/sci/ - Science & Math

There's more than just hydrogen and helium in the sun

>>3952187
Because there is more than just Hydrogen and Helium in the photosphere?

because we have more than hydrogen and helium

>>3952191
..but not enough to be noticed!

>>3952197
Obviously not, asshat.

>>3952197

OP here, we were talking about it in our physics class today, but our teacher wouldn't explain why this was the case because.. no one really knows. He says it's definitely not because of other atoms, but he still can't offer another sensible explanation.
Discuss.

>>3952208
"Definitely not?"
Your teacher is either a troll, or an idiot. If this is a US school, then probably both.

Oh, I actually know the answer to this!

We did emission spectroscopy in chem lab, I never thought in a million years it'd actually be useful info...

Anyway, the answer is because the particles are excited as shit so the electrons fill higher orbital and when the atom goes back to resting state the emitted frequency is higher because of the energy emitted is higher as per <span class="math">c=\lamba \nu[/spoiler]

I think...

The light emitted from the sun isn't just electrons jumping back in helium and hydrogen.
Most of the sun's light is pure energy getting free from nuclear fusion.
That's a process entirely different from stimulated emission of atomic spectra.

>>3952213
This is an international school in Norway that teaches the IB syllabus. Apparently it's an ongoing discussion and several physics boards partake in it constantly. I merely wanted you guys' opinion..

>>3952219

fuck

>edit: as per <span class="math">c = \lambda \nu [/spoiler]

OP here.
>>3952223
>>3952219
So these two guys are the only two who has come up with an alternative answer, but they're completely different to each other..
What do?

>>3952225

On second thought it might actually be <span class="math"> E=h \nu [/spoiler]

or both...

All I know is the energy is proportional to the wavelength and the wavelength is proportional to the energy.

>>3952243

FUCK

>edit: wavelength is proportional to the frequency

Jesus christ, I need some sleep.

>>3952242
Wait for EK to post. She knows everything.

OP here.
>>3952243
Frequency is proportional to energy.
>E=hf

>>3952242
>completely different
>same exact fucking thing

>>3952248
>He uses 'f' to denote frequency

>>3952187
>Why does the sun give of this emission spectra(pic related)
FYI (to be a know it all cunt) - Absorption spectra not Emission spectra.

>>3952249

>>3952258
>he uses f only in the word 'faggot'

>>3952265
Nono, emission spectra.
This in an absorption spectra.
>pic related, top one
>Also, captha :spectres ebrein

>>3952269
....

I'm not sure who you are attempting to insult...

Or if you're even trying to insult anyone... it just seems like you're stating a uncontroversial non-fact...

>>3952289

>that feel when you will never understand my true motives

>>3952292

>that feel when I now just think you're a retarded aspie trying to cover up a stupid mistake

>>3952300

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not.

>>3952285
The dark lines is absorption. The solar spectrum in OP's pic has dark lines so it is an absorption spectra. The statement of OP's "sun give of this emission spectra" is wrong.

>>3952307

Cool. Peace.

>>3952187
I would venture to guess that it's thermal radiation, which emits in all ranges.

Kind of a white hot piece of metal. Would have similar spectrum.

Checking wikipedia to confirm.

>>3952308
>>3952308
Actually it's on the thermal radiation page, I was spot on:

>Sunlight is thermal radiation generated by the hot plasma of the Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

>>3952308
>>3952319

I already said that, albeit in explicitly more detail, here:
>>3952219
>>3952225
>>3952243
>>3952246

>>3952316
The point you fucking idiot is that the EMISSION spectra from the sun gives up colours of all frequencies, and that, my friend, is the heart of this discussion, why?

>>3952316
>>3952316
Not true. That is what the emission spectrum of sunlight looks like after it passes through the atmosphere. There is strong absorption in those dark wavelengths.

Notice how empty the other spectra are in OP's picture. Also notice how the hydrogen and helium spectra aline with the dark spots in the sun's spectrum. This would suggest that Helium and Hydrogen are largely responsible for absorbing those wavelengths in the atmosphere.

Actually, now that I think about it it could be that they are actually absorbed before they leave the sun's surface. But I'm not 100% on that.

