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.
James F. Evans (15:33:19) :
Your response to this reasonable acknowledgment was: “Apparently, you didn’t learn anything from
I would have thought that you would first study the paper, before shooting your mouth off with “The game is up for the “magnetic reconnection”.
it’s an interesting paper published in 1989.
Maxwell’s equations [the laws of magnetic and electric fields] have not changed since 1861.
The fundamental question is why do the magnetic fields’ morphologies change as the horseshoes approach each other?
Science doesn’t know.
Of course, science knows. Maxwell [even Faraday] could have drawn that figure.
Also, Dr. Svalgaard, how do you describe the case of the approaching horseshoes, both in description and most important in physical explanation?
Magnetic [and electric] fields obey the Superposition Principle, that is: the resulting effect of a collection of charges or magnetic poles is simply the [vector] sum of the effect of each charge or pole. The magnet has two poles, so the magnetic field is the sum of the field from each pole. Two magnets have four poles and the resulting field at a given point in space is the sum of the fields from all four poles. You can visualize the shape of field by drawing magnetic field lines that are tangential to the direction of the field. In Figure 2b there is a point in the middle where the field strength is zero. This is where reconnection takes place [no field line needs to be ‘cut’ as there is no field there].
The topology of the field [ http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2005-7&page=articlese1.html ] is what is changed by reconnection, and this can happen with or without a plasma or any explosions. The horseshoe example is without plasma, but is reconnection, nevertheless. On the dayside of the Magnetosphere there is reconnection between the solar wind’s magnetic field and the Earth’s magnetic fields, without any acceleration of particles or explosive effects [basically because Earth’s magnetic field does not contain many particles there. On the nightside is where all the action is, because there is a significant plasma population.
Man is to understand and ultimately control this phenomenon of Nature.
As I have been trying to show is that the diligent work [and I can say with some pride that Svalgaard-Mansurov effect is evidence of magnetic reconnection as I pointed out in my 1968 discovery paper [ http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/bh2_5.html scroll down to section 8 ‘Observational Tests]] by hundreds of plasma and space physicists over the past 50 years has led to understanding of this Universal Process of Nature, although there is always more to learn [especially in high-density plasmas [controlled fusion].
flowing magnetic fields is wrong
Magnetic fields do not ‘flow’ from one pole to the other, just like electric fields do not flow from from charge to an opposite charge. Magnetic fields are actually an effect due to Special Relativity. A simple explanation can be found here: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/rel_el_mag.html
There is so many wonderful things to learn. Real science is rich and is arguably the highest achievement of the human mind.
Evans (23:57:06) wrote: “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?”
Dr. Svalgaard (04:49:45) responded: “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.”
Yes, the physics of Double Layers is understood based on decades of experimental research in plasma physics laboratories. And, it is well known and accepted that electromagnetic phenomenon is scale-independent to at least 14 orders of magnitude (no upper limit on electromagnetic phenomenon’s scale independence has been established).
So, if you accept, as I do that the physics of EDL and MRC is the same, then, yes, the physics of MRC is also understood.
And since the physical process under discussion follows the physics of Electric Double Layers, it should be called what it is: An electromagnetic Electric Double Layer.
But, the “magnetic reconnection” community holds that MRC has different set of a priori (assumptions) physical principles and relationships than Electric Double Layers: That is why Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, stated: “Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations.”
Really, Dr. Svalgaard, you are the beacon of truth and enlightenment, and everybody else who disagrees with you is ignorant, or stupid, or dishonest.
Dr. Svalgaard, “Goldstein whines about things not understood is simply the usual hawking for more funding.”
This is a serious accusation (I suppose that he is a public figure) that Goldstein is lying about not understanding “magnetic reconnection” in a corrupt attempt to gain more funding.
No, Dr. Svalgaard, it is you who is being disingenuous and smearing Goldstein at the same time (and, of course, all those at NASA who hold the same view as Goldstein).
Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, is being honest because “magnetic reconnection” as hypothesized by those pushing its acceptance as a theory don’t understand it or have a physical explanation for it. So-called “magnetic reconnection” is a description that hasn’t been quantified or physically explained.
