From the University of Chicago
Satellite reveals surprising cosmic ‘weather’ at edge of solar system
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
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.
It’s the coulomb attraction (electromotive force), beween the electrons and ions.
“[T]he electrostatic force between e.g. an electron and a proton, that together make up a hydrogen atom, is about 40 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force acting between them.”
“The Greek word for amber, ήλεκτρον (electron), was the source of the word ‘electricity’.” — Wikipedia, electrostatics.
The instant physical process is a process of increasing electric potential between electrons and ions, allowing constant physical force (acceleration), or increasing physical force (hyper-acceleration) on the electrons and ions to achieve great speed in a controlled “electric fall” of the electrons and ion toward each other by their coulomb attraction.
Now, questions abound about these processes, how do these electrons and ions make 90 degree turns (away from “shorting out”) away from each other and achieve a “180” degree acceleration away from each other in linear opposite directions?
The longer the “electric fall” the greater the speed of the electrons and ions, so, the larger the structure (larger double layer), the more electrons and ions are involved with greater the distance for electrons and ions to “fall”, thus, achieving a higher energy state, mass X velosity, This process cycles up until cosmic electric potential dynamics can involve huge numbers of electrons and ions at high velocity values.
Any discussion of matter (electrons and ions) acceleration in this process begins with the coulomb attraction (electric field), 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity acting between the electrons and ions as charged particles.
James F. Evans (09:08:55) :
It’s the coulomb attraction (electromotive force), beween the electrons and ions.
The Coulomb attraction is not the electromotive force.
Now, questions abound about these processes, how do these electrons and ions make 90 degree turns (away from “shorting out”) away from each other and achieve a “180″ degree acceleration away from each other in linear opposite directions?
There are no such questions. This matter was settled a century ago.
Yes, the electric field as explained by classical physics.
“There are no such questions. This matter was settled a century ago.”
The the ‘electric’ scientists of the 19th century knew of this “attraction” or “force” between electrons & ions. But the 21st century is just beginning to fully appreciate the energy potential in this dynamic.
It seems evident the specifics of this region of energy transfer will be further studied in situ. Any claim that “we know it all” is just a wee bit premature at this juncture.
By the way, what is the magnetic field strength in comparison to the coulomb attraction’s 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, field strength?
Or is magnetic field strength proportional with the velocity of the charged particles, i.e., zero velocity charged particles, no magnetic field; Velocity at 0 + N, results in an “N” proportionally stronger magnetic field.
Notice the coulomb force is unchanging while the magnetic force is a function of electron and ion velocity.
What strength magnetic field would be needed to be stronger than the coulomb attraction between an electron and ion?
Has this question been asked, and what if any answer was given?
“There are no such questions.”
It is silly for men of Science to state such unflinching certitude in the face of all the unknowns in Nature.
We are at the beginning of in situ space exploration, not the end.
It is an exciting time for Man’s investigation of Naure and the revealing of nature’s secrets to our questing, inquisitive minds.
James F. Evans (10:40:00) :
Yes, the electric field as explained by classical physics.
“There are no such questions. This matter was settled a century ago.”
The explanation [by Bohr] is given by quantum mechanics, not classical physics.
By the way, what is the magnetic field strength in comparison to the coulomb attraction’s 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, field strength?
The correct way of posing this question is to ask what how the two ‘stresses’ compare. “Stress” is a technical term for force. I have already explained this:
—
This follows directly from Maxwell’s equations [for which there is ample experimental support]. Consider the case of a plasma dense enough that Ohm’s law applies, i.e. j = s E, where E is the electric field in the frame of reference moving with the local plasma. For ionized hydrogen, the electrical conductivity, s, is 2×10^7 T^(3/2)/sec [Spitzer, 1956], where T is the temperature. Ampere’s law 4pi j = c curl B says then that 4pi j ~ cB/l [order of magnitude] where l is the typical length scale of variation of the magnetic field B. With E=j/s, you get that E/B = c/(4pi s l) = 10^(-4)/l * (10^4/T)^(3/2), where l is measured in centimeters. For ionized hydrogen T is in excess of 10,000 K. So even with l being as small as 1 km, it follows that E/B less than 10^(-9). On the larger scales of the solar wind, stars, and galaxies, E/B becomes completely negligible. It is then evident that the electric stresses [measured by E^2] are completely insignificant in comparison to the magnetic stresses [measured by B^2]. The ratio of the stresses being (E/B)^2. So, in short, the extremely lightness of the electron ensures that it will very quickly find the positive charges and short out any imbalance. In fact, even if you create an imbalance, it will disappear in a time comparable to the Landau damping time of a plasma oscillation.
