Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 3 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS July, 2013
LETTERS TO PROGRESS IN PHYSICS
The Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Model of the Sun and the Solar Atmosphere VII.
Further Insights into the Chromosphere and Corona
Pierre-Marie Robitaille
Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, 395 W. 12th Ave, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
robitaille.1@osu.edu
In the liquid metallic hydrogen model of the Sun, the chromosphere is responsible for
the capture of atomic hydrogen in the solar atmosphere and its eventual re-entry onto
the photospheric surface (P.M. Robitaille. The Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Model of the
Sun and the Solar Atmosphere IV. On the Nature of the Chromosphere. Prog. Phys.,
2013, v. 3, L15–L21). As for the corona, it represents a diffuse region containing both
gaseous plasma and condensed matter with elevated electron affinity (P.M. Robitaille.
The Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Model of the Sun and the Solar Atmosphere V. On the
Nature of the Corona. Prog. Phys., 2013, v.3, L22–L25). Metallic hydrogen in the
corona is thought to enable the continual harvest of electrons from the outer reaches
of the Sun, thereby preserving the neutrality of the solar body. The rigid rotation of
the corona is offered as the thirty-third line of evidence that the Sun is comprised of
condensed matter. Within the context of the gaseous models of the Sun, a 100 km thick
transition zone has been hypothesized to exist wherein temperatures increase dramati-
cally from 104–106K. Such extreme transitional temperatures are not reasonable given
the trivial physical scale of the proposed transition zone, a region adopted to account
for the ultra-violet emission lines of ions such as CIV, O IV, and Si IV. In this work, it
will be argued that the transitionzone does not exist. Rather, the intermediate ionization
states observed in the solar atmosphere should be viewed as the result of the simulta-
neous transfer of protons and electrons onto condensed hydrogen structures, CHS. Line
emissions from ions such as C IV, OIV, and Si IV are likelyto be the result of condensa-
tion reactions, manifesting the involvement of species such as CH4, SiH4, H3O+in the
synthesis of CHS in the chromosphere. In addition, given the presence of a true solar
surface at the level of the photosphere in the liquid metallic hydrogen model, it follows
that the great physical extent of the chromosphere is supported by gas pressure, much
like the atmosphere of the Earth. This constitutes the thirty-fourth line of evidence that
the Sun is comprised of condensed matter.
In order to explain the occurrence of the dark lines
in the solar spectrum, we must assume that the solar
atmosphere incloses a luminous nucleus, producing
a continuous spectrum, the brightness of which ex-
ceeds a certain limit. The most probable supposi-
tion which can be made respecting the Sun’s consti-
tution is, that it consists of a solid or liquid nucleus,
heated to a temperature of the brightest whiteness,
surrounded by an atmosphere of somewhat lower
temperature.
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff, 1862 [1]
1 Introduction
If our current understanding of the solar atmosphere appears
strained, it is because the gaseous models of the Sun offer
no means, other than elevated temperatures, to account for
the presence of highly ionized ions in the corona [2]. As
a consequence, temperature values ranging from 107–1011 K
have been inferred to exist in the solar atmosphere[3, p. 172].
Such extreme temperatures should have suggested long ago
that the methods utilized to infer coronal temperatures could
not be valid, given that the core of the Sun is believed to sus-
tain temperatures of only ∼1.6×107K [4, p. 9]. The claim that
temperatures in localized regions of the corona can be 1 000
times higher than within the solar core, challenges reason.
Furthermore, by accepting elevated coronal temperatures,
proponents of the gaseous models must discount the contin-
uous emission of the K-corona as illusionary and produced
by the photosphere (see [2] for a completed discussion). The
continuous spectrum of the K-corona, devoid of Fraunhofer
lines, does closely replicate the emission of the photosphere
itself, but the spectrum reddens with elevation [2]. If this
spectrum was considered as generated by the corona, then the
apparent temperature of the outer solar atmosphere would be
no higher than that observed on the surface of the Sun.∗
∗Note that the apparent temperature of the photosphere (∼6 000 K), does
not manifest the true energy content of this region. Rather, the author has
claimed that it reflects that amount of energy which is contained within the
L30 Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Further Insights into the Chromosphere and Corona
July, 2013 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Volume 3
Should it be true that coronal apparent temperatures are
no greater than photospheric values, then it is impossible,
within the context of a gaseous Sun, to account for the pres-
ence of highly ionized ions (e.g. CaXVII and FeXXIV [6,
p.19]) in the corona. Devoid of condensed matter, the only
possible means of generating such ions must rest on temper-
ature. As a result, despite the realization that the spectrum
of the K-corona implies that the corona is self-luminous and
displays an apparent temperature no higher than that of the
photosphere [2], advocates of the gaseous models of the Sun
have no choice but to postulate that coronal apparent temper-
atures far exceed those of the solar surface.
