'13-07-23, 17:04 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. Unfortunately, Charles Chandler, your "simplest of solar observations" do not exist ! The photosphere is where light escapes form the Sun. It will always show a "surface". This does not mean that the Sun actually has a surface. The photosphere does not show that the density of the Sun has a distinct edge as you claim. This destroys the basic premise of your model and we need not look any further. ETA: "Hence the plasma on the limb of the Sun should still be quite transparent at a depth 13.22 Mm" is an unsupported assertion that comes after a mention of the Earth's atmosphere. Where did you get such a exact number of 13.22 Mm from, Charles Chandler? Note that the depth of the photosphere (where the light comes from) is ~500 km and we cannot even see that deep into it.
'13-07-23, 17:09 phunk	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa OK, another quickie ... Ah yes, the old Mozina trick, "look at the picture!!" No scale, no numbers, no calculations, just a bald assertion. Michael would be proud of you. OK, so I'm going to guess: one pixel in that image is ~10k km, so 'the edge' is ~>30k km thick (in the image its fuzziness extends over ~3+ pixels). Yep, that's really sharp; razor sharp in fact. Yeah, that's the point I was going to make, except my estimate is actually about 250km per pixel for that image.
'13-07-23, 17:17 phunk	Originally Posted by phunk Yeah, that's the point I was going to make, except my estimate is actually about 250km per pixel for that image. Correction, I measured it, my estimate was off. It's actually over 400km per pixel.
'13-07-23, 17:38 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Charles No, it isn't limb darkening that indicates a sharp transition — it's the fact that there's a limb at all. By Newtonian standards, it should be just a fuzzy fall-off. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Which is, of course, just what you see. Originally Posted by Charles No, a fuzzy fall-off of luminosity is not what we see at all. To also answer phunk's question, take a look. Note that in other wavelengths, the edge is even more distinct. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Ah yes, the old Mozina trick, "look at the picture!!" Well of course I answered the request for a picture by posting a link to a picture! Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa No scale, no numbers, no calculations, just a bald assertion. [...] OK, so I'm going to guess: one pixel in that image is ~10k km, so 'the edge' is ~>30k km thick (in the image its fuzziness extends over ~3+ pixels). Yep, that's really sharp; razor sharp in fact. Actually, I scaled it (using a CAD app, not by counting pixels and guessing at the scale), and (as mentioned in post #14), the full transition, from opacity to transparency, occurs in 7 Mm (i.e., 7000 km). This extends well into the lower corona in this image. What I didn't mention is that the height of the photosphere is much more precise, varying less than 700 km (from the tops of the granules to the bottoms of the intergranular lanes). That is, in fact, razor sharp. As concerns your other rhetorical questions, I don't think that anybody on this thread cares to wade through that kind of stuff. If you have something to say, just go ahead and say it, and try to be clear & specific. There are legitimate issues here, and implications. No need to clutter up the discussion with banter.
'13-07-23, 17:49 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler his extends well into the lower corona in this image. What I didn't mention is that the height of the photosphere is much more precise, varying less than 700 km (from the tops of the granules to the bottoms of the intergranular lanes). That is, in fact, razor sharp. Charles Chandler, That is, in fact, just a guess at the depth of the photosphere which is wrong and nothing to do with the density of the Sun (so far). The depth of the photosphere is a few hundred kilometers and depends on the wavelength of the light used to image the photosphere.
'13-07-23, 17:57 phunk	Originally Posted by phunk The sun is a 1.4 million km wide sphere. When you look at edge of the limb, you're looking across the top of thousands of miles of plasma. If you look just slightly "deeper" than the edge, you're looking through thousands of miles of plasma. This makes the limb gradient appear significantly sharper than it would if you could look at a cross section. Given the picture Charles provided, just one pixel deep from the edge has you looking horizontally through about 47000km of plasma. Charles, do you understand why the limb has a sharp edge in pictures yet?
'13-07-23, 18:08 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Reality Check Unfortunately, Charles Chandler, your "simplest of solar observations" do not exist ! The photosphere is where light escapes form the Sun. It will always show a "surface". This does not mean that the Sun actually has a surface. The photosphere does not show that the density of the Sun has a distinct edge as you claim. This destroys the basic premise of your model and we need not look any further. I'm not asserting that the density gradient is non-Newtonian just on the basis of opacity. The second paragraph of post #14 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 Reality Check "Hence the plasma on the limb of the Sun should still be quite transparent at a depth 13.22 Mm" is an unsupported assertion that comes after a mention of the Earth's atmosphere. Where did you get such a exact number of 13.22 Mm from, Charles Chandler? 13.22 Mm is the depth at which, in the Dalsgaard model, the density of the Sun achieves that of STP air. So I'm (somewhat casually) saying that at 13.22 Mm, the plasma should be as transparent as sea-level air on Earth. Actually, it should be a lot more transparent, because the model temperature at that depth is over 10 kK, and at that temperature, bound electrons capable of absorbing a photon will be few and far between. So for all intents and purposes, only free-free absorption/emission should be going on, which is somewhat rarer, and could not account for what we would call opacity. Originally Posted by phunk Charles, do you understand why the limb has a sharp edge in pictures yet? Not in the sense that you mean. Here's what I said previously: "In a smooth gradient, the opacity should increase smoothly. Sure, opacity is a linear function of the amount of opaque matter in question, and if you look at the geometry of how a line of sight intersects a sphere, at & below the surface, the opacity increases faster than the density at the tangent. But that still doesn't give you a distinct edge." Do you understand that?
'13-07-23, 18:11 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Reality Check ...This destroys the basic premise of your model and we need not look any further. But let us look further! Charles Chandler, you are ignoring one of the basic properties of plasma - they conduct. Thus there is in general no charge separation in plasmas, i.e. they are described as quasi-neutral since there is no effects from charges beyond the Debye length. The exception is double layers when the effects over a few 10's of Debye lengths. Your idea seems to require charge separation of the order of hundreds? of kilometers. So there are two questions that you should answer: What is the Debye length of the photosphere? What does your idea require for the Debye length of the photosphere?