—
It is an exciting time for Man’s investigation of Naure and the revealing of nature’s secrets to our questing, inquisitive minds.
The quest should be guided by correct reasoning and interpretation, not by wishful thinking.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “There are no such questions. This matter was settled a century ago.”
Evans responded: “Yes, the electric field as explained by classical physics.”
And Dr. Svalgaard rebutted: “The explanation [by Bohr] is given by quantum mechanics, not classical physics.”
“Coulomb’s law, sometimes called the Coulomb law [coulomb attraction], is an equation describing the electrostatic force between electric charges. It was studied and first published in the 1780s by French physicist Charles Augustin de Coulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Actually, the 18th century is when the attraction between opposite charges was first described in scientific detail.
Evans asked: “By the way, what is the magnetic field strength in comparison to the coulomb attraction’s 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, field strength?”
Perhaps this was an inartful question, but Dr. Svalgaad’s answer, when you strip away the mathematical equations, demonstrates that the magnetic field strength is a variable dependent on the rate of charged particle flow and the density of that plasma flow.
(Was Dr. Svalgaard obscuring this simple principle behind a facade of mathematical jargon?)
This demonstrates the magnetic field strength is a function of charged particle flow as I have consistently argued throughout this thread, not the other way round as Dr. Svalgaard has consistently argued.
Interestingly, Dr. Svalgaard chose to answer the first question and basically agreed with my analysis (although, I didn’t mention the plasma density).
But this was the money question: “What strength magnetic field would be needed to be stronger than the coulomb attraction between an electron and ion? Has this question been asked, and what if any answer was given?”
No answer to that question.
Instead, Dr. Svalgaard jumps to his own preferred conclusion: “The ratio of the stresses being (E/B)^2. So, in short, the extremely lightness of the electron ensures that it will very quickly find the positive charges and short out any imbalance.”
It’s a non-responsive answer and unsupported, too, as will be demonstrated.
The following is from a summary paper offered by Dr. Svalgaard:
“Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon of great importance in solar system plasmas and, presumably, in astrophysical plasmas, because it converts energy stored in magnetic fields into particle kinetic energy and changes the
magnetic field topology, allowing effective exchanges of mass, momentum and energy between differently magnetized plasma regions.”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008GL035297.pdf
I suggest it’s primarily a process of electric fields in tandem with magnetic fields that converts electric potential attraction between electrons and ions into increased states of kinetic energy and electrical organization.
“There the magnetic field lines that are flowing in from both sides become ‘cut’ and ‘reconnected’ as shown in Figure 1, forming a X-type configuration.”
I suggest a better physical explanation is that the flow of electric plasma is redirected, by interaction of the two contacting magnetic fields and the respective regions of charged particles, thus, causing the electric and magnetic fields to assume a new configuration. There is no magical “cutting” and “reconnection”, rather a reconfiguration of the plasma flow, which dictates the configuration of the magnetic fields and electric fields (all the component parts interact: Electrons, ions, and their concomitant electric and magnetic fields).
It is a misnomer to suggest one dominates over the others, rather, they all work together to create a synergy of structure and energy relationships.
And because of the inherent instabilities caused by the non-linear interactions of electric and magnetic fields, with reference to the Buneman instability (there are a number of other named instabilities), this process is not limited to contacting magnetic fields, but has been observed in the solar wind, itself: “Subsequent papers [see Gosling, 2007, and references therein] have established that such reconnection events are quite common and apparent in essentially all solar wind data sets, covering distances between 0.3 and 5 AU.”