Two problems come to the forefront relative to using ele-
vated temperatures to explain the presence of highly ionized
species within the corona. First, extreme temperatures (107–
1011 K [3, p. 172]) must be assumed. Second, the continuous
spectrum of the K-corona must be discounted as a byproduct
of photospheric light which has been scattered in the solar
atmosphere by relativistic electrons (see [2] for a complete
discussion).
Moreover, in order to account for the emission lines from
ions such as CIV, O IV, and Si IV, gaseous models must in-
corporate an extremely thin transition zone, whereby appar-
ent temperatures rapidly rise from chromospheric to coronal
values over the span of 100km or less, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1: Schematic representation of the temperature stratification in
the solar atmosphere displaying the pronounced increase in the tran-
sition zone located at an elevation of ∼2000 km (dashed line). This
figure is based on a discussion presented by Phillips, Feldman, and
Landi [6] and is an adaptation of their Fig. 1.1.
2 Temperature Stratification
In his chapter on the chromosphere and corona, P. Ulmschnei-
der states, “While the corona extends to many solar radii the
vibrational degrees of freedom found in the photospheric lattice [5].
chromosphere is a layer of only 2 or 3 thousand km thick-
ness which becomes visible near the start and end of a total
eclipse. The chromosphere got its name from the prominent
red emission of the Hαline of neutral hydrogen at 6563Å.
The chromosphere is a layer where the temperature rises from
photospheric values of between 4 000 and 6 000 K to about
20 000 K and where neutral hydrogen is still present. In the
region of a few 100 km thickness between the chromosphere
and corona, called transition layer, hydrogen becomes ion-
ized and the temperature increases from 20 000 to millions
of K” [7, p. 232–233].
A. Bhatnagar outlines that “Between the upper layer of
the chromosphere and corona (although the demarcation is
not sharp) lies the ‘transition layer’, where the temperature
rises very steeply, from about 25 000 to 500 000 K in height
difference of just 1 000 km” expanding the extent of the tran-
sition region by a factor of 10 [8, p.32]. Conversely, Phillips,
Felman, and Landi emphasize “Model calculations indeed
suggest that the transition zone is extremely thin, less than
100 km” [6, p. 220].
Such dimensions on the Sun are essentially beyond the
limit of reliable detection with current instrumentation. Thus,
it is interesting to highlight that “A growing corpus of obser-
vations, particularly those starting with the Skylab mission,
showed that the transition zone has a much larger extent than
was indicated in the earlier models, leading to a revision of
our ideas of its nature...” [6, p. 210].
Harold Zirin, in candid fashion, reminds his readers that
anyone with a ruler can establish that the chromosphere can
attain elevations of at least 5 000km from Hαemissions [9].
He reports that, when viewed in Hα, macrospicules can be
seen to extend to 20 000 km [9]. How can neutral hydrogen
be found at these heights, if the corona already reaches tem-
peratures of 106K just after the transition zone? If the corona
was at millions of degrees, neutral hydrogen should not be
found at 20 000 km, a region well within the coronal domain.
The situation is aggravated by the realization that HLym
lines have been known to exist in the corona beyond 1.5R⊙
for more than fourty years [10]. This region extends beyond
the entire vertical range displayed in Fig. 1. Furthermore,
Dermendjiev et al. report, from direct photographic visual-
ization in Hα, that faint lines from neutral hydrogen can be
observed far into the corona, causing the authors to postulate
how the corona could be ‘cooled’ to allow for the presence of
such a line [11]. Yet, models of the solar atmosphere predict
that neutral hydrogen should be absent at elevations beyond
2000 km, where temperatures approaching 10 000K already
result in the complete ionization of this element (see e.g. Ta-
ble 4.6 in [12, p. 146–147]).