'13-07-23, 18:23 phunk	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Not in the sense that you mean. Here's what I said previously: "In a smooth gradient, the opacity should increase smoothly. Sure, opacity is a linear function of the amount of opaque matter in question, and if you look at the geometry of how a line of sight intersects a sphere, at & below the surface, the opacity increases faster than the density at the tangent. But that still doesn't give you a distinct edge." Do you understand that? It gives you a gradient that will be fully opaque in less than the width of a pixel. You will not see it in the images you're looking at.
'13-07-23, 18:23 DeiRenDopa	continued ... Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Originally Posted by me In any case, how about a follow-on? Something like: "Could gravity do the job? No, and here are the calculations to support my claim"? I don't have to. The Dalsgaard model gets the density right, but it only acknowledges the ideal gas laws. Given the model temperatures, those are the densities you're going to get. Hmm, so what "job" did CC claim that gravity cannot do? Let's remind ourselves... ben m: The discussion of the core of the sUn makes the nonsensical statement that there's something particularly difficult about compressing a plasma to a density greater than the liquid state of the same material---there's not, this is a routine process in shock-physics laboratories... CC: In a shock wave, the instantaneous pressures are enormous, but in the Sun, we're talking about static pressures. That takes force. How much force? Could gravity do the job? No. So, CC claims that gravity cannot compress a plasma to a density greater than the liquid state of the same material. Then CC says that "The Dalsgaard model gets the density right", and CC also says (in this model) "with gravity supplying the pressure". So, CC, pace CC, claims that gravity can supply the pressure necessary to compress a plasma to a density greater than the liquid state of the same material. Conclusion? One we are so familiar with, having seen MM at his finest! Can CC's logic really be that bad?
'13-07-23, 18:24 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I'm not asserting that the density gradient ... That is nothing to do with what I posted: Quote: Originally Posted by Reality Check Unfortunately, Charles Chandler, your "simplest of solar observations" do not exist ! The photosphere is where light escapes from the Sun. It will always show a "surface". This does not mean that the Sun actually has a surface. The photosphere does not show that the density of the Sun has a distinct edge as you claim. This destroys the basic premise of your model and we need not look any further. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler 13.22 Mm is the depth at which, in the Dalsgaard model, the density of the Sun achieves that of STP air. So I'm (somewhat casually) saying that at 13.22 Mm, the plasma should be as transparent as sea-level air on Earth. Then that is (absolutely casually) irrelevant, Charles Chandler ! It has nothing to do with the fact that the reason that the Sun appears to have a "sharp" surface is that because light escapes from the Sun. That "surface" is not a record of the density of the Sun. That "surface' is a record of the ability of light to escape from the Sun. What we call opacity is actually ... opacity ! Originally Posted by Charles Chandler "In a smooth gradient, the opacity should increase smoothly. Sure, opacity is a linear function of the amount of opaque matter in question, and if you look at the geometry of how a line of sight intersects a sphere, at & below the surface, the opacity increases faster than the density at the tangent. But that still doesn't give you a distinct edge." Do you understand that? Yes - I understand that looks like limb darkening where there is no distinct edge and no one expects a distinct edge.. Charles Chandler: Do you understand that the opacity of the photosphere means that we see light escaping from it from a relatively shallow (hundreds of kilometers) layer thus giving the illusion of a distinct edge?
'13-07-23, 18:30 Reality Check	A bit of a nitpick for you, Charles Chandler, you mention the densities of liquid H and He and have a layer of liquid H and He in one diagram. The Sun does not contain liquid H or He.
'13-07-23, 18:41 Reality Check	And, Charles Chandler, the next actual criticism is "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,..." (followed by absolutely no evidence of this "congregation!). The reference is Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization which is a slightly old (1992) theoretical model. ETA: Look at the citations of the paper. No papers about the Sun that I can see. Plenty of modeling papers. A number of papers about Jupiter and Saturn. Some about white dwarf stars. This suggests that the "astrophysical situations" the paper applies to is not stars like the Sun. You ignore a few physical facts: the positive charges will attract the electrons and probably stop them from rising or congregating. the electrons will repel and so they will not "congregate". Convection will mix things up - no layer of either positive or negative charge.
'13-07-23, 18:42 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Actually, I scaled it (using a CAD app, not by counting pixels and guessing at the scale), and (as mentioned in post #14), the full transition, from opacity to transparency, occurs in 7 Mm (i.e., 7000 km). This extends well into the lower corona in this image. Why yes, you did make a statement which included "7 Mm", in post #14; here it is: Above that, the solar atmosphere is transparent. The full transition, from opacity to transparency, occurs in only 7 Mm.1Figure 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. Hmm, no mention of scale, nor how CC reached the conclusion - "The full transition, from opacity to transparency, occurs in only 7 Mm". In addition, there's this: "in the primary wavelength emitted by hydrogen", and this (the figure caption): "The solar limb seen in H-α (6563 à )" Hmm, in this respect, I'd've thought the primary wavelength emitted by hydrogen would be Lyman-α (1216 à ). What am I missing? Quote: As concerns your other rhetorical questions, I don't think that anybody on this thread cares to wade through that kind of stuff. Yeah, you're right ... if you yourself do not know about that kind of stuff, then you've as much as come out and admitted that you have essentially zero understanding of the standard model (with relevance to the 'transparent to opaque' transition of the photosphere). But never fear, in the glorious tradition of JREF ('putting the E in JREF'), someone will be along, sooner or later, to give a succinct, pertinent summary (leaving you, CC, with egg all over your face). Quote: If you have something to say, just go ahead and say it, and try to be clear & specific. There are legitimate issues here, and implications. No need to clutter up the discussion with banter. You're right. And perhaps the most legitimate is to first establish that you, CC, do not understand the standard model (at least as it directly relates to the 'transparent to opaque' transition of the photosphere).