As electric fields and magnetic fields are primarily a duality (electric fields can be present without concomitant magnetic fields), it is apparent that the term “neutral plasma” in the solar wind helio current sheet is a misnomer that only serves for sloppy analysis and obfiscation.
The paper makes reference to the MHD approximation that was held to be always true of space plasmas (the “frozen in” magnetic field idea espoused, here, by Dr. Svalgaard), although, as early as the late 1960’s there were voices of dissent disputing this assumption (Alfven and Carlquist), as it turns out the voices were right: “Reconnection requires violation of the frozen-in condition E + (v B) = 0 in some localized region, the diffusion region (see Figure 1).”
This goes to demonstrate the theoretical conclusion Dr. Svalgaard wanted to impart, “So, in short…it [negative charges] will very quickly find the positive charges and short out any imbalance.”, does not necessarily follow from the actual observations & measurements, as opposed to theoretical constructs (mathematical assumptions).
In essence, it has already been demonstrated that assumptions (like MHD “frozen in” field lines) don’t hold up under actual observation & measurement. Dr. Svalgaard’s conclusion is unwarranted from present observation & measurement.
Now, Dr. Svalgaard’s position has been all about “magnetism”, right?
But even in the paper he linked to, that isn’t always the case:
First, on a scale of the ion inertial length, li = c/wp,i (where c is the speed of light and wp,i the ion plasma frequency), the ions are no longer
magnetized, while the electrons remain tied to the magnetic field.”
“the ions are no longer magnetized…”???
And this is apparently true for the electrons, too:
“Next, on the electron inertial length scale, le, which is a factor of 43 smaller than li and thus typically only a few km thick, the electrons are no longer magnetized either.”
This seems to work against Dr. Svalgaard’s narrative of “magnetism” all the time. It seems that either these ions and electrons are motionless, or some unique dynamic is apparent, if they are moving, but demagnetized, then their coulomb attraction is still at work and if they are motionless then their coulomb attraction is still working.
Finally, what is refreshing about the summary paper and opposed to Dr. Svalgaard’s narrative, is the frank admission that there are lots of unknowns in the process:
“In this situation one has to resort to more qualitative signatures, such as the detection of flow reversals or the Hall-induced magnetic and electric fields.”
No, it all can’t be reduced to rote formula.
“In the electron diffusion region a nonzero Ek = EB must be present, but is difficult to measure.”
It is a good thing that “data gaps” are freely acknowledged.
And because I like the images:
The following link is to an image of the Magnetic fields in the Orion molecular cloud region:
http://www.plasmaresources.com/imagestash/magnetic_fields_in_orion.jpg
Note the “B field” in the image are the magnetic fields and note its directionality due to electric fields and electric current, flowing charged particles, electrons and ions.
The ordered magnetic fields are perpendicular the the flows of plasma.
And here:
“The Orion Molecular Cloud superimposed on the Orion constellation, with the orange star Betelgeuse at the top corner and Rigel at the bottom. The inset shows the Slinky-like coils of the helical magnetic field surrounding the filamentary cloud. (Credit: Saxton, Dame, Hartmann, Thaddeus; NRAO/AUI/NSF) ” (Caption for the following linked image):
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/images/OrionMagneticSlinky.jpg
(superimposed schematics, original)
It’s important to note that Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical doesn’t match up with physical observations and measurments. And in fact, the observations & measurements are in line with what I have been arguing: Flows of plasma, electric currents, generate the magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard’s “shorted out” Universe doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny. Even the summary paper contradicts Dr. Svalgaard:
“[the instant process] is a phenomenon of great importance in solar system plasmas and, presumably, in astrophysical plasmas…”
Give credit where credit is due:
Electrical double layers in solar flares:
Hasan, S. S.; Ter Haar, D. “The Alfven-Carlquist double-layer theory of solar flares” (1978) Astrophysics and Space Science vol. 56, no. 1, June 1978, p. 89-107
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978Ap%26SS..56…89H&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c28323
“…it is shown that conditions in solar flares may be such that double layers can exist for which the free particles have a power-law energy distribution. These particles will be accelerated in a double layer and may in this way account for the production of high-energy particles during the impulsive phase of solar flares.”
