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
photon without a Higgs (18:16:14) :
some people in Einstein’s day thought he was wrong, including Niels Bohr—and it’s still true today.
You might enjoy this, then:
http://www.physorg.com/news183054425.html
Leif Svalgaard (19:25:07) :
It’s based on:
…new results, which consist of a series of theoretical mathematical calculations all answer no to this question…
not on observation. The writers of the paper based their findings on ‘theoretical’ math.
Observations that are yet to be made could show that the math for their findings was wrong. Meaning Neils Bohr could be wrong and Einstein right.
Instead of calling it ‘uncertainty’ why not call it what it really is: ‘unknown’. Because really, isn’t that what it is? The more we learn the less ‘uncertain’ these things are, i.e., the more we know the less that is unknown and it becomes more certain.
Instead of calling it ‘fuzziness’ call it ‘unknown right now’.
There is more that we don’t know than we do know. I’m ok with that. Apparently Richard Feynman was too:
More from Feynman about learning what we don’t know.
This is how I view ‘uncertainty’.
Leif Svalgaard (18:27:20) :
On Einstein saying he was wrong about the Cosmological Constant:
He may have stumbled on to Dark Energy. But Dark Energy may have acted in a way he hadn’t considered it could. I think his instincts told him there had to be something like Dark Energy even though he couldn’t get a formula on paper like he did with Special Relativity and General Relativity. I more so thinking his instincts were right but his head couldn’t put what his instincts felt in it’s right place. So that’s why he felt he was wrong.
But if the theories about Dark Energy are correct then he was right. The concept hadn’t matured enough in his mind, that’s all.
Einstein said on more than one occasion that general relativity was wrong if Dayton Miller’s results were verified.
Dayton Miller’s results were verified.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/confirmation-of-transmissive-medium-pervading-space/
Of course, there might be a possible reconciliation in the light of more recent discoveries. Which throws up the interesting question: What was it that Dayton Miller was actually measuring? A cosmic scale effect without a doubt, but what? The internal motion of matter in the Local Interstellar Cloud? The Aether drift? The motion of entrained dark matter around the galactic centre?
It’s a question that shouldn’t be brushed under the carpet because it was inconvenient to Einstein and the mainstream astrophysicists desire to consolidate GR as the new paradigm at the time.
photon without a Higgs,
“But if the theories about Dark Energy are correct then he was right. The concept hadn’t matured enough in his mind, that’s all.”
Right, but for the wrong reason. Let’s not forget that the sole reason Einstein invented the cosmological constant was to allow for a static universe – neither expanding nor contracting. At the time, that was how the universe was perceived to be. Once Hubble had demonstrated the universe was expanding, he realised the cosmological constant was no longer necessary.
Vincent (02:22:27) :
photon without a Higgs,
“But if the theories about Dark Energy are correct then he was right. The concept hadn’t matured enough in his mind, that’s all.”
Right, but for the wrong reason. Let’s not forget that the sole reason Einstein invented the cosmological constant was to allow for a static universe – neither expanding nor contracting.
Isn’t it still the case with BB theory that the total mass including DM works out to balance the expansion such that a balance point is reached as the expansion comes to an end?
tallbloke (00:44:44) :
Einstein said on more than one occasion that general relativity was wrong if Dayton Miller’s results were verified.
Dayton Miller’s results were verified.
Oh no, not that again. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller for a discussion. There is general agreement that Miller’s finding was spurious.
It’s a question that shouldn’t be brushed under the carpet because it was inconvenient to Einstein and the mainstream astrophysicists desire to consolidate GR as the new paradigm at the time.
This is just blatant nonsense. Every scientist’s dream is to prove Einstein wrong.
photon without a Higgs (23:29:33) :
not on observation. The writers of the paper based their findings on ‘theoretical’ math.
