From NOAA news: NOAA Scientist Finds Clue to Predicting Solar Flares
Forecasters at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
For decades, experts have searched for signs in the sun that could lead to more accurate forecasts of solar flares — powerful blasts of energy that can supercharge Earth’s upper atmosphere and disrupt satellites and the land-based technologies on which modern societies depend. Now a scientist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center and her colleagues have found a technique for predicting solar flares two to three days in advance with unprecedented accuracy.
The long-sought clue to prediction lies in changes in twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the sun in the days leading up to a flare, according to the authors. The findings will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters next month.
“For the first time, we can tell two to three days in advance when and where a solar flare will occur and how large it will be,” said lead author Alysha Reinard, a solar physicist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center and the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, a partnership between NOAA and the University of Colorado.
Twisting magnetic fields beneath the surface of the sun erupt into a large solar flare, as shown above.
High resolution (Credit: NSF)
The new technique is already twice as accurate as current methods, according to the authors, and that number is expected to improve as they refine their work over the next few years. With this technique, reliable watches and warnings should be possible before the next solar sunspot maximum, predicted to occur in 2013. Currently, forecasters see complex sunspot regions and issue alerts that a large flare may erupt, but the when-and-where eludes them.
Solar flares are sudden bursts of energy and light from sunspots’ magnetic fields. During a flare, photons travel at the speed of light in all directions through space, arriving at Earth’s upper atmosphere—93 million miles from the sun—in just eight minutes.
Almost instantly the photons can affect the high-orbiting satellites of the Global Positioning System, or GPS, creating timing delays and skewing positioning signals by as much as half a football field, risking high-precision agriculture, oil drilling, military and airline operations, financial transactions, navigation, disaster warnings, and other critical functions relying on GPS accuracy.
“Two or three days lead time can make the difference between safeguarding the advanced technologies we depend on every day for our livelihood and security, and the catastrophic loss of these capabilities and trillions of dollars in disrupted commerce,” said Thomas Bogdan, director of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
Reinard and NOAA intern Justin Henthorn of Ohio University pored over detailed maps of more than 1,000 sunspot groups, called active regions. The maps were constructed from solar sound-wave data from the National Science Foundation’s Global Oscillation Network Group.
Reinard and Henthorn found the same pattern in region after region: magnetic twisting that tightened to the breaking point, burst into a large flare, and vanished. They established that the pattern could be used as a reliable tool for predicting a solar flare.
“These recurring motions of the magnetic field, playing out unseen beneath the solar surface, are the clue we’ve needed to know that a large flare is coming—and when,” said Reinard.
Rudi Komm and Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory contributed to the research.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. Visit us on Facebook.
Note to Editors: The paper has been accepted for publication in Astrophysical Journal Letters in February: “Evidence that temporal changes in solar subsurface helicity precede active region flaring,” by Alysha Reinard, Justin Henthorn, Rudi Komm, and Frank Hill.
anna v (01:30:17) quotes Oliver K. Manuel (22:07:32)
“2. The rigid, iron-rich, mountainous material stayed in place while the fluid, iron-poor material rapidly vented upward.
How could you overlook that in this recording of a flare and mass ejection from solar Active Region AR 9143 on 28 August 2000
http://tinyurl.com/y9sobnu
Do any other readers fail to see the motion?”
And Responds:
1. “Being a woman and a fairly good cook, I would not presume to say that the surface caught by this instance of venting is solid (if the times are real times).”
2. “Thick soups vent H2O loaded with traces of the soup and settle back and after a while the traces of the bubbling disappear.”
3. “I would like to see the same coordinates for the next day and over a year before I could call something solid. I mean the man on the moon is there smiling at us since forever and we have given names to the features, mare this and that. That is solid. There are no permanent features on the sun as far as I know.”
4. “Since the picture sees iron I do not know why you call the vent iron poor. It would be invisible. If I filter red, I see red, etc.”
5. “Yes, I see motion, but cannot extract what you think you are seeing just by looking at the link you provide. Something vented that carried iron. Are there no other filters for this event? Even in these three seconds I can see the secondary “bubbles” settling, this does not bode well for solid. When a volcano erupts the neighboring land does not change in seconds.”
6. “Interesting video. thanks.”
– – – – – –
1. “I would not presume to say that the surface caught by this instance of venting is solid.” Nor did I.
“Solid” is not the word I used to describe the RIGID iron-rich mountainous structures. Magnetic fields may, for example, produce rigidity in iron.
2. “Thick soups vent H2O loaded with traces of the soup and settle back and after a while the traces of the bubbling disappear.” Exactly!
And the vented H2O is loaded with traces of soup, just as the vented fluid is loaded with traces of iron.
3. “I would like to see the same coordinates for the next day and over a year before I could call something solid.”
