Wednesday, June 10, 2026

Advanced Astrophysics Review: Stellar Emission And Absorption

 In a previous post from some years ago:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/simple-solar-radiative-transfer-1.html

I examined the basic conditions for radiative transfer in a stellar medium or atmosphere. Of course, this is barely one half the story. Ultimately, the solar physicist examines radiative transfer to obtain first clues in how to understand emission and absorption processes which can occur in that atmosphere.


In this post, part of an earlier advanced astrophysics sequence, I review details of emission and absorption in terms of what are called transition probabilities.  Basically one can consider and evaluate three possible cases:

i)                   A stimulated emission probability

ii)                 A spontaneous emission probability

iii)               An absorption (or negative emission) probability


We will use a condensed notation in order to not have too much notation clutter within a limited blog post space To do this we will apply the following symbols to the differing probabilities:

A21 = spontaneous emission probability;  I u 21 B 21  =  stimulated emission probability,  and lastly,   I u 21 B 12.   =  absorption probability 

    Of critical importance in considering transitions between energy states are the statistical weights of the states, which we denote by g. Then given statistical weights[1], say g1 and   g 2, we first wish to show that:

g1    B 12.  =   g 2 B 21

 In other words, the absorption probability for state g1 must be equal to the stimulated emission probability for state g2..  There can’t be more transitions than the numbers of electrons available for them in those states. For thermal equilibrium, especially, we have detailed balancing. i.e. the number of transitions from level one to level two must be equal to the number of transitions from level two to level one.

From level 1 to level 2 we may write:  N1 I u  B 12.

From level 2 to level 1 we write:  N2  (A21   +  I u  B 12.)

For detailed balancing we require:

 N1 I u  B 12.   =  N2  (A21   +  I u  B 12.)

We note here that in thermodynamic equilibrium Boltzmann’s equation applies:

N2 / N  =  I u  B 12./ (A21   +  I u  B 12.) =  

 [g2 / g1 ]   exp (- E2 – E1) / kT

Where E2, E1 designate the respective energy levels.

Then:  I u  =  2h u 3 / c 2  [1/ exp (hc/lkT]

As T ® ¥     and  I u  ® ¥  

 Then:  B 12/ B 21    =  g2 / g1   or   g1    B 12.  =   g 2 B 2

We also need to show, for detailed balancing:

A 21./ B 12    =  2h u 3 / c 2  [g2 / g1 ]

We use:

I u  B 12. =   (A21   +  I u  B 21.) [g2 / g1 ]   exp (- E2 – E1) / kT

And:

I u [B 12.- B 21. (g2 / g1 )  exp (- E2 – E1) / kT]

 =    (A21)  (g2 / g1 )  exp (- E2 – E1) / kT

®  I u [B 12.- . (g2 / g1 )( g1 / g2) B 12  exp (- E2 – E1) / kT


I u =  A 21./ B 12  (g2) e (- E2 – E1) / kT/ g1  [1 - e (- E2 – E1) / kT]

=       A 21./ B 12  (g2 / g1 ) [e (E2 – E1) / kT   -   1]

=   2h u 3 / c 2  [1  / e hu / kT   -   1 ]

And:   

A 21./ B 12  (g2 / g1 ) =    2h u 3 / c 2 

Then:   A 21./ B 12    =  2h u 3 / c 2  [g2 / g1 ]

Thus, we see that in thermodynamic equilibrium, the ratio of populations in upper and lower levels is given by the Boltzmann formula. In most solar applications of interest, the stimulated emission is negligible compared to the spontaneous emission.

     Note also that Einstein showed that the spectral line transition probabilities are related by:

A 21.=  8 p h u 3 / c 2  [B 21] =  8 p h u 3 / c 2  (g1 / g2 ) B 12    = 

6.67 x 10 16 [g f/g2  l2   Å]


Where g is the Gaunt factor, of order unity and f is the oscillator strength. The latter generally has specific values for discrete transitions. (For the strongest spectral line from a level one in an atom one can usually use f = 1.)

The radiation density is defined:

u u =  4 p  B u /  c  =  8 p h u 3 / c 2  [1  / e hu / kT   -   1]

With the Planck function:

B  du   =  2h u 3 / c 2  [1  / e hu / kT   -   1 ] du

This is for the frequency domain, but can also be expressed in the wavelength domain:

B l  dl   =  2 p h c 2 /l  [1  / e hc / kl T   -   1 ] dl

(Be careful treating the differential for  the frequency!)

du  = (- c/ l2) dl which must be used when transferring from the frequency scale Hz -1 to the wavelength scale

 (cm -1 or m-1)

For hydrogenic atoms (Z » 1) the absorption cross-section, a u , plays  a critical role, defined:

a u  = 2.815 x 10 29    Z 4/ n 5 (g /u 3)

Or:

a u  =  7.91 x 10 16   Z 4/ n 5  (Ry / h u) g

(cm 2 / bound electron in state n.)

