APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by neufer » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:24 am

Beyond wrote:
Hey Art, does the 500,000 blondels take into consideration the shiny gold shoes :?:
I hadn't noticed the shoes.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by ta152h0 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:32 pm

The klingons are here, to serve mankind !!

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by Beyond » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:28 pm

Hey Art, does the 500,000 blondels take into consideration the shiny gold shoes :?: Nice chair btw, although a bit dated.

'Twas bril-lig

by neufer » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:17 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
alter-ego wrote:
, but in the photonics related sciences, I believe the units are more commonly expressed using power or energy.
In most areas of astronomy (and certainly in photometry), intensity is a simple photon count. In spectrometry, intensity is also just a photon count... given a pair of peaks, one of long and the other short wavelength, the intensity stated for each would not typically be adjusted for the different intrinsic energies of the photons recorded in each.

The usual simple metrics are intensity, the photon count; wavelength, the photon energy; integrated energy, the product of the photon count and photon energy over some particular wavelength range.
O.K., I give up:

Radio astronomers define the brightness (a.k.a., luminance, flux density) of extended radio sources in terms of jansky per steradian (1 Jy/ [4π steradian]) ~ 1,200,000 photons per second/[m2 steradian]).

Optical astronomers define the brightness (a.k.a., luminance, flux density) of extended visible light sources in terms of brils ~ 130,000,000 photons per second/[m2 steradian]). The sun at noon has luminance of about 5 trillion brils (= 500,000 blondels = 50 lamberts).

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:35 pm

alter-ego wrote:Yes, brightness and intensity are synonymous. They both refer to intrinsic source emission characteristics that are independent of distance...
That is definitely NOT the case. As a photometricist, I am concerned with both physical and instrumental intensities. More often than not, intensity as I work with it is independent of the actual source intensity, and concerns only the intensity I record. That intensity does, of course, vary with distance to the source.
, but in the photonics related sciences, I believe the units are more commonly expressed using power or energy.
In most areas of astronomy (and certainly in photometry), intensity is a simple photon count. In spectrometry, intensity is also just a photon count... given a pair of peaks, one of long and the other short wavelength, the intensity stated for each would not typically be adjusted for the different intrinsic energies of the photons recorded in each.

The usual simple metrics are intensity, the photon count; wavelength, the photon energy; integrated energy, the product of the photon count and photon energy over some particular wavelength range.

Please keep in mind here that my earlier response was a simple answer to a simple question. In a highly technical discussion, everybody would agree on terms, definitions, and units from the outset. Doing that was not necessary to my previous answer, however.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by neufer » Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:05 pm

alter-ego wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
In practice, "brightness" is usually casually synonymous with "intensity", are refers to the particle (typically photon) flux.
I've seen, and used, photon flux (photons/second) used for threshold irradiance (photons/[cm2 sec]) dependencies, but generally speaking, I can't remember when I last saw brightness constants described by photon flux.
Chris is probably thinking more along the lines of source brightness (photons/[steradian sec]) than of than of illumination intensity (photons/[cm2 sec]) since he often has to remind us that while telescopes can collect photons over an extended apertures and also make extended sources seem closer (by expanding the steradians) they cannot increase the apparent source brightness (#photons per steradian) of those extended sources (e.g., planets, nebulas, galaxies, etc.).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note, however, that Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1828) says absolutely nothing about photons :!: :
............................................................
BRIGHTNESS, n. briteness. Splendor; luster; glitter.
  • 1. Acuteness, applied to the faculties; sharpness of wit; as the brightness of a man's parts. (Sorry ladies.)
............................................................
BRIGHT, a. brite. [Heb. to shine.]
  • 1. Shining; lucid; luminous; splendid; as a bright sun or star; a bright metal.

    2. Clear; transparent; as liquors.

    3. Evident; clear; manifest to the mind, as light is to the eyes.

    4. Resplendent with charms; as a bright beauty; the brightest fair.

    5. Illuminated with science; sparkling with wit; as the brightest of men.

    6. Illustrious; glorious; as the brightest period of a kingdom.

    7. In popular language, ingenious; possessing an active mind.

    8. Promising good or success; as bright prospects.

    9. Sparkling; animated; as bright eyes.
    • [list]The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)
    Lyn Cassady (George Clooney): Like all Shaman before him, he had traversed the wilderness. Now he was returning to his people, a changed man. He brought with him his confidential report, which he called: "The New Earth Army manual." The New Earth Army is a banner under which the forces of good can gather. The courage and nobility of the Warrior, blended with the spirituality of the Monk. The Jedi Warrior will follow in the footsteps of the great imagineers of the past: Jesus Christ, Lao Tse Tung, Walt Disney. The role of The New Earth Army is to resolve conflict world-wide. Jedis will parachute into war zones, utilizing sparkly eyes technique, carrying symbolic flowers and animals, playing indigenous music and words of peace...