Me too! But the recording stopped. That is one reason why I used the word RIGID, not solid.
“. . . the man on the moon is there smiling at us since forever and we have given names to the features, mare this and that. That is solid.”
Lunar highlands are mostly white, solid rock. Lunar mare contain more lunar soils – finely crushed rock with their surfaces embedded with elements implanted from the Sun. Isotope analysis on lunar soils provided the first evidence of mass fractionation in the Sun itself: http://tinyurl.com/224kz4
“There are no permanent features on the sun as far as I know.”
And NASA wants to keep it that way!
Nothing is permanent, but the movie clearly shows that:
The features of iron-rich material are more permanent than those of the H/He-rich material that covers the top of the Sun’s atmosphere. That is not surprising. The features of iron-rich material here on Earth are more permanent than those of material made of lightweight elements like H and He-rich material!
Michael Mozina started a one-man campaign to expose this NASA secret in 2005, when I was lecturing on the composition of the Sun in Russia and Portugal.
Then I first saw this and other images of rigid, iron-rich solar material on Mozina’s web page:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
4. ” . . . why (do) you call the vent iron poor. It would be invisible.”
No, the vented material is iron-poor, just as the vented H2O from your soup is soup-poor.
Vented H2O from soup contains traces of soup;
Vented material from Iron “mountains” contains traces of Iron.
5. I am pleased that you “see motion”. I cannot imagine why Leif can’t see this.
I agree: ” Something vented that carried iron.”
Contact Mozina and ask if there were “other filters for this event?”
I see secondary “bubbles” settling back into the rigid (not necessarily solid) Iron.
An excellent analogy: “When a volcano erupts the neighboring land does not change in seconds” and some material falls back on the erupting mountain.
6. Thank you for taking the time to look at the video. I owe it all to Michael Mozina for bringing this to my attention.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Oliver K. Manuel (22:07:32) :
Seriously, Leif, I think you have a problem with your vision if you do not see the iron-poor material venting upward from iron-rich rigid structures
Both seen in an iron line, so shows only that there is some [actually a minute portion – so you are correct about the iron-poor] in both, says nothing about poor vs. rich.
The real question is your notion of rigid. I asked you about the lifetime of the ‘rigid’ structures. You did not volunteer a satisfactory answer [have you ever?] so I’ll try again; this time with a multiple choice scheme to make it easy for you. Is the lifetime
1. seconds
2. minutes
3. hours
4. days
5. weeks
6. months
7. years
8. solar cycles
9 centuries
10. millennia
11. more
Your reply should be a number from 1 to 11. If you think that the lifetime is between two of the choices, it’s acceptable to reply with a fraction, e.g. 7.5.
James F. Evans (22:38:11) :
“The presence of parallel electric fields are exactly why Electric Double Layers are named as such because they have “parallel electric fields” at the heart of their structure.”
Double layers are two parallel layers of opposite electric charges. The electric field is perpendicular to the layers. The “parallel electric fields” that various articles talk about are electric fields parallel to the magnetic field, not to the layers.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “You have said ‘electro-magnetic’. This term is used by physicists almost exclusively about electromagnetic waves, e.g. light.”
“NASA can’t explain it [“magnetic reconnection”] because the causation process is fundamentally an electromagnetic process and astronomy is in denial about the fundamental importance of electric fields and plasma flow in space plasma phenomenon.”
Electromagnetism is the word used for the unified theories of electricity and magnetism. Magnetic reconnection is a magnetic process [can occur without electric effects – twirl a toy magnet]. Electric double layers are an electric process [can occur without a magnetic field].
Perhaps, the people you work with are not involved with that issue.
I would think so as they are involved with space physics. But which people do you work with that you are aware of the obstruction?
“But how? How does the simple act of crisscrossing magnetic field lines trigger such a ferocious explosion?”
THAT we do know. But your description is flawed in every way: it is not simple, they don’t crisscross, it doesn’t trigger, and reconnection does not per se cause any ferocious explosion.
The cause of your confusion is that you ignore that when the field lines are frozen hard to the plasma [as in the solar corona], rotating the field lines at their foot points in the photosphere [by movement of the plasma there] causes the loop [and the plasma frozen onto it] to twist as well, thereby increasing the magnetic field and the magnetic energy [goes with the square of the field strength] energy in twisted loop. The twisting also bring opposite magnetic polarities closer together. This goes on until the field lines reconnect, releasing the large amount of magnetic energy stored in the twisted loop.
And given your reaction to my use of the term Electric Double Layer […] something is going on there.
It is my wont to educate people about subjects which I know well.
“And if the two processes are the same, then why your reluctance to simply just call them what everybody else does: ‘magnetic reconnection’?”
