From a University College, London Press Release – Solar winds triggered by magnetic fields
Solar wind generated by the sun is probably driven by a process involving powerful magnetic fields, according to a new study led by UCL researchers based on the latest observations from the Hinode satellite.
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.
The study was carried out by the UCL Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Observatoire de Paris, Konkoly Observatory in Hungary and Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio in Argentina. Deborah Baker is funded by a Science and Technology Funding Council (STFC) studentship.
Hinode is a Japanese mission developed and launched by the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISIS) and Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) as domestic partner and NASA and STFC (UK) as international partners. It is operated by these agencies in co-operation with the European Space Agency (ESA) and Norwegian Space Centre (NSC).
Data that served as the basis for the magnetic modelling was provided by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) consortium. SOHO is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.
See the Research paper in The Astrophysical Journal
ok Leif I’m studying away and it’s taking me through a black hole which means it will take a little longer and I shall not be the same person the other side – not quite the same person. I’m beginning to appreciate the importance of distinguishing between plasma and electrical current – but at the same time, I don’t want to lose sight of their connectedness either – that manifests, for instance, in the aurora.
Pamela Gray (20:32:58) : please Pamela don’t use that kind of snide put-down language we see at RC. It doesn’t help open exploration of the science. I think you can do better than that.
I think I know enough to deconstruct most of CSICOP in their own terms, much as Steve McIntyre does and Monckton does re IPCC science. But here I’m just trying to keep to the thread to learn, to stay on topic, and to try to help make reasonable communication possible in a field that is evidently tending to polarize and possibly threatens to manifest yet another fundamentalism. Even fundamentalisms often contain vital grains of suppressed truths. My reasoning is, we don’t need more divisions into factions who cannot understand each others’ language and cannot practice intelligent courtesy towards each other.
hey Pamela, it’s just occurred to me that you might have actually been supporting me, sorry if I’m being entirely thick. But I do smell strongly that there are truths on both sides here, if we can do less snark, stay simple and on topic, and not make “absolute” claims that are actually personal opinions, or beliefs you cannot verify except by going back to one authority group or another. Even the paper Leif refers me to is so incomprehensible (on first read) but impressive-looking, that I could, as a mere matter of belief rather than understanding, say “this is what science says”… and quote the paper.
Leif Svalgaard (15:22:46) :
Science is never ’settled’. At any point in time there is one or a few ideas that we accept because they seem to work with the data we have at the moment.
By Geoorge I think he’s got it!
Lucy Skywalker (01:34:20) :
But I do smell strongly that there are truths on both sides here
But for sure!, both apply in different dimensions (sizes): If too small then one works, a bit bigger then the other, and if too big again the first one.
tallbloke (07:52:06) :
By Geoorge I think he’s got it!
Apparently, you have not.
So…in the beginning there was a magnet, which started moving and Voila! electricity was born out from the void. Or…was it the other way around?
I just can’t remember…it was so long time ago!
For those more tuned to “visual” [video] learning, I found a
one hour video put together by the main authors of
the current E.U. model some 2 years ago.
While this is not meant to be construed as “evidence”
It goes a long way in explaining why some of us in this
thread embrace E.U.
And as i rambled on above, I found that it is the narrow vision
or focus in which we are taught to study “science” as the cause
as to why many will probably never see E.U. (as it seems in this
thread) as nothing more as a religious cult, no matter how
much “evidence” is presented.
Ironically, many who ran into E.U. or realized it on their
own, have viewed current mainstream science (esp our
“western science”) as having turned into a politically driven
religious cult many decades (if not centuries) ago.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#
—–
Lastly, if you want to read a blog on astronomy
produced by some quality “real” scientists that appear
not to be encumbered in any way, by the religious
cult that controls all of our mainstream science..
and would like to discover intelligent discussion
over (and using) SOHO/STEREO (and all the rest of
the satellites/telescopes) data, that seems to be
completely void in this country..
I implore you to use google.es to translate this spanish
star blog “Mysteries of astrophysics.” at:
http://starviewer.wordpress.com/
i found this site after trying to figure out all the crazy
data and happenings with the sun over this past summer.
especial around mid july (15th) and august 16th
(I have gigs of satellite and telescope data from the past
8 months that have driven me nuts..until this find..)
I guarantee those with an open mind (esp the E.U. crowd)
will be facinated by what these people have found in the
SOHO/LASCO/STEREO data.
