charges are evenly matched. In charged double-layers, the electric field between the layers is greatest at the boundary between them. Moving away from the boundary, the field density diminishes, because of the increased distance from the opposite charge, and because of repulsion from like charges in the same layer. (See Figure 6.) Analogously, in a heavy element, the outer electrons are loosely bound, because of distance from the nucleus, and because of repulsion from electrons in inner shells. The same is true of plasma double-layers. The significance is that with equally matched charges in the solar double-layers, the density of the top layer would still relax gradually to nothing at some distance away. So the distinct limb proves that the underlying charge has to be more powerful, and the top layer has only its densest component. (See Figure 7.) Figure 6. Evenly matched charges. Figure 7. Lower layer more powerful than upper. This leaves only two possible configurations, depending on the stacking order (positive over negative, or negative over positive). First we'll consider that the underlying layer is positive. If so, it would easily strip all of the excess electrons from the overlying layer, since they would all be unbound at 6,000 K. Neutral atoms left behind would form a gravitational gradient, tapering off to nothing at infinity. So the underlying layer cannot be positive. The only remaining possibility is that the underlying layer is negative. As such, it will attract positive ions, and ionize neutral atoms to pull in the positive charges that it wants. Excess electrons above such a layer will not shield it from our view, because free electrons are nearly transparent. Hence the distinct limb reveals the extent of a positive double-layer being held down tightly to a far stronger negative layer. Figure 8 depicts this charge configuration, with a positive charge on top, a negative layer below that, and another positive layer below that. If we look back at Figure 3, we see that at ~0.83 R⊙ the density has achieved that of liquid hydrogen due to the gravitational force. Additional pressure will then ionize the hydrogen, creating a layer of positive charge. For this reason, the top of the primary positive layer is set there (i.e., 125 Mm below the surface). Due to the helioseismic echo at the tachocline, the bottom of that layer is set 84 Mm deeper. All of the electrons expelled from the primary positive layer will congregate above, creating a negative layer. The positive layer at the top can only be the result of induction. Its depth is set at 20 Mm due to the presence of a slight helioseismic echo there. Figure 8. Convective zone layers. Red = negative; green = positive. Dimensions are in Mm. Hence by fully processing a few simple facts, we gain a lot of information about the structure of the Sun, at least near the surface. The remainder of this work then continues with this method, thoroughly considering the implications of each fact. In some cases, the data actually leave only one physical possibility. In other cases, several datasets taken singly might all have different explanations, but taken together, there might be only one model that satisfies all of the constraints. More significantly, each time the data are shown to certify a finite number of solutions, it makes the next problem easier to solve, since its solution domain is already constrained. If only one solution is left, that then informs the treatment of the previous problem. Emerging from this method is a singular model that performs respectably through the full range of available solar data. Some aspects of this model are quite specific, while others are more general. But all of it goes far beyond the existing models in scope and specificity. References 1. Robitaille, P., 2011: On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Hervé Faye. Progress in Physics, 3: 75-78 2. Robitaille, P., 2007: A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun. Progress in Physics, 1: 70-81 3. Picone, J. M.; E. Hedin, A.; Drob, D. P.; Aikin, A. C., 2002: NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107 (A12): 1468 4. Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100
'13-07-23, 00:58 edd	You seem to be dramatically oversimplifying what determines opacity in the widely accepted model.
'13-07-23, 01:00 tusenfem	OMG another electric sun guy who does not know that line-of-sight integration is important at calculating optical depth. Move on please, been there done that, look up the bezillion mozina posts. ETA: Seems Mr. Edd had the same insight (or should that be throughsight in this case?)
'13-07-23, 01:11 Skwinty	Originally Posted by tusenfem Move on please, been there done that, look up the bezillion mozina posts. I suspect that Mr Chandler is quite familiar with Mr Mozina. First Discussion * Last Thursday, Charles Chandler, Michael Mozina and I, Lloyd Kinder, had a good discussion of their Electric Sun models at this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_wUsGgmF-W4j1vd1pQPvSuj7dewKVmm2CsPuqEGS2fQ/edit.