'13-07-23, 19:06 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by ben m The discussion of the core of the sUn makes the nonsensical statement that there's something particularly difficult about compressing a plasma to a density greater than the liquid state of the same material---there's not, ... Here's what I found, in the section of CC's solar model entitled "Elements": Originally Posted by CC Compressing plasma into a liquid is easy enough. Past that point, the going gets tough, as liquids are incompressible. Now I assume - CC can you confirm, please? - that by "compressing plasma into a liquid is easy enough" you mean that it is easy enough to compress a plasma so that its density is the same as that of the material, in liquid form (in its neutral form). One - of many - things that strike me as very strange about this is that liquids are, of course, compressible. If they weren't, they wouldn't transmit sound, would they? More generally, as you raise the temperature of a rigid container, in which there is both the liquid and gaseous form of a material (a monatomic gas, xenon say), the liquid's density falls, and that of the gas rises, until ... they are equal. Raise the temperature and/or pressure further, and the contains is filled with the material in a supercritical fluid state. As long as the container continues to be rigid, you can keep raising the temperature (and thus the pressure), until the supercritical fluid has a density greater than the greatest density the liquid form can have. And this is not difficult; there are demo videos on the internet, and it's an experiment done in many a university undergrad class (possibly also a high school one). What am I missing?
'13-07-23, 19:22 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Reality Check Charles Chandler, That is, in fact, just a guess at the depth of the photosphere which is wrong and nothing to do with the density of the Sun (so far). The depth of the photosphere is a few hundred kilometers and depends on the wavelength of the light used to image the photosphere. No, that's from a study of the hydrodynamics of photospheric granules. Originally Posted by phunk Given the picture Charles provided, just one pixel deep from the edge has you looking horizontally through about 47000km of plasma. OK, so I ran the numbers on that, and here's what I got, for all of you who think that the photosphere should be opaque just because of all of that plasma. Starting from the top of the photosphere, to traverse 47000 km of plasma, the arc chord descends into the Sun to a depth of 400 km, for an average depth through the traversal of (nominally) 200 km (0.999712 R⊙). At that depth, the model density of the Sun is 3.45e-4 kg/m3. The density of STP air is 1.29 kg/m3, which is 3736 thicker. 47000 / 3736 = 12.57. So seeing through 47000 km of solar plasma, at 3.45e-4 kg/m3, should be about like seeing through 12.57 km of STP air, at 1.29 kg/m3. (That's assuming, of course, that the Earthly nitrogen/oxygen mix has the same opacity as the solar hydrogen/helium mix. In reality, the solar plasma should be more transparent, due to a lack of bound electrons.) So then the question is, "How opaque is 12.57 km of STP air?" Anybody? Originally Posted by Reality Check You are ignoring one of the basic properties of plasma - they conduct. Thus there is in general no charge separation in plasmas, i.e. they are described as quasi-neutral since there is no effects from charges beyond the Debye length. The exception is double layers when the effects over a few 10's of Debye lengths. Your idea seems to require charge separation of the order of hundreds? of kilometers. So there are two questions that you should answer: What is the Debye length of the photosphere? What does your idea require for the Debye length of the photosphere? No, it has nothing to do with Debye lengths. The charge separation mechanism is compressive ionization. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Hmm, so what "job" did CC claim that gravity cannot do? Please put a little more care into reading what I'm actually writing. I said that the Dalsgaard model gets the density right, but it doesn't take the Coulomb force into account. Adding in the Coulomb force would throw the Dalsgaard model way off. To my knowledge, the only way to get the Dalsgaard densities without the Coulomb force preventing them is to go with heavy elements. Then, gravity is still there, and it is still exerting a force, and I am saying that this force, especially deeper inside the Sun, is sufficienct to ionize that matter. To summarize, I'm saying that gravity is powerful enough for ionization, but not powerful enough to ram hydrogen atoms close enough together to get the Dalsgaard densities. I know that this is confusing for you, to have two boundary conditions, but that's what I'm saying.
'13-07-23, 19:26 Reality Check	Something you should learn, Charles Chandler, is to distinguish crank literature from probably valid scientific literature. I have looked at some of your citations and some look good, i.e. to papers published in creditable scientific journals with plenty of citations. You spoil this with a link to a crackpot book on ScribeD (The Physics of Creation - Harold Aspden's unified theory of physics ). You cite A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun (PDF) which has the fantastic claim that "nuclear reactions occur throughout the solar mass" but is a single author paper by Robitaille, P Major discoveries today are more likely to be team efforts. published in the web-based and not highly regarded "Progress in Physics". Such a ground-breaking discovery should have been published in a high-impact journal like Nature. Published in 2007 but a preprint was loaded in 2004! The gap between preprints and publication should be months rather than years. Has been thoroughly ignored (but publishing in "Progress in Physics" practically guarantees this ). Pierre-Marie Robitaille is not an astronomer o anyone who has a history of work on solar physical. This seems to be his only astronomical paper. He is an expert in MRI technology. Be very, very dubious of anyone who is publishing outside of their area of expertise. Pierre-Marie Robitaille has tried to apply his area of expertise to everything, e.g. just because he knows about thermal emission he thinks that COBE (and by implication WMAP and Planck) "measured the thermal emission of the oceans." This is the "making everything into a nail because you have a hammer" fallacy.
