Titre du document / Document title
Sun’s retrograde motion and violation of even-odd cycle rule in sunspot activity
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
JAVARAIAH J. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Physics and Astronomy, 430 Portola Plaza, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract
The sum of sunspot numbers over an odd-numbered 11-yr sunspot cycle exceeds that of its preceding even-numbered cycle, and it is well known as Gnevyshev and Oh1 rule (or G-O rule) after the names of the authors who discovered it in 1948. The G-O rule can be used to predict the sum of sunspot numbers of a forthcoming odd cycle from that of its preceding even cycle. However, this is not always possible because occasionally the G-O rule is violated. So far, no plausible reason is known either for the G-O rule or for the violation of this rule. Here, we show the epochs of the violation of the G-O rule are close to the epochs of the Sun’s retrograde orbital motion about the centre of mass of the Solar system (i.e. the epochs at which the orbital angular momentum of the Sun is weakly negative). Using this result, it is easy to predict the epochs of violation of the G-O rule well in advance. We also show that the solar equatorial rotation rate determined from sunspot group data during the period 1879-2004 is con-elated/anticorrelated to the Sun’s orbital torque before/after 1945. We have found the existence of a statistically significant ∼ 17-yr periodicity in the solar equatorial rotation rate. The implications of these findings for understanding the mechanism behind the solar cycle and the solar-terrestrial relationship are discussed.
Revue / Journal Title
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society ISSN 0035-8711 CODEN MNRAA4
Source / Source
2005, vol. 362, no4, pp. 1311-1318 [8 page(s) (article)] (67 ref.)

In orbits, the angular momentum is distributed between the spin of the planet itself and the angular momentum of its orbit:

Ltotal = Lspin + Lorbit;

If a planet is found to rotate slower than expected, then astronomers suspect that the planet is accompanied by a satellite, because the total angular momentum is shared between the planet and its satellite in order to be conserved.

end wiki.

So as the Lorbit decreases (both sun and Jupiter approach barycenter) the Lspin goes up? Looks like a mechanism to cause variable spin in the sun… with the variable spin causing the kind of flow oscillations you posited.

More wiki:

The conservation of angular momentum in Earth-Moon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon (due to tidal torque the Moon exerts on the Earth). This in turn results in the slowing down of the rotation rate of Earth (at about 42 nsec/day), and in gradual increase of the radius of Moon’s orbit (at ~4.5 cm/year rate).

end wiki.

I would expect the sun / jovian planet system to behave similarly, so that would imply a variation of the sun rotation rate proportional to the variation in the orbital distances of the jovian planets. OK. Now the leap…

If we have the suns spin variable with jovian apogee / perigee, what then happens to the physics of the sun as it has this spin oscillation?

Will the spin oscillation be poorly distributed over the mass of the sun (i.e. will some spin get distributed to the perimeter more than the poles due to fluid mass flow et.al.)?

Does the period of this spin oscillation bear any resonance with the mass flow oscillation period of the sun (posited above)? (And is there any physical evidence for such mass flow or spin oscilation and / or variations in the spin rate at poles vs equator over a jovian cycle?)

And finally, what happens to all those mag field lines that are winding up during the sunspot cycle when the spin starts changing (in particular during the retrograde part of the solar / barycenter orbit where the sun may be passing back through the mag field from it’s prior location and / or the spin that was winding up suffers a reverse force from winding down the spin?

I don’t know what’s going on in the sun, but it does look like there is a potential mechanism for a lot to go on, in sync with the jovian apogee / perigee cycle.

The thesis that “the sun is in free fall so no force is felt and nothing will happen” seems weak.

And finally, a pseudorandom google search “solar equatorial rotation rate sunspot” leads to (among others):

Long-term variations in solar differential rotation and sunspot activity
J Javaraiah
L Bertello
R K. Ulrich

ABSTRACT:

The solar equatorial rotation rate, determined from sunspot group data during the period 1879-2004, decreased over the last century, whereas the level of activity has increased considerably. The latitude gradient term of the solar rotation shows a significant modulation of about 79 year, which is consistent with what is expected for the existence of the Gleissberg cycle. Our analysis indicates that the level of activity will remain almost the same as the present cycle during the next few solar cycles (i.e., during the current double Hale cycle), while the length of the next double Hale cycle in Sunspot activity is predicted to be longer than the Current one. We find evidence for the existence of a weak linear relationship between the equatorial rotation rate and the length of sunspot cycle. Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22, indicating that the present Hale cycle may be a combination of two shorter cycles.

