Discoveries from the IBEX satellite show we still don't know quite a few things about the heliosphere and solar system

Voyagers 1 and 2 reached the termination shock in 2005 and 2007, respectively, taking point measurements as they left the solar system. Before IBEX, there was only data from these two points at the edge of the solar system. While exciting and valuable, the data they provided about this region raised more questions than they resolved. IBEX has filled in the entire interaction region, revealing surprising details completely unpredicted by any theories. IBEX completes one all-sky map every six months. IBEX completed the first map of the complex interactions occurring at the edge of the solar system (shown) this summer. (Credit: SwRI via Science Daily)

From the University of Chicago

Satellite reveals surprising cosmic ‘weather’ at edge of solar system

IMAGE: Image from one of the IBEX papers published in the Oct. 16, 2009, issue of Science showing a map of the ribbon of energetic neutral atoms (in green and yellow)…

The first solar system energetic particle maps show an unexpected landmark occurring at the outer edge of the solar wind bubble surrounding the solar system. Scientists published these maps, based mostly on data collected from NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer satellite, in the Oct. 15 issue of Science Express, the advance online version of the journal Science.

“Nature is full of surprises, and IBEX has been lucky to discover one of those surprises,” said Priscilla Frisch, a senior scientist in astronomy & astrophysics at the University of Chicago. “The sky maps are dominated by a giant ribbon of energetic neutral atoms extending throughout the sky in an arc that is 300 degrees long.” Energetic neutral atoms form when hot solar wind ions (charged particles) steal electrons from cool interstellar neutral atoms.

IBEX was launched Oct. 19, 2008, to produce the first all-sky maps of the heliosphere, which reaches far beyond the solar system’s most distant planets. Extending more than 100 times farther than the distance from Earth to the sun, the heliosphere marks the region of outer space subjected to the sun’s particle emissions.

The new maps show how high-speed cosmic particle streams collide and mix at the edge of the heliosphere, said Frisch, who co-authored three of a set of IBEX articles appearing in this week’s Science Express. The outgoing solar wind blows at 900,000 miles an hour, crashing into a 60,000-mile-an-hour “breeze” of incoming interstellar gas.

Revealed in the IBEX data, but not predicted in the theoretical heliosphere simulations of three different research groups, was the ribbon itself, formed where the direction of the interstellar magnetic field draping over the heliosphere is perpendicular to the viewpoint of the sun.

IMAGE: Priscilla Frisch, Senior Scientist in Astronomy & Astrophysics, and member of the science team, Interstellar Boundary Explorer. Collaborating with former UChicago astronomer Thomas F. Adams, she made the first spectrum…

Energetic protons create forces as they move through the magnetic field, and when the protons are bathed in interstellar neutrals, they produce energetic neutral atoms. “We’re still trying to understand this unexpected structure, and we believe that the interstellar magnetic forces are associated with the enhanced ENA production at the ribbon,” Frisch said.

IBEX shows that energetic neutral atoms are produced toward the north pole of the ecliptic (the plane traced by the orbit of the planets around the sun), as well as toward the heliosphere tail pointed toward the constellations of Taurus and Orion. “The particle energies change between the poles and tail, but surprisingly not in the ribbon compared to adjacent locations,” Frisch said.

###

IBEX is the latest in NASA’s series of low-cost, rapidly developed Small Explorers space missions. Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, leads and developed the mission with a team of national and international partners. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the Explorers Program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.

Citations: N. A. Schwadron, M. Bzowski, G. B. Crew, M. Gruntman, H. Fahr, H. Fichtner, P. C. Frisch, H. O. Funsten, S. Fuselier, J. Heerikhuisen, V. Izmodenov, H. Kucharek, M. Lee, G. Livadiotis, D. J. McComas, E. Moebius, T. Moore, J. Mukherjee, N.V. Pogorelov, C. Prested, D. Reisenfeld, E. Roelof, G.P. Zank, “Comparison of Interstellar Boundary Explorer Observations with 3-D Global Heliospheric Models,” Science Express, Oct. 15, 2009.

H.O. Funsten, F. Allegrini, G.B. Crew, R. DeMajistre, P.C. Frisch, S.A. Fuselier, M. Gruntman, P. Janzen, D.J. McComas, E. Möbius, B. Randol, D.B. Reisenfeld, E.C. Roelof, N.A. Schwadron, “Structures and Spectral Variations of the Outer Heliosphere in IBEX Energetic Neutral Atom Maps,” Science Express, Oct. 15, 2009.