    Bob Wilton (ex-Jedi Warrior Ewan McGregor): What's... What's the sparkly eyes technique?
[/list]

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by alter-ego » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:44 am

Chris Peterson wrote:I disagree. In practice, "brightness" is usually casually synonymous with "intensity", are refers to the particle (typically photon) flux.
Yes, brightness and intensity are synonymous. They both refer to intrinsic source emission characteristics that are independent of distance, but in the photonics related sciences, I believe the units are more commonly expressed using power or energy. Of course, the brightness electromagnetic radiation can be expressed in terms of photon flux, but correlation to SI units, publications, and device senstities, as examples, require conversion to physically meaningful parameters which ultimately reduce to power and energy. For example, in astronomy, cosmic background source brightnesses (radio through gamma ray) are mostly referenced in units of Watts or energy (Joules, eV)/second. Only in special conditions have I seen photon flux describe these brightness constants. It's easier and more practical to utilize these numbers directly than have to make additional conversion calculations to get values that are most wanted most of the time. True, I've seen, and used, photon flux (photons/second) used for threshold irradiance (photons/[cm2 sec]) dependencies, but generally speaking, I can't remember when I last saw brightness constants described by photon flux.

My experience suggests a contrary view to yours, but I admit I'm not in astronomy professionally, and college is the last time I knew any astronomers. Astronomy has been a passion of mine for most of my life while my profession has been in laser R&D and more fundamental research using lasers to explore plasma characteristics. I've mostly seen formal brightness characterization in terms of power or energy, not as a particle flux.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by Chris Peterson » Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:01 am

neufer wrote:You're thinking about particle accelerators; I'm talking about light.
Actually, I'm talking about natural sources of photons, be they visible light or gamma rays. I'm specifically not talking about particle accelerators, since I have no idea what sort of casual language particle physicists use around them. I'm just talking about the lingo of astronomers.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by neufer » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:46 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:
The most common use of brightness involving "invisible light" radiation
refers to energy flux/steradian and NOT to photon flux/steradian.
I disagree. In practice, "brightness" is usually casually synonymous with "intensity", are refers to the particle (typically photon) flux.
You're thinking about particle accelerators; I'm talking about light.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:38 pm

neufer wrote:The most common use of brightness involving "invisible light" radiation
refers to energy flux/steradian and NOT to photon flux/steradian.
I disagree. In practice, "brightness" is usually casually synonymous with "intensity", are refers to the particle (typically photon) flux.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by ta152h0 » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:51 pm

I think nit-picking is good. Shows you give a candela about things. Very much like a Physics University professor and specially those who have been chosen to be their TA.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by neufer » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:49 pm

Beyond wrote:
neufer wrote:
1 nit = 1 candela per square meter
Hmm... So if you're a 'nitpicker', you should end up being a very bright person after a while,
providing you don't lose your nits, in which case you could end up like this :arrow: :eyebrows:
Hmm... You're definitely one of the brightest nit wits here on the Starship Asterisk* :!:

  • Love's Labour's Lost Act 4, Scene 1

COSTARD: By my soul, a swain! a most simple clown!
  • Lord, Lord, how the ladies and I have put him down!
    O' my troth, most sweet jests! most incony vulgar wit!
    When it comes so smoothly off, so obscenely, as it were, so fit.
    Armado o' th' one side,--O, a most dainty man!
    To see him walk before a lady and to bear her fan!
    To see him kiss his hand! and how most sweetly a' will swear!
    And his page o' t' other side, that handful of wit!
    Ah, heavens, it is a most pathetical nit!
    Sola, sola!

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by Beyond » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:38 pm

neufer wrote:1 nit = 1 candela per square meter
Hmm... So if you're a 'nitpicker', you should end up being a very bright person after a while, providing you don't lose your nits, in which case you could end up like this :arrow: :eyebrows:

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by Case » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:05 pm

Image
Opening narration The Incredible Hulk (tv series) wrote:
Dr. David Banner: physician; scientist. Searching for a way to tap into the hidden strengths that all humans have. Then an accidental overdose of
gamma radiation
alters his body chemistry. And now when David Banner grows angry or outraged, a startling metamorphosis occurs. The creature is driven by rage and pursued by an investigative reporter. [Banner:] "Mr. McGee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." The creature is wanted for a murder he didn't commit. David Banner is believed to be dead, and he must let the world think that he is dead, until he can find a way to control the raging spirit that dwells within him.
:mrgreen:

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by neufer » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:27 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
K1NS wrote:
[If] the sun emitted a billion times more energy in gamma rays than in visible light-
-it seems to me that the planet would be fried to a cinder!
Yes, it would! The total energy of the gamma rays was only a fraction of the total energy output of the Sun.