You see, I stated: “The fundamental question is why do the magnetic fields’ morphologies change as the horseshoes approach each other? Science doesn’t know.”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Of course, science knows. Maxwell [even Faraday] could have drawn that figure.”
Drawing a figure is a descriptive activity, not an explanatory activity (although, description is a necessary first step to explaining a physical process or relationship).
Newton described gravity, he specifically declined from offering a hypothesis which explained gravity (action at a distance).
Dr. Svalgaard (19:42:08) stated: “Magnetic [and electric] fields obey the Superposition Principle [“The principle, obeyed by many equations describing physical phenomena, that a linear combination of the solutions of the equation is also a solution.
An effect is proportional to a cause in a variety of phenomena encountered at the level of fundamental physical laws as well as in practical applications. When this is true, equations which describe such a phenomenon are known as linear, and their solutions obey the superposition principle.”]… In Figure 2b there is a point in the middle where the field strength is zero. This is where reconnection takes place [no field line needs to be ‘cut’ as there is no field there]”
Mathematical equations are descriptive not explanatory.
Ah, so, “no field line needs to be ‘cut’ as there is no field there”.
This description falls directly in line with accepted electrical science, plasma physics principles, that magnetic fields have no beginning or end, they are “solenoidal”, are closed, they don’t “reconnect” because they can’t be “cut” which contradicts the premise for why the process/physical relationship should be called “magnetic reconnection”.
Maxwell’s simple and universal equation, i.e., ∇ · B = 0 dictates that all magnetic fields are closed.
Or in integral form (Gauss’ law for magnetism) given by
A
B
· dA = 0 (2)
and the vast body of experiments that led to it.
Unless, you are proposing that Maxwell’s equations are wrong and I know you aren’t for you have rejected the “magnetic monopole” hypothesis.
Therefore, there can be no beginning or end to a magnetic field
anywhere. And this contradicts the “magnetic reconnection” hypothesis.
Most undoubtedly, that is why Melvyn Goldstein, chief of the Geospace Physics Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, stated: “Something very interesting and fundamental is going on that we don’t really understand — not from laboratory experiments or from simulations.”
So-called “magnetic reconnection’s” a priori assumptions violate known and accepted physical laws as validated by repeated physical experiments in plasma physics laboratories. Goldstein likely knows this, but due to the insistence of people like you (the astronomical community) that this process is “magnetic reconnection” uses the term, but can’t bring himself to lie about understanding its physical processes.
The phrase “magnetic lines of force,” as coined by Faraday,
is misleading. The only force that is uniquely associated with a
magnetic field is the one that is applied to a compass needle to
force it to align with the field’s direction. If and when electrical
charges pass through a magnetic field, other types of forces
result, but these are due to the interaction between these moving
charges and the field, as described by the equation of motion of
Lorentz, i.e.,
d
dt
(mv) = q(E + v × B).
On the other hand, Electric Double Layer’s physical principles and relationships fit within all known constraints of established physcial laws as verified in plasma physics experiments.
As I have stated, so-called “magnetic reconnection” is a misnomer and should not be used. The proper name for this process under discussion is Electric Double Layers.
As I stated before and it bears repeating: “The game is up for the “magnetic reconnection” crowd, it’s just a matter of time because their own approach [because they can’t avoid the discussion and acknowledgment of electric fields] inescapably comes to the physical description & explanation that “magnetic reconnection” is an Electric Double Layer phenomenon, if in a more convoluted and tortuous manner.”
Don’t believe me?
Undoubtedly, the two “magnetic reconnection” papers I have presented (courtesy of Dr. Svalgaard) report observation & measurement of electric fields and even potentially parallel electric fields at the heart of the “magnetic reconnection” physical relationship. Electric fields are caused by double layers, charged particles seperated into rows with electrons lined up one side and ions lined up on the other side from each other to form a “voltage drop” or electric field between the rows of electrons and ions.
This is a double layer electric field which in space plasmas serve to accelerate free electrons and ions in opposite directions as observed & measured by in situ satellite probes.
Magnetic fields by themselves don’t do anything, there must be reference to currents or current sheets that are not shown in typical schematics for “magnetic reconnection” since curved magnetic fields cannot exist without them.
