Usually, and that means in the past year, when you look at the false color MDI image from SOHO, you can look at the corresponding magnetogram and see some sort of disturbance going on, even it it is not visible as a sunspot, sunspeck, or plage area.
Not today.
Left: SOHO MDI “visible” image Right: SOHO Magnetogram
Click for larger image
Wherefore art though, cycle 24?
In contrast, September 28th, 2001
Adrift in this thread of complexity, and as uncomprehending as a float of polystyrene in the Pacific, I am yet riveted by the interplay of people of obvious knowledge, expressed opinion, charity, and dedicated self-control who are exploring here. There is a seeding of philosophy I will nurture in the hope of a bloom I can record… or at least offer; and certainly personally savour.
idlex (19:24:02) :
I don’t compute the speed of the barycentre, however. And I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “the speed [of the body] around the barycenter”. I suspect you simply mean how fast it’s going in whatever direction it happens to be going, relative to the barycentre.
You don’t need the speed of the BC as it is not a body. What you should calculate is the projection of the velocity vector for each body [Sun and Planets] onto the direction from that body to the BC, then the AM of that body relative to the BC is the distance from the body to the BC times the mass of the body times that projection of the speed.
If I’ve guessed correctly what is meant by “speed”, then it should be no problem to calculate the angular momentum of all the bodies in the solar system for each time interval. But at what intervals? And over what period of time?
Doesn’t really matter, once for each time step would be the obvious choice [but once a month would be fine too – things don’t change that fast], and for several years where there is some variation in the position of the BC.
A table would be fine, the I [and others ] can do the graphing.
Ohioholic (14:52:14) :
I moved over here, as the conversation is already around this sort of thing, but does dark matter effect barycentre at all?
Dark matter in the cosmos has been postulated because of anomalies in the trajectories of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Try the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter though anything that has to do with particle physics has to be taken with a lot of reservations. In my opinion a big open question is still there.
If it exists, does it have relevance for the motions of the solar system?
In a definitional sense ( matter that does not radiate electromagnetically), all solar system planets are dark matter.
In a science fiction sense, i.e. hypothetical not provable, since we do not observe large anomalies in the solar system, if it exists, dark matter will be a part of each massive object, since part of the matter of each body could be composed of dark matter, but since it is undetectable we will not know it. One can go on speculating.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (13:49:57) :
My simplified picture does not contradict a complex final trajectory like the one you linked. I separated the motion into a calculable from forces motion, and a motion forced by a moving coordinate system origin ( or assuming as a center of coordinates a moving coordinate system with respect to where the forces are expressed).
Example: a satellite is going around the earth. The trajectory with respect to the earth is simple. The trajectory in space with respect to the rotation plane of the earth will be complicated. One does not choose intentional coordinate system complications to calculate something that can be seen simply in the natural, where the force is expressed, system.
Leif Svalgaard (15:26:46) :
tallbloke (13:41:10) :
“There is no ‘relativistic matter’ in the sun’s core.”
And that would mean no energy either, according to Einstein and Birkhoff. It’s a wonder the sun continues to shine at all.
This has nothing to do with Einstein, but simply due to the Sun being hot inside. ‘Relativistic matter’ is matter moving at close to the speed of light and there is no such matter in the core of the Sun.
Ray Tomes is used to people making such assertions, and as he noted in the quote I posted earlier, even the general relativity world experts don’t fully agree on this stuff. On page three of the thread he says:
“the relativistic component of matter is important. Even though the velocities are much less than c (and so often people would say “non-relativistic”), the relativistic component of the matter is actually greater than the radiation content. This was dealt with by Ken G and others in the http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/72252-how-long-does-light-take-centre-sun-its-surface.html thread. This established the ball park of the numbers involved even if it doesn’t get highly precise figures.”
This is the reason I asked you where your figure of 250,000 years for the movement of energy from the solar core to the surface came from. It seems the experts have different opinions about that too. I’m sure that on a forum full of sceptics, you are not going to try to tell us that “the science is settled” here Leif. 😉
anna v (22:27:42) :
My simplified picture does not contradict a complex final trajectory like the one you linked. I separated the motion into a calculable from forces motion, and a motion forced by a moving coordinate system origin ( or assuming as a center of coordinates a moving coordinate system with respect to where the forces are expressed).