At the same time, highly ionized Fe lines (FeX–FeXIV)
have been used to image the solar corona in great detail and
indicate that these species can be found at elevations well in-
ferior to the known locations of neutral hydrogen emission
lines [13–16]. Clearly, it is not possible for emission lines
Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Further Insights into the Chromosphere and Corona L31
Volume 3 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS July, 2013
which, according to the gaseous models of the Sun, require
millions of degrees for formation (FeX–FeXIV) to be juxta-
posed with Hαlines which are unable to withstand such tem-
peratures. The only solution rests in recognizing that the for-
mation of highly ionized emission lines in the corona stems
not from extreme temperatures, but from electron affinity [2].
It should not be inferred that the outer atmosphere of the Sun
maintains a temperature stratification which increases with
increased distance away from the solar body.
3 On The Validity of Temperature Measurements
In order to support the gaseous models, coronal temperatures
have been estimated using four key methods [17, p. 178–185]:
1) doppler broadening of emission lines, 2) density gradients
in the corona, 3) radio brightness, and 4) ionization equi-
librium. All of these methods provide slightly differing an-
swers [3, p.165–166], but they share a common overarching
result: coronal temperatures are thought to be extremely high.
In the end, careful analysis reveals that each of these methods
is problematic.
3.1 Doppler Broadening of Emission Lines
Doppler broadening of emission lines (e.g. [6, p. 41–43], [17,
p.178–180], [18, p.90–94]) has been used extensively to set
coronal temperatures. The broadening of an emission line,
in this case, is assumed to be thermal in nature. The prob-
lems of assigning temperatures with such methods are numer-
ous. Zirin [17, p. 178-180] outlines how separate elements
can easily produce differing line widths and associated tem-
peratures. Nonetheless, he concludes that valid coronal tem-
peratures can be derived from such methods.
More than fifty years ago, Jefferies and Orrall addressed
the problem of obtaining prominence temperatures by em-
ploying spectral line widths stating, “If the broadening is sup-
posed due to thermal motions of the emitting atoms, then, to
the extent that the profiles are Gaussian, the hydrogen line
widths imply temperatures of over a hundred thousand de-
grees and the metals of over five million degrees” [19]. How-
ever, it is not possible to have neutral hydrogen present at a
temperature of over a hundred thousand degrees, given that
the element has been modeled as fully ionized at ∼10 000 K
(see e.g. Table 4.6 in [12, p. 146–147]).
Jefferies and Orrall continue, “To avoid the necessity of
considering such unacceptably high and discordant temper-
atures, the hypothesis is frequently made that the line broad-
ening is due both to thermal motions of atoms and to mass
motions of small prominence elements having a Maxwellian
distribution of velocities. One may, on this basis, compare the
widths of lines from two ions of very different atomic weights
to find a hypothetical “temperature,” THand “mean veloc-
ity,” ξH. If the hypothesis is wrong, THand ξHwill, in gen-
eral, bear no obvious relationship to the kinetic temperature
or mean random-velocity fields which they are intended to de-
scribe. While the truth of the hypothesis has come more and
more to be taken for granted, it seems to us that the evidence
in its favor is rather slight and certainly insufficient to allow
its uncritical acceptance. We have already ... suggested that
the hypothesis may be invalid for analyzing widths of hydro-
gen and helium lines in quiescent prominences; in this paper
we present evidence for its possible failure in active flare-type
events” [19].
Though the discussion by Jefferies and Orrall cannot be
cited in its entirety, the authors go on to make the point that
the use of line width analysis could, in fact, lead to negative
temperatures. Furthermore, they clearly discount the exis-
tence of temperatures in the 500 000–1 000000 K range [19].
Despite Jefferies and Orrall [19], today it is commonplace
to infer temperatures from line widths and ascribe any exces-
sive line shape distortion to velocity. That is, if the line shape
is distorted, either in the low (red) or high (blue) frequency
range, net velocities will be added (e.g. see Eq. 2.30 in [6])
which can help account for the distortion. Examples can be
found throughout the astrophysical literature (e.g. [20]).
The situation is complicated by the realization that, in
addition to thermal effects, the line widths of atoms can be
altered by pressure, Stark, and electron broadening mecha-
nisms [21, p. 202-233]. However, the derivation of tempera-
tures from line widths in the solar atmosphere is much more
precarious than these considerations or the discussions from
Jefferies and Orrall [19] might suggest.