If the owner this blog will permit me, i will post some
direct translation links of past *observations* these scientists
have made that will set your mind afire…
-soundwash
Sorry, inadvertently, the Science@NASA release of The Surprising Shape of Solar Storms — “April 14, 2009: This just in: The Sun is blasting the solar system with croissants.”, was not linked:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/14apr_3dcme.htm
As sharp as my disagreements with Dr. Svalgaard have been, I think it is important to recognize areas of agreement (this is part of the Scientific Method).
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Of course, all CMEs continue to have ‘both feet on the ground’ as they move out through the inner heliosphere.”
Yes, they do have ‘footprints’ on the solar surface, the question is when and where and under what circumstances do they break off from their solar surface footprints, if ever?
Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize physics, and others discussed “exploding” electric double layers, aka, “magnetic reconnection”, where the electric double layer collapses, the structure breaks down and the energies constained in the structure are violently released. Alfven thought the energy contained in the whole circuit could flood the double layer region upon the collapse in a kind of grand “short circuit”, electrical discharge.
It seems reasonable that there are some occasions where the electric double layer collapses or “explodes” releasing copious amounts of energy.
I have to go back to Dr. Svalgaard’s statement: “Of course, all CMEs continue to have ‘both feet on the ground’ as they move out through the inner heliosphere.”
Thus, having “both feet on the ground”, there exists a circuit of electrical current flowing up out of one “footprint” on the solar surface through the loop and back down into the other “footprint” to complete the circuit just as Hannes Alfven theorized.
This circuit of electrical current, as it’s on it’s journey takes the shape of a Birkeland current, the filamentary and ‘twisted’ structure cited in the linked material.
I suspect Dr. Svalgaard knows this process and that was why there was no objection to my offering of the Birkeland current analysis & interpretation.
That Dr. Svalgaard offered this added insight, which furthers and moves forward the analysis & interpretation is encouraging and must be recognized as a positive development.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Since a twisted magnetic field has more energy than a straight ones, twisted fields are more likely to ‘blow up’ as a CME. The wonderful STEREO data fully confirms the twisted closed loops that we have surmised for so long.”
Yes, the twisted magnetic field definitely propagates the electric current flow in a duelistic synergy of positive feedback.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “And shows the power of magnetic fields to sculpture and guide structures in the solar wind.”
Obviously, magnetic fields do sculpture and guide structures in the solar wind, but to leave it at an undefined “structure” is failing to tell the whole story: The electric fields, the motions of the free electrons & ions, the electric current must also be included and defined in this “structure”, a completed electrical circuit, to tell the whole story.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “A strong support for the supremacy of magnetic fields.”
No.
It is a strong support for magnetic fields in conjuction with electric fields, the motions of free electrons & ions, and electric current, all have roles to play in this physical dynamic.
It is meaningless to speak of one element or component as having “supremacy”, all components listed above are necessary and indispensible to the process. Absence of one component means the object doesn’t happen.
It’s the application of the causation principle: But for the presence of all component elements the structure doesn’t function.
It bears repeating electric currents and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin, you can’t have one without the other.
Talk of supremacy of one element over the others is meaningless and has no place in the discussion.
kuhnkat (21:38:09) :
Leif Svalgaard,
“As I said, electric currents are generated by plasma moving across magnetic field lines.”
“Chicken or egg Leif???”
That may be a good question. I suppose there is experimental evidence for Leif’s claims, though. Is it possible to check a moving plasma in an absence of a magnetic field?
James F. Evans (10:38:37) :
Thus, having “both feet on the ground”, there exists a circuit of electrical current flowing up out of one “footprint” on the solar surface through the loop and back down into the other “footprint” to complete the circuit just as Hannes Alfven theorized.
No, there is no such current. There are electrons that mirror back and forth between the two end points, so going both ways, and thus no net current. The same process happens in the Earth’s radiation belts.
Yes, the twisted magnetic field definitely propagates the electric current flow in a duelistic synergy of positive feedback.
No, again wrong. It is the plasma movements that twist the magnetic field.
It is meaningless to speak of one element or component as having “supremacy”, all components listed above are necessary and indispensible to the process. Absence of one component means the object doesn’t happen.
The energy in the magnetic field is trillions of times larger than in the electric field [as I have shown repeatedly] and that settles the supremacy issue.
James F. Evans (10:38:37) :
I think it is important to recognize areas of agreement (this is part of the Scientific Method).
I don’t think you have any idea what the Scientific Method is. You have certainly not demonstrated it here. The ‘agreements’ are totally spurious.
James F. Evans (10:38:37) :
I think it is important to recognize areas of agreement (this is part of the Scientific Method).