The reason the sun gives off absorbtion spectra instead of emission spectra is because the corona and upper layers of the sun absorb more than they emit. The lower levels of the sun effectively give off white light from black body radiation, and the very uppermost layers and the corona absorb some of that light and scatter it.

>>3952340

/sci/ must be retarded...

Do you think we will ever walk on the sun

>>3952325
>>3952325
Not true. There is a different between thermal emission and ionized emission. You are describing ionization.

A white hot piece of metal is not ionized. These are two different phenomena. You should have learned in class that the two look very different.

A spectrum of thermal radiation does not have gaps, and technically extends to infinity, i.e. even gamma rays are emitted by any body above absolute zero.

Electrons falling back into lower orbitals emit very specific wavelengths, although they do have some slight spread due to things like doppler broadening.

>>3952347

Hahaha! A+ for making me chuckle heartily.

>>3952330
Derp. It is called an absorption spectra. that is the name of it. You even posted a picture of an absorption spectra and an emission spectra. There is a difference between them, they are opposites, and the solar spectra is an absorption spectra.
There is no need to be mad when you are wrong and have that pointed out to you.

>>3952343
>/sci/ is retarded for simplifying an explaination

Go on . . .

>>3952356

It's been established multiple times in the thread that it is indeed an emission spectra and NOT an absorption spectra, and you pontificated about some theory you pulled out of your ass...

Now you go on.

>>3952340
>>3952340

It looks like some clarification is in order

An absorption spectrum shows only the lines that are absorbed by a particular compound. For example, if you shine a light at a black wall, you would get a full absorption spectrum.

Emission spectrum show only what is emitted. For example, look at a blue light and you'll see a peak around the blue wavelength.

Things don't "give off" absorption spectra.

>>3952351

Oh well, I'm failing chemistry anyways. At least I was close.

>>3952351

Although, to be fair, I think it could actually be both, it's just that the bulk is probably thermal radiation.

At least that's my hypothesis.

>>3952366
>>3952366
Also, emission and absorption spectra are always complimentary, with respect to ionizations.

If you put a "bright" absorption spectrum above a "dark" emission spectrum for the same element, you'll notice that the emissions fill the gaps in the absorption. That's because the same amount of energy emitted by a photon moving to a lower orbital is enough to bring it back up to that same orbital.

>>3952285 pic is related.

>>3952366
There are no emission lines. There are absorption lines. The light is given off by the sun and then the atmosphere absorbs some of the light.
The solar spectrum is an absorption spectrum. There are a few astronomical bodies that have emission spectra like emission nebula, but stars have absorption spectra (generally).

>>3952355
Go away, you clearly have not grasped the point of this whole thread.

>>3952392

I don't know where you got your degree, probably a hispanic country...

and not spain...

>>3952389
>>3952389
>>3952389
It absolutely is both, you are correct. Almost all of the matter in the sun is ionized, but occasionally electrons and nuclei do recombine, particularly as you move toward and slightly away from the surface.

>>3952399

Huzzah, I commend both of us on scientific prowess!

Too bad this other guy is clearly retarded...

Oh well, can't win 'em all.

>>3952187
I'd like to redirect you guys to the original question, It's really not important how we define the different spectra, as long as we realize that the spectra showed in the first picture is an emission spectra for sun..

>>3952416

>as long as we realize that the spectra showed in the first picture is an emission spectra for sun.
Yes, everyone gets that except for that one guy...

Well maybe learning the difference between an absorption spectra and an emission spectra will be useful if anyone wanted to study astronomy.
Dark lines = absorption spectra
Bright lines = emission spectra

>>3952439

>>3952439

Just in case having said it a million times didn't get into everybody's head, this nigga is WRONG!

BOTH emission AND absorption spectra have BRIGHT LINES AND DARK LINES. The only difference is that for emission spectra the BRIGHT LINES are the frequencies that are EMITTED, and for absorption spectra the BRIGHT LINES are the frequencies that are ABSORBED!

Jesus fucking christ, this is not rocket science...

>>3952416
Please point out the wavelength of any emission lines. I see Absorption lines at wavelengths 687 656.3 the sodium lines... I see no emission lines.