'13-07-23, 01:41 Kid Eager	There seems to a be a lot of dismissing involved in Charles' model. For that reason alone I'm skeptical (and having read the Mozina threads previously, the large lump of deja vu is not exactly generating any warm fuzzy feelings towards this theory, either).
'13-07-23, 02:46 Belz...	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Here is an introduction to the solar model that I'm developing, posted here to encourage critical reviews. ---------------------------------------- The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. Another Gallileo ! Good luck overturning the conclusions of all those idiot scientists.
'13-07-23, 03:55 Dancing David	So Charles, what data and evidence did you use to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma?
'13-07-23, 03:56 catsmate1	Mr. Chandler, your "theory" has been discussed in this thread. The consensus, with which I fully agree, is that it's complete rubbish. Your website is littered with unsupported assertions, or those "supported" only by other physics crackpots (such as Mozina). Specifically your attempt to avoid quantum mechanics (a well proven branch of physics) using some crackpottery derived from black body radiation, your gravity based separation of charge layers in the sun (which, if your "mechanism" were followed, would lead to perpetual motion) and your nonsensical assertions about the difficulty of compression plasmas to greater than liquid density, which appears to be based on numerology. My personal take is: another IT PM trying to teach physicists how physics really works.
'13-07-23, 04:35 paiute	Originally Posted by catsmate1 ...another IT PM trying to teach physicists how physics really works. Reminds me of: Â"In Paris they just simply opened their eyes and stared when we spoke to them in French! We never did succeed in making those idiots understand their own language.Â" ― Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad
'13-07-23, 08:00 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by edd You seem to be dramatically oversimplifying what determines opacity in the widely accepted model. Originally Posted by tusenfem OMG another electric sun guy who does not know that line-of-sight integration is important at calculating optical depth. Ummm, how does line-of-sight integration result in a distinct limb? A density gradient is just that — it's a gradient, and the opacity/luminosity should be directly proportional to the density of the plasma (i.e., "like headlights in the fog"). To get a distinct limb in a smooth density gradient, you really need to say that some sort of threshold is being crossed, where plasma above this precise density is opaque/luminous, and plasma below that density is not. Temperature "could" cause such a threshold (sort of, at least), where plasma above a certain temperature isn't engaging in photon absorption/emission, because of a lack of bound electrons. But that would put the transparency on the inside of the Sun, where it's hotter, not on the outside. So I don't understand how the "widely accepted model" actually accounts for the observations. Furthermore, I'm not asserting that the density gradient is non-Newtonian just on the basis of opacity. The second paragraph of the OP calls attention to the hydrodynamic behaviors of the photosphere (e.g., s-waves) that would not be possible in a smooth density gradient. (Another example is the hydrodynamics of photospheric granules.) Originally Posted by tusenfem Move on please, been there done that, look up the bezillion mozina posts. While I'm very familiar with Mozina's work, we agree on little, and your dismissals of him aren't going to work on me, due to the radical differences in our models. Originally Posted by Kid Eager There seems to a be a lot of dismissing involved in Charles' model. For that reason alone I'm skeptical (and having read the Mozina threads previously, the large lump of deja vu is not exactly generating any warm fuzzy feelings towards this theory, either). And that seems to be the fallacy of consensus, plus the fallacy of association. This makes me skeptical of your capacity for rigorous reasoning, and I will waste little time responding to such comments. Sorry. Originally Posted by Dancing David So Charles, what data and evidence did you use to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma? There isn't a fixed limit — it varies with temperature. At room temperature, hydrogen becomes incompressible at roughly 70 kg/m3. At 6000 K, the limit is something like 600 kg/m3. If the solar density gradient was Newtonian (i.e., if the Coulomb barrier wasn't a factor), the first limit would be hit at about 0.85 R⊙, and the second would be hit at about 0.55 R⊙. If forces other than gravity are compressing the plasma, these limits are hit closer to the surface. Originally Posted by catsmate1 ...your gravity based separation of charge layers in the sun (which, if your "mechanism" were followed, would lead to perpetual motion)... In what sense? I'm saying that there is a force feedback loop, involving gravity and the electric force. Are you thinking that a force feedback loop is the same as a perpetual motion machine?