This does not make sense to me. The trajectory I showed is calculated from the forces (or can be), a simpler calculation does not exist. Please define precisely in which coordinate system “the sun describes an ellipse around the combined solar center of mass point “, and why it is useful. There is really no such coordinate system as far as I can see, unless you choose one that moves in an ellipse around the Sun…
The trajectory of an object in an N-body system like the solar system, as seen by a distant observer, is most often not a simple ellipse. It is true for the main body (The Sun) in our solar system. It is also true for stars in other planetary systems. The observed complex motions of such stars can be and is being used to determine mass and orbital properties of so-called exo-planets.
Bill Illis (22nd:07:11:22)
“… Atmospheric Angular Momentum […] This is the main cause of the change in the Length of Day […] seems to be modulated highly by ENSO events […] Anyone know where there is monthly average data on this or for the length of day. All I’ve found is daily data […]”
Hi Bill, so far all I’ve found (that is readily available – aside from the daily data) is semi-annual LOD for the interval 1832-1997:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/series/longterm/jpl_c.eop
The associated paper:
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/18309/1/99-1782.pdf
If anyone knows where to find monthly summaries, please let us know – Thanks.
Also, does anyone know how/where to get the LOD series that goes back to 1656?
Anyway Leif, joking and jibing apart, lets allow Ray Tomes to speak for himself again:
“the radiation content and relativistic mass content of the Sun were discussed in http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/72252-how-long-does-light-take-centre-sun-its-surface.html . No-one was of the opinion that the answer is known extremely accurately to the actual figures. There is no disagreement that the core of the Sun has much more radiation than the convection zone. The mean free path of photons is of the order of 1 mm there because of the much higher matter density. Nearer the surface the speed of radiation becomes thousands of times greater.
Mathematically, the speed of particles rises as a power of temperature. That means that the relativistic mass proportion of the matter at the core is much higher than at the surface.
Quote: Tusenfen: If the core of the sun would move differently from the outer layers, then we would most likely have observed that using helioseismology.
No you wouldn’t. The distances that I am talking about are very small and the time periods very long. therefore the velocities are extremely small. Helioseismology measures velocity differences and would not be near to showing this. Actually it would have more chance of measuring the temperature difference in the two hemispheres. That is conceivable over a full solar cycle or two.
In a summary list he states:
6. We wish to calculate the effective acceleration, velocity and displacement of the solar core relative to the surface of the Sun. It is not necessary to do the calculation from the planets because NASA have done that for the total acceleration and we can work as a proportion of that. As the integration of acceleration to get velocity and displacement of the Sun has also been done by NASA we simply use the Z component (the N-S component in the Sun’s rotation axis frame) as given by NASA and multiply that by our (5/3 – 1) * 2*10^-6 proportion for the core relative to the surface. That is, about 1.3*10^-6 which is possibly out by a reasonably large factor (hopefully less than 10).
7. Because the Sun is moving N and S by more than 100,000 km on a time scale of a decade, that means that the core is moving by about 0.13 km relative to the surface on that time scale. That may not seem much, but because the temperature of the Sun has a nearly linear gradient, that will affect the surface temperature by about the same factor of 1.3*10^-6 of 15,000,000 K or 20 K.
8. As radiation varies with the 4th power of temperature that will affect the radiant output of the Sun by something like 4*20/5600 or 1.4%, increasing the polar region in the direction that the core is moving. There will not be an opposite effect at the other pole except to a diminished extent when the direction changes and previously cooler surface layers that sunk are then rising again. This is quite complex to model.
9. I have not allowed for the fact that the core is much denser than the surface and so any movement there will be enormously magnified at the surface. Then again, I have not allowed for the fact that some of the effect will simply set up convection at various depths in the Sun. These are difficult problems for experts in solar dynamics to grapple with.
10. Because the whole question of why the Sun has a cycle of about 11 years is not really understood anyway (as i understand the facts to be) it is difficult to fully explain exactly how this will alter what is happening, but it surely will alter it.