If you really want to learn how this works, go through the Yamada paper:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yamada-Reconnection-2007.pdf
I’ll be glad to help you along when you get stuck [as is my wont]. So, be contractive and give it a try.
Glenn (10:50:26) :
“Chicken or egg Leif???”
That may be a good question. I suppose there is experimental evidence for Leif’s claims, though. Is it possible to check a moving plasma in an absence of a magnetic field?
Yes, one can compensate for any existing magnetic field by adding an opposite field. Why do people not do that to settle this issue? For the same reason that people do not carry out experiments any longer to see if heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. A good introduction to modern science on plasma and magnetic fields is here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yamada-Reconnection-2007.pdf
Glenn wrote: “Is it possible to check a moving plasma in an absence of a magnetic field?”
No, it is not possible because moving plasma ALWAYS emanates a magnetic field.
So much for detente.
Dr. Svalgaard presents Evans statement: “Thus, having “both feet on the ground”, there exists a circuit of electrical current flowing up out of one “footprint” on the solar surface through the loop and back down into the other “footprint” to complete the circuit just as Hannes Alfven theorized.”
Dr. Svalgaard responds: “No, there is no such current. There are electrons that mirror back and forth between the two end points, so going both ways, and thus no net current. The same process happens in the Earth’s radiation belts.”
I appreciate the correction on the flow of current (I’ll have to check that out), but if electrons go “back and forth between the two end points, so going both ways…”, that sounds vaguely like AC current, which is still electric current, by the way, it still conveys energy, still is charged particles in motion, still emanates magnetic fields.
And that is the problem with the idea of charged particles “embedded” in a magnetic field. It suggests the charged particles are placed in a pre-existing condition — they are not. it is the presence of the free electrons & ions in motion that emanates the magnetic fields. Nowhere, whether in the plasma physics laboratory or in space have magnetic fields been detected that have no relation to moving charged particles. Yes, the extent of the magnetic field maybe remote from the moving charged particles, but nowhere has “free standing” magnetic fields been observed & measured with no relationship to moving charged particles.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The same process happens in the Earth’s radiation belts.”
First, while honored by long usage (the Van Allen radiation belts), these were actually the first space plasma observed & measured in situ by satellite probe in the late 1950’s, The “Van Allen Belt” was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen (Van Allen developed the detection equipment placed on the satellite probe).
These belts consist of plasma per NASA:
“The radiation belts are regions of high-energy particles, mainly protons and electrons, held captive by the magnetic influence of the Earth. They have two main sources. A small but very intense “inner belt” (some call it “The Van Allen Belt” because it was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen of the University of Iowa) is trapped within 4000 miles or or so of the Earth’s surface. It consists mainly a high-energy protons (10-50 MeV) and is a by-product of the cosmic radiation, a thin drizzle of very fast protons and nuclei which apparently fill all our galaxy.”
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970228a.html
However, It is misleading to think of these as “radiation belts”. Radiation, as most people think of it are electromagnetic waves, visible light, X-rays, and Gamma rays, and so forth, but these are really plasma belts that circle the Earth in a torus or donut shape.
Dr. Svalgaard presents Evans’ statement: “Yes, the twisted magnetic field definitely propagates the electric current flow in a duelistic synergy of positive feedback.”
And Dr. Svalgaard responds: “No, again wrong. It is the plasma movements that twist the magnetic field.”
Ah, Dr. Svalgaard does acknowledge that the magnetic fields do not have “supremacy”, rather, the “plasma movements”, aka, the motion of the charged particles, the free electrons & ions, control the magnetic field. But I will quibble with Dr. Svalgaard, and even partly acknowledge Dr. Svalgaard’s earlier claims: The magnetic field in tandem with the electric field and the electrons & ions, all working together, result in the twisted magnetic field that is observed & measured in these coronal mass ejections.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The energy in the magnetic field is trillions of times larger than in the electric field [as I have shown repeatedly] and that settles the supremacy issue.”
Sorry Dr. Svalgaard, it doesn’t matter how many times you wrote, that doesn’t dictate physical reality. The physical reality is that if there is NO electric field, then the process doesn’t function. So, if all individual elements ARE REQUIRED then talk of supremacy is meaningless.
So much for detente.
James F. Evans (12:08:25) :
No, it is not possible because moving plasma ALWAYS emanates a magnetic field.
Assuming that ’emanate’ you mean ’cause’, the reply is ‘no’, because there is no current.
that sounds vaguely like AC current, which is still electric current, by the way, it still conveys energy, still is charged particles in motion, still emanates magnetic fields.