Collisional line broadening with condensed matter could
greatly impact the line widths under observation. Such line
broadening will be affected by the abundances of condensed
material and gaseous atoms in the corona and, most impor-
tantly, by the extent of the interaction between any given ele-
ment and such objects. Furthermore, tight coupling between
gaseous atoms and condensed matter could dramatically alter
line shapes outside the effects of velocity. In light of the evi-
dence for the presence of condensed matter in the corona [2],
all temperature measurements from line widths should be re-
considered.
3.2 Density Gradients
Density gradient approaches rely on the use of the white-
light continuous spectrum observed in the corona [17, p. 178–
180] or chromosphere [22, p. 170–228]. Modern theory as-
sumes that this spectrum has been produced by scattering
photospheric light through the action of relativistic electrons,
thereby enabling a temperature for the corona to be inferred
[17, p. 111–121]. The difficulty with such an approach lies
in the assumption that the corona is not self-luminous and
that its spectrum arises from photospheric light which must
be scattered. However, if the corona is indeed self-luminous
and cool [2], as implied by the presence of neutral hydrogen
even up to 1.5R⊙[10], then this entire line of reasoning must
be re-evaluated.
L32 Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Further Insights into the Chromosphere and Corona
July, 2013 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Volume 3
3.3 Radio Measurements
Of the four methods for determining coronal temperatures,
the final two are perhaps the weakest [17, p. 178–180]. In
the end, radio measurements [18, p.242–247] should be con-
sidered with great caution, even though Professor Zirin has
stated that they are “the most dependable data we have” [9].
Radio data are highly dependent on the input variables (i.e.
electron and ion density) which must be modeled in order to
obtain brightness temperatures (e.g. see Table I in [9], [12,
p.133–141], and [23]). All determinations of solar bright-
ness temperatures are inherently linked to a priori knowledge
of electron densities [22, p. 265] which can only be estimated
using modeling, “. .. it is evident that the quantities Ne(h)
and Te(h) are too inextricably mixed to be seperately deriv-
able from radio observations alone” [12, p. 137]. Since radio
models cannot disentangle electron density from brightness
temperatures, they are often guided by results obtained using
optical density gradient methods [22, p. 266]. Direct mea-
surements of electron density remain unavailable and theo-
retical values may not be accurate.
Radio measurements of brightness temperatures are also
highly dependent on wavelength and scattering processes (see
e.g. [12, p. 133–141], [22, p.261–271], and [23]). Widely
conflicting data can be obtained (e.g. temperatures of only
300000 at 1.6R⊙[23]). In fact, radio observations appear to
be the source of the most extreme temperature values 108–
1010 K [17, p. 128], while scientists remain confronted with
addressing values as low as 104K obtained with such methods
(see e.g. [12, p. 133–141] and [23]). As a result, it would be
imprudent to place an emphasis on coronal or chromospheric
temperatures obtained from radio measurements.
3.4 Ionization Equilibrium
It has already been established that ionization calculations re-
sult in models of the solar atmosphere which greatly underes-
timates the presence of neutral hydrogen in the corona. Con-
sequently, it is evident that temperatures derived from ioniza-
tion equilibrium must be regarded with caution.
As a rule, coronal temperatures derived from ionization
equilibrium tend to be too low to accomodate the gaseous
models of the Sun [17, p. 181]: “We must admit, however,
that the ionization theory not only gives the wrong temper-
ature, but fails to account for the many stages of ionization
observed in the corona. It is possible that temperature vari-
ations explain that fact; we can only wait for better observa-
tions of the line profiles of intermediate ions to confirm the
existence of temperature differences. It is more likely that
there is something erroneous in our basic concept of how
ionization takes place; but so far, we do not know what this
is” [17, p. 183]. Immediately after writing these lines, Pro-
fessor Zirin offers what he believes to be the answer: recom-
bination, a process whereby a single electron is captured by
an ion leaving it in double excited state, could be much more
important in the corona, resulting in a calculated temperature
near 2 MK [17, p.184].
