A Question About The Sun For Pantheory.

[walterpthefirst]

In another thread the use of Occam's Razor in science was discussed.  There has been some disagreement about how it should be used.  But the issue of how it should be used is fundamental to all science.  As per Pantheory's request I have created this new thread to continue the discussion about Occam's Razor.

 

 

Under the spotlight in this thread is an ongoing problem in astronomy.   The Stellar Corona Problem (see Wiki link below).  The behaviour of the Sun seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics,  seems to be counter-intuitive and seems to be illogical.  I look to Pantheory to explain how he would help me if I were a scientist studying the Sun.   

 

 

 THE SIMPLE EXPLANATION

In a nutshell the science of thermodynamics tells us that in nature heat always flows from hot to cold.  There are no exceptions to this rule.  Our everyday experience agrees with this and it is a concept we are all readily familiar with.  A campfire is hottest when you are closest to it and not when you are far away.  The more distance you put between yourself and the source of the heat the colder it gets.  Simple.

 

But if I were a scientist studying the Sun I would find that Mother Nature has thrown me a curveball.

 

Stellar corona - Wikipedia

 

The coronal heating problem in solar physics relates to the question of why the temperature of the Sun's corona [atmosphere] is millions of kelvins versus the thousands of kelvins of the surface.

 

The temperature of the surface of the Sun is 5,726 degrees C, but its atmosphere is just under a 1,000,000 degrees C.  This is a 200-fold increase in temperature.  According to the simplest explanation, using the laws of thermodynamics, the further away from the source of greatest heat that you get the colder it should get.

 

The source of greatest heat in the Sun is it's core, which is calculated to be 15,000,000 degrees C.  Inside the Sun, the further we get away from the core the more temperature drops until, at its surface, it's under 6,000 degrees C.  But then, when we move even further away from the core the temperature suddenly jumps 200-fold to 1,000,000 degrees C.

 

Something is clearly wrong here.

 

The simplest explanation, using thermodynamics, seems to contradict the evidence.  Therefore, as a scientist, what am I to do?  Bring the evidence into alignment with my simple thermodynamic expectation or concede that the simplest explanation is of no help in solving this problem?

 

What should I do, Pantheory?

 

Should I go with my personal preference for simplicity or should I yield to the evidence?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Earth to Pantheory!

 

 

Calling Pantheory!

 

 

Come in please!

[Casualfanboy16]

I think you forgot to @ him. @pantheory! Walter needs you, my guy! (Please)

[pantheory]

On 3/9/2024 at 7:55 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Earth to Pantheory!

Calling Pantheory!

 

Come in please!

 

Both Moxie and I deny that we are aliens of the outer space variety, Just address me as pantheory and please assume I am always here on Earth, or at least near our solar system o rnear  it, if not it would take me years at a minimum to answer you.

 

Anyway,  now to the solar corona temperature problem. As can be read, this has been a serious quandary of astronomers for up to 5 decades. Why are parts of the solar corona measured to be a million degrees Kelvin when the surface of the sun averages roughly only about  6,000 degrees K. The first of today's most promising theories involves a type mechanical wave energy being transported by magnetic waves into the corona involving wave damping which causes the enormous vibrations of heat. The second type of heating theorized is called Magnetic Reconnection, a highly interactive process in which oppositely directed magnetic fields of plasma violently interact converting magnetic energy into thermal energy which rises into the corona.  Scientists have long believed that a combination of these two processes are the most important aspects of coronal super-heating heating.

 

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/76/4/34/2879433/Unveiling-the-mystery-of-solar-coronal

 

See figure 1 in the link above. notice the electrical interactions between and within the plasma arches. Like lightening here on Earth, this electrical energy is converted into light and heat which forms the arches. the heat rises to the Corona to a height of about 6 million miles. There is little atmosphere at that height to absorb this heat which is also regularly replenished. This is all mainstream astronomy where there are still many disagreements; some also believe optical illusions are involved. Figures 2 through 5 also show interesting visualizations. since many of these Coronal arches are thought to be somewhat 3D in form, others incomplete and less symmetrical, making observations difficult to interpret. Figure 1 is more my idea of the primary processes involved.

 

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

 

Could you please explain how, according to your logic, you would use Occam's razor to tackle the coronal temperature problem.

 

You have used your logic and the Razor to tackle problems in cosmology and cosmogony.