No to all of it.
presence of the free electrons & ions in motion that emanates the magnetic fields.
No.
Sorry Dr. Svalgaard, it doesn’t matter how many times you wrote, that doesn’t dictate physical reality.
But it is, regardless of whether you understand it or not.
Now, for the Yamada paper…
Let us start with the beginning:
1:PHYSICS OF PLASMAS 14, 058102 2007
is this a reputable journal?
2:Center of Magnetic Self-organization in Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08543-0451
is this a reputable institution?
3.Magnetic reconnection, a topological rearrangement of magnetic field lines, is key for self-organization processes in plasmas. 16 references
is Yamada wrong here?
4.During magnetic reconnection, a conversion of magnetic energy to plasma kinetic energy occurs by way of acceleration or heating of plasma particles.
is Yamada wrong here?
5.Magnetic reconnection is seen in the evolution of solar flares, in the dynamics of the Earth’s magnetosphere, and is considered to occur in the formation process of stars.
is Yamada wrong here?
6.It also occurs as the self-organization process in current-carrying fusion plasmas, and it plays a key role in major and minor disruptions of tokamak discharges and in the relaxation processes in reversed field pinch RFP plasmas.
is this correct?
——
We’ll tackle these first. Several hundred more to go…
An addendum on the Van Allen radiation belts per Wikipedia entry:
“The Van Allen radiation belt is a torus of energetic charged particles (plasma) around Earth, which is held in place by Earth’s magnetic field. This field is not uniformly distributed around the Earth. On the sunward side, it is compressed because of the solar wind, while on the other side it is elongated to around three earth radii.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
Further from Wikipedia:
“It is split into two distinct belts, with energetic electrons forming the outer belt and a combination of protons and electrons creating the inner belt. In addition, the belts contain lesser amounts of other nuclei, such as alpha particles. The Van Allen belts are closely related to the polar aurora where particles strike the upper atmosphere and fluoresce.”
If I gave the impression that there is no radiation, i.e., electromagnetic waves, because there is radiation in the Van Allen belts, then my apologies.
More: “Prior to the Space Age, the possibility of trapped charged particles had been investigated by Kristian Birkeland, Carl Størmer, and Nicholas Christofilos.”
And more: “The trapped particle population of the outer belt is varied, containing electrons and various ions. Most of the ions are in the form of energetic protons, but a certain percentage are alpha particles and O+ oxygen ions, similar to those in the ionosphere but much more energetic. This mixture of ions suggests that ring current particles probably come from more than one source.”
The Van Allen belts as, above, suggests are a “ring current”, that is, the charged partles flow in a ring.
Wikipedia entry for ring current:
“Earth’s ring current is responsible for shielding the lower latitudes of the Earth from magnetospheric electric fields. It therefore has a large effect on the electrodynamics of geomagnetic storms. The ring current system consists of a band, at a distance of 3 to 5 RE,[1] which lies in the equatorial plane and circulates clockwise around the Earth (when viewed from the north).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_current
Wikipepedia:
“A ring current is an electric current carried by charged particles trapped in a planet’s magnetosphere. It is caused by the longitudinal drift of energetic (10–200 keV) particles.”
So, Dr. Svalgaard compares the CME circuit to the Van Allen belts which has an “electric current”, imagnine that.
More Wikipedia:
“The particles of this region produce a magnetic field in opposition to the Earth’s magnetic field and so an Earthly observer would observe a decrease in the magnetic field in this area.”
Why?
Because the charged particles are in motion, thus, a magnetic field emanates from charged particles.
Also, the outer belt is predominately electrons because when electric double layers, aka, “magnetic reconnection” happens in the magnetotail, the electrons are primarily accelerated toward Earth into the outer Van Allen belt and the ions are primarily accelerated out toward space — further down the magnetotail.
Of course, all the above discussion goes to show that electric fields, magnetic fields, electric currents, and electrons & ions and their motions must be taken into account to fully describe and explain the phenomenon.
Dr. Svalgaard presents Evans’ statement: “No, it is not possible because moving plasma ALWAYS emanates a magnetic field.”
Dr. Svalgaard responds: “Assuming that ‘emanate’ you mean ’cause’, the reply is ‘no’, because there is no current.”
“Cause”, or “emanate”, I suggest is quibbling over semantics.
Sure, charged particles in motion cause a magnetic field. But another way to think about it, is that as the charged particles are in motion they emanate a magnetic field.