The “double layer” process in solar flares is now generally recognized.
Hannes Alfven “Paradigm transition in cosmic plasma physics” (1982)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1982PhyS….2…10A&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c15283
“New discoveries in cosmic plasma physics are described, and their applications to solar, interstellar, galactic, and cosmological problems are discussed. The new discoveries include the existence of double layers in magnetized plasmas and in the low magnetosphere, and energy transfer by electric current in the auroral circuit. It is argued that solar flares and the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction should not be interpreted in terms of magnetic merging theories, and that electric current needs to be explicitly taken account of in understanding these phenomena. The filamentary structure of cosmic plasmas may be caused by electric currents in space, and the pinch effect may have a central role to play in the evolutionary history of interstellar clouds, stars, and solar systems. Space may have a cellular structure, with the cell walls formed by thin electric current layers. Annihilation may be the source of energy for quasars and the Hubble expansion, and the big bang cosmology may well be wrong.”
Now, I don’t necessarily subscribe to every idea in Alfven’s work, but it’s interesting that Alfven starts off with this:
“The new discoveries include the existence of double layers in magnetized plasmas and in the low magnetosphere, and energy transfer by electric current in the auroral circuit.”
“It is argued that solar flares and the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction should not be interpreted in terms of magnetic merging theories, and that electric current needs to be explicitly taken account of in understanding these phenomena.”
I do not stand on ground alone, but figuratively on the shoulders of Hannes Alfven (more accurately, at his feet).
Alfven starts of with ‘double layers’ because this dynamic is the process that links differing plasma regions, not just in the solar system, but in the Universe at large at ever increasing scales of energy and plasma flows.
Alfven was ahead of his time, demonstrated when one reads the summary paper on so-called “magnetic reconnection”, it’s clear electric currents and electric fields are taken into account.
But these ideas are not new, Irving Langmuir, 1932 Nobel Prize chemistry, was investigating in this area, too:
Irving Langmuir “The Interaction of Electron and Positive Ion Space Charges in Cathode Sheaths” (1929)
“The cathode sheath is then a double layer with an inner negative space charge and an equal outer positive charge, the field being zero at the cathode and at the sheath edge.”
Sadly, voices in astronomy who made the wrong assumptions (or their acolytes) are still trying to enforce those erroneous assumptions on everybody else.
It must stop.
James F. Evans (12:09:11) :
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “There are no such questions. This matter was settled a century ago.”
I give up. You win, being about 50 years behind current knowledge.
James F. Evans (14:09:42) :
“In the late 1990s the Ultraviolet Coronal Spectrometer (UVCS) instrument on board the SOHO spacecraft observed the acceleration region of the fast solar wind emanating from the poles of the sun, and found that the wind accelerates much faster than can be accounted for by thermodynamic expansion alone.”
It is with trepidation I intrude on so lofty a discussion (albeit fascinating). However, I would be interested to know what you think of the ideas of Mills et al and his suggestion that atomic H at lower ground states plays a role in solar plasmas and the corona problem in particular (pp 16-17). This is all far beyond my limited physics education, but I include a link to a recent Central European Journal of Physics paper for comment.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/papers/Continuum%20final%20080609%20WebS.pdf
Scientists have long speculated on the source of solar winds. The Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer (EIS), on board the Japanese-UK-US Hinode satellite, is now generating unprecedented observations enabling scientists to provide a new perspective on the 50-year old question of how solar wind is driven. The collaborative study, published in this month’s issue of Astrophysical Journal, suggests that a process called slipping reconnection may drive these winds.
