|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.
- To help improve this article, I have added 2 sources which may prove beneficial and a possible rewording of the third paragraph so the reader does not need to interpret the graph which may prove confusing and has outdated information. Feel free to reword or alter these changes. The content of this page also seems to be paraphrased from the text book cited, and the sections used are available for preview in google books, so anyone with the time to read through that section may be able to add some information to this page, or at least improve what is here already. Chrisfoster-NJITWILL (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The first five or so google-referenced pages for the search 'chromosphere' suggest it is actually 2000 or 2500km thick, not 'about 10000km'. Only this page gives this statistic. I'll leave it for now but some confirmation would be nice.--ChrisJMoor 02:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
This page appears to list no formal citations from reliable sources (as of this note). Can someone please add some reliable sources to a section for References or citations? I think References is most commonly used? But it's been a while since I've actively edited... So, feel free to insert which ever method is the preferred method for listing sources. Thx, Mgmirkin (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Spicules and fibrils
According to the article Spicule, spicules and fibrils are the same phenomenon seen from two different points of view (ie just like solar filaments and prominences). But the present article implies that they are two different phenomena.
Eroica (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If my Math Fu is worth anything at all, then 2.0 × 10^−4 : 5 000 000 is not 1.0 × 10^−11. Rather, the first value is 20 000 000 times as big as the other. The first paragraph might need a correction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Comparing chromosphere and photosphere
I'm a chemist. I know what emission and absorption spectra are, but this section has me baffled. Quote:"Whilst the photosphere has an absorption line spectrum, the chromosphere's spectrum is dominated by emission lines." I am not familiar enough with the Sun's atmosphere to understand what the authors are attempting (and failing) to say. Is it that the gas/plasma in the chromosphere is cooling by emission? (And, if so, how is the energy being transferred INTO the chromosphere?). Are the absorption lines in the chromosphere faint because of the tenuousness of the gas present? Is it that the photosphere is so dense with so many emission lines that the principal feature of its spectra is absorption? Or is the emission not from electronic transitions in atoms/ions? Are the emissions frequencies extremely broad due to the large range of velocities and magnetic fields present, or something else? So IMHO characterizing one as having a emission spectra and the other and absorption spectra is not, without an explanation, very informative. I am confident that both emission and absorption are present in both regions, so the text's description is misleading at best. I am unsure how to fix this while retaining the valid (and useful) information present.126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)