From NASA Science News January 15, 2010: Last year, when NASA’s IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft discovered a giant ribbon at the edge of the solar system, researchers were mystified. They called it a “shocking result” and puzzled over its origin.
Now the mystery may have been solved.
“We believe the ribbon is a reflection,” says Jacob Heerikhuisen, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is where solar wind particles heading out into interstellar space are reflected back into the solar system by a galactic magnetic field.”
Heerikhuisen is the lead author of a paper reporting the results in the Jan. 10th edition of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
“This is an important finding,” says Arik Posner, IBEX program scientist at NASA Headquarters. “Interstellar space just beyond the edge of the solar system is mostly unexplored territory. Now we know, there could be a strong, well-organized magnetic field sitting right on our doorstep.”
The IBEX data fit in nicely with recent results from Voyager. Voyager 1 and 2 are near the edge of the solar system and they also have sensed strong* magnetism nearby. Voyager measurements are relatively local to the spacecraft, however. IBEX is filling in the “big picture.” The ribbon it sees is vast and stretches almost all the way across the sky, suggesting that the magnetic field behind it must be equally vast.
Although maps of the ribbon (see below) seem to show a luminous body, the ribbon emits no light. Instead, it makes itself known via particles called “energetic neutral atoms” (ENAs)–mainly garden-variety hydrogen atoms. The ribbon emits these particles, which are picked up by IBEX in Earth orbit.
Above: A comparison of IBEX observations (left) with a 3D magnetic reflection model (right). More images: data, model.
The reflection process posited by Heerikhuisen et al. is a bit complicated, involving multiple “charge exchange” reactions between protons and hydrogen atoms. The upshot, however, is simple. Particles from the solar wind that escape the solar system are met ~100 astronomical units (~15 billion kilometers) away by an interstellar magnetic field. Magnetic forces intercept the escaping particles and sling them right back where they came from.
“If this mechanism is correct–and not everyone agrees–then the shape of the ribbon is telling us a lot about the orientation of the magnetic field in our corner of the Milky Way galaxy,” notes Heerikhuisen.
And upon this field, the future may hinge.
The solar system is passing through a region of the Milky Way filled with cosmic rays and interstellar clouds. The magnetic field of our own sun, inflated by the solar wind into a bubble called the “heliosphere,” substantially protects us from these things. However, the bubble itself is vulnerable to external fields. A strong magnetic field just outside the solar system could press against the heliosphere and interact with it in unknown ways. Will this strengthen our natural shielding—or weaken it? No one can say.
Right: An artist’s concept of interstellar clouds in the galactic neighborhood of the sun. [more]
“IBEX will monitor the ribbon closely in the months and years ahead,” says Posner. “We could see the shape of the ribbon change—and that would show us how we are interacting with the galaxy beyond.”
It seems we can learn a lot by looking in the mirror. Stay tuned to Science@NASA for updates.
h/t to Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
tallbloke,
Has Miller’s experiment been replicated by anyone else? Part of the scientific method involves reproducibiliy, so if the experiment is duplicated and confirmed, then the results must stand. If it hasn’t been replicated, then it’s just one experiment by one person.
Leif Svalgaard (06:25:14) :
tallbloke (05:16:35) :
‘Observations’ which rest on large chunks of assumption,
What assumptions? To make the above statement you must have studied the subject carefully and understood on what each observation rests and what precise assumptions it rests on. Please provide such a list.
The assumption that the speed of light is always and everywhere constant throughout the universe, and the assumption that because we can’t detect concentrations of hydrogen molecules with our telescopes and spectrometers, it isn’t there, and doesn’t have any affect on redshift. Despite the fact that we know there are an awful lot of free hydrogen ions and atoms out there, between us and the galaxies we observe, and we also know that hydrogen atoms much prefer to go around in pairs rather than as singletons, and do so by a factor of around 10:1.
I’m absolutely ready to listen and learn about current cosmological theory. Are you ready to consider the effects on it that different or altered light speeds may have?
Following on from my last post, I’ve just noticed the other tallbloke link: Russian scientist Yu.M. Galaev published a paper back in 2002 which is destined to become a seminal work.