In 1966, Zirin had hoped that more UV data would soon
be available to lift the cloud of mystery which surrounded
ionization equilibrium calculations [17, p.181–185]. In fact,
the new data only added further confusion. Thirty years later,
he would write, “One would think that observations of the
solar ultraviolet would solve many of the problems. How-
ever, the intensity of these lines was very much lower than ex-
pected and to this day images with adequate resolution have
not been obtained. While the UV mimics the radio images,
brightening in the network, it is impossible to tell if it comes
from the spicules or the magnetic regions at their base. The
lines show a deep minimum in intermediate ionization stages
of C, N, and O ... and the brightness temperature in the ex-
treme ultraviolet scarcely exceeds 4 000 degrees. This gives a
remarkable contradiction. Lines are observed of high ioniza-
tion stages such as carbon 4, neon 5, oxygen 5, which are only
formed at temperatures of 100 000 degrees or more but with
brightness temperatures 20 times less” [9]. Nearly forty years
after Professor Zirin produced his classic text [17], coronal
temperatures from ionization equilibrium are still viewed as
too low [3, p. 165–166].
The proper discussion of ionization equilibrium is best
reserved for a full treatment. However, suffice to state that
methods which depend on the ionization equations are com-
plex (see [24] for a partial review), involving knowledge of
whether or not the region of interest can be considered to be
in local thermal equilibrium (LTE). E.A. Milne highlighted
that the exterior regions of the Sun cannot be considered to
adhere to LTE conditions [25, p. 81–83]. Even chromospheric
ionization processes depend on non-equilibrium treatments
[18, p. 194–198], even if LTE methods continue to be used
(see [26] for a brief discussion). Unfortunately, the fluxes
associated with such processes remain largely unknown and
numerous assumptions will be involved in extracting temper-
atures with such methods.
In the end, none of the methods utilized to extract coronal
temperatures are reliable. Rather, any perceived agreement
between approaches is likely to be the result of the desire to
set a reasonable temperature for the corona. Each method
contains enough latitude to permit conformity by altering the
value of those input parameters which can only be obtained
from theory.
4 The Corona Revisited
Professor Harold Zirin had suspected that “... there is some-
thing erroneous in our basic concept of how ionization takes
place” [17, p. 183]. However, given the belief that the Sun
was a gas, no other plausible mechanism of formation could
be advanced. Today, the situation has changed dramatically,
as a great deal of evidence is building that the Sun is con-
densed matter (see [2,24,27–30] and references therein).
Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Further Insights into the Chromosphere and Corona L33
Volume 3 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS July, 2013
For instance, it is now understood that the corona pos-
sesses “.. . a radially rigid rotation of 27.5 days synodic pe-
riod from 2.5 R⊙to >15R⊙”[3, p. 116]. This finding by Lewis
et al. [31] provides the thirty-third line of evidence that the
Sun is comprised of condensed matter. The rigid rotation of
the corona is highly suggestive that it possesses condensed
matter whose associated magnetic field lines are anchored at
the level of the photosphere. Such a structure, if endowed
with a elevated electron affinity [2], would provide an elegant
network for channeling electrons from the outer reaches of
the solar atmosphere onto the photospheric surface. Thus, the
corona should be viewed as being in direct contact with the
photosphere.
In order to understand ionization states it is important
to recognize that condensed matter controls the behavior of
the Sun. As previously stated [2], within the solar atmo-
sphere, atoms and ions are being stripped of their electrons
by metallic hydrogen present in the corona. Such a process
can help ensure that the solar body remains electrically neu-
tral, as electrons are continually conducted back onto the so-
lar surface from the far reaches of the corona. It is known that
the electrical conductivity of the corona is extremely high [3,
p. 174]. This is in accord with a condensed solar state, which
extends into the corona, even if gases are also present in this
region.
5 The Chromosphere Revisited
The author has already addressed the chromosphere in detail,
as a region of hydrogen re-condensation, superimposed on the
corona in the lower portion of the solar atmosphere [28, 29].
He has suggested, that unlike the corona, the chromosphere
is not composed of hydrogen in the metallic state. Rather,
in the chromosphere, atomic and ionic hydrogen is interact-
ing with other atoms to form hydrides [28,29] which can be
used to build condensed hydrogen structures (CHS). CHS can
then bring the harvested hydrogen back onto the solar surface,
perhaps using intergrannular lanes [28]. As such, the chro-
mosphere overlaps with the corona. The two regions contain
different types of material: metallic in the corona [2] and non-
metallic in the chromosphere [28, 29]. Chromospheric mate-
rial will regain metallic properties once it enters the solar in-
terior, where increased pressures can be used to re-synthesize
metallic hydrogen [30].