So-called “magnetic reconnection” are Electric Double Layers, not just in name only, but by the way the fundamental physical forces and particles interact.
This is not a matter of deduction, but of induction (if that, then this).
Checkmate.
James F. Evans (23:38:08) :
Checkmate
“Gegen der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”
James F. Evans (23:38:08) :
[…]magnetic field is the one that is applied to a compass[…]
When you copy-n-paste from something you don’t understand, at least clean up the line breaks. You give away the cult you belong to by so parroting D.E.Scott. Perhaps you should just have provided this ‘informative’ link http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_Universe_resources
or this riveting one: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ouruniverse.htm
Check out the fascinating claim that “Might the flowing hair of Venus, as that planet is depicted in many ancient myths and drawings actually have been the glowing ions of twisting Birkeland currents”.
As an antidote, you should try: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/ElectricSky_20080322.pdf
But I have little hope that you’ll recover, so shall leave you in your current checkmated state.
That last quote reminds me of Danny Kay in “The Court Jester” when he speaks “German” to the soldier questioning him. Funniest movie ever made. And I don’t know what he said either but it’s a great scene.
While the debate here is way over my head, the debate style has been vigorous in both knowledge and oneupsmanship. However, I call it like I see it. 4 marks to Leif in this last round.
Lief Svalgaard
“Magnetic fields are actually an effect due to Special Relativity.”
Can magnetic/electrical effects on an object be considered analogous in some way to the Coriolis force (e.g. relativistically?)
I seem to remember Karl Popper saying that the claim of a hypothesis (e.g. EU) to “explain everything” is not a strength but a weakness, that it is thus probably unfalsifiable and not scientific (thus explaining nothing).
Electro-Magnetism and electromagnetic waves are reality. Electric Universe and Frozen Magnetic Fields are most unlikely to be so.
phlogiston (08:14:46) :
Can magnetic/electrical effects on an object be considered analogous in some way to the Coriolis force (e.g. relativistically?)
The Coriolis force is not an effect of Einstein’s special or general relativity, but can be said to be an effect of Galilean relativity in the sense that a rotating frame of reference is not inertial, but we generally reserve the word ‘relativistic’ for the Einsteinian sort.
I seem to remember Karl Popper saying that the claim of a hypothesis (e.g. EU) to “explain everything” is not a strength but a weakness, that it is thus probably unfalsifiable and not scientific (thus explaining nothing).
EU is nonsense on its face [to wit Evans’s posts] and is easily falsified. Its ‘cousin’, Plasma Universe, is a misunderstanding and misappropriation of Alfven’s ideas, using Alfven’s stature as a cover. Alfven’s cosmology has not held up to the progress we have made over the past 50 years, so is only of historical interest today, and some claims of PU foollowers would have made Alfven laugh [or perhaps cry], e.g. the hair of Venus being twisting Birkeland currents – http://www.integral.soton.ac.uk/~sguera/good1/venus.html ].
Quote Leif Svalgaard (16:27:04) :
“You forget [or conveniently overlook] that this finding is just a vindication of my earlier paper from 1975. . . . where I speculate along the same lines.”
Really? There was once something Leif didn’t completely understand?
Like the mysteries of the Sun’s magnetic fields discussed in this 2000 NASA report:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2000/sunmagfield.html
Which mystery did Leif explain in his 1975 paper:
1. “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” ?
2. “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” ?
3. “It’s interesting that the solar magnetic field varies in strength and direction, but not in longitude” ?
4. “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” ?
5. “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” ?
6. “Why the Sun’s magnetic field behaves in this way is a puzzle, but the answer must lie deep within the Sun” ?
7. “We’re trying to understand how magnetic fields are generated in the Sun, the planets and the stars” ?
8. “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” ?
9. “There may be something asymmetric about the Sun’s interior, perhaps a deep-seated lump of old magnetic field” ?
The compact, energetic neutron star that moves around as the Sun is jerked in routine cycles about the center-of-mass of the solar system explains each of these mysteries of the Standard Solar Model, as well as Earth’s constantly changing climate and the solar neutrino puzzle.
See: “Earth’s Heat Source – The Sun”, Energy and Environment 20 (2009) pages 131-144 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Studies
Vuk etc. (08:42:09) :
Electric Universe and Frozen Magnetic Fields are most unlikely to be so.