At the moment I am slightly less skeptical, but I don’t have the expertise to draw any further conclusions.
Vincent (08:40:20) :
tallbloke,
Has Miller’s experiment been replicated by anyone else? Part of the scientific method involves reproducibiliy, so if the experiment is duplicated and confirmed, then the results must stand. If it hasn’t been replicated, then it’s just one experiment by one person.
Absolutely!
http://www.spacetime.narod.ru/0015-pdf.zip
Spacetime &Substance, Vol. 3 (2002), No. 5 (15), pp. 207{224
c 2002 Research and Technological Institute of Transcription, Translation and Replication, JSC
THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND
KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL
WAVES BAND
Yu.M. Galaev
The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine,
12 Ac. Proskury St., Kharkov, 61085 Ukraine
Received November 15, 2002
The experimental hypothesis verifi cation of the ether existence in nature, i.e. the material medium, responsible
for electromagnetic waves propagation has been performed. The optical measuring method of the ether movement
velocity and the ether kinematic viscosity has been proposed and realized. The results of systematic measurements
do not contradict the original hypothesis statements and can be considered as experimental con firmation
of the ether existence in nature, as the material medium.
…
ether is the material medium, responsible for electromagnetic
waves propagation. The experimental model
basis [4-6] was, fi rst of all, the positive results of the
ether drift search published by D.C. Miller in 1922-1926
[7-9]
Vincent (08:40:20) :
Has Miller’s experiment been replicated by anyone else?
By the way Vincent, Miller spent thousands of man hours repeating the experiments at different times of year, in different locations etc to be sure there was no bias.
This in contrast to Michaelson and Morley, who spent a total of six hours playing with their toytown sized interferometer in the basement of Case university, where the thick walls and subterranean location all but blocked out the phenomenon. Even they didn’t get a completely null result as was claimed afterwards though.
Leif Svalgaard (16:11:25)
“phlogiston (15:06:12) :
It is simpler than that. The ‘explosions’ that create electric sparks and aurorae are very filamentary [also being a plasma likes to bunch up – even the EU has that grain of truth], so particles are not spread out [although there are diffuse aurorae too], but ’spiked’. Once they start moving they are stuck on whatever [fictional] field line they happen to be on and ‘light’ that one up and [this is the important bit] gives it individuality and existence.”
Your version sounds much more complex than mine. OK I went on too long, but the essence is very simple: non equilibrium scenario, mix in friction, result – pattern formation, attractors; natural examples everywhere. (Thus a very good book on this subject is “Deep Simplicity”, John Gribben, Random House, NY.)
“sparks and aurorae are very filamentary” – why??
“plasma likes to bunch up” – hmmm – that remind me of anything??
“particles are not spread out … but ’spiked’” – why??
“Once they start moving they are stuck on whatever [fictional] field line they happen to be on” – for “[fictional] field line” read strange attractor.
BTW I have zero time for EU, that is not connected with this at all.
tallbloke,
On the one hand the experiment seems to suggest that the speed of light is constant, except for a small discrepancy. Yet, if the speed of light was relative then this would show up large and clear. So the results are puzzling. It seems to be saying that the speed of light is almost absolute but not quite. It’s from these tiny anomalies that great paradigm shifts sometimes occur.
Vincent, as I challenged Leif above, we could think of the difference as a variation in the speed of light, but after all, we know the speed of light changes a lot depending on the medium. Look at how much slower it moves when passing through a block of glass for example. So if it is slower coming from one cosmic direction than another, this could be for (one of) several reasons.
1) It’s spending a longer time coming through cosmic glass (Local Insterstellar Cloud?) from one direction than another
2) It’s coming along with some sort of flow (Or Aether) in one direction, and swimming against it in the other.
3) Your idea in this space.
Einstein thought it was a big stumbling block to his theory.
Leif contends SR and GR have been verified by other means.
It’s a puzzle.
Leif Svalgaard (19:03:06) : “What took you so long? And why the acrimony?
And perhaps you would be so kind to reply to a few of my questions, such as
Carla (15:21:10) :
“I think Evans knows that the suns magnetic field is dipole generated and carried out on solar winds.”