'13-07-23, 19:58 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Reality Check Do you understand that the opacity of the photosphere means that we see light escaping from it from a relatively shallow (hundreds of kilometers) layer thus giving the illusion of a distinct edge? No, I don't understand that at all. Why would the photons get scattered by the plasma, right up to the top of the photosphere, where the model density is 2e-4 kg/m3, and while the density is (in the standard model) steadily decreasing, the scattering just stops? And this is as the plasma is getting cooler. I want to know the physical mechanisms for this. If anything, the opacity should increase as the temperature decreases, even though the density is also decreasing. Originally Posted by Reality Check You ignore a few physical facts: the positive charges will attract the electrons and probably stop them from rising or congregating. the electrons will repel and so they will not "congregate". Convection will mix things up - no layer of either positive or negative charge. Really you're just saying that compressive ionization isn't a force. If it is, the positive charges will certainly attract the electrons, but the compressed matter won't allow the electrons to re-enter, the electrons will definitely repel, but in the presence of the electric field between them and the +ions, they will be considerably more compact, and electric charges in the excellent conductivity of 6000 K plasma will flow effortlessly, and will not impede convection, nor be affected by it. So I'm saying that compression is the charge separation mechanism, and the electric force is (of course) the charge recombination mechanism. These are opposing forces. When in equilibrium, current-free double-layers (CFDLs) will exist. In other words, the charges will be separated, with an electric field between them, and in the excellent conductivity of 6000 K plasma, they should recombine, but if the pressure doesn't allow it, the charges will remain separate. This is, without a doubt, the central piece in this model. It's also hypothetical, with sparse laboratory evidence. But if the solar density gradient is only possible with CFDLs, there has to be something that can separate charges, even in an excellent conductor. That's a tall order, to say the least. Compressive ionization is the only candidate that I found. So that's what I'm going with.
'13-07-23, 20:25 dasmiller	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler [*]the positive charges will certainly attract the electrons, but the compressed matter won't allow the electrons to re-enter,[*]the electrons will definitely repel, but in the presence of the electric field between them and the +ions, they will be considerably more compact, and[*]electric charges in the excellent conductivity of 6000 K plasma will flow effortlessly, and will not impede convection, nor be affected by it. I confess that I'm not quite following you. Are you saying that charge separation is a natural outcome of simply compressing a plasma?
'13-07-23, 20:32 Charles Chandler	Another cool Charles/DeiRenDopa exchange: Originally Posted by Dancing David So Charles, what data and evidence did you use to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma? Originally Posted by Charles Chandler 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. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa I can see assertions - statements by you, CC - but no data. Nor any evidence. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa As long as the container continues to be rigid, you can keep raising the temperature (and thus the pressure), until the supercritical fluid has a density greater than the greatest density the liquid form can have. What am I missing? I think that you're missing the fact that you just supplied the evidence you were seeking. Now, can you prove it? Originally Posted by dasmiller Are you saying that charge separation is a natural outcome of simply compressing a plasma? Exactly. But you need a lot of pressure, because you need to compress something that insists on being incompressible. (Note that the threshold for incompressibility varies with the degree of ionization, which is a usually a function of heat. So supercritical plasma can be compressed beyond its normal liquid density, but it hits the same limit sooner or later, depending on how many electron shells are still populated.)
'13-07-23, 20:37 dasmiller	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Exactly. But you need a lot of pressure, because you need to compress something that insists on being incompressible. (Note that the threshold for incompressibility varies with the degree of ionization, which is a usually a function of heat. So supercritical plasma can be compressed beyond its normal liquid density, but it hits the same limit sooner or later, depending on how many electron shells are still populated.) And has this been demonstrated in a lab?
'13-07-23, 20:52 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler No, I don't understand that at all. I see that you definitely do not understand at all, Charles Chandler ! This is the emission of light from the Sun which happens in the photosphere Quote: The photosphere of an astronomical object is the depth of a star's outer shell from which light is radiated. The term itself is derived from Ancient Greek roots, φῶς, φωτός/phos, photos meaning "light" and σφαῖρα/sphaira meaning "sphere", in reference to the fact that it is a spherical surface that is perceived to emit light. It extends into a star's surface until the plasma becomes opaque, equivalent to an optical depth of approximately 2/3.[1] In other words, a photosphere is the deepest region of a luminous object, usually a star, that is transparent to photons of certain wavelengths. (my emphasis added) The photosphere is relatively thin in our Sun (a few hundred kilometers). So it looks like a surface. Of course in a star like a red giant star the photosphere is very deep and does not look like a surface at all. Photons do get scattered by the plasma in the photosphere and corona but to a much lesser extent in the corona. The mechanism is from basic scattering theory - if you have a photon traveling through a material then it has a certain chance of scattering from an atom. This is what opacity is about. Quote: Opacity is the measure of impenetrability to electromagnetic or other kinds of radiation, especially visible light. In radiative transfer, it describes the absorption and scattering of radiation in a medium, such as a plasma, dielectric, shielding material, glass, etc. The detailed physical mechanisms are complex - read a textbook. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Really you're just saying that compressive ionization isn't a force. If it is, Really what I am saying is that your assertion that compressive ionization is a force has not been supported by evidence from you, Charles Chandler. And now we have even more unsupported assertions from you ! To emphasize that these assertions are just wishful thinking (and so getting close to fantasies): Charles Chandler Show your calculation that compressive ionization can happen in the Sun. Show your calculation that any electrons from compressive ionization will leave the vicinity of the positive ions. Show your calculation that these electrons will form a layer separate and higher from the positive ions. Show your calculations that it is impossible that the positive ions to attract the electrons back to their vicinity. Show that convection does not exist in the convection zone of the Sun otherwise "Convection will mix things up - no layer of either positive or negative charge. " First asked 24 July 2013. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler This is, without a doubt, the central piece in this model. It's also hypothetical, with sparse laboratory evidence. It is not a scientific model unless you have mathematics behind it (and so the above calculations should be easy for you, Charles Chandler ). If it is hypothetical then it is not a model - it is a hypothesis. Laboratory evidence is not always necessary - observations and using the known laws of physics is often good enough. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But if the solar density gradient is only possible with CFDLs, The observed solar density gradient is possible without your so far physically impossible CFDL. SO Originally Posted by Charles Chandler there has to be something that can separate charges, even in an excellent conductor. That's a tall order, to say the least. Compressive ionization is the only candidate that I found. So that's what I'm going with. Oh dear, Charles Chandler, you start with a fantasy that charges have to be separated in the Sun and so support it with another fantasy that the cause must be compressive ionization . Charges cannot be separated to any physical significance in the Sun - Debye length. Convection means that any hypothetical separated charges cannot form layer.