Einstein’s theories about relativity were pure theory, not based on any specific observations. Special Relativity follows from the Maxwell’s equations where the speed of light appears with reference to any coordinate system, and General Relativity is just pure genius.
photon without a Higgs (23:29:33) :
Special Relativity follows from the Maxwell’s equations where the speed of light appears without reference to any coordinate system,
tallbloke (03:16:41) :
Isn’t it still the case with BB theory that the total mass including DM works out to balance the expansion such that a balance point is reached as the expansion comes to an end?
No, the Universe is flat. The FAQ I linked to has a good section on that: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm Observations show that the expansion is speeding up, not slowing down.
tallbloke (00:44:44) :
Dayton Miller’s results were verified.
No, http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (03:17:29) : | Reply w/ Link
Einstein’s theories about relativity were pure theory, not based on any specific observations. Special Relativity follows from the Maxwell’s equations where the speed of light appears with reference to any coordinate system, and General Relativity is just pure genius.
Not that I am now awed by Einstein’s genius, but we have to admit that the mathematics of general relativity were also already there developed by Riemann, in the Riemann geometries, as the Lorenz transformations were within Maxwell’s equations.
His genius as far as I am concerned lies in an incredible ability to think out of the box using the available mathematical tools.
It is the difference with the plethora of all those trying to prove him wrong: they may think out of the box but cannot handle the tools, confusing thought with magical calculation.
Leif Svalgaard (03:17:29) :
tallbloke (00:44:44) :
Einstein said on more than one occasion that general relativity was wrong if Dayton Miller’s results were verified.
Dayton Miller’s results were verified.
Oh no, not that again. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Miller for a discussion. There is general agreement that Miller’s finding was spurious.
Wikipedia, and you, are wrong about this. Miller’s work has been vindicated and Shankland’s bogus dismissal of his work exposed.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/confirmation-of-transmissive-medium-pervading-space/
Leif Svalgaard (03:31:11) :
tallbloke (03:16:41) :
Isn’t it still the case with BB theory that the total mass including DM works out to balance the expansion such that a balance point is reached as the expansion comes to an end?
No, the Universe is flat. The FAQ I linked to has a good section on that: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm Observations show that the expansion is speeding up, not slowing down.
‘Observations’ which rest on large chunks of assumption, and no physical mechanism offered for the mysterious ‘acceleration’ of the expansion. As you admitted earlier when I asked you what was the ‘repulsive force’ you postulated as driving this acceleration, you replied:
“We’re working on it”.
tallbloke (05:13:06) :
Miller’s work has been vindicated
Not at all: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
tallbloke (05:16:35) :
no physical mechanism offered for the mysterious ‘acceleration’ of the expansion.
Dark Energy. And no quotes are needed. The acceleration is observed.
But your argument is specious. In the steady state theory [SST] ‘no physical mechanism has been offered for the continuous creation’ hence, by your argument, SST is false.
tallbloke (05:13:06) :
Miller’s work has been vindicated
And BTW, Miller’s work was supposed to debunk Special Relativity and has nothing to do with Cosmology or GR or BB or Expansion, etc.
Leif Svalgaard (03:37:04) :
tallbloke (00:44:44) :
Dayton Miller’s results were verified.
No, http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
Yes:
THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND
KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL
WAVES BAND
http://www.spacetime.narod.ru/0015-pdf.zip
and:
Nobel laureate Maurice Allais has done extensive study of Miller’s results, and has concluded in his abstract: “It is utterly impossible to consider that the regularities displayed in Miller’s interferometric observations can be explained by temperature effects. As a result the light velocity is not invariant whatever its direction and consequently the principle of invariance of light velocity on which fundamentally does rest the special theory of relativity is invalidated by the observation data.” Allais adds: “Shankland’s and et al’s conclusions on the temperature effects are based on shaky hypotheses and reasonings. They are totally unfounded” (L’origine des régularités constatés dans les observations interférométriques de Dayton C. Miller (1925-1926): variations de température ou anisotropie de l’espace,” C. R. Academy of Science, Paris, t. 1, Sèrie IV, p. 1205-1210, 2000, translated from the French, p. 1205).