And so to the planetary bit:
So we have agreement that there is some such effect of uncertain degree due to several factors – the uncertainty of whether relativistic matter is affected the same as radiation, and the uncertainty in the actual radiation and relativistic mass content of the Sun. But there is an effect and the calculation based on the general form of the effect (greater acceleration of the core compared to the surface of the Sun) does lead to a clear calculation of the fluctuations in absolute displacement of the solar core.
Analysis of that absolute displacement shows it to have a number of frequencies which relate to planetary periods, especially pairs of the giant planets such as J-N and J+N, J-S and J+S and so on. The strong periods predicted by this means do agree with the strong periods observed in the Sun to the degree of accuracy that sunspot records allow. By this I mean that for the period since about the 1700s where we have annual means that are meaningful, the periods extracted by FFT or other means have a certain accuracy, but for the period from about 500 BC, the dominant 11.08 year cycle has been found by Schove and others to a greater accuracy.
Furthermore, this method actually provides the full mechanism (even if not perfectly quantified) and is the only proposal for how planets influence the Sun that demonstrates that the 11.07 year cycle is predicted to be stronger than the 11.86 year cycle of Jupiter’s perihelion. Both the tidal and COM proposals result in the 11.86 year period being expected to have a much higher amplitude.
tallbloke’s comment:
The difficulties in exact quantification (5/3, correct time for core-surface transfer losses in convective action etc) don’t detract from the validity of the overall result, but cry out for big research grant to improve our knowledge of the solar processes involved.
The fact that the peaks in the fourier analysis of the planetary effects arising from the Tomes theory match the peaks in the fourier analysis of the sunspot record speaks for itself. The gravitation of the planets, especially the big slow moving Jovian planets, will affect the solar rhythm, and a better understanding of how these effects get amplified by harmonic resonance will lead to a better understanding of how the amplitude solar rhythm can be suddenly diminished and amplified by the cyclic alignments of the gas giants.
Finding more supporting evidence and calculating effects is a work in progress for those of us who see the importance of these facts.
“Alan Millar (07:43:34) :
Cannot understand why there is all this interest in the barycenter of the solar system.
It is an artifice that has no mass and no energy, how the hell does it affect anything therefore?
Consider the fact that no physical entity can travel faster than the speed of light in our universe. However we can observe things that do!
For example when a wave hits a sea wall at an angle you can observe a ‘wavefront’ moving along the wall. Given a long enough wall and a shallow enough angle of attack that wave front can exceed the speed of light.
Doesn’t breach the laws of the universe however as it is an artifice with no mass, no energy, and way of transmitting information.
Alan”
Nobody has addressed this issue of artifice. Perhaps the logic is too uncomfortable if you have some sort of belief in the ‘effects’ of barycenters.
Barycenters, like my wavefront, are not ‘real’ things within our universe they are observable, measurable, and calculable but are not subject to the laws of the universe because they are only artifices that exist as a consequence of real forces that are subject to universal laws.
My wavefront can easily exceed the speed of light because it does not exist in any real sense. If it did really exist then it must be subject to universal laws and could not reach the speed of light. Either that or the laws of the universe are wrong as we understand them!!
Because the wavefront is only an artifice and has no separate existence within our universe it cannot affect anything within it. If anyone disagrees perhaps they would describe how this might work.
Barycenters are artifices in exactly the same way and have no separate existence, outwith the real forces that are operating, and therefore have no real existance within our universe and therefore cannot influence anything within this universe.
Talkabout the interplay of real forces and their effects if you will but leave out the effects of a changing barycenter, it has none!
Alan
Leif Svalgaard (19:49:55) :
You don’t need the speed of the BC as it is not a body. What you should calculate is the projection of the velocity vector for each body [Sun and Planets] onto the direction from that body to the BC,
You’ll have to explain this differently to me, because my vector algebra is non-existent. I can handle trigonometry though.
Let us reduce the matter to 2 dimensions in an x-y plane. The barycentre is at the origin, and the body under consideration is at location (x,y) and has velocity (vx,vy), where x,y, and vx, vy are all positive. Let the angle of the chord joining (x,y) and (0,0) to the x-axis be A. Now explain to me what you would like me to calculate.