Take your pick.
As for Dr. Svalgaard’s assertion that “no”, charged particles in motion don’t cause magnetic fields, it’s ludicrous on its face:
Charged particles when not in motion, at rest, don’t generate, cause, or “emanate” a magnetic field. There is no dispute about that.
Dr. Svalgaard forgets his physics causation principle: But for the motion of the charged particles there would be no magnetic field, ergo, charged particles in motion cause magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard is flying without a net. He has no authority, save for his own tattered credibility that is being shredded by independent outside citations to authroity that directly contradicts his assertions.
Everybody is lying except Dr. Svalgaard.
Pathetic.
James F. Evans (13:39:10) :
“A ring current is an electric current carried by charged particles trapped in a planet’s magnetosphere. It is caused by the longitudinal drift of energetic (10–200 keV) particles.”
So, Dr. Svalgaard compares the CME circuit to the Van Allen belts which has an “electric current”, imagine that.
When you don’t understand what goes on, you trip up. The mirroring bounce that goes on in the Van Allan Belts and the CME is not an electrical current, because the bounce goes both ways at the same time [thus also not an AC current]. The Ring current comes about by the particles drifting [due to gradient and curvature] in longitude around the Earth. The CMEs do not drift around the Sun, so no ‘ring current’ in them.
[this is mostly just a personal attack on Dr. Svalgaard, so I’m snipping it. Take it to email if you wish, but I won’t have you bash the man’s integrity here, your post have been getting “over the top”, ratchet it down please. – Anthony]
Magnetic, electric fields, currents, particles, etc, can be measured. That’s what satellites and probes are for, it is supposed to be (as Lief reminds us) the subject of this thread. No need to be starting new religions about electricity healing your varicose veins. “Moving charged particles means electric current”? Not necessarily. It helps if there are more positive than negative particles, or vice versa.
Leif Svalgaard (13:29:11) :
James F. Evans (12:08:25) :
No, it is not possible because moving plasma ALWAYS emanates a magnetic field.
“Assuming that ‘emanate’ you mean ’cause’, the reply is ‘no’, because there is no current.”
I understand what you are saying, that external magnetic fields cause a current in plasma, so this is a little confusing (From WIki):
“But the existence of charged particles causes the plasma to generate and can be affected by magnetic fields.”
So does the technology exist to directly test if a moving stream of charged particles produces no current in the absence of a magnetic field?
Glenn (18:37:51) :
So does the technology exist to directly test if a moving stream of charged particles produces no current in the absence of a magnetic field?
Of course it does, you can buy it at radioshack. But the question is ill-posed. A moving stream of one charge does produce or rather, simply, is a current. A moving stream of equal numbers of both charges, as in a plasma, does not produce a current, or rather: every one of one of the charges moving along is a current, but since there are equally many of the opposite charges moving the same way, there will be no net current.
To get a current you need to separate the charges from another. The usual way is to use a magnetic field, because it deflects one charge in one direction and the opposite charge in the opposite direction. This begs the question where the magnetic field comes from in the first place. Imagine a universe with no magnetic field. Consider a hot ionized gas cloud [that you can get without currents or magnetic fields – just compress it enough] held together by gravity. At the surface of the cloud the gravitational force on a proton is 1836 times as large as that on an electron, so there will be a [very weak] sorting by mass, with the lighter stuff [electrons] above the heavier protons. That creates an upwards electric field from the protons to the electrons [the Pannekoek-Rosseland field]. This field will pull the electrons down towards the protons against gravity which are trying to pull them apart. Since the electric field is 10^40 times stronger than the gravitational field, the gravitational separation will be exceedingly tiny. But no matter how tiny, it will be there and a current can flow generating a incredibly small magnetic field. Once you have that, the magnetic field can now be magnified by dynamo processes or cloud contraction to any strength you want, and once you have a magnetic field pervading the cosmos, you cannot get rid of it and forever and ever this field [continually regenerated and amplified] will be available for generation of localized strong electric currents, that are responsible for almost all violent happenings in the universe [exception: supernovae and gravitational collapse and tides]. The above process is simplified and in reality rotating clouds add complications [the Biermann battery process] to this simple scheme.
Speaking of violent happenings, CERN has a Nov. 2nd press release:
‘Particles are back in the LHC!’ http://www.cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/article?name=CERNBulletin&issue=45/2009&number=1&category=News%20Articles&ln=en
With any luck, we’ll have particles colliding just in time for thanksgiving. Happy Happy Joy Joy.