Deb Baker, lead author from UCL Mullard Space Science Laboratory, says: “Solar wind is an outflow of million-degree gas and magnetic field that engulfs the Earth and other planets. It fills the entire solar system and links with the magnetic fields of the Earth and other planets. Changes in the Sun’s million-mile-per-hour wind can induce disturbances within near-Earth space and our upper atmosphere and yet we still don’t know what drives these outflows.”
“However, our latest study suggests that it is the release of energy stored in solar magnetic fields which provides the additional driver for the solar wind. This magnetic energy release is most efficient in the brightest regions of activity on the Sun’s surface, called active regions or sunspot groups, which are strong concentrations of magnetic field. We believe that this fundamental process happens everywhere on the Sun on virtually all scales.”
Images taken in February 2007 from the EIS instrument showed that hot plasma outflows are due to a process called slipping reconnection. At the edges of active regions where this process can occur, a slow, continuous restructuring of the magnetic field leads to the release of energy and acceleration of particles in the Sun’s hot outer atmosphere, known as the corona. Slipping reconnection is the first theory to explain how observed outflows from the Sun can be located over areas of a single magnetic sign, something previously considered improbable.
Computer models of the Sun’s magnetic field were used to identify regions where slipping reconnection could occur. The locations proposed by the computer model were compared with measurements of the speed of the gas coming from the solar corona. The comparison showed the gas was moving outward at up to 100,000 mph, 1,000 times the wind speed in a hurricane, over the possible slipping reconnection regions.
Leif Svalgaard (17:07:26) :
“Solar wind is an outflow of million-degree gas and magnetic field that engulfs the Earth” “Changes in the Sun’s million-mile-per-hour wind can induce disturbances within near-Earth space and our upper atmosphere”
Might increased solar wind heat the upper atmosphere enough to dissipate some clouds and thus allow in more solar radiation?
Also, possibly related that noctilucent “clouds thrive when the sun is quiet and spews less ultraviolet radiation, which can destroy water needed to form the clouds and can keep temperatures too high for ice particles to form.”?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17234-mysterious-nightshining-clouds-may-peak-this-year.html
Just The Facts (17:48:12) :
Might increased solar wind heat the upper atmosphere enough to dissipate some clouds and thus allow in more solar radiation?
The total energy content of the solar wind is a million times smaller than that in ordinary sunlight, so not much energy to be had there. Solar activity does heat the very upper atmosphere [where the air is a million to a trillion times less dense] but there are not enough clouds up there to make any difference.
I have been re-reading this post and the comments several times over and I believe I have a greater understanding of the overall process of currents and fields (both magnetic and electric), thanks in large part to the ongoing debate taking place at the moment. Thank you gentlemen.
I do not know if I have anything of value to add, but I do want to understand more about the findings made by IBEX mission. So please allow me a little time to share a thought analysis I have on the subject. While I am no scientist, I do believe my reasoning and logical abilities serve me well.
As I understand it, the heliosphere is generated by solar winds from the sun. Two forces play a major role on the heliosheath, both solar winds and interstellar space, creating both a termination and bow shock. I understand that the heliosheath is a defined magnetic field surrounding our solar system and blocks the majority of CGR’s from entering our solar system. As interstellar gases, plasma, charged particles, ions, protons and the like bombard this boundary created by opposing forces, energy is being created by either interaction with magnetic field lines or direct contact with solar particles. As I understand it, there is various forms of CGRs and without goin into detail about them, I imagine that they individually interact differently along the boundry of the heliosphere.
The IBEX mission graphically displays a energized ribbon along this plane, running perpendicular to it.
A theory I have is that the area in question could change in direction and intensity,along magnetic field lines, depending on the output of solar flux.
A weaking of solar flux would deflate, so to speak, the heliosphere, rearranging magnetic field lines, because of the mass and speed of interstellar medium, causing the creation of the ribbon. Whereby, if solar flux was to increase, an inflation and strengthening of the heliosphere would decrease the amount of energy being created and redirect interstellar mediums.