SUGGESTED CITATION:
J Javaraiah, L Bertello, and R K. Ulrich, “Long-term variations in solar differential rotation and sunspot activity” (2005). Solar Physics. 232 (1-2), pp. 25-40. Postprint available free at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/1536

REQUIRED PUBLISHER STATEMENT:
The original publication is available at http://www.springerlink.com in Solar Physics.

end citation.

So it looks like there is some physical observational evidence for a coupling of spin variations with jovian planet modulations.

So, Old Coach, If I read you right you are saying that the angular momentum of the sun vs the barycenter isn’t so important since it’s going to be insensitive to the barycenter (the actual effect being from the far off Jupiter so the spin axis of the sun doesn’t care about the common center of rotation of the planets) but that there might be some odd harmonic coupling of the Jovian apogee / perigee cycle tidal forces with the inherent frequency of the sun such that, over billions and billions of year (shades of Sagan!) the two might become locked in a slight flow of mass to/from the perimeter and thus have some oscillation of mass flow and rotation rate?

Hmm. Damn, I think I get it. Thanks.

BTW, your theory is far more interesting and gets bonus points for subtlety!

I suspect that the coincidence, correlation, causality manta is fairly well into the correlation camp for some kind of Jovian planet / sunspot connection. It’s just too tight to make it coincidence. The paper from I.R.G. Wilson at the Austraian Institute of Physics 17th national conference 2006 dispelled the numerology aspect for me. He showed that the misc. odd solar cycles were in fact sidebands of a carrier suppressed modulation via the Jovian periods. Suddenly the many odd unrelated cycles made sense; a direct formulaic connection to the clear planetary cycles. Unfortunately, it still left causality as an open unclear issue.

There is a big misconception about Barycenters. Objects don’t notice them at all. They do not apply any kind of force on an object. Because of the way physics is taught, it is hard for us to let go of gravity tugging on the sun like a force. The sun (and every other object) does not actually “feel” gravity. It is not a force like electromagnetism, strong or weak nuclear. The only way that an object notices another gravitationally is by the tidal effect. If a massive object were close to the sun (as the moon to earth), then one hemisphere of the sun would “feel” a stronger “tug” than the opposite side of the sun.

But, I think you might be onto something in an indirect way. When a fluid ball is rotating in free fall, it naturally bulges from spherical into a pancake (the centrifugal force, if you will). Mass accumulates at the equator, which bulges. The earth does this to a much lesser extent. However, when mass starts accumulating at the equator, this increases the angular inertia of the sun, which would then slow its rotation (conservation of momentum). When the sun slows its rotation, then mass would no longer be able to pile up at the equator and would flow back to a more spherical shape. This would then decrease the angular inertia of the sun, which would then increase the rotation rate. We have an oscillating system. This phenomenon diminishes over time with objects that are only semi-fluid like the Earth, as the effect gets dissipated as heat. However, I would guess the sun is nearly superfluid. I wonder if a cycle of rotation speeds is noticeable, or has been documented? Also, there is a lot of convection and turbulence complicating the sun.
Now, I wonder what the oscillating frequency of the sun is? 11 years? 30 years? 5 days? I should ask Leif. He probably has already researched this phenomenon.

We stood (one student at a time) on a platform on bearings. We were spun with arms outstretched, then let go. When we put our arms closer to the center of rotation our rotation rate went up due to conservation of momentum. When we dropped only one arm the asymmetrical forces felt very odd and we would wobble.

So…

Why would this not work the same with the sun? Barycenter outside sun, rotation slower, barycenter “moves” inside sun, rotation faster as more mass nearer the center of rotation. Further, as the barycenter moves from outside toward more central would not the differential forces on parts of the sun cause some turbulence? I would expect some significant torque forces out of this that ought to stir things up in a fluid ball…

Or am I attempting to over generalize a too simple high school demonstration?

Thanks for the positive words Daryl – it would be good if we could open this topic up to vigorous debate.