The tremendous height, 5 000 to 10 000km, of the chro-
mosphere has posed a longstanding problem for the gaseous
models of the Sun [3, p, 140-142]. Early chromospheric mod-
els inferred a density scale height of only 150 km [3, p. 140-
142]. McCrea [32] attempted to build additional scale height
by suggesting that turbulent motions might provide additional
support for the chromosphere [3, p.140-142]. Modern mod-
els have extended the theoretical treatment of the scale height
problem (see [26] for a brief discussion). But, still today, it
remains difficult for the gaseous models of the Sun to account
for the presence and extent of the chromosphere. Zirin high-
lights, “It was clear that the apparent scale height of 1 000 km
far exceeded that in hydrostatic equilibrium. In modern times
a convenient solution has been found – denial ... We cannot
explain the great height or the erroneous models .. . While
models place this at 2 000 km, the data say 5 000” [9]. If it
is impossible for the gaseous models to properly account for
the great height of the chromosphere, the cause is simple to
understand. It is not possible for a gas to support itself. But
relative to structural support, gas pressure has been utilized in
modern solar theory to explain why a gaseous Sun does not
collapse on itself. However, such arguments have been dis-
counted, precisely because a gaseous object cannot possess
true surfaces [33]. Without a support mechanism, a gaseous
Sun cannot exist [33].
Conversely, within the context of a condensed solar body
[33], the Sun does not collapse upon itself because liquids
and solids are essentially incompressible. Furthermore, un-
like the case with the gaseous Sun, the chromosphere can
now be easily supported using gas pressure. This same mech-
anism is responsible for the support of the Earth’s atmosphere
(see [33] for a larger discussion). When a gaseous atom en-
counters a real surface, it reverses its course creating a net
upward force. Such a mechanism provides a genuine means
of supporting the chromosphere and thereby constitutes the
thirty-fourth line of evidence that the Sun is condensed matter
(see [2, 24,27–30,33] and references therein for the others).
6 The Transition Zone Revisited
Within the gaseous models of the Sun, a transition zone has
been conceived in order to account for the existence of ions
with intermediate levels of ionization. Species such as CIV,
O IV, and Si IV come to mind in this regard. Since the in-
tensity of all transition zone lines are low, modern models
simply create an extremely narrow region of the solar atmo-
sphere to account for this lack of signal, as illustrated in Fig.
1. Nonetheless, C IV, O IV, and Si IV remain interesting, as
they could be created by stripping hydrides such as CH4,
H3O+, and SiH4of their hydrogen [28]. The vibrational sig-
natures of these molecules (the C-H, O-H, and Si-H stretches)
have been observed on the Sun [34]. The author has already
suggested that the chromosphere is a region of hydrogen re-
condensation where hydrides play an important role [28,29].
It remains reasonable to conclude that the transition zone does
not exist. Rather, the ions which are currently associated with
this region of the solar atmosphere are simply involved in
the transfer of multiple protons and electrons onto the con-
densed hydrogen structures, CHS, which constitute the chro-
mosphere. This region of the solar atmosphere therefore plays
a vital role in preserving the mass of the Sun and ensuring that
metallic hydrogen can eventually be re-synthesized within its
interior.
L34 Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Further Insights into the Chromosphere and Corona
July, 2013 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Volume 3
7 Conclusion
Through a recent series of publications (most notably [2, 28,
29]), the author has endeavored to alter our understanding
of the solar atmosphere. Rather than a chaotic assembly of
gaseous plasma, the chromosphere and corona become the
site of both structure and function in the Sun. Such struc-
ture is dismissed by the gaseous models, whose advocates
prefer to speak of visualizing “force balance” [26], rather
than real objects. At the same time, the history observa-
tional solar physics is replete with scientists, like Father An-
gelo Secchi, who believed that they were seeing real struc-
tures on the Sun [35, 36]. In a parallel line of reasoning, the
gaseous models provide no true function, either for the chro-
mosphere or the corona. Conversely, in the liquid metallic
model, the corona harnesses electrons [2], the chromosphere
condenses hydrogen atoms [28, 29]. In the corona, highly
ionized ions are produced when their parent atoms, or ions,
come into contact with metallic hydrogen which possesses
an elevated electron affinity. They are thereby stripped of
their electrons [2]. The metallic hydrogen which is present
in the corona has been projected into the solar atmosphere
from its site of formation below the surface of the Sun [2].