D.J. McComas, F. Allegrini1, P. Bochsler, M. Bzowski, E.R. Christian, G.B.Crew, R. DeMajistre, H. Fahr, H. Fichtner, P.C. Frisch, H.O. Funsten, S. A. Fuselier, G. Gloeckler, M. Gruntman, J. Heerikhuisen, V. Izmodenov, P.J anzen, P. Knappenberger, S. Krimigis, H. Kucharek, M. Lee, G. Livadiotis, S. Livi, R.J. MacDowall, D. Mitchell, E. Möbius, T. Moore, N.V. Pogorelov, D. Reisenfeld, E. Roelof, L. Saul, N.A. Schwadron, P.W. Valek, R. Vanderspek, P. Wurz, G.P. Zank, “Global Observations of the Interstellar Interaction from the Interstellar Boundary Explorer-IBEX”, Science Express, Oct. 15, 2009.

Related links:

Animation shows how energetic neutral atoms are made in the heliosheath when hot solar wind protons grab an electron from a cold interstellar gas atom. The ENAs can then easily travel back into the solar system, where some are collected by IBEX. Credit: NASA/GSFC http://www.swri.org/temp/ibexscience/DM/SP_draft1.mov

Solar Journey: The Significant of Our Galactic Environment for the Heliosphere and Earth, Priscilla C. Frisch, editor. http://www.springer.com/astronomy/practical+astronomy/book/978-1-4020-4397-0

IBEX Web page at Southwest Research Institute http://ibex.swri.edu/

NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer mission http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/index.html

To view a video related to this research, please visit http://astro.uchicago.edu/%7Efrisch/soljourn/Hanson/AstroBioScene7Sound.mov


Here is another press release on IBEX from Boston University:

IBEX discovers that galactic magnetic fields may control the boundaries of our solar system

NASA mission reveals impact of galaxy’s magnetic fields

(Boston) – The first all-sky maps developed by NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) spacecraft, the initial mission to examine the global interactions occurring at the edge of the solar system, suggest that the galactic magnetic fields had a far greater impact on Earth’s history than previously conceived, and the future of our planet and others may depend, in part, on how the galactic magnetic fields change with time.

“The IBEX results are truly remarkable, with emissions not resembling any of the current theories or models of this never-before-seen region,” says Dr. David J. McComas, IBEX principal investigator and assistant vice president of the Space Science and Engineering Division at Southwest Research Institute. “We expected to see small, gradual spatial variations at the interstellar boundary, some 10 billion miles away. However, IBEX is showing us a very narrow ribbon that is two to three times brighter than anything else in the sky.”

A “solar wind” of charged particles continuously travels at supersonic speeds away from the Sun in all directions. This solar wind inflates a giant bubble in interstellar space called the heliosphere — the region of space dominated by the Sun’s influence in which the Earth and other planets reside. As the solar wind travels outward, it sweeps up newly formed “pickup ions,” which arise from the ionization of neutral particles drifting in from interstellar space. IBEX measures energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) traveling at speeds of roughly half a million to two and a half million miles per hour. These ENAs are produced from the solar wind and pick-up ions in the boundary region between the heliosphere and the local interstellar medium.

The IBEX mission just completed the first global maps of these protective layers called the heliosphere through a new technique that uses neutral atoms like light to image the interactions between electrically charged and neutral atoms at the distant reaches of our Sun’s influence, far beyond the most distant planets. It is here that the solar wind, which continually emanates from the Sun at millions of miles per hour, slams into the magnetized medium of charged particles, atoms and dust that pervades the galaxy and is diverted around the system. The interaction between the solar wind and the medium of our galaxy creates a complex host of interactions, which has long fascinated scientists, and is thought to shield the majority of harmful galactic radiation that reaches Earth and fills the solar system.

“The magnetic fields of our galaxy may change the protective layers of our solar system that regulate the entry of galactic radiation, which affects Earth and poses hazards to astronauts,” says Nathan Schwadron of Boston University’s Center for Space Physics and the lead for the IBEX Science Operations Center at BU.

Each six months, the IBEX mission, which was launched on October 18, 2008, completes its global maps of the heliosphere. The first IBEX maps are strikingly different than any of the predictions, which are now forcing scientists to reconsider their basic assumptions of how the heliosphere is created.

“The most striking feature is the ribbon that appears to be controlled by the magnetic field of our galaxy,” says Schwadron.