To be continued…
During solar minimum, it has been determined that CGRs enter Earths atomsphere more readily than during solar maximum. I imagine that at first it was thought because of the magnetosphere, but the IBEX mission might shed more light on it.
It was assumed that we can’t predict the direction of CGRs entering Earths atmosphere, and that might be a correct assumption. But with this new evidence in science with regard to the ribbon discovered, we might be able to learn a little more about how CGRs enter our little planet.
During Solar Max, CGRs enter with regularity from every direction, but not with any intensity from any direction.
But during solar minimums, I think its safe to say that CGRs might enter with greater abundance more along the solar equatorial plane because of the deflation of the heliosphere from less solar flux, whereby CGRs may enter our atmosphere in more abundance at the poles, but more importantly along lower latitudes.
If its true that CGRs can increase cloud cover, thus reducing global temperatures, than a greater proliferation of cloud cover along the equator could be created from more direct CGRs entering the atmosphere because of the weaking of the heliosphere during solar minimum.
I imagine that the energy created in this ribbon allows magnetic field lines to diverge and allow current to fill the plane along those lines, allowing for greater amount of CGRs to enter along the solar equatorial plane, thus allowing greater amounts of CGRs to enter our atmosphere,thus creating lower clouds cover along lower latitudes. Whew!
But like I said, I’m not a scientist, just someone that wants to learn more.
Forgive me if I make assumptions about science that makes me sound like I’m talking more about science fiction. I just felt it nessesary to write all this out.
At least now I now that two very adept and intellectual people are gonna read this.
Just don’t laugh too hard ok.
David Alan
David Alan (02:36:23) :
During solar minimum, it has been determined that CGRs enter Earths atomsphere more readily than during solar maximum.
It is much more complicated than that and hard to explain in this medium. Here is a good pointer to more info: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/pasa/18_1/duldig/paper/
The ribbon has much likely nothing to do with cosmic ray access to the Earth.
@ur momisugly Dr. Svalgaard:
I have learned from this discussion. It reminds me of a place long, long ago and far, far away where the Socratic Method was employed. Perhaps you are familiar with this method of instruction where ideas are challenged and defended and learning is accomplished in the crucible of competing Ideas.
The arena.
One does not simply regurgitate ideas memorized by rote, but is able to grasp the ideas firmly in hand and use them in argument.
For that I thank you.
I’ll close by linking the Wikipedia entry on double layers (plasma).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Note the historical development of the plasma electric double layer and the footnotes supporting the text.
Clearly, men of ‘electricty’ were the first to grasp and understand this dynamic astrophysical object first in the laboratory and then in space.
And, now, fortunately, its understanding is spreading to a general wareness in astrophysics.
See summary paper on “magnetic reconnection”, or plasma electric double layer:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008GL035297.pdf
In this paper electric fields, magnetic fields, electric currents, electrons and ions are all taken into account.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “I give up. You win, being about 50 years behind current knowledge.”
It is important to remember what the investigators said about the discovery in the instant post.
“These images have revolutionized what we thought we knew for the past 50 years; the sun travels through the galaxy not like a comet but more like a big, round bubble,” said Stamatios Krimigis of the Applied Physics Lab, in Laurel, Md., principal investigator for Cassini’s Magnetospheric Imaging Instrument which carries the Ion and Neutral Camera. “It’s amazing how a single new observation can change an entire concept that most scientists had taken as true for nearly fifty years.”
And to remember what Hannes Alfven stated:
“The new discoveries include the existence of double layers in magnetized plasmas and in the low magnetosphere, and energy transfer by electric current in the auroral circuit.” (1982)
And how Alfven outlined the problem with conventional analysis:
“It is argued that solar flares and the solar wind-magnetosphere interaction should not be interpreted in terms of magnetic merging theories, and that electric current needs to be explicitly taken account of in understanding these phenomena.” (1982)
It would seem that Hannes Alfven had a firm grasp of the physics of electric double layers.
I’ll stand with Alfven.
@Leif Svalgaard “The ribbon has much likely nothing to do with cosmic ray access to the Earth.”