Correct on the first part, wrong on the second. Whenever the conductivity is high enough such that the electric field in the frame of reference moving with the plasma is zero, dB/dt is zero and B cannot change but must move with the plasma. Frozen-in magnetic fields are observational facts, responsible, e.g. for bringing the Sun’s magnetic field out to the Earth and beyond. Alfven waves are possible because of frozen-in magnetic fields. What Alfven was railing against half a century ago, was uncritical use of the concept in situations where it was not applicable. Today we know when and when not to apply his concept of frozen-in magnetic fields.
Vuk etc. (08:42:09) :
Frozen Magnetic Fields are most unlikely to be so.
In Alfven’s 1970 Nobel Prize lecture [where his main topic actually was his theory of the origin of the solar system] he notes that the ‘Frozen-in picture is often completely misleading’. He did not say that Frozen-in fields did not exist.
Oliver K. Manuel (09:06:55) :
“You forget [or conveniently overlook] that this finding is just a vindication of my earlier paper from 1975. . . . where I speculate along the same lines.”
Really? […]
Like the mysteries of the Sun’s magnetic fields discussed in this 2000 NASA report
How about you actually reading the two papers in question:
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1999JA000298.pdf
The compact, energetic neutron star
Is complete nonsense. In the not even wrong category.
Leif Svalgaard (09:08:04) :
” Whenever the conductivity is high enough such that the electric field in the frame of reference moving with the plasma is zero, dB/dt is zero and B cannot change but must move with the plasma.”
Maxwell’s equation for Faraday’s law states: delta E= -dB/dt
It only says that E will appear if B varies. But one should not forget that the Faraday’s static B comes from Ampere’s model of a permanent magnet, which cannot be applied to plasma.
Gilbert’s model, probably would be more appropriate if you whish to ‘believe’ in frozen-in fields.
See recommendations by your neighbours at the Stanford Magnets Co. on:
http://www.stanfordmagnets.com/magnetization.html
Vuk etc. (11:10:16) :
Maxwell’s equation […] which cannot be applied to plasma.
Maxwell’s equations are universally valid.
Leif Svalgaard (11:18:29) :
Maxwell’s equations are universally valid.
Of course they are. Perhaps I should rephrase: It should not be applied in a backwards argument in a plasma assumption : No collisions must mean that conductivity is high, so electric potential has to be zero, if so than dB/dt =0, hence B has to be static.
No resistivity is ever zero (even in superconductivity), so it cannot be assumed that E cannot arise, so that dB/dt must=0.
B is never fixed (quantum mechanics, magnetic momentum) so dB/dt is consequently never zero, hence no frozen in magnetic field.
Vuk etc. (11:55:13) :
B is never fixed (quantum mechanics, magnetic momentum) so dB/dt is consequently never zero, hence no frozen in magnetic field.
Irrelevant. What matters is what happens on the time and length scales of interest which are macroscopic. E.g. the time scale of a solar rotation and a length scale of several AU. And just to remind you, in the solar wind the mean path between collisions is greater than the distance to the Sun, so a solar wind proton that arrives at Earth has not collided with anything since it left the Sun.
Even Alfven ‘believed’ in Frozen-in field [in fact invented the concept]. He also fought to make people realize that the field on occasion ‘thaws’, e.g. during reconnection events.
It is not useful to keep dancing around your misconceptions. The facts have been explained to you so many times in so many posts that you should have grasped them by now. And, if not, there is little hope you ever will, so perhaps not hijack every thread as a personal [never-ending] education of you.
Leif Svalgaard (05:46:53) :
Evans (23:38:08) summed up: “Checkmate.”
Dr. Svalgaard (05:46:53) fumed: “Gegen der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”
How come it doesn’t surprise me that you speak German…
Yes, I have referred to the peer-reviewed and published paper: Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos, published 2007, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, by Donald E. Scott, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. (Retired)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf
Scott’s work has been endorsed by, among others:
Gerrit L. Verschuur, PhD, University of Manchester. A well-known radio astronomer and writer, presently at the Physics Department, University of Memphis.