One, I don’t accept the premise of your question, there are astrophysicists that use the term double layer, Dr. Anthony L. Peratt being one of them
So he believes that double layers [aka magnetic reconnection] are magnetic reconnection? if so, he might follow the rest of modern science and use accepted terminology instead of klinging to an obsolete one. And you to.
Why have you been so obdurate when you already have acknowledged that double layers are “magnetic reconnection”?
No, double layers can form as the result of reconnection in the sense that reconnection creates regions with different plasma properties which can lead to a double layer, just as an automobile accident can lead to injuries, which does not mean that the accident and the injuries are the same things.
tallbloke (00:00:32) :
1. Hung cooked the books [as I have shown]
2. Used only a handful of event when thousands are available, thus not obtaining any significance
3. Did not make any real predictions, just said [after the event] what he would have predicted
4. His hypothesis, although of immense practical value if true – the holy grail, was not accepted and is not being used today [not even by him]
Further discussion in a less combative environment
Richard Holle (03:12:54) :
Prof. Price was able to show that this variability in the data was not due to changes in the lightning activity itself, but to changes in Earth’s ionosphere, suspiciously in tandem with the Sun’s rotation.
And that is the end of that problem.
Oliver K. Manuel (07:40:25) :
5. I am pleased that you “see motion”. I cannot imagine why Leif can’t see this.
Of course, everybody can see the motion [the CME and the flare], but that is not the issue, which is the rigid structures. Since a flare only lasts a few minutes, all the movie shows is that on a time-scale of minutes the surroundings didn’t chance much. It is like watching a movie of a white-painted airplane passing by and claiming that the clouds in the background are rigid structures. The movie of the airplane and the clouds is shot through a red filter, so it is clear that the airplane is red-poor and the clouds are red-rich, no?
Richard Holle (03:12:54) :
Clive E Burkland (16:55:16) :
“Vuk mentions a NASA report on a 27 day period in the solar wind, this might be different to the 20-30 day observation in TSI fluctuations outside of sunspot activity.”
My quote is nothing to do with the lightning research mentioned. It is an extract from a press conference given by NASA scientists I recorded in from internet in 2003 (held in 2000), when I first time got interested in SS cycle; here it is in full:
MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109
TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/
Contact: Jane Platt (818) 354-0880
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 1, 2000
THE SUN’S MAGNETIC FIELD HAS A GOOD MEMORY
By compiling all the solar wind data gathered in the space age, NASA scientists have concluded that even though the solar magnetic field is constantly changing, it always returns to its original shape and position.
“We now know that the Sun’s magnetic field has a memory and returns to approximately the same configuration in each 11- year solar cycle,” said Dr. Marcia Neugebauer, a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “Current theories imply that the field is generated by random, churning motions within the Sun and should have no long- term memory. Despite this expectation, the underlying magnetic structure remains fixed at the same solar longitude.”
“It’s interesting that the solar magnetic field varies in strength and direction, but not in longitude,” said Dr. Edward Smith, senior research scientist at JPL.
The solar wind is composed of charged particles ejected from the Sun that flow continuously through interplanetary space. The solar wind carries part of the Sun’s magnetic field into space. Before completing this research, scientists knew that features of the solar wind reaching the Earth tended to repeat about every 27 days, said Neugebauer. The new information pinpoints the repetition interval at 27 days and 43 minutes and shows that the Sun has kept this steady rhythm, much like a metronome, for at least 38 years.
This pattern escaped previous detection because it is a very subtle statistical effect. There are many larger variations in the solar wind that come and go, which largely mask the underlying pattern. This repetitive behavior can’t be seen if these data are examined for only a few months or years, but it was revealed in this 38-year database.
“Why the Sun’s magnetic field behaves in this way is a puzzle, but the answer must lie deep within the Sun,” Smith said.
“We’re trying to understand how magnetic fields are generated in the Sun, the planets and the stars,” said Neugebauer. “A better understanding of how the Sun generates its magnetic field will help us better understand the solar wind and space weather.”
Fluids conducting electricity under the Sun’s surface generate the magnetic field, Neugebauer explained, and the field’s apparent memory is most likely caused by a structure and process occurring deeper inside the Sun than previously believed. “There may be something asymmetric about the Sun’s interior, perhaps a deep-seated lump of old magnetic field,” she said.
The findings, published in the February 1 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research, are based on all the solar wind data collected from the dawn of space exploration through 1998, both by Earth-orbiting satellites and interplanetary spacecraft. This includes about 335,000 hours of solar wind speed data and 250,000 hours of magnetic field data. Co-authors of the article, in addition to Neugebauer and Smith, are Drs. Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman and Arthur Vaughn, all of JPL.