Since condensed matter appears likely to exist in the corona,
it is not tremendously hot, but maintains an apparent tem-
perature which decreases with elevation from the solar body.
In the chromosphere, where non-metallic condensed hydro-
gen structures are formed, the ionization states revealled from
emission lines are linked to key hydride based chemical pro-
cesses [28, 29]. The transition zone does not exist. It serves
a purpose only in the context of the gaseous solar models.
Much has been advanced recently relative to the condensed
nature of the Sun [2, 24,27–30, 33] and much remains to be
considered. In the end, given the ever mounting evidence
for condensed matter (see [2, 24, 27–30, 33] and references
therein), eventually the elegance and simplicity of these mod-
els will surely come to be recognized.
Acknowledgment
Luc Robitaille is acknowledged for figure preparation.
Dedication
This work is dedicated to the memory of Captain Corona [37],
Professor Harold Zirin, whose books [17,18] and articles (e.g.
[9]) were both illuminating in their discourse and refreshing
in their candor.
Submitted on: May 30, 2013 /Accepted on: May 30, 2013
First published online on: May 31, 2013
References
1. KirchhoffG. The physical constitution of the Sun. In: Researches on
the Solar Spectrum and the Spectra of the Chemical Elements. Trans-
lated by H.E. Roscoe, Macmillan and Co., Cambridge, 1862, p. 23.
2. Robitaille P.M. The Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Model of the Sun and
the Solar Atmosphere V. On the nature of the corona. Progr. Phys.,
2013, v. 3, L22-L25.
3. Bhatnagar A. and Livingston W. Fundamentals of Solar Astronomy
(World Scientific Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics - Vol. 6),
World Scientific, New Jersey, 2005.
4. Kippenhahn R. and Weigert A. Stellar structure and evolution.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
5. Robitaille P.M. On the temperature of the photosphere: Energy partition
in the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 89–92.
6. Phillips K.J.H., Feldman U. and Landi E. Ultraviolet and X-ray Spec-
troscopy of the Solar Atmosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 2008.
7. Ulmschneider P. The physics of the chromospheres and coronae. In:
Lectures on Solar Physics (H.M. Antia, A. Bhatnagar and R. Ulm-
schneider, Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 232–280.
8. Bhatnagar A. Instrumentation and observational techniques in solar as-
tronomy. In: Lectures on Solar Physics (H.M. Antia, A. Bhatnagar and
R. Ulmschneider, Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 27–79.
9. Zirin H. The mystery of the chromosphere. Solar Phys., 1996, v.169,
313–326.
10. Gabriel A.H., Garton W.R.S., Goldberg L., Jones T.J.L., Jordan C.,
Morgan F.J., Nicholls R.W., Parkinson W.J., Paxton H.J.B., Reeves
E.M., Shenton C.B., Speer R.J. and Wilson R. Rocket observations of
the ultraviolet solar spectrum during the total eclipse of 1970March 7.
Astrophys. J., 1971, v.169, 595–614.
11. Dermendjiev V.N, Mouradian Z., Duchlev P. and Leroy J.L. Faint H
alpha emission in the solar corona: Morphological, situational and hy-
dromagnetic analysis. Solar Phys., 1994, v. 149, no. 2, 267–277.
12. Bray R.J. and Loughhead R.E. The Solar Chromosphere (The Interna-
tional Astrophysics Series), Chapman and Hall, London, U.K., 1974.
13. Wood B.E., Karovska M., Cook J.W., Brueckner G.E., Howard R.A.,
Korendyke C.M. and Socker D.G. Search for brightness variations in
FeXIV coronagraph observations of the quiescent solar corona. Astro-
phys. J., 1998, v. 505, 432–442.
14. Habbal S.R., Druckm¨uller M., Morgan H., Daw A., Johnson J., Ding
A., Arndt M., Esser R., Ru˘sin V. and Scholl I. Mapping the distribution
of electron temperature and Fe charge states in the corona with total
solar eclipse observations. Astrophys. J., 2010, v.708, 1650–1662.
15. Habbal S.R., Druckm¨uller M., Morgan H., Scholl I., Ru˘sin V., Daw
A., Johnson J. and Arndt M. Total solar eclipse observations of hot
prominence shrouds. Astrophys. J., 2010, v.719, 1362–1369.