Lewis E. Franks, PhD, Stanford University, Fellow of the IEEE (1977), Professor Emeritus and Head of the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts (Retired)
Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) is the world’s largest professional association advancing innovation and technological excellence with more than 375,000 members in more than 160 countries; 45 percent of whom are from outside the United States. Many members work in the area of plasma physics and experimental plasma physics (they actually work in plasma physics laboratories making observations & measurements and performing plasma physics experiments).
Dr. Svalgaard (08:51:01) wrote :”You give away the cult you belong to by so parroting D.E.Scott.”
Dr. Svalgaard (08:51:01): “Its ‘cousin’, Plasma Universe, is a misunderstanding and misappropriation of Alfven’s ideas, using Alfven’s stature as a cover.”
Dr. Svalgaard, I see you revert to your same old modus operandi when backed into a corner: Dr. Svalgaard is the beacon of truth and enlightenment, and everybody else who disagrees with him is ignorant, or stupid, or dishonest.
Notice what Dr. Svalgaard doesn’t say in his spasmodic response: Nothing about his false accusation that Mr. Goldstein is lying about not understanding “magnetic reconnection”; nothing about electric fields being at the heart of “magnetic reconnection” as observed by in situ satellite probes, really Electric Double Layers which he has already admitted to several times, by now, in one form or another.
Dr. Svalgaard, this latest attempted smear in the face of your previous admissions to the physical reality of Electric Double Layers comes off as arrogant and quite frankly — desperate.
This is an embarrassing performance by Dr. Svalgaard, perhaps his handlers should pull him back before he does anymore damage to astronomy’s ideas in the court of public opinion.
Dr. Svalgaard (06:13:01) wrote: “…the progress we have made over the past 50 years [in astrophysics]…”
Actually, it is you, Dr. Svalgaard that promote ideas that are 50 years old and discredited by laboratory plasma physics experiments and now in situ satellite probe observation & measurements.
So-called “magnetic reconnection” is an old idea that proceeded wide-spread knowledge of the dynamics of space plasma: In 1961, Dungey proposed “magnetic reconnection”, an idea that Giovanelli conceived in 1946 to explain solar flaring. Again, and again, you propagate old, discredited ideas like the solar wind being just “hot gas”.
Dr. Svalgaard (09:08:04) wrote: “Whenever the conductivity is high enough such that the electric field in the frame of reference moving with the plasma is zero, dB/dt is zero and B cannot change but must move with the plasma. Frozen-in magnetic fields are observational facts…”
Nonsense.
“When, in his acceptance speech of the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics, Alfvén pointed out that this frozen-in idea, which he had earlier endorsed, was false, many astrophysicists chose not to listen. In reality, magnetic fields do move with respect to cosmic plasma cells and, in doing so, induce electric currents. This mechanism (which generates electric current) is one cause of the phenomena that is described by what is now called plasma cosmology.
Alfvén said, “I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous ‘pseudo pedagogical concept.’ By ‘pseudo pedagogical’ I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.”
Of course, Dr. Svalgaard has already admitted the presence of electric currents in space plasma.
Dr. Svalgaard, the problem with your clinging to “frozen in” magnetic fields is that it has been repeatedly experimentally demonstrated that plasma, including space plasma, is not a perfect conductor of electricity, and, thus, magnetic fields can not be “frozen in”. The concept of “frozen in” magnetic fields would only work if space plasma was a perfect conductor — it is not, as stated above, this has been conclusively demonstrated in plasma physics laboratories and is not in dispute by any knowledgable authorities.
Again, Dr. Svalgaard, you ignore demonstrated and accepted plasma physics science to maintain and propagate your flawed and discredited ideas.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Magnetic fields are actually an effect due to Special Relativity.”
Quantum Mechanics would not agree — but invoking Special Relativity is just way to introduce another non-falsifiable concept into your grab bag, so you and others in the astronomy coummunity can continue to maintian your menagerie of non-falsifiable objects and processes, such as the discredited “magnetic reconnection”.
The process in question is an Electric Double Layer and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put “magnetic reconnection” back together again.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (10:23:52) : “The compact, energetic neutron star
Is complete nonsense. In the not even wrong category.”
Arrogance is neither an answer nor an excuse for ignorance.