Additional information is available at:
http://spacephysics.jpl.nasa.gov/pr/longitude.htm
This study was funded under the Supporting Research Program of NASA’s Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. JPL is a NASA center managed by the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.
vukcevic (11:30:15)
Just a passing observation:
“Fluids conducting electricity under the Sun’s surface generate the magnetic field, Neugebauer explained….”
contrasting with: “There may be something asymmetric about the Sun’s interior, perhaps a deep-seated lump of old magnetic field”
vukcevic (11:30:15) :
“This pattern escaped previous detection because it is a very subtle statistical effect.
This is old hat. And just a confirmation of an analysis of data since 1926: http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
“It appears very likely that the period of the four sector structure is within a very few hundredths of a day of 27 days. […] sectors display a continuity in phase such as to suggest that we are seeing the same structure through all five sunspot cycles [1926-1973] […] The existence and persistence of a solar sector structure as discussed in this paper may suggest that the magnetic field itself or perhaps velocity fields – which may play a role in structuring the magnetic field – are fundamental features of the Sun rather than superficial perturbation of the ‘quiet Sun’. […] On the other hand: Using linear kinematic dynamo theory, Stix [1974] finds non-axisymmetric modes that are rigid structures drifting in longitude. Solar sector boundaries can therefore live much longer that the surface differential rotation would allow.”
This is one of this problems SDO is designed to look at.
vukcevic (11:30:15) :
“This pattern escaped previous detection because it is a very subtle statistical effect.”
This is old hat. And just a confirmation of an analysis of data since 1926: http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
“It appears very likely that the period of the four sector structure is within a very few hundredths of a day of 27 days. […] sectors display a continuity in phase such as to suggest that we are seeing the same structure through all five sunspot cycles [1926-1973] […] The existence and persistence of a solar sector structure as discussed in this paper may suggest that the magnetic field itself or perhaps velocity fields – which may play a role in structuring the magnetic field – are fundamental features of the Sun rather than superficial perturbation of the ‘quiet Sun’. […] On the other hand: Using linear kinematic dynamo theory, Stix [1974] finds non-axisymmetric modes that are rigid structures drifting in longitude. Solar sector boundaries can therefore live much longer that the surface differential rotation would allow.”
This is one of this problems SDO is designed to look at.
vukcevic (11:43:59) :
Just a passing observation:
“Fluids conducting electricity under the Sun’s surface generate the magnetic field, Neugebauer explained….”
Which you have to interpret correctly: electrically conducting plasma [the fluid] flows across the magnetic field from the previous cycle dragged back into the Sun by either diffusion or meridional circulation, thus generating an electric current whose magnetic field becomes frozen into the plasma and rises to the surface to become the next solar cycle [with the opposite polarity].
Leif Svalgaard (11:53:44)
“This is one of this problems SDO is designed to look at.”
I hope the launch goes ahead successfully and on time.
Thanks for the link; I have red the paper before. Some of natural effects attributed to the lunar phase (remember ‘lunatics exchange’) may be wrongly attributed to the Moon. If pigeons react to the solar storms, why not also the occasional large splodge of fat, throbbing with electric currents.
vukcevic (12:30:54) :
If pigeons react to the solar storms, why not also the occasional large splodge of fat, throbbing with electric currents.
Check http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html and put on your tin-hat when there is a change in the sector structure…
Leif Svalgaard (13:04:04) :
“Check http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html and put on your tin-hat when there is a change in the sector structure…”
Tin hat will a fat-lot of good do to you. Mine is a mu metal one, remember it is ‘magnetic field’ boyo.
vukcevic (14:06:17) :
Mine is a mu metal one, remember it is ‘magnetic field’
I disagree, that would be pseudo-science. The real culprits are V-rays.
Leif Svalgaard (14:20:55) :
“I disagree, that would be pseudo-science. The real culprits are V-rays.”
Nonsense, for V-rays you need at least sterling silver with sapphire or a similar gem-stone.
vukcevic (14:35:57) :
Nonsense, for V-rays you need at least sterling silver with sapphire or a similar gem-stone.
well, what do you know, I’m wearing one like that. Also protects against t-rays and E-rays, and I working on an attachment for O-rays.
vukcevic (11:30:15): Quotes a JPL/NASA News Report:
MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109
TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011 http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/
Contact: Jane Platt (818) 354-0880
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 1, 2000
THE SUN’S MAGNETIC FIELD HAS A GOOD MEMORY
By compiling all the solar wind data gathered in the space age, NASA scientists have concluded that even though the solar magnetic field is constantly changing, it always returns to its original shape and position.
=> “We now know that the Sun’s magnetic field has a memory and returns to approximately the same configuration in each 11- year solar cycle,” said Dr. Marcia Neugebauer, a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
=> “Current theories imply that the field is generated by random, churning motions within the Sun and should have no long- term memory. Despite this expectation, the underlying magnetic structure remains fixed at the same solar longitude.”