Dr. Svalgaard: “I don’t think he knows. [or knew; by now he should know – it would be nice if he would tell us that he has now learned that].”
Sure, the Sun has a dipole magnetic field.
But there are other magnetic fields as well.
Each physical dynamic has it’s own results.
The Sun’s internal dynamics cause its dipole magnetic field.
The plasma flow of solar wind has its own magnetic field.
The two are not mutually exlusive even though they emanate from the same source, the Sun.
Why?
Because each magnetic field has distinct processes. An internal process that causes the Sun’s dipole magnetic field and the flow of plasma concentrated from the Sun’s equatorial region, the helio current sheet.
Actually, the answer for why Electric Double Layers, aka, “magnetic reconnection”, can happen midway between the Sun and the Earth for example, such as was observed & measured and reported in the following ACE news release:
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews88.html
“Field line merging at the heliospheric current sheet (HCS) and the resulting disconnection of heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) lines from the Sun, has been controversial. The SWEPAM and MAG experiments on ACE have now obtained the first direct evidence for such merging and disconnection from the Sun.”
Let me suggest a hypothesis why this “magnetic reconnection”, aka Electric Double Layer, is intermittent and varies to location and intensity: The plasma flow of the solar wind and its self-sustaining magnetic field run into the perpendicular dipole magnetic field (the Sun’s dipole magnetic field has the same shape as the Earth’s dipole magnetic field, think a bar magnet’s magnetic field), both the solar wind’s plasma flow and the Sun’s dipole magnetic field vary in strength and intensity and at some threshold of unknown dynamics this plasma flow of the solar wind (CME’s?) cuts across the dipole magnetic field and the result is a “magnetic reconnection”, aka Electric Double Layer, is the result.
Sure, not everybody will agree and it needs to be tested by observation & measurement and repeated observation & measurement, but Science advances because of new ideas, not because everybody said: We know it all.
tallbloke (14:01:47) :
Vincent, as I challenged Leif above, we could think of the difference as a variation in the speed of light, but after all, we know the speed of light changes a lot depending on the medium. Look at how much slower it moves when passing through a block of glass for example. So if it is slower coming from one cosmic direction than another, this could be for (one of) several reasons.
1) It’s spending a longer time coming through cosmic glass (Local Insterstellar Cloud?) from one direction than another
2) It’s coming along with some sort of flow (Or Aether) in one direction, and swimming against it in the other.
3) Your idea in this space.
Einstein thought it was a big stumbling block to his theory.
Leif contends SR and GR have been verified by other means.
It’s a puzzle.
~
Not that I’m really into all this, but here a little easy read that I stumbled upon this morning.
Cosmic Currents May Move Faster Than Light
posted: 19 January 2010
07:38 am ET
While nothing with mass can move faster than the speed of light, scientists now think some weird, faster-than-light currents may be the powerhouse for fast-spinning stars.
The idea may sound heretical to one of most deeply held tenets in physics, which states that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit.
But the new proposal squeaks by on a loophole in that rule, which insists only that no mass or information exceeds the speed limit.
Like Leif says. they are working on it.
ooops forgot (heh) link to that easy read article.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/faster-than-light-pulsars-aas-100119.html
To the post:
The heliosheath is magnetic bubble that is nearly spherical in shape.
The heliosheath is where this “ribbon” has been observed & measured, possibly analogous to a projection screen for a movie (if it is a reflection of the heliocurrent sheet). Because this magnetic field is nearly spherical in shape, solar wind, charged particles, plasma, emanating from the Sun will tend to strike the heliosheath at right angles (the solar wind flows into the heliosheath at perpendicular angle).
Per Dr. Anthony Peratt’s statement: An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
And Dr. Svalgaard’s concurrence: “Yes, the electric current is created by the neutral plasma moving through a magnetic field.”