"Brightness" is determined by the photon flux, not the photon energy, and the Sun didn't emit very many gamma ray photons compared with the much less energetic ones is emits all the time.
Brightness = lumens per steradian = energy flux/steradian as observed visually.

The most common use of brightness involving "invisible light" radiation
refers to energy flux/steradian and NOT to photon flux/steradian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candela wrote:
<<Prior to 1948, various standards for luminous intensity were in use in a number of countries. These were typically based on the brightness of the flame from a "standard candle" of defined composition, or the brightness of an incandescent filament of specific design. The term candlepower was originally defined in England by the Metropolitan Gas Act 1860 as the light produced by a pure spermaceti candle weighing one sixth of a pound and burning at a rate of 120 grains per hour. Spermaceti is found in the head of sperm whales, and once was used to make high quality candles. Germany, Austria and Scandinavia used the Hefnerkerze, a unit based on the output of a Hefner lamp.

The candela (symbol: cd) is the SI base unit of luminous intensity; that is, power emitted by a light source in a particular direction, weighted by the luminosity function (a standardized model of the sensitivity of the human eye to different wavelengths, also known as the luminous efficiency function). A common candle emits light with a luminous intensity of roughly one candela:

The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540×1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1⁄683 watt per steradian.

A 25 W compact fluorescent light bulb puts out around 1700 lumens; if that light is radiated equally in all directions, it will have an intensity of around 135 cd. The luminous intensity of light-emitting diodes is measured in millicandela (mcd), or thousandths of a candela. "Ultra-bright" LEDs can reach 15 000 mcd, or higher.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
1 KING HENRY VI Act 1, Scene 1

Messenger: A Talbot! a Talbot! cried out amain
And rush'd into the bowels of the battle.

--------------------------------------------------------

1 lumen = 1 talbot per second = 1⁄683 watt
1 candela = 1 lumen per steradian
1 nit = 1 candela per square meter

Code: Select all

Quantity              Symbol 	SI unit 	Symbol 	Dimension 	Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luminous energy	      Qv	 lumen second 	lm⋅s 	T⋅J [nb 3] 	units are sometimes called talbots
Luminous flux 	       Φv	 lumen (= cd⋅sr) 	lm 	J 	also called luminous power
Luminous intensity 	  Iv 	candela (= lm/sr) 	cd 	J 	an SI base unit, luminous flux per unit solid angle
Luminance 	           Lv 	candela per m^2 	cd/m^2 	J/L^2 	units are sometimes called nits
Illuminance 	         Ev 	lux (= lm/m^2) 	lx 	J/L^2 	used for light incident on a surface
Luminous emittance 	  Mv 	lux (= lm/m^2) 	lx 	J/L^2 	used for light emitted from a surface
Luminous exposure 	   Hv 	lux second 	lx⋅s 	T⋅J/L^2
Luminous energy density ωv 	lumen second per metre^3 	lm⋅s/m^3 	: T⋅J/L^3

Re: atmosphere, pro and con, re: APOD: Solar Flare in Gamma

by Anthony Barreiro » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:12 pm

Thanks Chris. I read that the Curiosity rover is monitoring radiation in flight on its way to Mars and will continue to monitor radiation on the surface, to help the engineers plan how to shield astronauts, should we ever have a human mission to Mars.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by Craig Willford » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:06 pm

In follow up then to Chris Peterson's response about gamma rays hitting Mars' surface, what about the astronauts in the Space Station? The thin metal of their vessel would absorb much of the gamma rays and re-radiate them as lower energy x-rays, but more of them (conservation of energy). They would be absorbed too and re-radiate with even more photons of yet lower energy, etc. It all depends upon the thickness of the metal shield and what the shield is made of. Decades ago I read a small book that studied the practical problems of Solar System exploration and this issue was one of those presented.

Re: atmosphere, pro and con, re: APOD: Solar Flare in Gamma

by Chris Peterson » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:25 pm

Anthony Barreiro wrote:Even though my local atmosphere is full of water vapor, and thus prevents me from seeing the Venus - Jupiter conjunction, I'm still grateful to live on a planet with a magnetic field and dense atmosphere, especially when there are solar x-ray flares and coronal mass ejections! Here's a question for the mathematically inclined: How much more of an effect would these gamma rays have on the surface of Mars, compared to the effect here on Earth's surface?
Mars is about 1.5 times farther from the Sun than the Earth, so the intensity of the radiation will be reduced to about 40% of that here. But the energy of each photon is unchanged, and with hard gamma rays even one photon can do serious biological damage. Since most of the radiation will make it to the ground on Mars (as opposed to virtually none on Earth), this is a very real concern for any future Mars missions. Some type of shielding will be essential to protect people on the Martian surface.

atmosphere, pro and con, re: APOD: Solar Flare in Gamma ray

by Anthony Barreiro » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:13 pm

Even though my local atmosphere is full of water vapor, and thus prevents me from seeing the Venus - Jupiter conjunction, I'm still grateful to live on a planet with a magnetic field and dense atmosphere, especially when there are solar x-ray flares and coronal mass ejections! Here's a question for the mathematically inclined: How much more of an effect would these gamma rays have on the surface of Mars, compared to the effect here on Earth's surface?