Where Ry  is the modified Rydberg constant for atomic physics.  In terms of the standard Rydberg constant, R = 1.0974 × 107 m1, it is:   Ry  = hc R  = 13.605 eV.


When dealing with complex atoms one needs to allow for the number of electrons in the absorbing state:

a u  =   4 p/ c  (B ne) h u

where B ne is the Einstein coefficient or “continuum f-value”. Thus, it may also be posed:

a u  =  8.067 × 10-18      (df/de
(cm 2 / bound electron in state n.)

A useful table that will come in handy for spectral line computations is the following:

Quantum Numbers and Energies For Hydrogen Atom:


Ground state s1

     

n    ℓ     m ℓ       m s           

 Energy E1 (eV)

1     0      0        

1     0      0        

-          - 13.6

-         - 13.6

First Excited States


n    ℓ     m ℓ       m

Energy E1 (eV)

2     0       0       

-          3.40

2     0       0       

-          3.40

2      1      1      

-          3.40

2      1      1       

-          3.40

2      1      0      

-          3.40

2      1      0       

-          3.40

2      1      1      

-          3.40

2       1      1      

-          3.40


Inspection of the table above shows two quantum states with the same energy (-13.6 eV) and eight states with (-3.40 eV).  Thus, two states are degenerate for the n=1 level and eight states are degenerate for the n=2 level.  Since g n = 2n2, then:

At the n=1 level the statistical weight is:  g 1 = 2(1)2 = 2
At the n=2 level the statistical weight is: g 1 = 2(2)2 = 8


Suggested Problems for Budding Astrophysicists:

1)Consider a gas of neutral hydrogen. Using the Boltzmann equation and the information in the table above, compute the temperature at which one will expect equal numbers of atoms in the ground state and the first excited state.

2) For the Balmer a line (called H- alpha), we know:

E3 – E2 =  - 13.6 eV ( 1/ 3   -  1/ 2 2 )   = 1.88 eV

a)     From this information calculate the ratio N2 / N  for T = 10 4 K

b)     Obtain the specific intensity from: 

I u  =  2h u 3 / c 2  [1/ exp (hc/lkT]

3)Calculate  the transition probability (  A 21  ) you get using the Einstein equation:

 If:   A 21.=     6.67 x 10 16 [g f/g2  l2   Å]

What possible errors might cause the values to diverge? (Take g = f » 1)


[1] The “statistical weight” or degeneracy is just the number of different atomic sub-states included in the state being considered.  As we saw each atomic state of angular momenta L,S leading to total angular momentum J can be split by magnetic field into 2J + 1 states. Then for all J levels of a term LS there are: 
g(L.S) = (2L + 1)(2S + 1) = S j (2J + 1)
different M j sub-levels possible. For a hydrogenic shell (n) there are  2n 2  sub-levels possible.

Why Is A Traitor's Image Being Put On A Commemorative 24 Karat Gold Coin? Many Reasons - None Justified

 

                                  250th anniversary coin with traitor on it


In one of the most depraved moves in American history, a federal arts commission staffed with Trump appointees in March approved a 24-karat coin, which shows a snarling Trump leaning on a desk with clenched fists.  This vomitous affront to history - defiling a U.S. coin (featuring the inciter of the Jan.6th insurrection) is now up for consideration to mark the Nation's 250th. This execrable item will be up to three inches in diameter.  The extravagance of size in design, we learn, personally approved by the megalomaniacal felon- in- chief.

Why does this orange fungal parasite have to have his miserable, traitor face on everything including the front of the Justice Dept.?  Professor Timothy Snyder, author of 'On Tyranny', was clear in his Saturday a.m. appearance and interview on Velshi:

Trump with putting his image everywhere, is trying to create the impression that he is unstoppable.  It also follows the track of other authoritarians in history including Hitler, Putin, Kim Jong Un and  Mao Tse Tung.  And this is what the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the nation means to him: glorification of him as the leader.

This is supported by Jacob Collins Levy in his June 3rd WSJ piece ('It' All About The Donalds', p. A l3), writing:

"This sort of leader worship is common among autocrats.  In Cuba, Vietnam and China, images of Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse dung  have long been present in government building and school - not to mention T-shirt, coins and tourist kitsch"

As far as considering the actual manifestation of this atrocity there ought to be no second thoughts.  It ought to be nixed, nullified on principle. Namely, that it is a direct attack on our history, a reprehensible revisionist emblem that ought to be removed from any potential sale, or circulation.