While the mainstream climate science and solar physics communities don’t seem to give much credence to spin-orbit coupling theories, I commend you for having the courage to take a fresh look at this. Correlation does not imply causality, but the correlation of planetary orbits, solar cycles and climate change seems too significant to be merely a coincidence. Since many solar physicists seem to be downplaying the influence of solar irradiance on earth’s climate, the inertial mechanism that you are proposing is very interesting. The idea that sun spots (solar climate?) and earth’s climate are both manifestations of spin-orbit coupling is unlike anything I’ve read to-date. I hope your paper will be made widely available so it will receive the widest possible discussion. I look forward to the debate and I hope you will keep us informed as to its progress.

Best Regards.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf

I appreciate your prompt actions on this issue.

I would just like to say that I bear no malice towards
Michael Ronayne as believe that he was just trying to confirm that I was a bona-fide researcher in this field. I would just ask that he be more careful about what he posts about individuals on the blog in future.

I must admit that I am was not aware of this blog posting until late July. I realize to that I am essentially an unknown in this field, so it natural to expect that people would be suspicious of my credentials. Michael Ronayne would make a good investigative scientist if he is not already one.

Thank you for your kind offer to highlight the science behind this important issue. I would be willing to pass on a full copy of may paper to you if you could forward an email contact. The publishing journal PASA has strict restrictions on who I can send pre-print copies but I think I can justify sending a copy to you.

I am currently working on two related areas. One dealing with the nature of the spin-orbit coupling mechanism that could be responsible for moderating the solar dynamo, the other deals with an alternative theory for climate change here on the Earth. I would be willing to present something on either topic, as I believe the topics are related.

One (easy) way to kick off the debate could be to
highlight the talk that I gave the Lavoisier Group AGM (11th July 2008)
in Melbourne, Australia, by linking to:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008

I am not asking you or your fellow bloggers to beleive
every word I post, all I ask is for good-hearted debate from people with a skeptical eye. There appears to be no shortage of people like that here on your blog.

First, thank you for responding here and for clearing up the issues mentioned.

What you witnessed was the problem of doing analysis at a distance. Mr. Ronayne’s skeptical nature has produced some interesting finds in the past, and he was following his normal MO on that.

My view was that I had trouble reconciling the science presented in the paper, but not the authorship. You are more than welcome to expound on some of those issues.

Since you have cleared up the matter, there is no reason for the content questioning your credentials in post to remain, and you have my apology for the manner in which the questions were presented. That could have been done differently.

Because I believe in giving a fair shake, if you wish, I’ll offer you a guest post on the front page to highlight your paper and the science behind it. As I wrote initially, I’m “still on the fence” with it, but I and the thousands of readers this blog represent would surely be interested in hearing your views.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best regards,
Anthony Watts

You have accused me and Ian Waite of trying to hide our academic afiliatiations.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Ian Waite has been an associate member of staff at the University Of Southern Queensland for many years and he is currently doing Ph.D. in Astronomy at that University. Being an assocaite member of staff does not disqualify you from doing academic research at a University as far as I know.

When I wrote and submitted my paper, I was an employee of the Education
Queensland. This was the name of the state organization that ran the State School system here in Queensland. If you had cared to look more carefuly you would have found Education Queensland became the Department of Education, Training and the Arts at around about the time my paper was published. I simply did not have time to update this information prior to publication.

If you had bothered to request a bio from me (you have appeared to have
happliy plastered my home and work emails on the web without my permission – which I regard as an invasion of privacy) you could have got the following.

Dr. Ian Wilson

Ian Wilson was born in Ipswich, QLD, in 1955. He graduated in physics from the UNE in 1977 and obtained his PhD in astronomy in 1982 from the ANU, having worked at the Mt. Stromlo & Siding Spring Observatories.

He was subsequently a Junior Research Fellow at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, a Research Fellow at Harvard, Ass. Professor at the Universities of Toledo and Oklahoma, and Operations Astronomer at the Hubble Space Institute in Baltimore MD.

Since 1995 he has taught science and mathematics in Queensland and is now teaching in Toowoomba.

I am simply amazed at how nasty people can be sometimes.

Reply: I’m going to embargo Michael Ronayne’s post until Anthony sees both sides~charles the moderator.

in Melbourne, Australia, is posted at:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf

This talk proposes an alternative model for natural climate change