=> “It’s interesting that the solar magnetic field varies in strength and direction, but not in longitude,” said Dr. Edward Smith, senior research scientist at JPL.
The solar wind is composed of charged particles ejected from the Sun that flow continuously through interplanetary space. The solar wind carries part of the Sun’s magnetic field into space. Before completing this research, scientists knew that features of the solar wind reaching the Earth tended to repeat about every 27 days, said Neugebauer.
=> The new information pinpoints the repetition interval at 27 days and 43 minutes and shows that the Sun has kept this steady rhythm, much like a metronome, for at least 38 years.
=> This pattern escaped previous detection because it is a very subtle statistical effect. There are many larger variations in the solar wind that come and go, which largely mask the underlying pattern. This repetitive behavior can’t be seen if these data are examined for only a few months or years, but it was revealed in this 38-year database.
=>“Why the Sun’s magnetic field behaves in this way is a puzzle, but the answer must lie deep within the Sun,” Smith said.
=> “We’re trying to understand how magnetic fields are generated in the Sun, the planets and the stars,” said Neugebauer. “A better understanding of how the Sun generates its magnetic field will help us better understand the solar wind and space weather.”
=> Fluids conducting electricity under the Sun’s surface generate the magnetic field, Neugebauer explained, and the field’s apparent memory is most likely caused by a structure and process occurring deeper inside the Sun than previously believed.
=> “There may be something asymmetric about the Sun’s interior, perhaps a deep-seated lump of old magnetic field,” she said.
The findings, published in the February 1 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research, are based on all the solar wind data collected from the dawn of space exploration through 1998, both by Earth-orbiting satellites and interplanetary spacecraft. This includes about 335,000 hours of solar wind speed data and 250,000 hours of magnetic field data. Co-authors of the article, in addition to Neugebauer and Smith, are Drs. Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman and Arthur Vaughn, all of JPL.
Additional information is available at:
http://spacephysics.jpl.nasa.gov/pr/longitude.htm
This study was funded under the Supporting Research Program of NASA’s Office of Space Science, Washington, D.C. JPL is a NASA center managed by the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
– – – – –
NOTE: Sections marked with =>
The real Sun explains these puzzles [“Superfluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198]
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441v1
Deep-seated magnetic fields are only one of many puzzles for the Obsolete, Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410569v1
Thanks, vukcevic , for confronting Leif with experimental facts.
I’ll bet he find a way to avoid those results too.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (16:19:27) :
Thanks, vukcevic , for confronting Leif with experimental facts.
You forget [or conveniently overlook] that this finding is just a vindication of my earlier paper from 1975: http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
where I speculate along the same lines.
I’ll bet he find a way to avoid those results too.
How about you not avoiding to answer the question I put to you?
Some evidence looks to exist for a semi permanent internal solar magnetic structure. Speculative comments could include a fixed point on a rigid internal core or perhaps a magnetic region that remains in place like Jupiter’s red spot.
Speculation is all we have except for a bunch of data sets, is this data too controversial to be cross checked or taken further?
Evans (22:38:11) wrote: “The presence of parallel electric fields are exactly why Electric Double Layers are named as such because they have “parallel electric fields” at the heart of their structure.”
Dr. Svalgaard (08:06:51) responded: “Double layers are two parallel layers of opposite electric charges. The electric field is perpendicular to the layers. The “parallel electric fields” that various articles talk about are electric fields parallel to the magnetic field, not to the layers.”
I accept your correction. Thank you, I’ll take that one back to the work bench.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Electromagnetism is the word used for the unified theories of electricity and magnetism. Magnetic reconnection is a magnetic process [can occur without electric effects – twirl a toy magnet].”
I’m sorry, but your “twirl a toy magnet” doesn’t carry any water. This is the second time you’ve used this “example”. The first time you presented this “example”, I asked for a scientific paper that discussed your “toy magnet” and you didn’t respond. So, I will request a second time, a scientific paper to support or illustrate your “toy magnet” proposition.
Failure to present a scientific paper suggests your “toy magnet” should stay put away in your childhood keep-sake box — it means nothing, does nothing.
Dr. Svalgaard: “Magnetic reconnection is a magnetic process…”
That is manifestly false — the papers reporting in situ satellite probe observations & measurements note both magnetic and electric forces interact with and are influenced by the the plasma flow and subsequent free electrons & ions and their acceleration and generation of electric current.
Again, your “toy magnet” is junk science.
That is why “magnetic reconnection” is an obfiscation because it neglects fundamental physical forces that are intimately involved with and influence the physical process.
The conceptual basis, the a priori assumptions of “magnetic reconnection” are not demonstrated by established plasma physics or magnetic or electic processes, only astrophysicists and astronomers maintain “magnetic reconnection” as an actual physical process.
