1
$\begingroup$

Referring to this answer to What's the rationale behind the false colours in solar observation photographs? which includes the table from Wikipedia's Fraunhofer lines:

In the Table of wavelengths there is an e designated Hg line of 546.07 nm which DOES NOT appear in the picture of the Fraunhofer spectrum, any explanation? Also there are about a dozen lines in the spectrum which are not tabulated and not identified at all.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ i.stack.imgur.com/oEcmv.png They are really small but just to the right of the big "G" I think I see "f" then "e" but interestingly, "e" is listed at both 438.355 and 546.073 hmm... $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Nov 12 '20 at 3:51
  • $\begingroup$ +1 for asking what turns out to be a very interesting question! $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Nov 12 '20 at 22:56
3
$\begingroup$

The picture is a mocked-up fake and is not an actual picture of the solar spectrum. You can easily see this because the black "Fraunhofer lines" extend beyond the spectrum and H alpha should have an appreciable width.

The table is massively incomplete. It list only a tiny fraction (the strongest) absorption lines in the solar spectrum. There are thousands of others.

I guess whoever mocked up the spectrum didn't use that table.

A real solar spectrum is shown below. The Fraunhofer lines are not easy to see at all in a spectrum that has low enough resolution to include the whole thing in one linear image. Any lines due to mercury will be weak because mercury is not an abundant element in the solar photosphere.

Real solar spectrum

A better view is offered by an echellogram taken at higher resolution. This begins to demonstrate just how many lines there are in the solar spectrum.

echellogram

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.