'13-07-23, 21:02 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But you need a lot of pressure, because you need to compress something that insists on being incompressible. But you seem ignorant of the fact that plasmas like the plasma in the Sun are compressible, Charles Chandler. You are also insisting on the fantasy that a plasma that has the density of a liquid is actually a liquid ! Liquids never insist on being incompressible - they can be compressed to solids. Solids never insist on being incompressible - they are compressed to degenerate matter in neutron stars. ETA: Perhaps you would like to explain to us how solid hydrogen does not exist because liquid H cannot be compressed!
'13-07-23, 22:09 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by dasmiller And has this been demonstrated in a lab? Yes. See: Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100 Originally Posted by Reality Check I see that you definitely do not understand at all, Charles Chandler ! [...] The detailed physical mechanisms are complex - read a textbook. Actually, the physics of photon absorption/emission, at least as concerns laboratory observations, is relatively straightforward, and has changed little since Kirchhoff's laws were plugged into the Bohr model of the atom. It's astrophysical photons that are the mystery. I want to know why space photons require different physics. In the laboratory, cooler plasma is more opaque. In a star, the hot, opaque interior gives way to the cool, transparent exterior. And it does this all of a sudden (i.e., with a couple hundred km, by the standard model). Why? You can say that it's so until we're all blue in the face, and I know that it's so, but I can't get a straight answer as to why. This leads me to believe that there is a fundamental misconception in stellar theory. As concerns calculations, here's how I answered Capt. Swoop's question in post #31: "See Calculations for the math and programming code. The biggest part of it is the finite element analysis engine that I'm developing. Asserting a force feedback loop involving gravity, hydrostatic pressure, and EM forces makes it a 4th order tensor, which I guess is why no one who has proposed such things has ever done it before. Then, if you throw in a mix of heavy elements, it starts to look like it's all over the top. Still, I "think" that something can be accomplished. I'm going with FEA for its conceptual transparency, and so that I can query the model at specific points to get values without having to do anything fancy. You can find the description and code for that project here." Originally Posted by Reality Check Laboratory evidence is not always necessary - observations and using the known laws of physics is often good enough. I agree, but I think that we have different definitions of the "known laws of physics". For you, if scientists say it's so, then those are "known laws of physics", even if they contradict laboratory science, such as solar photons. For me, they should be the same principles. Originally Posted by Reality Check The observed solar density gradient is possible without your so far physically impossible CFDL. So you're saying that 1) plasma compression obeys only the ideal gas laws, and 2) CFDLs due to compressive ionization are not possible. Would you care to support either of those contentions? Just regurgitating the consensus view over and over doesn't actually transmit any information. Originally Posted by Reality Check But you seem ignorant of the fact that plasmas like the plasma in the Sun are compressible, Charles Chandler. This is getting downright boring, so I'll only respond to stuff like this a few more times. I've said repeatedly that plasmas are compressible, but that they hit a limit, and that this limit is a function of ionization, which is typically a function of temperature. This is what I said in post #25: Originally Posted by Dancing David So Charles, what data and evidence did you use to determine the limit on the compression of hydrogen plasma? Originally Posted by Charles Chandler 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. Plasma is compressible beyond the room-temperature liquid limit. Plasma is compressible beyond the room-temperature liquid limit. Plasma is compressible beyond the room-temperature liquid limit. Please tell DeiRenDopa. Plasma is compressible beyond the room-temperature liquid limit. Got it?
'13-07-24, 00:12 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Originally Posted by dasmiller And has this been demonstrated in a lab? Yes. See: Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100 Among the many papers which cite this is Bi, S. L.; Di Mauro, M. P.; Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 2000 An improved equation of state under solar interior conditions Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.364, p.879-886 (2000). Figure 1 is quite interesting; part of the caption reads "The fractional contribution arising from nonideal effects to the ideal pressure of the reference solar model 1 which employed the EFF EOS." The y-axis goes from 0.00 to 0.10. Hmm, I guess "the ideal gas laws" aren't such a bad approximation after all. Quote: This is getting downright boring, so I'll only respond to stuff like this a few more times. I've said repeatedly that plasmas are compressible, but that they hit a limit, and that this limit is a function of ionization, which is typically a function of temperature. Indeed they might, and you'll find such limits widely discussed (including in standard astrophysics textbooks, which - so it seems - you have not read, CC). However, at the temperatures, pressures and densities expected to be found inside the Sun, no such limits are in sight ... But why not write up the first part of your "Elements" page, CC, making sure to reference directly relevant journal articles (such as the 2000 one which cites Saumon & Chabrier), and fleshing out your physics argument, then submit it to A&A? The hundreds - thousands? - of folk who research high temperature/high density plasmas (especially those of astrophysical interest) will be delighted to read your, um, original contribution!
'13-07-24, 00:23 DeiRenDopa	Out of sequence, sorry Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Originally Posted by me Hmm, so what "job" did CC claim that gravity cannot do? Please put a little more care into reading what I'm actually writing. I said that the Dalsgaard model gets the density right, but it doesn't take the Coulomb force into account. Adding in the Coulomb force would throw the Dalsgaard model way off. To my knowledge, the only way to get the Dalsgaard densities without the Coulomb force preventing them is to go with heavy elements. Then, gravity is still there, and it is still exerting a force, and I am saying that this force, especially deeper inside the Sun, is sufficienct to ionize that matter. To summarize, I'm saying that gravity is powerful enough for ionization, but not powerful enough to ram hydrogen atoms close enough together to get the Dalsgaard densities. I know that this is confusing for you, to have two boundary conditions, but that's what I'm saying. Hmm, my quick skim of some apparently relevant journal articles turned up none which support your claims, CC. Can you cite any, or is your claim original to you? In fact, the 2000 paper I cited in my last post seems to be quite explicit about "adding in the Coulomb force". In fact, Table 2 ("Non-ideal effects in the equation of state") explicitly states that the work includes not only Coulomb coupling, but also pressure ionization, electron exchange, and something they call 'classical ions'. It does not include relativistic electron degeneracy; do you think that matters, CC? A nice human touch is that one of the authors of that paper is J. Christensen-Dalsgaard.