 

Now please show us how you would do so with this problem.

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

17 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

 

Could you please explain how, according to your logic, you would use Occam's razor to tackle the coronal temperature problem.

 

You have used your logic and the Razor to tackle problems in cosmology and cosmogony.

 

Now please show us how you would do so with this problem.

 

Thanks,

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I would never use Occam's razor to tackle questions in astronomy. Occam's Razor and logic are only used by me for untestable or unobserved  hypotheses in modern physics, primarily quantum mechanics, particle physics, cosmology. and cosmogony.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

I would never use Occam's razor to tackle questions in astronomy. Occam's Razor and logic are only reserved for untestable or unobserved  hypotheses in modern physics, primarily quantum mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology,, 
 

 

 

 

I would never use Occam's razor to tackle questions in astronomy.

 

Is this a personal preference of yours or are you toeing a line laid down by others?

 

 

 

Occam's Razor and logic are only reserved for untestable or unobserved  hypotheses in modern physics, primarily quantum mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology.

 

Who decides what is untestable or unobservable?

 

 

 

 

According to mainstream science the Sun's core can only be directly observed by its emission of neutrinos.

 

But if you reject modern physics, particle physics and quantum mechanics Pantheory, on what basis do regard the Sun's core as observable?

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

17 hours ago, pantheory said:

Both Moxie and I deny that we are aliens of the outer space variety, Just address me as pantheory and please assume I am always here on Earth, or at least near our solar system o rnear  it, if not it would take me years at a minimum to answer you.

 

Regrettably, Pan is right. We are not aliens and are still on planet earth (for the time being). 

But here's a nice song about the Universe!

 

 

 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

Regrettably, Pan is right. We are not aliens and are still on planet earth (for the time being). 

But here's a nice song about the Universe!

 

 

 

 

Moxie,

 

This has been posted here before. It's one of my very favorites, both music and sketch. In America, England has long been known for its peculiar sense of humor compared to American humor. But I for one, find Monty Python's material as funny or funnier than anything the US has to offer IMO.

[pantheory]

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

 

I would never use Occam's razor to tackle questions in astronomy.

 

Is this a personal preference of yours or are you toeing a line laid down by others?

 

 

 

Occam's Razor and logic are only reserved for untestable or unobserved  hypotheses in modern physics, primarily quantum mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology.

 

Who decides what is untestable or unobservable?

 

 

 

 

According to mainstream science the Sun's core can only be directly observed by its emission of neutrinos.

 

But if you reject modern physics, particle physics and quantum mechanics Pantheory, on what basis do regard the Sun's core as observable?

 

 

 

I believe astronomy is a science, but mainstream cosmology is not, and quantum mechanics and modern particle physics are sketchy sciences at best.

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

 

I would never use Occam's razor to tackle questions in astronomy.

 

Is this a personal preference of yours or are you toeing a line laid down by others?

 

 

 

Occam's Razor and logic are only reserved for untestable or unobserved  hypotheses in modern physics, primarily quantum mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology.

 

Who decides what is untestable or unobservable?

 

 

 

 

According to mainstream science the Sun's core can only be directly observed by its emission of neutrinos.

 

But if you reject modern physics, particle physics and quantum mechanics pantheory, on what basis do regard the Sun's core as observable?

 

 

If it's testable and disprovable it's science, if not its simply speculation.

 

Nuclear fusion theory and the creation of new elements is a theory that I have general agreement with, Nuclear fusion has been conducted in the lab now for a great many years.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Thank you for clarifying where you stand, Pantheory.

 

 

I therefore have only one other thing to say to you in this thread.

 

 

Breadsticks.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

19 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Breadsticks.

 

Must be an English expression??  For those of us who are clueless, please explain.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

19 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Breadsticks

I like them with Alfredo sauce! Is this a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster? 

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

Must be an English expression??  For those of us who are clueless, please explain.

 

He may be referring to the British slang word.

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=breadstick

 

Can have both positive and negative meanings to it. I'll take the positive ones

[walterpthefirst]

[◊ Weezer ◊]

14 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Can have both positive and negative meanings to it. I'll take the positive ones

 

I am sure Walter meant it as a compliment!

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

I am sure Walter meant it as a compliment!

 

I ain't so sure, but it would be nice if true.