The scale and violence of the processes that drive the Sun are really mind-blowing. 43 million km away and it's getting on for 20kW per square metre. Edit: the probe is that far from the sun.
IIRC the Sun converts ~4.5 million tons of mass into energy every second and even then, there are objects that are trillions of times more energetic/violent. The first LIGO detection I believe converted 5 Solar masses into energy in about a second.
And 4.5 million tons of mass/second may be unimaginably huge, but the Sun is so big it can also do that constantly for literally billions and billions of years. And it's not even an especially big star!
Looking online I found this:
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/sounds-of-the-sun/
But it's not realistic because:
> Finally, he interpolated over the missing data and scaled the data (speeded it up a factor 42,000 to bring it into the audible human-hearing range (kHz)).
Also this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAesteoeoF4
but it's not actually sound, it's converting EM waves into sound:
> ...recording frequency and amplitude information about these plasma waves that scientists can then play as sound waves.
So I'm really curious if the genuine sound of the sun would just be white noise, like a waterfall or rumble, or with defined frequences (hums), or if it's all so low-frequency or high-frequency or something that it isn't even audible?
The Sun's surface/photosphere is 5,772 kelvins (commonly cited as ~6000 °C), the corona is in the order of magnitude of 1 million kelvin, and the core is around 15 million kelvin.
We receive about 1kw of sunlight per square meter on Earth, and earth is 149M km from the sun. From napkin math, it should rather be ~45MW/sqm on the sun to receive 1kw/sqm on Earth (surface of the sphere of radius 149M km divided by surface of the sun gives ~45000, so 1 watt from the sun becomes 1/45000 watt when it reaches the Earth)
Where am I wrong ?
It's pretty amazing that you can have a spacecraft in nearly 20x direct sunlight, permanently and still have it actually work.
Total solar power output = 4 * π * (1.5e11 [m])² * 1361 [W] = 3.85e26 W/m²
Sun's "surface" irradiance = TSPO / (4 * π * (6.96e8 [m])²) = 6.32e9 W/m²
At Solar Orbiter's perihelion, assuming the distance from the Sun's point center rather than the Sun's surface = TSPO / (4 * π * (4.2e10 [m])²) = 1.74e4 W/m².
^ Except for Earth's irradiance and the distances, these are theoretical rough values rather than observed ones because reality is messier than simplified models.
The usual sense involves integration and derivation but look at senses 2 & 4. It also means any calculation.
er, 149 million km away [0] not 43
If we got 17.5ish kW per square metre here on Earth, you'd know about it (but only briefly).
[0] https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Solar_...
There's a diagram here, but at least some of the information there seems preliminary as they eventually launched with a black "Solar Black" heat shield coating rather than white titanium dioxide because the latter wasn't sufficiently UV-stable.
https://www.eoportal.org/satellite-missions/solar-orbiter-mi...
Not the Sun's distance from Earth, and radiant intensity at the Sun's surface.
(The comment was unclearly worded and it took me a couple of readings and review of comments to realise the intent.)