I initially thought you just wanted the speed of the body, which will be the square root of (vx^2 + vy^2). But I now think that you may actually want either the radial velocity of the body out from the barycentre origin, or the what I think of as the tangential velocity (normal/at a right angle to the radial direction).
Radial velocity = vx.cosA + vy.sinA.
Tangential velocity = -vx.sinA + vy.cosA
once for each time step would be the obvious choice [but once a month would be fine too – things don’t change that fast], and for several years where there is some variation in the position of the BC.
What would you like in this table? It could become fairly large. Time, body name, body mass, distance from BC, speed, AM would seem necessary. But I could throw in (x,y,z) and (vx,vy,vz) if you want them.
I think I’ll restrict it to the Sun and the planets from Mercury to Neptune (I don’t have Pluto), and leave out all the asteroids and comets floating around in my simulation. So that will be 8 planets plus the Sun.
I measure time in seconds from the start of my simulation on 19 March 1940, which is (I believe) the vernal equinox for that year. It would be convenient for me if a “month” was defined as some number of seconds ( the obvious number being /12th of a terrestrial year). If the simulation was run for 12 years (slightly longer than the orbit of Jupiter), this would produce 144 x 9 records. I’ll need to write some code to output this. At the moment I have quite a sophisticated visual display of the solar system, but very primitive data output facilities.
The results, when they come, will have health warnings attached. The orbital period of Jupiter is 4331.572 days. But in my first test of my simulation the period of Jupiter was 4333.48 days from the time it first crossed the ecliptic x-axis to the time it recrossed it 12 years later. I get different figures using different time steps, with the same sort of error.
Messrs Arnholm and Smith
Some five years ago, I devised an equation, which pinpoints solar cycles’ anomalies over last 400 years. It employs orbital periods of the three largest planets (also with largest magnetospheres). Critical points are indicated by oscillating time coincidence (Cos function) of 4xSaturn & 1xUranus+1xJupiter; rounded orbital periods relationship 4x5x6 & 14×6 + 2×6.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
In electrical, electronic and acoustic or mechanical oscillating systems, this kind of relationship normally would be strictly avoided.
With your knowledge of the planetary system, is an equivalent resonance physically possible and if so what kind of interpretation one might consider?
Thanks.
idlex (04:19:07) :
Tangential velocity = -vx.sinA + vy.cosA
is what is needed. That is: perpendicular to the line joining the planet [or the Sun] to the BC.
What would you like in this table?
Time, body name, AM would seem enough for me. Perhaps others would like more. Time step once every 5 days would be more than enough resolution.
tallbloke (02:41:20) :
Ray Tomes to speak for himself again:
“There is no disagreement that the core of the Sun has much more radiation than the convection zone.”
He talks about ‘radiation’ content. I don’t think he has this together. The ‘radiation’ we see at Earth coming from the Sun is the same as in the convection zone and as just outside the core. As you go inwards heading for the center the radiation contents decreases as more and more of it is now generated behind you.
The energy production rate in the core is actually extremely low, lower than than that of an ordinary candle. It would take a week to get a kettle of water to a boil. The ‘relativistic matter’ is pure fantasy. The whole thing is so riddled with nonsense that it is really a pity that ‘the best science blog’ should be polluted by this.
Simple ‘back of the envelope’ calculations of the travel time varies a lot because you can make several different simplifying assumptions, but the travel time estimates are all very long, tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands, to millions of years and that is the important bit. Solar physicists have not bothered making a precise calculation [which is possible, but tedious] because there is no physical significance to the precise number: 100,000 or 250,000 or 500,000 years makes no difference. The time is LONG and that is important. I couldn’t see from your link why the exact time was important; tell us. What difference would it make to the theory if the time was 200,000 years instead of 250,000?
A simple to follow calculation can be found here: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992ApJ…401..759M their result is 170,000 years. Close enough to my estimate.
tallbloke (02:41:20) :
cry out for big research grant
I guess everybody has their motivation…
tallbloke (02:41:20) :
Quote: Tusenfen: If the core of the sun would move differently from the outer layers, then we would most likely have observed that using helioseismology.