How come none of the other branches of physics supports this interpretation of this process?
Basically, it’s trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, it just won’t fit.
That is why NASA researchers when given a chance to publically comment on “magnetic reconnection” stated:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/31aug_mms.htm
“It’s ubiquitous [“magnetic reconnection”].”
“The problem is, researchers can’t explain it.”
“But how? How does the simple act of crisscrossing magnetic field lines trigger such a ferocious explosion?”
All of the above quotes are from the NASA article.
I don’t work with anybody from NASA, but apparently they don’t share with you much, judging what you are stating, here, and what they are stating publically.
NASA statement: “But how? How does the simple act of crisscrossing magnetic field lines trigger such a ferocious explosion?”
Dr. Svalgaard: “THAT we do know. But your description is flawed in every way: it is not simple, they don’t crisscross, it doesn’t trigger, and reconnection does not per se cause any ferocious explosion.”
This is a hoot. “But your description is flawed in every way…”
No, Dr. Svalgaard, that is NASA’s statement, not mine (check out the link if you don’t believe me).
So, NASA’s understanding is “flawed in every way”???
Apparently, NASA doesn’t “know”.
But here is the clincher: from the same NASA report:
“Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations,” says Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
Not some scribe’s error or some misinterpretation which you love to claim about NASA releases to discount them (I’ve seen that from you many times), but a quote form a named individual at NASA.
Really, Dr. Svalgaard, you have to do better than that to have any credibility.
So, Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has a flawed understanding of “magnetic reconnection”?
Ya, you know what is going on at NASA, alright…
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: ” But your description is flawed in every way: it is not simple, they don’t crisscross, it doesn’t trigger, and reconnection does not per se cause any ferocious explosion.”
All statements from NASA, Dr. Svalgaard.
Dr. Svalgaard: ‘It is my wont to educate people about subjects which I know well.”
Are you sure you aren’t just peddling the party-line? Because that’s what it seems like to me.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “No, double layers can form as the result of reconnection in the sense that reconnection creates regions with different plasma properties which can lead to a double layer.”
As, I said, the the supposed premises of “magnetic reconnection” as you and others conceive it, has no support in the empirical physical sciences.
But that’s nothing new, a good portion of astronomy and theoretical astrophysics is pseudo-science mumbo jumbo…
And the word is getting out — the emperor has no clothes.
Clive E Burkland (16:43:45) :
Speculation is all we have except for a bunch of data sets, is this data too controversial to be cross checked or taken further?
In our 1975 paper we speculated on these things. At the time, the solar neutrino problem was still not resolved and a lot of work went into checking ‘unconventional’ solar models, e.g. with a very strong magnetic field in the core [which would have a lifetime exceeding the age of the Sun]. None of those attempts were successful, and when neutrino oscillations were finally discovered and verified by experiments here on Earth, the neutrino ‘problem’ instead turned out to be a wonderful vindication of the standard models without any exotic additions [like magnetic fields, or another favorite: a rapidly rotating core]. Helioseismology has since further showed that the standard model is extremely good. We must therefore on experimental grounds conclude that we have to work within the model. Luckily, the dynamo equations allow solutions that are non-axisymmetric [as we even remarked in our paper], so instead of being a puzzle, we can turn the finding on its head and use the result to constrain the models and make progress. SDO will give us much better data about the interior, so I expect rapid progress.
James F. Evans (17:11:23) :
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Electromagnetism is the word used for the unified theories of electricity and magnetism. Magnetic reconnection is a magnetic process [can occur without electric effects – twirl a toy magnet].”
Failure to present a scientific paper suggests your “toy magnet” should stay put away in your childhood keep-sake box — it means nothing, does nothing.
This paper may cause you to see the light and come to an elementary understanding of this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/20497-502.pdf
NASA should be ashamed to present such an oversimplified picture with the criss-crossed field lines. It was so bad, that I assumed it must had come from you. My bad.
But that’s nothing new, a good portion of astronomy and theoretical astrophysics is pseudo-science mumbo jumbo…
It must be frustrating for you to be so alone [expect for the exalted Dr. Peratt and his ilk] taking on the whole world.
I’d rather stand with Dr. Peratt and those that respect the known laws of Nature (established physical relationships) than stand with you and your ilk.
James F. Evans (20:29:17) :
I’d rather stand with Dr. Peratt …
Then you’ll stand and fall together: http://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/kunst/pieter_brueghel_d_ae/parabel_der_blinden.jpg
No, Dr. Svalgaard, the physical reality will win out in the end — it always does. I’ll stand with the physical reality whatever that happens to be. That’s what science is about: Understanding Nature’s physical relationships.
Sorry, to have to rehash, but it’s necessary.
Evans (22:38:11) wrote: “The presence of parallel electric fields are exactly why Electric Double Layers are named as such because they have “parallel electric fields” at the heart of their structure.”