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by neufer » Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:01 pm

bystander wrote:
Psnarf wrote:
What is the object in the center of the image above the galactic plane? It appears brighter on the 7th than on the 6th.
I think it's the quasar PKS 1510-089

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST ... scope.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/135/6/2212/fulltext/aj_135_6_2212.text.html wrote:
<<The GeV γ-ray-loud blazar PKS 1510-089 is one of the best-monitored active galactic nuclei (AGNs). The most interesting feature of the PKS 1510-089 optical light curve is a 336 ± 14 d (0.92 yr) quasi-periodic flux minimum (Xie et al. 2002). A hypothesis has been proposed, suggesting that there is a supermassive binary black hole (SMBBH) system in the center of the source and the deep flux minimum is caused by the eclipse of the system (Xie et al. 2002). This minimum re-occurred almost exactly as we predicted according to this binary star theory, resulting in a quasi-periodic deep flux minimum, i.e. the main minimum; the primary black hole could also eclipse a secondary black hole, leading to one quasi-periodic deep flux minimum, i.e., the secondary minimum. In a word, the quasi-periodic deep flux minimum suggests that the orbital periodicity of the SMBBH system is ~672 ± 28 days.>>

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by bystander » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:22 pm

Psnarf wrote:What is the object in the center of the image above the galactic plane? It appears brighter on the 7th than on the 6th.
I think it's the quasar PKS 1510-089

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST ... scope.html

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by hackerspiff » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:18 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
And if the former is correct--that the sun emitted a billion times more energy in gamma rays than in visible light--it seems to me that the planet would be fried to a cinder!
Yes, it would! The total energy of the gamma rays was only a fraction of the total energy output of the Sun. "Brightness" is determined by the photon flux, not the photon energy, and the Sun didn't emit very many gamma ray photons compared with the much less energetic ones is emits all the time.
Yes, as a whole and on average, the sun emits very little energy in the gamma range. Gamma photons are MUCH more energetic than visible photons, but the sun rarely spits them out. This is because the gamma photons generated in the core end up getting absorbed and reduced to multiple "smaller" photons repeatedly before they ever leak out to the surface layers. The surface of the sun is relatively cool and generally does not emit gamma photons.

You can go to google images and search for "solar energy spectrum" to see how much energy the sun emits in the various frequency ranges. Solar energy peaks in the visible. The vast majority of solar light is emitted in the visible and infrared range. Energy emission falls off sharply in the UV range and that well below the super energetic gamma photon range.

Here's a link to a suitable image that I scraped from a google images search:

Image

It's remarkable, and very surprising to me that solar flares are so bright in the gamma range. Is that typically the case or are gamma rich flares relatively special?

-s

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by Psnarf » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:58 pm

What is the object in the center of the image above the galactic plane? It appears brighter on the 7th than on the 6th.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by Chris Peterson » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:29 pm

K1NS wrote:Are you saying that during the CME the sun emitted 1 billion times more energy in gamma rays than in visible light? Or are you saying that an individual gamma ray photon is a billion times more energetic than a visible light photon?
The energy of a visible light photon is around 2 eV. The energy of gamma ray photons ranges from about 1e6 eV to 1e10 eV. So if this event produced hard gamma rays, it is reasonable to assume the photons were about a billion times more energetic than the visible light photons produced by the Sun.
And if the former is correct--that the sun emitted a billion times more energy in gamma rays than in visible light--it seems to me that the planet would be fried to a cinder!
Yes, it would! The total energy of the gamma rays was only a fraction of the total energy output of the Sun. "Brightness" is determined by the photon flux, not the photon energy, and the Sun didn't emit very many gamma ray photons compared with the much less energetic ones is emits all the time.

Re: APOD: Solar Flare in the Gamma ray Sky (2012 Mar 15)

by neufer » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 pm

K1NS wrote:
Are you saying that during the CME the sun emitted 1 billion times more energy in gamma rays than in visible light? Or are you saying that an individual gamma ray photon is a billion times more energetic than a visible light photon?

Because I don't think the latter statement is correct. I believe gamma rays are more in the order of 10^15 more energetic than visible light.

And if the former is correct--that the sun emitted a billion times more energy in gamma rays than in visible light--it seems to me that the planet would be fried to a cinder!

Did I misunderstand?
I believe gamma rays are more in the order of 1015 more energetic than radio waves:

Top