No you wouldn’t. The distances that I am talking about are very small and the time periods very long.
But since most of the Sun’s mass resides in the core, a displacement would change the gravitational potential of the Sun [technically the quadrupole[and higher] moments] and THAT would have a strong and measurable effect on the inner planets [Mercury, etc], and THAT is not observed over hundreds of years. There is a tiny GR effect of 0.43 arc seconds per year [shift of perihelion] which is indeed observed and is one of the proofs of GR.
But, there really is no sense in discussing all the non-effects from the rambling non-sense of Ray.
vukcevic (06:14:54) :
is an equivalent resonance physically possible and if so what kind of interpretation one might consider?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
Leif Svalgaard (06:49:21) :
OK, I know what you want now. I’ve been fooling around outputting some text from my simulation. The following is a sample text output of all bodies’ mass, x, and y locations (metres kilograms seconds) over a couple of 200 second interval.
Interval Number: 179 Interval period: 200.0 s Time 35931.32088423952 s
Sol 1.988855E30 4.9039866E-8 2.9333936E-8
Mercury 3.302E23 -5.9132162E10 -1.30915973E10
Venus 4.8685E24 -4.8242397E10 9.5979053E10
Earth 5.9736E24 -1.48997194E11 906710.0
Mars 6.4185E23 2.91857224E10 2.30425051E11
Jupiter 1.8986E27 6.9315946E11 2.60170662E11
Saturn 5.684623E26 1.14870898E12 7.7310866E11
Uranus 8.6832E25 1.79596676E12 2.31738966E12
Neptune 1.0243E26 -4.5038164E12 3.93603809E11
Interval Number: 180 Interval period: 200.0 s Time 36000.32088423952 s
Sol 1.988855E30 4.7715747E-4 2.854188E-4
Mercury 3.302E23 -5.9132133E10 -1.30947328E10
Venus 4.8685E24 -4.8244568E10 9.5977955E10
Earth 5.9736E24 -1.48997226E11 -1155854.4
Mars 6.4185E23 2.9184127E10 2.30425395E11
Jupiter 1.8986E27 6.9315913E11 2.60171547E11
Saturn 5.684623E26 1.14870859E12 7.7310919E11
Uranus 8.6832E25 1.79596637E12 2.31738992E12
Neptune 1.0243E26 -4.5038164E12 3.93603449E11
Is that readable for you? The text handling in my version of Java is a bit primitive, and lining everything up neatly would take more time. Comma-delimited fields would be as easy as the space-delimited fields shown. I can do double precision numbers if you want.
The only problem now is that a text file made up of something like 1000 records will have 10,000 or so lines. I’m not sure I can post a comment that long. Or that Anthony would like it very much. Is that something that people do here?
The other options are to email it to you. Or to put the text file up on my own website (where I’ll be forced to delete it later for lack of space). Any other options I’ve not thought of? There are websites that allow you upload things like images. Is photobucket one?
Leif Svalgaard (15:26:46) :
to
idlex (09:08:40) :
You have all the machinery to calculate the orbital angular momenta for all the planets and for the Sun. Compute for each time step the barycenter position. For each body, compute the angular momentum as the distance to the barycenter times the mass of the body times the speed around the barycenter. Plot the angular momentum on the same plot [or post a table] that show the AM for each as a function of time.
I have this “machinery” as well, and have done the computations using vectors
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/misc/oam_1940_2040.pdf
Second plot shows the variations for each planet (averages subtracted).
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (23:49:02) :
I gave the wiki link in my first post that shows the elliptical orbits in a gravitational field composed of two objects ( the circle is a limiting case of an ellipse, if you know about conic sections).
The “tirck” is using the effective mass and center of mass concept to bundle all the planets into one “effective object”. Instantaneously or in small time scales, the two ellipses as solutions of the gravitational equations hold.
Thus I have separated the motion due to the dynamics, the forces present, and the motion of the overall center of mass poiint, because one of the two ellipses is traced by a non solid body. From Sirius, the wobble of the sun will be an indication that there are planets.
p.s.