Although scientists knew that their models would be tested by the IBEX measurements, the existence of the ribbon is “remarkable” says Geoffrey Crew, a Research Scientist at MIT and the Software Design Lead for IBEX. “It suggests that the galactic magnetic fields are much stronger and exert far greater stresses on the heliosphere than we previously believed.”

The discovery has scientists thinking carefully about how different the heliosphere could be than they expected.

“It was really surprising that the models did not generate features at all like the ribbon we observed,” says Christina Prested, a BU graduate student working on IBEX. “Understanding the ribbon in detail will require new insights into the inner workings of the interactions at the edge of our Sun’s influence in the galaxy.”

Adds Schwadron,”Any changes to our understanding of the heliosphere will also affect how we understand the astrospheres that surround other stars. The harmful radiation that leaks into the solar system from the heliosphere is present throughout the galaxy and the existence of astrospheres may be important for understanding the habitability of planets surrounding other stars.”

###

IBEX is the latest in NASA’s series of low-cost, rapidly developed Small Explorers space missions. Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, leads and developed the mission with a team of national and international partners. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the Explorers Program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.

The Center for Space Physics at Boston University carries out a wide variety of research in space physics including: space plasma physics, magnetospheric physics, ionospheric physics, atmospheric physics, and planetary and cometary atmospheric studies.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

221 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 27, 2009 7:30 pm

James F. Evans (15:30:53) :
Well, let’s see if I can pare this down (it’s gone kinda global,
You clearly did not bother to read or even look at the two links I provided, one to the theory of reconnection and one to in situ observations. Instead you just parrot your own words from previous posts. Read the papers and report back.

Carla
October 27, 2009 8:41 pm

Galactic and ExtragalacticMagnetic Fields
Rainer Beck
Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Auf dem Hügel 69, 53121 Bonn, Germany
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.2923v4
Geesh, hope you both read the above.
Have to wonder what the time distribution of the reversals discussed above is. Reverse pan out, reverse pan out. Also, small scale reversals among so much more in the above article, fantastic!

October 27, 2009 8:47 pm

Carla (20:41:25) :
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.2923v4
Geesh, hope you both read the above.

“The requested URL ‘/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.2923v4’ was not found on this server.”

Carla
October 27, 2009 8:50 pm

Oooops forgot to ask, (don’t have all that time under my belt) anyone have a clue on Schmidts Law?

Carla
October 28, 2009 4:31 am

Leif Svalgaard (20:47:47) :
Carla (20:41:25) :
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.2923v4
Geesh, hope you both read the above.
“The requested URL ‘/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0810/0810.2923v4′ was not found on this server.”
Try this..
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.2923
From, upper right side click, PDF.

Carla
October 28, 2009 6:53 am

Leif, you may be able to appreciate the next article. Myself, I need to take a shovel with me so I can dig myself out, as it goes way over my head.
Constraining models of the large scale Galactic
magnetic eld with WMAP5 polarization data and
extragalactic rotation measure sources
Ronnie Jansson1, Glennys R. Farrar1, Andre H. Waelkens2,
Torsten A. Enlin2
1Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, and Department of Physics
New York University, NY, NY 10003, USA
2Max-Planck-Institute fur Astrophysik, Karl Schwarzschild-Str. 1, 85741
Garching, Germany
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0905/0905.2228v2.pdf
21- June 2009

October 28, 2009 7:06 am

Carla (20:50:04) :
Oooops forgot to ask, (don’t have all that time under my belt) anyone have a clue on Schmidts Law?
“The Schmidt Star Formation Law was first proposed by Maarten Schmidt in 1959 and states that star formation rate is proportional to the gas density of a cloud raised to some power. So the mass the cloud loses as it turns into stars (per unit mass) is proportional to the mass of the cloud to some power.
More here: http://burro.cwru.edu/sjb/schmidt_main.html
Needless to say, the article does not mention electric fields.

October 28, 2009 8:14 am

Carla (06:53:58) :
Leif, you may be able to appreciate the next article. Myself, I need to take a shovel with me so I can dig myself out, as it goes way over my head.
The paper shows how difficult measurement of the Galactic Magnetic field is [because we are inside it]. And that we do not at present have a fully consistent picture. In the next few years that will likely change for the better as the article notes. Note that there is no mention of electric fields or currents.