Both properly cited peer reviewed publications, unlike your arxiv link.
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.
tallbloke (05:13:06) :
Miller’s work has been vindicated
Roberts nicely summarizes the tests of Special Relativity:
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/presentations/061213Roberts.ppt
tallbloke (06:21:54) :
Nobel laureate Maurice Allais has done extensive study of Miller’s results, and has concluded in his abstract: “It is utterly impossible to consider that the regularities displayed in Miller’s interferometric observations can be explained by temperature effects.
Nobody is saying it is. He might as well have ‘it is utterly impossible .. can be explained by Global Warming’
SR stands as one of the best supported theories of all time, e. g. http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Your blip about peer-reviewed is silly: Most AGW papers are peer-reviewed. What counts is the experimental support.
As I’ve said everybody and his brother is trying to prove Einstein wrong, so you can always find some papers [peer-reviewed or not] that make such claim. A mark of a pseudo-scientist is precisely the failure to consider the whole and pick out the dubious.
Leif Svalgaard (06:16:56) :
tallbloke (05:13:06) :
Miller’s work has been vindicated
And BTW, Miller’s work was supposed to debunk Special Relativity
Miller didn’t set out to debunk anyone, he was just a good careful experimentalist. It was Einstein who said the jig was up with GR and SR if Millers results were verified, not Miller.
“My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following. … Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.”
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925
and has nothing to do with Cosmology or GR
The possible existence of a transmissive entity pervading space, known as the aether since ancient times has nothing to do with cosmology – nice one Leif. 🙂 As for GR, see Einsteins words above.
or BB or Expansion, etc.
I never said it did, I made two different comments, about two different issues, in response to two different people. You are the one trying to confuse and conflate the issues.
tallbloke (03:16:41) :
apparently no one understands ‘expansion’ well enough to know how this universe will end. so lots of theories are up in the air. i’m no where near ready to say how it will end
Leif Svalgaard (07:30:06) :
tallbloke (06:21:54) :
Nobel laureate Maurice Allais has done extensive study of Miller’s results, and has concluded in his abstract: “It is utterly impossible to consider that the regularities displayed in Miller’s interferometric observations can be explained by temperature effects.
Nobody is saying it is.
That’s exactly what Shankland, cited by you and wikipedia, said it was.
And you’re both wrong.
Temperature effects we’re very carefully minimized by Miller, and tested for in control experiments which went so far as to place electric bar fires near one of the arms of the interferometer to try to deliberately induce an effect. He insulated the rig with glass covers with corrugated cardboard over, and set the equipment up both in the basement at Case, and up on Mt Wilson, where the hut he constructed was specifically designed to minimize temperature problems. He even built a canvas tilt over the roof to be doubly sure.
Leif Svalgaard (07:30:06) :
A mark of a pseudo-scientist is precisely the failure to consider the whole and pick out the dubious.
Another is to ignore a result because it doesn’t fit with the grand theory.
As I said upthread, it’s possible Miller’s result can be reconciled with GR and SR, but it shouldn’t be brushed under the carpet. Which is exactly what Shankland, the astrophysics establishment of the 50’s, wikipedia, and you are attempting to do.
photon without a Higgs (07:49:41) :
tallbloke (03:16:41) :
apparently no one understands ‘expansion’ well enough to know how this universe will end. so lots of theories are up in the air. i’m no where near ready to say how it will end
Me neither. 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, but it’s something I was researching a few years ago before the major accident I was in, and my memory fails me. I dimly remember it was something to do with the ‘event horizon’, and …. something else. :o)
At the time, it made me think, “this is a clue that there’s a deeper underlying connection that would enable us to see the links between time, space and matter in a different light which is currently eluding us”.
Oh well, maybe it’ll come back at some point.