The coordinate system is where the origin is on the center of mass point of the solar system
HIjack:) From Do Variations in the Solar Cycle Affect Our Climate System?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/
last paragraph quote: SSTs however have been influenced by other forcings, such as greenhouse gases, over the last few decades, and these transient changes will obviously affect the solar cycle influence. Similarly, increased carbon dioxide in the stratosphere has led to gradual cooling conditions, which affects the UV influence on the stratospheric circulation. So while the solar influence may have produced a broadly similar hydrologic response for many centuries, it now competes with potentially stronger perturbations. Its effect may well decrease with time.
increased carbon dioxide in the stratosphere has led to gradual cooling.. well isnt that a first.
ps if this is a minimum and it was predicted by someone as I believe it has.. please name it after the guy who was right and not the puppet boys:P
vukcevic (06:14:54) :
Messrs Arnholm and Smith
Some five years ago, I devised an equation, which pinpoints solar cycles’ anomalies over last 400 years. It employs orbital periods of the three largest planets (also with largest magnetospheres). Critical points are indicated by oscillating time coincidence (Cos function) of 4xSaturn & 1xUranus+1xJupiter; rounded orbital periods relationship 4×5×6 & 14×6 + 2×6.
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/CycleAnomalies.gif
In electrical, electronic and acoustic or mechanical oscillating systems, this kind of relationship normally would be strictly avoided.
With your knowledge of the planetary system, is an equivalent resonance physically possible and if so what kind of interpretation one might consider?
Thanks.
Vukcevic, I am reading your work with interest and open mind, thank you for sharing it. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of electrical or electronic systems to judge your theories, but the thought that the “electric current sheet” or magnetic fields play a role seems interesting, bearing in mind the non-neglible limits of my understanding.
Regarding resonances in the solar system, I don’t see why such resonances should not exist in this system as it exists everywhere else in nature (electronics, mechanical systems, structural dynamics). I am a structural engineer, and resonances (eigenvalues) are obviously to be avoided in this field as well. The classic example we were taught at school was the Tacoma Narrows bridge that failed due to structural resonance with the wind
As in other fields, undamped resonances in the solar system would probably not be stable in the long run as you could be enhancing gravitational influences and thus change the orbits by exchanging orbital momentum or even throw a planet out of the system (with a speed higher than escape velocity).
Wikipedia may not be the ultimate source, but it speaks of orbital resonances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
As you can see, there is a 1:2:4 resonance of Jupiter’s moons Ganymede, Europa and Io, and a 2:3 resonance between Pluto and Neptune. See also the interesting discussion of ‘near-resonances’ and a suggested previous 1:2 resonance between Jupiter and Saturn
that may have influenced Uranus and Neptune’s orbits in the past.
So I guess the answer is that orbital resonances exist and are quite common. I think our idea that the solar system is fairly stable is just a reflection of the short human lifespan. In the long run the system is chaotic and unpredictable.
A simple to follow calculation can be found here: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992ApJ…401..759M their result is 170,000 years. Close enough to my estimate.
Yes, that’s the paper referred to on the seondary thread I linked. Ray used the 170,000 years figure.
I think your comment about the 0.14km deflection of the core affecting mercury’s orbit is a canard flung out there to try to dismiss Ray’s theory. I doubt very much you’ve done the maths.
Some preliminary results from about May 1940
Body Time Angular Momentum
Sol 7890647.0 9.645767008412017E38
Mercury 7890647.0 9.0339935517356E38
Venus 7890647.0 1.8551726515616468E40
Earth 7890647.0 2.672951724006328E40
Mars 7890647.0 3.5119189036926807E39
Jupiter 7890647.0 1.925818761438606E43
Saturn 7890647.0 7.822949813342728E42
Uranus 7890647.0 1.6975168647358417E42
Neptune 7890647.0 2.4969601894603428E42
Given that the Earth is about 1.489E11 m from the Sun/barycentre and has a mass of 5.97E24 kg, and goes in roughly a circle of that radius in 365.25 days, with a tangential velocity of 29.66 km/s, I’d expect to see a figure of about 2.63E40 for AM. This compares well with the computed figure of 2.672951724006328E40. So I seem to be working out AM properly.