'13-07-24, 00:31 DeiRenDopa	Even more out of sequence ... Originally Posted by Charles Chandler OK, so I ran the numbers on that, and here's what I got, for all of you who think that the photosphere should be opaque just because of all of that plasma. Starting from the top of the photosphere, to traverse 47000 km of plasma, the arc chord descends into the Sun to a depth of 400 km, for an average depth through the traversal of (nominally) 200 km (0.999712 R⊙). At that depth, the model density of the Sun is 3.45e-4 kg/m3. The density of STP air is 1.29 kg/m3, which is 3736 thicker. 47000 / 3736 = 12.57. So seeing through 47000 km of solar plasma, at 3.45e-4 kg/m3, should be about like seeing through 12.57 km of STP air, at 1.29 kg/m3. (That's assuming, of course, that the Earthly nitrogen/oxygen mix has the same opacity as the solar hydrogen/helium mix. In reality, the solar plasma should be more transparent, due to a lack of bound electrons.) (my emphasis) Why do you need to assume, CC? What do standard astrophysics textbooks say are the dominant sources of opacity (in the optical)? In particular, what have you read about the H- ion? (I'll check your sums later) Quote: So then the question is, "How opaque is 12.57 km of STP air?" Anybody? Oh that's an easy one! It's completely opaque How do I know? Well, because astronomers have to send telescopes above the atmosphere to be able to see the Sun (in the UV, x-ray, gamma ...)
'13-07-24, 01:56 edd	Lets see if I can clarify, CC. What do you think has a higher opacity? An atom of neutral hydrogen or a free electron?
'13-07-24, 02:27 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Starting from the top of the photosphere, to traverse 47000 km of plasma, the arc chord descends into the Sun to a depth of 400 km, for an average depth through the traversal of (nominally) 200 km (0.999712 R⊙). At that depth, the model density of the Sun is 3.45e-4 kg/m3. The density of STP air is 1.29 kg/m3, which is 3736 thicker. 47000 / 3736 = 12.57. So seeing through 47000 km of solar plasma, at 3.45e-4 kg/m3, should be about like seeing through 12.57 km of STP air, at 1.29 kg/m3. (That's assuming, of course, that the Earthly nitrogen/oxygen mix has the same opacity as the solar hydrogen/helium mix. In reality, the solar plasma should be more transparent, due to a lack of bound electrons.) So then the question is, "How opaque is 12.57 km of STP air?" Anybody? Well this shows you have absolutely no idea about radiative transport in plasmas. Sorry, you are comparing apples and oranges, maybe you should study the book by Rybicki & Lightman: Radiative processes in astrophyiscs, and get a real idea about how radiation is travelling in plasmas
'13-07-24, 02:51 tusenfem	Originally Posted by dasmiller And has this been demonstrated in a lab? Well ionization through compression is not really a problem. What is a problem, however, is "charge separation" but that is claimed to happen, which ofcourse in normal mainstream physics is nonsense. In the EU it can maybe make sense, but that is because they like to give new definitions to normal processes, probably what is meant here is "ionization" and not charge separation. Note that the paper that was quoted does not say anything about charge separation. I think that the EU "charge separation" means in CC's case that the electron is separated from the atom, creating an ion and a free electron.
'13-07-24, 03:23 dafydd	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler No, that's from a study of the hydrodynamics of photospheric granules. OK, so I ran the numbers on that, and here's what I got, for all of you who think that the photosphere should be opaque just because of all of that plasma. Starting from the top of the photosphere, to traverse 47000 km of plasma, the arc chord descends into the Sun to a depth of 400 km, for an average depth through the traversal of (nominally) 200 km (0.999712 R⊙). At that depth, the model density of the Sun is 3.45e-4 kg/m3. The density of STP air is 1.29 kg/m3, which is 3736 thicker. 47000 / 3736 = 12.57. So seeing through 47000 km of solar plasma, at 3.45e-4 kg/m3, should be about like seeing through 12.57 km of STP air, at 1.29 kg/m3. (That's assuming, of course, that the Earthly nitrogen/oxygen mix has the same opacity as the solar hydrogen/helium mix. In reality, the solar plasma should be more transparent, due to a lack of bound electrons.) So then the question is, "How opaque is 12.57 km of STP air?" Anybody? No, it has nothing to do with Debye lengths. The charge separation mechanism is compressive ionization. Please put a little more care into reading what I'm actually writing. I said that the Dalsgaard model gets the density right, but it doesn't take the Coulomb force into account. Adding in the Coulomb force would throw the Dalsgaard model way off. To my knowledge, the only way to get the Dalsgaard densities without the Coulomb force preventing them is to go with heavy elements. Then, gravity is still there, and it is still exerting a force, and I am saying that this force, especially deeper inside the Sun, is sufficienct to ionize that matter. To summarize, I'm saying that gravity is powerful enough for ionization, but not powerful enough to ram hydrogen atoms close enough together to get the Dalsgaard densities. I know that this is confusing for you, to have two boundary conditions, but that's what I'm saying. The snarkiness begins, the sure sign of the crank.
'13-07-24, 03:55 catsmate1	Originally Posted by Reality Check Pierre-Marie Robitaille is not an astronomer o anyone who has a history of work on solar physical. This seems to be his only astronomical paper. He is an expert in MRI technology. Be very, very dubious of anyone who is publishing outside of their area of expertise. Pierre-Marie Robitaille has tried to apply his area of expertise to everything, e.g. just because he knows about thermal emission he thinks that COBE (and by implication WMAP and Planck) "measured the thermal emission of the oceans." This is the "making everything into a nail because you have a hammer" fallacy. Correct. PMR is a medical radiologist with a fondness for crankery and spamming his crap around academia. My SO (who's an academic physicist) has received some of his nonsense. He's slightly interesting by crank standards for worshiping Planck rather than Einstein or Maxwell. Originally Posted by dafydd The snarkiness begins, the sure sign of the crank. I assumed it was part defensive reaction (to having his ideas demolished) and part preparation for the ego saving flounce.