Carla
October 28, 2009 11:39 am

Leif Svalgaard (08:14:41) :
The paper shows how difficult measurement of the Galactic Magnetic field is [because we are inside it]. And that we do not at present have a fully consistent picture. In the next few years that will likely change for the better as the article notes. Note that there is no mention of electric fields or currents.
Indeed, from the inside looking out continues to present its own obstacles.
Both papers, though have only read the earlier, are good and current mapping projects enhancing our understanding. (not unlike the IBEX project)
Looks like this thread is kaput!

James F. Evans
October 28, 2009 2:20 pm

Carla:
I’ve been busy, thanks, anyhow.
Dr. Svalgaard, you are right.
In hind-sight I should have incorporated your links into my response. I acknowlege the responsibility to analyse & interpret papers offered in good faith in support of a proposition. I fell down in that respect.
It is part of the scientific method.
I am sorry and I apologize.
But before I address the scientific papers you were good to link, I have a question:
What is the definition of the electromotive force?

October 28, 2009 3:51 pm

James F. Evans (14:20:36) :
What is the definition of the electromotive force?
In cosmic plasmas, the emf is determined purely by the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the conducting plasma. It is the amount of work done per unit charge.
It is strange that you ask, as neither of the two links make any reference to the electromotive force.

James F. Evans
October 28, 2009 4:33 pm

Dr. Svalgaard answered: “In cosmic plasmas, the emf is determined purely by the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the conducting plasma. It is the amount of work done per unit charge.”
No. the, above, quote is what you claim about space plasma with no supporting in situ observations & measurements.
Anyway, I’m not asking for your definition of cosmic plasma. I’m asking about the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion, here, on Earth…you know, where we have experimental results and such.
So, again, what is the definion of the electromotive force?

October 28, 2009 4:51 pm

James F. Evans (16:33:30) :
So, again, what is the definion of the electromotive force?
The emf that produces the current that flowed through your computer, when you typed that, is determined by the rate of change of the magnetic flux through a conductor at your local power plant, rotating relative to the magnetic field. It is the amount of work done per unit charge.”

James F. Evans
October 28, 2009 5:16 pm

Why is this so hard?
Let me ask it this way: What is the term for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?

October 28, 2009 5:41 pm

James F. Evans (17:16:59) :
Let me ask it this way: What is the term for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?
It is not the electromotive force. The emf is the term for the work it takes to separate the two charges.
The term that you seem to be fishing for [with good reason, obviously] in your question is called Coulomb Attraction:
“Coulomb attraction ( ′kü′läm ə′trakshən ) ( electricity ) The electrostatic force of attraction exerted by one charged particle on another charge.”
To learn more about emf, you might want to consult:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vmg1UKsTntAC&pg=PT67&lpg=PT67&dq=electromotive+force+work+separate&source=bl&ots=BqEjTA-hVU&sig=1KVjKSMpdjvoZ03pZGEwndu7dDg&hl=en&ei=XOPoSpzmNIvYtgOx1qHsCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=electromotive%20force%20work%20separate&f=false
or if that link does not work, google “Basic Electricity Van Valkenburgh electromotive force” which is one of the best books about electricity at an elementary level.

James F. Evans
October 29, 2009 12:17 am

Dr. Svalgaard:
Thank you.

James F. Evans
October 29, 2009 1:35 pm

I have reviewed the “magnetic reconnection” papers provided:
The first paper is a simulation, which sometimes are helpful, but also can be problematic because it is no better than the data and assumptions fed into the computer.
The second is an in situ observation & measurement.
These papers have issues: So-called “magnetic reconnection” is assumed to happen. I suggest this is an unwarranted assumption.
Frankly, the descriptions are consistent with a plasma ‘double layer’, as stated in the abstract: “The simulations reveal that the dissipation region develops a two-scales tructure: an inner electron region and an outer ion region.”
This “inner electron region and an outer ion region” is an exact description of a double layer. See double layer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “A fundamental process in the cosmos is magnetic reconnection, whereby oppositely magnetic fields are pressed together by movement of the neutral plasma.”
Again, neutral plasma is an oxymoron. Anyhow, the papers also speak of different continuities of plasma coming together (again, exactly how double layers form).
I’ll tip my hat to Dr. Svalgaard, his mental stamina is excellent, there must be a good physical constitution to support it.
Something Dr. Svalgaard has run across before in astrophysics: Agree to disagree, and take the discussion under advisement.
This duel has run far enough: There are more in situ observation & measurements due to add to the observations & measurements NASA already has:
“NASA is going to launch a mission to get to the bottom of the mystery. It’s called MMS, short for Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission, and it consists of four spacecraft which will fly through Earth’s magnetosphere to study reconnection in action. The mission passed its preliminary design review in May 2009 and was approved for implementation in June 2009. Engineers can now start building the spacecraft.”
Further link for MMS (above quote not from the following link):
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/mms_magnetic.html
Instead of going into space with a fixed agenda that could lead to confirmatory bias, it seems reasonable to compare alternative theories: So-called “magnetic reconnection” versus double layers and see where the observations & measurements take analysis & interpretation from there.