Fortunately, we subsequently learned (WaPo last Friday) Senate Democrats on Thursday urged the Trump administration to halt production of this commemorative 250th anniversary solid gold coin that would bear the traitor’s image.  Did the Senate Dems use the obvious fact that a traitor's image should not desecrate any U.S. coin. No, of course not. Instead they invoked a vanilla technicality, citing concerns that some of the U.S. Mint’s gold could have links to foreign cartels.

In other words,  the Trump gold coin should be shelved because of recent reports that some gold used by the Mint was sourced from countries where the precious metal is mined illegally.  Harping on this, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) and Ron Wyden (Oregon) — the top Democrats on the Senate Banking and Finance committees, respectively — argued this in a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Mint Director Paul Hollis that was viewed by The Washington Post.

But both Warren and Wyden missed the point in their WaPo comment:

At the very least, the Mint should ensure that a coin intended to honor the nation’s 250th anniversary is not made of gold linked to exploitation and criminal activity,”

No, at the very least NO traitor insurrectionist leader’s image should ever, EVER be on a U.S. coin that values its history as opposed to dastardly historical revisionism and a blatant effort to whitewash what transpired on January 6, 2021.

Warren and Wyden then asked the Mint to stop all production on the coin and conduct a public audit of the supply chain. They said the coin “is more befitting a monarchy than a democracy.”

But  that's only a relatively tame point. In truth, it is more befitting the honoring of a traitor and felon and his yen for autocracy than a democracy. To approve this monstrosity would only add magnitudes more degeneracy to an already tainted 250th celebration. Worse, it would put a stamp of quasi legitimacy on Trump's entire despicable reign. 

See Also:

Kudos To Federal Judge For Ordering Removal Of Trump's Name From Kennedy Center

And:

What Would My Revolutionary War Ancestors Think Of Our Nation's Present Predicament?

And:

With Respect For My Revolutionary War Ancestors I Won't Be Celebrating A 250th Under Trump

And:

by Thom Hartmann | June 2, 2026 - 5:32am | permalink

— from The Hartmann Report

Donald Trump looked at America’s 250th birthday and neurotically concluded that he’s the main attraction.

A celebration intended to honor the founding of the United States is rapidly being repackaged as a celebration of Trump himself: his movement, his grievances, his white supremacy, his misogyny, and his power.

Every new announcement, from the MAGA rallies to the vanity projects to the carefully choreographed spectacles on the National Mall and White House lawn, reinforces the same message: this is no longer about America turning 250. It’s about Trump making sure America spends its 250th birthday talking about Trump and the power of white men.

» article continues...

And:

by Thom Hartmann | June 10, 2026 - 4:47am | permalink

If you’ve wandered anywhere near the White House this past week, you couldn’t have missed it, because there’s now a ninety-two-foot, six-hundred-ton tangle of steel and floodlights squatting on the South Lawn like a carnival ride that ate a cathedral. The UFC calls it “The Claw.”

It’s taller than the White House itself, tricked out like a Fourth of July beer can, and bolted down right over the patch of grass where Marine One usually lands, all so that on Trump’s birthday, June 14th, two grown men can punch and choke each other bloody in front of thousands of howling fans.

Trump liked it so much he floated leaving it up forever, then had his handlers walk it back when somebody gently reminded him the President still occasionally needs a helicopter. Replacing the torn-up lawn afterward will run about seven hundred thousand dollars, which is roughly seven hundred thousand dollars more than this spectacle is worth.

» article continues...

Worried Maths Profs Present The Leiden Declaration Alerting Us To A.I. Model Problems & Ethical Issues

  

                            Mathematicians at Leiden Univ. who helped write the Leiden Declaration


Within two weeks of the Open A.I. solution of the unit distance problem, a group of 16 mathematicians, in consultation with colleagues and math organizations worldwide, published the Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics. It stated aim to “frame the conversation about future AI directions,” said Dame Ursula Martin, one of the authors, and a mathematician at Oxford.

This effort came as A.I. models have been making headlines with successful results in research-level mathematics. In late May, OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, announced that one of its models had disproved a notable 80-year-old mathematics conjecture in the field of combinatorial geometry. (See previous post).

The conjecture is one of some 1,200 problems posed by the Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdos. While some of these “Erdos problems” have been considered throwaway questions of narrow interest, others have proved influential and field- shaping. Along with a research paper describing the proof, OpenAI released a companion paper by several independent mathematicians. Jacob Tsimerman of the University of Toronto, an expert in the adjacent subfield of number theory, commented: 

This is a really impressive piece of work, and I would accept it for any journal without hesitation.”