It would seem “magnetic reconnection”, aka Electric Double Layers, would result and be continuous. There is support for a continuous process:
Prolonged Reconnection at an Extended and Continuous X-line in the Solar Wind
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews105.html
“Magnetic reconnection [Electric double Layer] is commonly invoked to explain a variety of space, solar, astrophysical and laboratory plasma phenomena. It has long been debated whether reconnection is fundamentally patchy in space and time or if, instead, it can occur in a quasi-stationary manner over an extended region in space. Direct evidence that reconnection commonly occurs in the solar wind is found in ACE observations of jetting Alfvnic plasma flows confined to magnetic field reversal regions. Multi-spacecraft measurements of such jetting plasma flows, known as reconnection exhausts, have suggested that they originate from quasi-stationary reconnection at extended reconnection sites (X-lines) in the solar wind. However, in events studied thus far one cannot conclusively rule out the possibility that reconnection was actually patchy in both space and time since in events studied to date each spacecraft typically encountered an exhaust for only a few minutes and sampled only a limited extent of the X-line.”
What dynamics would result from a continuous process of “magnetic reconnection”, aka Electric Double Layer, at the heliosheath magnetic field?
James F. Evans (18:48:53) :
“magnetic reconnection”, aka Electric Double Layers
It seems that you still don’t get it: the ‘aka’ is dead wrong.
James F. Evans (14:34:36) :
Leif Svalgaard (19:03:06) : “What took you so long? And why the acrimony?
And perhaps you would be so kind to reply to a few of my questions, such as
Carla (15:21:10) :
“I think Evans knows that the suns magnetic field is dipole generated and carried out on solar winds.”
Dr. Svalgaard: “I don’t think he knows. [or knew; by now he should know – it would be nice if he would tell us that he has now learned that].”
The plasma flow of solar wind has its own magnetic field.
It has not. Direct proof of this is that the polarity [and the strength] of the field in the solar wind is directly related to the magnetic field in the photosphere and this comes from there.
tallbloke (09:33:57) :
Vincent (08:40:20) :
Has Miller’s experiment been replicated by anyone else?
This is beginning to be humorous. Nobody is repeating this because it would be a waste of time. Let me try to explain.
Eratosthenes [~250 BC] measured the circumference of the Earth by noting that at the summer solstice the Sun was overhead in Syene in Sudan [the Sun was reflected from the water in a very deep well], while in Alexandria the Sun’s rays made an angle of 1/50 of the full circle with the vertical. So if we knew the distance, D, between the two places [that were along a North-South meridian], the circumference, C, could be calculated from C = 50 * D. He estimated the distance as 5000 stadia by noting how long it took to make the journey by camel. The Egyptian stadium was 157.5 m long, so there you have a good measurement of C = 39,690 km, an error of less than 1%. Today we measure C to much greater precision [centimeters] using our modern methods, so it would make little sense to set out on camel back to replicate his result.
It is precisely the same with Miller’s measurement. It is of historical interest to try to figure out how he got his wrong result, but special relativity is verified to many, many orders of magnitude greater precision than what would be possible with Miller’s method. So, we can with confidence put aside any discussion of Miller. What Einstein meant was that if the best measurements of ether drift would show a non-zero result, his theory would be wrong. We know today that Einstein shouldn’t worry.
James F. Evans (14:34:36) :
And perhaps you would be so kind to reply to a few of my questions, such as
Carla (15:21:10) :
“I think Evans knows that the suns magnetic field is dipole generated and carried out on solar winds.”
Dr. Svalgaard: “I don’t think he knows. [or knew; by now he should know – it would be nice if he would tell us that he has now learned that].”
I don’t see a question there, and you did not reply to any of mine…
tallbloke (08:33:39) :
Sorry to see about that accident. I hope you’re doing well now. 🙂
Carla (15:45:40) :
Apparently a scientist named Fritz-Albert Popp has found that signals in the energy field of the human body move at twice the speed of light. I’m trying to find a link. None yet.
Carla (16:11:13) :
ooops forgot (heh) link to that easy read article.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/faster-than-light-pulsars-aas-100119.html
Thanks Carla, but that’s old news. I picked it up on the sub-aether waveband three days ago. 😉
photon without a Higgs (20:53:13) :
tallbloke (08:33:39) :
Sorry to see about that accident. I hope you’re doing well now. 🙂
Thanks. There’s always something good comes out of bad, the car driver left me hanging in the tree and drove away into the night, but I’ve had the time to make a lot of new friends on the net since the accident kept me off work for a time.