October 29, 2009 2:15 pm

James F. Evans (13:35:15) :
The first paper is a simulation, which sometimes are helpful, but also can be problematic because it is no better than the data and assumptions fed into the computer.
A simulation is much more than that. It is a way of predicting what our understanding says should happen. The basic idea is the calculate from established physical law what should happen, then you go out to see if that is what actually does happen, and that is what the second paper does: verifying observationally in situ that what the simulation said should happen actually does happen.
Frankly, the descriptions are consistent with a plasma ‘double layer’
Of course, nobody doubted that for a second. These double layers are generated in currents resulting from plasma moving in a magnetic field.

October 29, 2009 7:47 pm

James F. Evans (13:35:15) :
I have reviewed the “magnetic reconnection” papers provided
Another recent paper reporting in situ observation of reconnection and generated electric fields and currents for you continuing education on this subject:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040228.pdf

October 29, 2009 7:56 pm

James F. Evans (13:35:15) :
I have reviewed the “magnetic reconnection” papers provided
When it rains, it pours:
Another recent paper reporting in situ observation of reconnection and generated electric fields and currents for you continuing education on this subject:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008GL035297.pdf

James F. Evans
October 30, 2009 6:59 am

Thank you.

James F. Evans
October 30, 2009 3:55 pm

Dr. Svalgaard:
I read the series of papers you kindly offered.
The simulation does provide results that suggest the parameters fed into the simulation are well related to parameters present and observed & measured by in situ spacecraft probes.
The validity of the parameters used in the simulation are well verified by in situ confirmation of coresponding physical structures and energy processes.
I found the interpretation & analysis of the in situ data to be a well taken description of physical forces.
I note both the authors of the simulation and the in situ papers allowed for further refinement and resolution of “data gaps”and I associate with that sentiment, with an eye toward a high resolution physical explanation.
These papers provide an excellent exhibition of the relevant physcial structues and processes.
“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet” — William Shakespeare
Those that perform the work product that defines the physical process can name the physical process.
Fine.
Call it magnetic reconnection.
If I refer to magnetic reconnection as a ‘double layer’ and emphasize its electromagnetism, I suggest that be taken as a synonymous term as magnetic reconnection and not seen as some misleading term open to disparagement.
So, well done for the researchers involved in this area of scientific investigation.
I look forward to further sophistication of the understanding in this physical process.

October 30, 2009 4:45 pm

James F. Evans (15:55:19) :
If I refer to magnetic reconnection as a ‘double layer’ and emphasize its electromagnetism, I suggest that be taken as a synonymous term as magnetic reconnection and not seen as some misleading term open to disparagement.
It is not a question of ‘naming’, but of physics. All currents we observe in space plasmas are created by plasma moving relative to a magnetic field [and almost currents we have on the Earth as well – that’s how power stations work]. If the magnetic field gradient is large enough and/or the movement [i.e. the resulting change in magnetic field dB/dt] is fast enough these current can be enormous. Huge currents exert tremendous forces and the plasma is thus highly unstable [a particularly nasty instability is called the Buneman instability [incidentally, Oscar Buneman had his office across the hall from my old office at Stanford and has often lectured me on this – he was a good man].
As a result of these instabilities, pinches, filaments, and current sheets appear naturally, and when two of the latter [with opposite charge] occurs together we call it a double layer. Reconnection drives these currents and are thus a natural cause of double layers. Currents have to be constantly ‘driven’ by something, otherwise they just either dissipate their energy or short out, and go away, unless some force is constantly regenerating them. As that is where the Electric Universe falters, because there is no explanation of what drives these large currents.
The ‘electromagnetism’ label is dead wrong. There are electric fields and magnetic fields, but no ‘electromagnetic’ fields – although people often loosely talks about such a field or force. Maxwell’s equations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations make no reference to any ‘electromagnetic field’, only to electric and magnetic fields. It is a common tactic to obscure matters by referring to an ‘electromagnetic’ field allowing one to be vague and imprecise about what is meant,