'13-07-24, 04:08 Captain_Swoop	Quote: Instead of guessing that I didn't do my homework, and asking me why I didn't, you can either 1) defend the standard model, on scientific grounds, or 2) refute the assertions in my model, again on scientific grounds. Isn't this the wrong way round? It is your job to show why the Standard Model is wrong and support your own model. You are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is yours.
'13-07-24, 04:46 dafydd	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Isn't this the wrong way round? It is your job to show why the Standard Model is wrong and support your own model. You are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is yours. Once again, crank behavior. We've seen it all before here.
'13-07-24, 08:08 dasmiller	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Originally Posted by dasmiller Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Originally Posted by dasmiller I confess that I'm not quite following you. Are you saying that charge separation is a natural outcome of simply compressing a plasma? Exactly. But you need a lot of pressure, because you need to compress something that insists on being incompressible. (Note that the threshold for incompressibility varies with the degree of ionization, which is a usually a function of heat. So supercritical plasma can be compressed beyond its normal liquid density, but it hits the same limit sooner or later, depending on how many electron shells are still populated.) And has this been demonstrated in a lab? Yes. See: Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100 From what I could see, that paper described ionization vs. pressure; I was asking about charge separation. As Tusenfem indicated, the idea that a conducting fluid will spontaneously develop large charge separations is . . . counterintuitive, at best.
'13-07-24, 08:58 DeiRenDopa	It's now 'later' Some text (re)moved, to make reading easier Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa (I'll check your sums later) Quote: OK, so I ran the numbers on that, and here's what I got, for all of you who think that the photosphere should be opaque just because of all of that plasma. Starting from the top of the photosphere, to traverse 47000 km of plasma, the arc chord descends into the Sun to a depth of 400 km, for an average depth through the traversal of (nominally) 200 km (0.999712 R⊙). Hmmm, I get different numbers: with 695,500 km as the Sun's radius (r), a tangent with a length of 47,000 km is ~1590 km above (normal to) the surface (defined as a sphere, radius r) at its 'near end'. Only if you extend the tangent an equal distance beyond the point where it meets the sphere do I get something close to 400 km. Which doesn't make much sense because it's not light from a distant source we're interested in. It makes even less sense if the line of sight (tangent) plunges into the photosphere (and the numbers are a bit different, but not significantly so). Originally Posted by CC At that depth, the model density of the Sun is 3.45e-4 kg/m3. 200 km? or 400 km? It looks like 200 km (please confirm). Quote: The density of STP air is 1.29 kg/m3, which is 3736 thicker. 47000 / 3736 = 12.57. So seeing through 47000 km of solar plasma, at 3.45e-4 kg/m3, should be about like seeing through 12.57 km of STP air, at 1.29 kg/m3. Um, if I'm reading the same table as you are, at 1.00000 R⊙, the density is ~2.0e-4 kg/m3, and at 0.999424 R⊙ it's ~5.8e-4 kg/m3. In other words, the change in density, with height, is not linear. Seeing as how you're working to three significant digits, shouldn't you be doing an integration? Quote: (That's assuming, of course, that the Earthly nitrogen/oxygen mix has the same opacity as the solar hydrogen/helium mix. In reality, the solar plasma should be more transparent, due to a lack of bound electrons.) From the same table, the temperature goes from 5.78e+03 K to ~1.14e+04 K (please confirm). Does a 'solar' mix - predominantly H and He, but not insignificant proportions of metals - keep its ionization state constant over that temperature range? (I have this vague recollection - no doubt from reading standard textbooks - that hydrogen is almost completely neutral at ~5kK, but almost fully ionized at ~10kK; perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me )
'13-07-24, 09:49 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Among the many papers which cite this is Bi, S. L.; Di Mauro, M. P.; Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., 2000 An improved equation of state under solar interior conditions Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.364, p.879-886 (2000). Figure 1 is quite interesting; part of the caption reads "The fractional contribution arising from nonideal effects to the ideal pressure of the reference solar model 1 which employed the EFF EOS." The y-axis goes from 0.00 to 0.10. Hmm, I guess "the ideal gas laws" aren't such a bad approximation after all. So Bi, S. L.; Di Mauro, M. P.; and Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. conclude that the standard model, developed by Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., is OK after all. I "think" that for you, such constitutes confirmation of a proof. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa However, at the temperatures, pressures and densities expected to be found inside the Sun, no such limits are in sight ... The standard model might acknowledge compressive ionization, though as you say, at the model temps, there aren't any bound electrons to be liberated by pressure, and thus compressive ionization isn't much of a factor. But the standard model does not take the Coulomb barrier into account, which is a factor at any temperature. If matter could be compressed just by the ideal gas laws, nuclear fusion would be easy. In fact, nuclear fusion is not easy at all. The reason is the Coulomb barrier. The Dalsgaard model doesn't take this into account, therefore the Dalsgaard model is wrong. The implication is that in order to achieve the known density of the Sun, we'd have to lower the temperature, such that the Coulomb barrier plus the hydrostatic pressure would once again yield the correct densities. But if we lower the temperature, the fusion furnace goes out. Another implication is that compressive ionization is more of a factor at lower temps, which spells even more trouble for the standard model. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler So then the question is, "How opaque is 12.57 km of STP air?" Anybody? Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Oh that's an easy one! It's completely opaque How do I know? Well, because astronomers have to send telescopes above the atmosphere to be able to see the Sun (in the UV, x-ray, gamma ...) Yesterday isolated thunderstorms came through my area. One of them was fully developed, complete with an anvil at the bottom of the stratosphere, 14 km above the ground. And I could see this from the ground, meaning that I was seeing through 14+ km of completely opaque air? Your senseless argumentativeness serves no useful purpose. Originally Posted by edd What do you think has a higher opacity? An atom of neutral hydrogen or a free electron? Sounds like a trick question (what's a "free electron"?) but I'll play along. I'd say that the neutral hydrogen is more opaque. Originally Posted by tusenfem Well this shows you have absolutely no idea about radiative transport in plasmas. Sorry, you are comparing apples and oranges, maybe you should study the book by Rybicki & Lightman: Radiative processes in astrophyiscs, and get a real idea about how radiation is travelling in plasmas. Why are radiative processes in astrophysics different from radiative processes in the lab here on Earth? Originally Posted by tusenfem Well ionization through compression is not really a problem. What is a problem, however, is "charge separation" but that is claimed to happen, which of course in normal mainstream physics is nonsense. Argumentum ad populum. Further, it's ironic to hear the word "nonsense" used to describe anything that doesn't sit well with the standard astrophysics model, which is substantially inconsistent with laboratory physics. Anyway... Originally Posted by tusenfem In the EU it can maybe make sense, but that is because they like to give new definitions to normal processes, probably what is meant here is "ionization" and not charge separation. Note that the paper that was quoted does not say anything about charge separation. I think that the EU "charge separation" means in CC's case that the electron is separated from the atom, creating an ion and a free electron. First, I'd like to say that my position has next to nothing in common with the Electric Universe model, except of course that it places a lot of emphasis on the electric force. But arguments on the thunderbolts forum have proved that there are irreconcilable differences between these constructs. As such, I shouldn't be considered in their camp, and arguments against them don't apply to me. Second, I acknowledge that there is a step, from "compressive ionization", to "compressive charge separation". I'm still in the process of researching this issue, but it's starting to look like the latter is an original assertion (i.e., "unsupported"). This is fine, so long as I clearly label it as such. So I'm thinking that I need to re-word the relevant passages on my site. But please note that I didn't start out with any preformed electric conclusions. I got disillusioned with the EU model, and made an independent study. I found neither the justification for the EU model, nor for the standard model. The Sun's density gradient, including its distinct limb, was the most obvious aspect that was not addressed rigorously by any existing model. So I went looking for the force responsible for the distinct limb. There were few candidates, and all of them seemed impossible. Still convinced that the Sun is a physical object, I kept looking for possibilities. It all came down to what is going on inside the Sun, at extreme temps & pressures. I found the QM "predictions" to be ambivalent, so I started considering possibilities not already identified by QM. CFDLs should be impossible in an excellent conductor, but what if compressive ionization can separate charges? Then the whole thing makes sense. So I think that I need to re-word my thesis, presenting "compressive charge separation" as a hypothetical insert that gets all of the other pieces to fall into place. Originally Posted by dafydd Once again, crank behavior. We've seen it all before here. Can you guys refrain from the ad hom comments for just a little while? There's still the outside chance that a legitimate discussion of the issues could occur.
'13-07-24, 09:54 phunk	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Sounds like a trick question (what's a "free electron"?) but I'll play along. I'd say that the neutral hydrogen is more opaque. Guess again!
'13-07-24, 10:10 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by dasmiller As Tusenfem indicated, the idea that a conducting fluid will spontaneously develop large charge separations is . . . counterintuitive, at best. Indeed (as addressed in my previous post). But for that matter, so is the hydrodynamic behavior of solar granules. And it's not just that these "thermal bubbles" stop abruptly at precisely the same altitude, establishing a very distinct surface that shouldn't be there in a smooth density gradient. We're told that granules are driven by convection. Yet the updrafts in granules average 2 km/s, and the downdrafts around the outsides can exceed 7 km/s. These are supersonic speeds in plasma at that temperature. Yet the fastest that any substance can flow into a pure vacuum, just due to hydrostatic pressure, is the speed of sound, and that's by definition. Clearly, powerful non-Newtonian forces are present. So what are they? My point here is just that it isn't correct to dismiss a new hypothesis that doesn't seem to be correct, and then to snap back to the existing construct, when the existing construct is in clear violation of very basic principles of physics. We're not going to be done here until all of this makes sense. (Please note that I'm not implying that I'm right because the standard model is wrong, since that would be fallacious. I'm identifying what's wrong with the standard model, and proposing a new solution.) Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I'd say that the neutral hydrogen is more opaque. Originally Posted by phunk Guess again! Would you care to elaborate?
'13-07-24, 10:17 dasmiller	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Indeed (as addressed in my previous post). But for that matter, so is the hydrodynamic behavior of solar granules. And it's not just that these "thermal bubbles" stop abruptly at precisely the same altitude, establishing a very distinct surface that shouldn't be there in a smooth density gradient. We're told that granules are driven by convection. Yet the updrafts in granules average 2 km/s, and the downdrafts around the outsides can exceed 7 km/s. These are supersonic speeds in plasma at that temperature. Yet the fastest that any substance can flow into a pure vacuum, just due to hydrostatic pressure, is the speed of sound, and that's by definition. None of which addresses my question about whether pressure-causing-charge-separation-in-plasma has been observed in a laboratory, or why you provided a reference that simply didn't address the issue. Quote: Clearly, powerful non-Newtonian forces are present. So what are they? Actually, that's not at all clear to me, but I don't want to derail the discussion of charge separation. Quote: My point here is just that it isn't correct to dismiss a new hypothesis that doesn't seem to be correct, and then to snap back to the existing construct, when the existing construct is in clear violation of very basic principles of physics. We're not going to be done here until all of this makes sense. (Please note that I'm not implying that I'm right because the standard model is wrong, since that would be fallacious. I'm identifying what's wrong with the standard model, and proposing a new solution.) So your 'new solution' relies on a process (spontaneous charge separation due to compression in plasma) that has never been demonstrated in a laboratory, doesn't have a theoretical basis, appears to fly in the face of well-understood physics, and has never been directly or indirectly observed in nature?