Dr. Svalgaard (08:06:51) responded: “Double layers are two parallel layers of opposite electric charges. The electric field is perpendicular to the layers. The “parallel electric fields” that various articles talk about are electric fields parallel to the magnetic field, not to the layers.”
Evans (17:11:23) : “I accept your correction. Thank you, I’ll take that one back to the work bench.”
“A double layer is a structure in a plasma and consists of two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. The sheets of charge cause a strong electric field and a correspondingly sharp change in voltage (electrical potential) across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Dr. Svalgaard (18:43:29) wrote: “This paper may cause you to see the light and come to an elementary understanding of this: http://www.leif.org/EOS/20497-502.pdf
I’ll take the paper under advisement.
So, Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has a flawed understanding of “magnetic reconnection”? After all, he stated: “Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations.”
Dr. Svalgaard failed to respond.
If the physics of so-called “magnetic reconnection” is so well understood, how come the chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory makes such a statement as above?
Could it be that there is no quantified physical understanding, but only a loose conjecture based on magnetic morphology?
Since you know what is going on so well at NASA.
So far, I’ve presented two “magnetic reconnection”, aka Electric Double Layer, scientific papers based on in situ satellite probe observations & measurements.
Comparing the two papers findings with the Wikipedia entry for double layers (plasma) demonstrates that so-called “magnetic reconnection” and Electric Double Layers are one and the same thing.
Although, the a priori theoretical assumptions for “magnetic reconnection” are nonsense based on a flawed understanding of plasma physics and the relationship of electric fields and magnetic fields.
When you read the papers, at least at a superficial level, the physical processes are obscured — you have to read carefully and tease it out (and have some background in Electric Double Layers to know what to look for) to pin down what is actually happening — not a surprise since the authors probably know they are describing an Electric Double Layer and explicitly describing such an Electric Double Layer is not what the “magnetic reconnection” community wants to hear or have other people read and identify from their papers.
So, now I will present an Electric Double Layer peer-reviewed published paper:
Parallel electric fields in the upward current region of the aurora: Indirect and direct observations, published 2002 Physics of Plasma
http://www.space.irfu.se/exjobb/2003_erik_bergman/articles/PHP03685_ergun.pdf
Authors:R. E. Ergun,a) L. Andersson, D. S. Main, and Y.-J. Su
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80303
C. W. Carlson, J. P. McFadden, and F. S. Mozer
Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
Dr. Svalgaard (18:47:55) wrote: “Interestingly enough, no modern papers make that connection, in particular the paper you referred to above.”
Now, this paper is surely modern. Of course, it doesn’t mention “magnetic reconnection”, but then again why should it since “magnetic reconnection” has no rigorous, quantified body of science to refer to or cite.
Abstract: “In this article we present electric field, magnetic field, and charged particle observations from the upward current region of the aurora focusing on the structure of electric fields at the boundary between the auroral cavity and the ionosphere. Over 100 high resolution measurements of the auroral cavity that were taken by the Fast Auroral Snapshot ~FAST! satellite are included in this study. The observations support earlier models of the auroral zone that held that quasi-static parallel electric fields are the primary acceleration mechanism. In addition to the statistical study, several examples of direct observations of the parallel electric fields at the low altitude boundary of the auroral cavity are put forth. These observations suggest that the parallel electric fields at the boundary between the auroral cavity and the ionosphere are self-consistently supported as oblique double layers.”
“FIG. 1. A cartoon model of the upward current region of the aurora. The
above model incorporates the concept of two regions of parallel electric
fields.” The caption uses the word “cartoon”, but the figure is a detailed schematic (well worth reviewing on page two of the paper).
Note the explanation of “parallel electric fields” in the body of the paper.
Compare the abstract of this double layer paper and the “magnetic reconnection” papers and first consider which is the more direct and straightforward abstracts and second whether they are describing the same physical process.
Where is the emphasis?
This paper’s abstract (and it continues in such a manner in the body of the paper) clearly articulates the Electric fields, magnetic fields, plasma flows, charge-seperated electrons and ions, electric fields, and last, but not least, acceleration of charge-seperated particles by electric fields generating electron currents and ion beams in opposite directions (constituting electric currents).
The game is up for the “magnetic reconnection” crowd, it’s just a matter of time because their own approach inescapably comes to the physical description that “magnetic reconnection” is an Electric Double Layer phenomenon, if in a more convoluted and tortuous manner.
James F. Evans (23:57:06) :
If the physics of so-called “magnetic reconnection” is so well understood, how come the chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory makes such a statement as above?