16. Habbal S.R., Morgan H. and Druckm¨uller M. A new view of coro-
nal structures: Implications for the source and acceleration of the solar
wind – First Asia-Pacific Solar Physics Meeting. ASI Conf. Ser., 2011,
v. 2, 259–269.
17. Zirin H. The Solar Atmosphere. Blaisdell Publishing Company,
Waltham, M.A., 1966.
18. Zirin H. Astrophysics of the Sun. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, U.K., 1988.
19. Jefferies J.T and Orrall F.Q. On the interpretation of prominence spec-
tra. II. The line and continuous spectrum of the spray-type limb event
of March 7, 1959. Astrophys. J., 1961, v. 133, 946–962.
20. Fleck B., Brekke P., Haugan S., Sanchez Duarter L., Domingo V.,
Gurman J.B. and Poland A.I. Four years of SOHO discoveries –
Some highlights. ESA Bulletin 102, May 2000. (Available online
sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/publications/ESA Bull102.pdf).
21. Gray D.F. The observation and analysis of stellar photospheres (Cam-
bridge Astrophysics Series), 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, U.K., 1995.
22. Thomas R.N. and Athay R.G. Physics of the Solar Chromosphere. In-
terscience Publishers, New York, N.Y., 1961.
Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Further Insights into the Chromosphere and Corona L35
Volume 3 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS July, 2013
23. Thejappa G. and MacDowall R.J. Effects of scattering on radio emis-
sion from the quiet Sun at low frequencies. Astrophys. J, 2008, v. 676,
no. 2, 1338–1345.
24. Robitaille P.M. Liquid metallic hydrogen II. A critical assessment of
current and primordial helium levels in the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2013,
v. 2, 35–47.
25. Milne E.A. Thermodynamics of the stars. Handbuch der Astrophysik,
1930, v.3, Part1, 65–255 (also in Menzel D.H. Selected Papers on the
Transfer of Radiation: 6 papers by Arthur Schuster, K. Schwarzschild,
A.S. Eddington, S. Rosseland, E.A. Milne. Dover Publications, Inc.,
New York, 1966, 77–269).
26. Judge P. Observations of the solar chromosphere (Solar MHD Theory
and Observations: A High Spatial Resolution Perspective). ASP Conf.
Series, 2006, v.354, 259–275.
27. Robitaille P.M. The liquid metallic hydrogen model of the Sun and
the solar atmosphere III. Importance of continuous emission spectra
in flares, coronal mass ejections, prominences, and other coronal struc-
tures. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 3, L11–L14.
28. Robitaille P.M. The liquid metallic hydrogen model of the Sun and the
solar atmosphere IV. On the nature of the chromosphere. Progr. Phys.,
2013, v. 3, L15–L21.
29. Robitaille P.M. The liquid metallic hydrogen model of the Sun and the
solar atmosphere VI. Helium in the chromosphere. Progr. Phys., 2013,
v. 3, L26–L28.
30. Robitaille P.M. Liquid metallic hydrogen: A building block for a liquid
Sun. Progr. Phys., 2011, v.3, 60–74.
31. Lewis D.J., Simnett G.M., Brueckner G.E., Howard R.A., Lamy P.L.
and Schwenn R. LASCO observations of the coronal rotation. Solar
Phys., 1999, v. 184, no. 2, 297–315.
32. McCrea W.H. The hydrogen chromosphere. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.
Soc., 1929, v. 29, 483–497.
33. Robitaille J.C. and Robitaille P.M. Liquid Metallic Hydrogen III. Inter-
calation and Lattice Exclusion Versus Gravitational Settling and Their
Consequences Relative to Internal Structure, Surface Activity, and So-
lar Winds in the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, 87-97.
34. Sinha K. Molecules in the Sun. Proc. Astron. Soc. Australia, 1991, v. 9,
32–36.
35. Robitaille P.M. A thermodynamic history of the solar constitution – I:
The journey to a gaseous Sun. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 3–25.
36. Robitaille P.M. A thermodynamic history of the solar constitution - II:
The theory of agaseous Sun and Jeans’ failed liquid alternative. Progr.
Phys., 2011, v. 3, 41–59.
37. Caltech News 1/12/2012, Harold Zirin, 82
(http://www.caltech.edu/article/295 Accessed online on 5/23/2013).
L36 Pierre-Marie Robitaille. Further Insights into the Chromosphere and Corona