Leif Svalgaard (19:51:15) :
we can with confidence put aside any discussion of Miller.
“Back under the carpet you go”, sweep sweep.
Nobody is repeating this because it would be a waste of time.
I’ve given you the link to the 2002 replication three times now, but it seems physics done outside the HEPL labs is invisible to your eyes. Maybe it’s moving faster than light.
It is of historical interest to try to figure out how he got his wrong result
His result was proved correct by the replication by Galaev in 2002 you won’t acknowledge the existence of.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Leif,
Are you saying that if Miller’s results were correct it would prove SR to be wrong? I don’t see why a tiny anomaly should falsify time dilation and the Lorentz transformation. It would just mean that there is something else going on we don’t understand.
Nobody seems to have a problem with the fact that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, a fact that necessitates the invention of a new type of energy.
Cannot both SR and Miller be right?
Vincent (04:00:16) :
Are you saying that if Miller’s results were correct it would prove SR to be wrong?
Yes, but that would be if we had no other confirmation of SR. But we do and to a much higher precision than Miller, so if Miller were correct then all the other experiments that confirm SR must be wrong. And we know they are not. Many things in our modern society depends on and would not work if SR were wrong.
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
So Miller goes under the carpet where he belongs.
Leif,
“So Miller goes under the carpet where he belongs.”
Ok, if you say so. Did you read my whole post or just the first sentence?
James F. Evans (18:48:53) :
To the post:
The heliosheath is magnetic bubble that is nearly spherical in shape.
The heliosheath is where this “ribbon” has been observed & measured, possibly analogous
~
Until the IBEX records movement for us, the ribbon is stationary in my head and reflects the motion of the heliosphere, leaving an imprint as it travels into an oncoming interstellar wind.
Easy on them now, Leif. have a good day.
No, Dr. Svalgaard, you are dead wrong.
Electric Double Layers and “magnetic reconnection” are the same thing.
As you have already stated this:
Leif Svalgaard (14:15:15) October 29, 2009: “…
Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans statement: “Frankly, the descriptions [of “magnetic reconnection”] are consistent with a plasma ‘double layer’”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Of course, nobody doubted that for a second. These double layers are generated in currents resulting from plasma moving in a magnetic field.”
Dr. Svalgaard, the context of the above quotes is clear, back in late October you acknowledged that the names double layers and “magnetic reconnection” describe the same process.
Today, you have claimed otherwise.
I don’t want to hear anything more from you Dr. Svalgaard because you it’s obvious you will say anything when confronted with your prior statements.
Have you no shame?
Leif Svalgaard (05:40:20) :
So Miller goes under the carpet
And honest physics goes out of the window.
tallbloke (08:33:39) :
I brought it up, because I found it interesting that the two values in question very nearly matched and canceled each other out. I wish I could remember what they were,…
I could be way off, but is possibly what is talked about in this video:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/rv/3013_05.html
————————————————————
the whole series this segment came from is here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Vincent (06:22:42) :
Did you read my whole post or just the first sentence?
The whole, of course. I [and Einstein] thought that it was clear they could not both be correct.
James F. Evans (08:30:24) :
James F. Evans (08:30:24) :
No, Dr. Svalgaard, you are dead wrong.
Electric Double Layers and “magnetic reconnection” are the same thing.
As you have already stated this:
Leif Svalgaard (14:15:15) October 29, 2009: “…
Dr. Svalgaard, the context of the above quotes is clear, back in late October you acknowledged that the names double layers and “magnetic reconnection” describe the same process.
I think I have made it clear that they do not. Hannes would rotate in his grave if he knew your distortion of the physics. Reconnection can lead to [but does not have to] parcels of gas with different properties, and double layers can form [but do not always] between these parcels. But if you don’t want to learn, I guess I’ll stop the educational process.
I don’t want to hear anything more from you Dr. Svalgaard
Fair enough, I recommend that you stay off WUWT, then. That would accomplish your wish nicely.
tallbloke (13:03:29) :
“So Miller goes under the carpet”
And honest physics goes out of the window.
Perhaps you can open up the ‘Millergate’, to expose all those dishonest physicists who have made our modern society possible.