Scientists investigating the effects of polarity dependence by numerically solving the transport equation showed that the cosmic rays would essentially enter the heliosphere along the helio-equator and exit via the poles in a (-) polarity state and visa-versa for a (+) polarity state. In addition, diffusion of cosmic particles entering the heliosphere can propogate parallel to and/or perpendicular to the IMF respectively.
Irregardless of a A0 state, the energized ribbon in question, though not scientifically explained, does reflect the area where cosmic rays either enter or exit the heliosphere.
Seems to me various CGRs are getting ‘knocked’ about from within and outside the heliosphere.
More analysis on my part suggests that during a A>0 state of polarity, you would have various forms of interstellar mass perturbing the heliosphere, while at the same time outgoing cosmic particles perturbing the heliosphere, due to the transport equation. That is a lot of activity going on at the edge of our solar system. During a A<0 polarity state, I would assume that most particles of cosmic origin would only be entering along the helio-ecliptic and eventually escaping along HCS magnetic lines out and through the poles.
I can't imagine cosmic particles either entering or exiting the heliospshere and not creating havoc while doing so.
In the IBEX report, the ribbon comprises mostly of neutral atoms. This process strips cosmic particles. So says the report.
It has been my understanding of cosmic spallation in geo-magnetic terms, that various cosmic particles , collide and reconnect or collide and get stripped during the spallation. Could it very well be that the same process is also happening at a helio-spallatial level as well?
That is unless of course you disagree with the IBEX findings or you have a better explanation. Trust me, I'm listening. I feel like a sponge, sucking in everything at the moment.
@ur momisugly Leif Svaalgard
Just so ya know, I’ve read almost everything from your website and numerous articles around the web regarding this particular issue. So, don’t pull any punches. I can take it. 🙂
David Alan (20:23:33) :
Scientists investigating the effects of polarity dependence by numerically solving the transport equation showed that the cosmic rays would essentially enter the heliosphere along the helio-equator and exit via the poles in a (-) polarity state and visa-versa for a (+) polarity state. In addition, diffusion of cosmic particles entering the heliosphere can propogate parallel to and/or perpendicular to the IMF respectively.
This is only true for a small portion [a few percent] of the cosmic rays.
Leif Svalgaard (21:28:45) :
This is only true for a small portion [a few percent] of the cosmic rays.
The polarity effect is responsible for the slightly different shapes of the cosmic ray variation between transitions even-odd or odd-even cycles:
http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png
I feel a Matrix moment coming on. Neo, makes a reply to Morphius and exclaims,’I see what your trying to do.’
Anymore of this freeing my mind stuff and I’m gonna be flying along with the solar flux right down those open field lines. :p
David Alan (23:58:45) :
I feel a Matrix moment coming on. Neo, makes a reply to Morphius and exclaims,’I see what your trying to do.’
Anymore of this freeing my mind stuff and I’m gonna be flying along with the solar flux right down those open field lines. :p
>’I see what your trying to do.’Anymore of this freeing my mind stuff and I’m gonna be flying along with the solar flux right down those open field lines. :p<
lol, been there and done this, good to see someone else in the same situation.
You haven't been doing any skydiving in WI last Aug. have you? (AF ret)
I have yet to breakdown into a workable understanding the different origins of cosmic rays. Solar, anomalous and galactic. We tend to focus more on the galactic GCR. There is some ongoing open discussion of them here.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=241&page=5#32167
I agree in part with Leif's assessment of the IBEX "ribbon" being blowby from inside the heliosphere. There is also a high flux region at around 60 deg. N lat. that maybe indicating a second lesser impact zone. The first impact zone being the equatorial belt at the nose, creating the hole for incoming and outgoing flows. Is there maybe a second heliospheric hole at 60 north as well?
Thanks to Svalgaard and Evans for their insights on plasmas, currents and magnetic fields.
I am amazed by dicovery. It relates directly to me. In 2004 I created the ribbon with a little help of my friends who put chains on me. Not cool. The importance is that the ribbon is live of what I have a proof.