Is the physics of Double Layers understood? If it is and EDL is the same as MRC, then the physics of MRC is also understood. The reason Goldstein whines about things not understood is simply the usual hawking for more funding. And there are, of course, always some details that need to be worked out at the ‘micro level’. The biggest problem is figuring out what causes the resistivity to increase so fast. But given the experimental fact that it does, the rest of the MRC phenomenon follows. You [and Goldstein] could learn more about the modern understanding of MRC here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Yamada-Reconnection-2007.pdf
So, now I will present an Electric Double Layer peer-reviewed published paper
The double layer in the aurorae is located in the aurora about 150 km up. The Magnetic Reconnection that causes the whole phenomenon takes places 50,000 km further out, in the tail of the magnetosphere. As I have said, MRC often [but not always] results in double layers.
“magnetic reconnection” is an Electric Double Layer
Apparently, you didn’t learn anything from http://www.leif.org/EOS/20497-502.pdf
but keep on studying it [and the Yamada paper]. It is worthwhile. Perhaps you could post progress reports as your understanding builds.
Dr. Svalgaard, I appreciate the paper provided.
As I said at the time you provided it, “I’ll take the paper under advisement.”
Your response to this reasonable acknowledgment was: “Apparently, you didn’t learn anything from http://www.leif.org/EOS/20497-502.pdf
I have reviewed the paper, it’s an interesting paper published in 1989.
The most remarkable feature of the paper is the “horseshoe” figure.
The case of the approaching horseshoes:
Figure 2 (page 2) in the paper presents the magnetic field lines and how they change as the horseshoe magnets approach each other.
The fundamental question is why do the magnetic fields’ morphologies change as the horseshoes approach each other?
Science doesn’t know.
It is an interesting question, perhaps of fundamental importance, if Science is to understand the physical properties of a magnetic field beyond merely describing it as a vector force field.
Yes, you and others label this process as “magnetic reconnection”, but that doesn’t explain what is happening; at best it is a description, but not a physical explanation.
This case of the approaching horseshoes is also interesting because it isolates the magnetic fields, there is no plasma, no charged particles in motion, other than what exists within the magnets, themselves.
So, again, what are the physical dynamics that operate to cause the magnetic fields to change as observed (if not measured) in figure 2 of the paper provided?
It seems to be a process of exclusively magnetic dynamics. (Putting aside the important question of what causes the emanation of magnetic fields from the ends of the horseshoe magnets and how does the shape of the horseshoe magnets, themselves, influence or control the morphology of the magnetic fields emanated from the ends of the magnets?)
An example of an isolated force (in this instance the magnetic force) is important and valuable for understanding its physical properties.
Although, a cursory assessment might possibly suggest that “something” is “flowing” from one horseshoe magnet to the other.
This raises a problem for Science: Generally it is considered that magnetic fields do not “flow” from one magnetic object to another.
Why?
Because if there is a “flow” then there must be “something” to flow.
The magnetic force has not been treated this way in the customary understanding of its dynamics.
The magnetic force has been treated, primarily, as an emanation of physical bodies such, as electrons and ions in motion and the physical relationships between these bodies as they are in motion.
But if it flows, there must be an “it”.
If this line of inquiry, based on the proposed flow of magnetic fields, as shown in the horseshoe example, is to bear intellectual fruit (find a physical basis and understanding of such), the “it” must be isolated and its individual physical characteristics identified.
This is not new to me. This “it” has been labeled by others, some prominent, as a “magnetic monopole”, an actual physical particle, rather, than a force, a process that causes objects to act at a distance.
But it has not been a concept generally recognized in the scientific mainstream.
Science does not at present recognize the existence of a “magnetic monopole”.
Dr. Svalgaard, I have read where you have lightly mused upon this proposition and referred to classical experiments (1930’s) and more recent experimental claims for evidence of “magnetic monopoles”.
I think I have gone far enough.
What, if anything, do you put into the proposition that magnetic fields “flow”, from one horseshoe magnetic to the other as they approach each other, and this describes (if not explains) why the magnetic fields reconfigure as the horseshoe magnetics approach each other?
Calling it “magnetic reconnection” hardly describes it, much less explains this phenomenon.
And, of course, there are many who hold no stock in the concept that magnetic fields “flow” at all, much less that there is any “magnetic monpole” which flows (and it would be entirely reasonable to be one of those individuals that puts stock in this hypothesis).
I, myself, am just laying out the case as a cursory impression from the paper.
Also, Dr. Svalgaard, how do you describe the case of the approaching horseshoes, both in description and most important in physical explanation?
The distinction may be subtle (between description and explanation), but it is important if Man is to understand and ultimately control this phenomenon of Nature.
Also, it must be added, if this idea of flowing magnetic fields is wrong, then what is the alternative physical explanation(s) for the case of the changing magnetic fields of the approaching horseshoes?
Dr. Svalgaard, I would appreciate your input regarding these important scientific questions.