James F. Evans
October 30, 2009 11:57 pm

Well, if it’s about the physics, then “magnetic reconnection” is a poor name choice for this physical process as it fails to convey the nature of the forces involved.
How so?
Magnetism is only one componant of the processes and elements involved in this energetic structure, but others are equally important, such as the electric field, and the electrons, and ions, themselves.
The name “magnetic reconnection” obscures the roles of these equally important componants. It also allows astrophysicists to downplay these other components.
Let’s be clear, without electric fields this process would not happen. Neither would it happen without the electrons and ions. Yet, “magnetic reconnection” conjures disembodied magnetic fields releasing energy in some magical fashion.
It’s not magic, it’s a physical process with structure. All the component parts play vital roles, they are intertwined with each other.
Not one component part is created as a result of this process: A magnetic field is present before this process commences, so, too, is the coulomb attraction (electromotive force) of the charged particles (plasma), in fact, an electric field is the aggragation of this electrical force, and, of course, so, too, are the electrons and ions, which arguably are the most important component parts of all.
Also, “reconnection” is a misnomer, a compounding of the fallacy that magnetic field “lines” are real things, they aren’t, they are a reification, magnetic fields are undifferentiated vector force fields, which, again, obscures what is really happening, flows of plasma, electrical flows with concomtant magnetic fields go through a self-reinforcing positive feedback structure.
The dismissal of ‘electromagnetism’ is not well taken. True, electric fields and magnetic fields are seperate enities, but they are part of the same duality. Electric fields and magnetic fields are two halves of the same coin. Their interaction and reaction with each other and the electrons and ions is what this process is about.
The “magnetic” without the “electric” is as much an obfiscation as would be the “electric” without the “magnetic”. You can’t have one without the other.
‘Electric reconnection’ would be as much a misnomer as ‘magnetic reconnection’.
Although, interestingly enough, electric fields can be present without the presence of magnetic fields where there is no motion of the charged particles. This reality can not be gotten around. Magnetic fields are a function of charged particle motion.
When you think about it, what is going on is not “reconnection” at all, but its opposite: Seperation of the electrons and ion into a more energetic organization than before this process.
The reprising of the now tired refrain, “it’s the magnetism”, won’t cut it.
If it about conveying the nature of the physical process, the flavor of the fundamental forces, if you will; call it electric-magnetic reconnection, if you insist on using “reconnection”, to recognize both fields are present and equally and inseperately working together.
If you want to dispell the mystery, drop “reconnection” altogether as a misleading term.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “It is a common tactic to obscure matters by referring to an ‘electromagnetic’ field allowing one to be vague and imprecise about what is meant.”
Reference to an ‘electromagnetic” field would be wrong. But reference in general to electromagnetism is a recognition of their inherent duality.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Currents have to be constantly ‘driven’ by something, otherwise they just either dissipate their energy or short out, and go away, unless some force is constantly regenerating them. As that is where the Electric Universe falters, because there is no explanation of what drives these large currents.”
It is true the ultimate driver of the system has not been identified, but that is far from evidence that a driver does not exist, and at the atomic level we have identified those drivers — their names are electric and magnetic and they emanate out of charged particles.
But if there is no driver, so, too would magnetic fields eventually dissipate their energy with plasma shorting out and turning into neutral atoms with no electric fields or magnetic fields.
This process identified as “magnetic reconnection” does not stand for the proposition that magnetic fields cause electric currents. This process is a powerful amplifier, but the componant parts were already on the “work bench” ready to be used.
So, while I recognize and acknowledge the physical processes identified, I don’t recognize the dictum offered as a veneer about the deeper significance of those processes.

October 31, 2009 8:37 am

James F. Evans (23:57:50) :
Yet, “magnetic reconnection” conjures disembodied magnetic fields releasing energy in some magical fashion.
As the papers I have linked to demonstrate, there is no magic: The process is clear, a structured magnetic field contains energy fed into it by motions of neutral plasma, reconnection releases that energy via dissipation of temporary electric currents.
It seems obvious that you are not able to free yourselves from the bondage of some seductive websites.
would magnetic fields eventually dissipate their energy with plasma shorting out
magnetic fields are constantly being regenerated by dynamo processes where motion of plasma in the existing field amplifies it. The energy coming from the kinetic energy of the moving neutral plasma.