The discovery of the sun’s spots has been attributed to Fabricius, Galileo, and Scheiner, and has been claimed for the English astronomer Harriot. Amid these conflicting pretensions it is perhaps impossible to arrive at the truth; but the matter is of little importance; the discovery is one which followed inevitably that of the telescope, and an accidental priority of observation can hardly be considered as establishing any claim to merit.
The study of solar physics may be said to have commenced with the discovery of the sun spots, about two hundred and sixty years ago. These spots were presently found to traverse the solar disk in such a way as to indicate that the sun turns upon an axis once in about twenty-six days. Nor will this rotation appear slow, when we remember that it implies a motion of the equatorial parts of the sun’s surface at a rate exceeding some seventy times the motion of our swiftest express train.
Next came the discovery that the solar spots are not surface stains, but deep cavities in the solar substance. The changes of appearance presented by the spots as they traverse the solar disk led Dr. Wilson to form this theory so far back as 1779; but, strangely enough, it is only in comparatively recent times that the hypothesis has been finally established, since even within the last ten years a theory was put forward which accounted satisfactorily for most of the changes of appearance observed in the spots, by supposing them to be due to solar clouds hanging suspended at a considerable elevation above the true photosphere.
Sir William Herschel, reasoning from terrestrial analogies, was led to look on the spot-cavities as apertures through a double layer of clouds. He argued that, were the solar photosphere of any other nature, it would be past comprehension that vast openings should form in it, to remain open for months before they close up again. Whether we consider the enormous rapidity with which the spots form and with which their figure changes, or the length of time that many of them remain visible, we find ourselves alike perplexed, unless we assume that the solar photosphere resembles a bed of clouds. Through a stratum of terrestrial clouds openings may be formed by atmospheric disturbances, but while undisturbed the clouds will retain any form once impressed upon them, for a length of time corresponding to the weeks and months during which the solar spots endure.
And because the solar spots present two distinct varieties of light, the faint penumbra and the dark umbra or nucleus, Herschel saw the necessity of assuming that there are two beds of clouds, the outer self-luminous and constituting the true solar photosphere, the inner reflecting the light received from the outer layer, and so shielding the real surface of the sun from the intense light and heat which it would otherwise receive.
But while recent discoveries have confirmed Sir William Herschel’s theory about the solar cloud-envelopes, they have by no means given countenance to his view that the body of the sun may possibly be cool. The darkness of the nucleus of a spot is found, on the contrary, to give proof that in that neighborhood the sun is hotter, because it parts less readily with its heat. We shall see presently how this is. Meantime let it be noticed, in passing, that a close scrutiny of large solar spots has revealed the existence of an intensely black spot in the midst of the umbra. This black spot must be regarded as the true nucleus.
The circumstance that the spots appear only on two bands of the sun’s globe, corresponding to the sub-tropical zones on our own earth, led the younger Herschel to conclusions as important as those which his father had formed. He reasoned, like his father, from terrestrial analogies. On our own earth the sub-tropical zones are the regions where the great cyclonic storms have their birth, and rage with their chief fury. Here, therefore, we have the analogue of the solar spots, if only we can show reason for believing that any causes resembling those which generate the terrestrial cyclone operate upon those regions of the sun where the solar spots make their appearance.
We know that the cyclone is due to the excess of heat at the earth’s equator. It is true that this excess of heat is always in operation, whereas cyclones are not perpetually raging in sub-tropical climates. Ordinarily, therefore, the excess of heat does not cause tornadoes. Certain aerial currents are generated whose uniform motion suffices, as a rule, to adjust the conditions which the excess of heat at the equator would otherwise tend to disturb. But when through any cause the uniform action of the aerial currents is either interfered with or is insufficient to maintain equilibrium, then cyclonic or whirling motions are generated in the disturbed atmosphere, and propagated over a wide area of the earth’s surface.
Now we recognize the reason of the excess of heat at the earth’s equator in the fact that the sun shines more directly upon that part of the earth than on the zones which lie in higher latitudes. Can we find any reason for suspecting that the sun, which is not heated from without as the earth is, should exhibit a similar peculiarity? Sir John Herschel considers that we can. If the sun has an atmosphere extending to a considerable distance from his surface, then there can be little doubt that, owing to his rotation upon his axis, this atmosphere would assume the figure of an oblate spheroid, and would be deepest over the solar equator. Here, then, more of the sun’s heat would be retained than at the poles, where the atmosphere is shallowest. Thus, that excess of heat at the solar equator which is necessary to complete the analogy between the sun spots and terrestrial cyclones seems satisfactorily established.
It must be remarked, however, that this reasoning, so far as the excess of heat at the sun’s equator is concerned, only removes the difficulty a step. If there were indeed an increased depth of atmosphere over the sun’s equator sufficing to retain the requisite excess of heat, then the amount of heat we receive from the sun’s equatorial regions ought to be appreciably less than the amount emitted from the remaining portions of the solar surface. This is not found to be the case, so that either there is no such excess of absorption, or else the solar equator gives out more heat, in other words, is essentially hotter, than the rest of the sun. But this is just the peculiarity of which we want the interpretation.