In other words, the A.I. model had attained the status of a human professional journal contributor. Needless to say, panic swept the mathematics community. How many more times would A.I. models succeed in doing what their human counterparts could not. What did this incursion mean for mathematics itself?

So no surprise other figures in the field were less sanguine, including Prof. Melanie Matchett Wood, a Harvard mathematician. She remarked that the OpenAI paper did not appropriately reference “a history of closely related ideas in the literature.

Such historical referencing with the necessary citations, is standard practice in all STEM journals. For example, in the Introduction to my 1983 Solar Physics paper on SID Flares and Sunspot Morphology

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1983SoPh...88..137A

I present a concise survey of relevant past contributions, i.e. also seeking flare-sunspot associations or correlations. Wood's take then was that the Open A.I. paper did not reach the level of an acceptable journal paper.  She went on to comment:

It is a powerful tool, and I think it will be a great tool to accelerate mathematics research. But she the community needs to figure out how to use A.I. in a way that will maintain human understanding of the mathematics.

Here she was clearly referring to the Open AI model solution being highly counterintuitive.  In this sense, most who had taken on this same Erdos problem, of  the unit distance problem, had sought to prove it  - rather than disprove it as the Open AI model had done. Thus, as one Open AI employee put it: "This would have been totally bananas even a month ago."

Well, because the model actually used advanced algebraic number theory (not geometry) to achieve the solution - which was in fact a disproof of the Erdos conjecture, yielding many more pairs than anyone (even Erdos) imagined.  As the WSJ piece on the achievement noted:

"Only by defying conventional wisdom and experimenting with seeming improbable strategies did the model find an unexpected path forward."

But this strategy conflicts with the natural human understanding of the mathematics, which of course explains why no human solutions were forthcoming.

Included in the potential threats that the Leiden Declaration authors articulated:

- Accuracy and reliability: Journal editors are already complaining about a flood of plausible seeming A.I.- generated papers and proofs that have turned out to be incorrect, and in ways that are difficult for mathematicians to discern.

- Questions remain whether the many A.I. companies (i.e. Anthropic, Google, Open AI etc) tackling mathematics are keeping the field’s best interests in mind. 

They pointedly write in the Declaration:

Technology companies’ involvement in researchnraises the risk that research questions are prioritized and incentivized because of their amenability to A.I. methods and models, rather than their deeper significance to understanding.” 

They point out this disadvantages researchers who choose not to use the technology, and those who do not have access to it.

A valid point.

 According to Michael Harris of Columbia University:

The purpose of the Declaration, from my perspective, is to recover control of the narrative about the values and the goals of mathematics from the A.I. industry. Mathematicians are concerned that the values of the profession are being misrepresented, not intentionally but due to the media campaign on the part of the industry, which seems to want to promote the belief that they are in a position to transform mathematics — 'the A.I. revolution in math,' as one headline put it not long ago."

Adding:

"If the people who make the decisions about funding base their decisions only on what’s being reported in most of the articles in the press, they could easily get the impression that A.I. is where the future of mathematics is.

We want to affirm certain values that have characterized the profession: openness, honesty, giving credit where credit is due, sharing, transparency about methodologies, and access for independent verification of results."

All of which are totally justified points.  Granted then A.I. models will always have a superiority in their synthesis ability over humans, but we can't have that define the norms for the entire field of mathematics.  Which also cannot afford to rend asunder the basis of human understanding of the results which will always entail independent verification.

A.I. contributions then, are exciting, but cannot become the whole, leaving out the roles and dimensions of human research in mathematics.

In addition there are ethical aspects that need to be considered, according to Rodrigo Ochigame, another participant. He noted that  several A.I. companies are investing in dedicated teams focusing on mathematics, using problems as benchmarks and publications as training data. 

In effect, these companies are training their models to prove theorems not because they want to advance mathematical knowledge, but because they hope that such training will improve the models’ reasoning abilities more generally.

So it's perhaps not a coincidence that OpenAI’s announcement about the unit distance conjecture solution (previous post) came out the same day the news broke that the company is preparing to file for an I.P.O.

As Ochigame points out, this has put mathematicians in a troubling ethical position. Without their consent, their published work is being used as strategic training data for the development of general-purpose A.I. The resulting models are being commercialized for many purposes, including military applications, that raise grave ethical concerns.

 Most mathematicians never imagined, much less consented, that their work would be used for such purposes.

Humans need to be much more alert and on guard to what is happening amidst all the hype and hubbub, and especially how these events can adversely affect human welfare and advancement.

See Also:

Open AI Model Solves 80-Year Old Erdos Problem - And Mathematicians Freak Out

And:

Brane Space: A.I.-Bubble Angst Spills Into Bond Market - What It Means