Please quiet your mind and try to mediate on the puzzle that the 2000 NASA report offered you:
a.) “Why the Sun’s magnetic field behaves in this way is a puzzle, but the answer must lie deep within the Sun”,
and the wise words of British philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820-1903):
b.) “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation”,
While looking at this TRACE satellite recording of:
c.) A solar flare and mass ejection from Active Region AR 9143 on 28 August 2000: http://tinyurl.com/y9sobnu
Good luck!
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
Leif Svalgaard (12:38:26) :
“What matters is what happens on the time and length scales of interest which are macroscopic. E.g. the time scale of a solar rotation and a length scale of several AU. And just to remind you, in the solar wind the mean path between collisions is greater than the distance to the Sun, so a solar wind proton that arrives at Earth has not collided with anything since it left the Sun.”
It is no surprise that collisions are so rare (at 1 AU). I estimate that there are around 5x10E19 atoms of Nitrogen end Oxygen put together in 1cm cube of air, or about 36x10E19 protons. Compare that to less than 10 solar wind protons (and ions) in the same volume.
Where density is much higher in the solar corona, there are collisions, so no ‘frozen-in’ field, this means electric currents (no Electric Universe please, it is also a bad hypothesis), the field is ‘maxwellian’ propagating at speed of light. But according to Parker and co., we have to assume that as the distance increases field starts to freeze up, propagation slows down to the speed of the solar wind, so after beta =1, there is a cataclysmic change in the laws of physics. What a nonsense!
L.S.
“The facts have been explained to you so many times in so many posts that you should have grasped them by now. ”
Those are not facts, just a belief or consensus of the ‘current science’.
You neatly avoided my statement: No resistivity is ever zero (even in superconductivity), so it cannot be assumed that dB/dt must=0. The B vector is never fixed (quantum mechanics, magnetic momentum) so dB/dt is consequently never zero.
I am happy to conclude no dB/dt is ever = 0 (false foundation stone of Parker’s hypothesis that it is) and therefore no frozen-in magnetic field.
Vuk etc. (13:34:43) :
Your demonstration that “frozen in” magnetic fields is a false concept, lays it out in impeccable reasoning and mathematical logic.
Hannes Alfven had the intellectual integrity to acknowledge his mistake in the most public of forums, his Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
That is the true spirit of Science…too bad others can’t take that example and lesson to heart…
Oliver K. Manuel (13:20:40) :
Arrogance is neither an answer nor an excuse for ignorance.
Please quiet your mind and try to mediate on the puzzle that the 2000 NASA report offered you:
a.) “Why the Sun’s magnetic field behaves in this way is a puzzle, but the answer must lie deep within the Sun”,
Calling a spade a spade is hardly arrogance, but on to the solar magnetic fields now:
In our 1975 paper we note: “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 are fundamental features of the Sun rather than superficial perturbations of the ‘quiet Sun'”, but also recognize that our result [nicely confirmed by the Neugebauer et al. 2000 paper] would be consistent with a class of non-axisymmetric dynamo theories. So, there is less ‘mystery’ than suggested by the hype of NASA’s PR-drum.
For the rest, your hypotheses are not only internally inconsistent, but also contradicted by measurements, so no wonder you don’t get many takers.
Vuk etc. (13:34:43) :
Where density is much higher in the solar corona, there are collisions, so no ‘frozen-in’ field, this means electric currents (no Electric Universe please, it is also a bad hypothesis), the field is ‘maxwellian’ propagating at speed of light.
Even in the photosphere and below the field is largely [but not perfectly] frozen-in [to wit the convection moving the magnetic field around], and changes in the field does not propagate at the speed of light, but at the Alfven speed. BTW, Alfven invented the concept in support of his [long abandoned] theory that sunspots were magnetic ‘smoke rings’ travelling [with the Alfven speed] through the interior of the Sun from one point on the surface to its antipode in the course of the solar cycle, explaining Hale’s polarity laws.
Those are not facts, just a belief or consensus of the ‘current science’.
Current science is what works and leads to the smallest number of anomalies, so that is what prevails.
You neatly avoided my statement: No resistivity is ever zero
I explained why it was not relevant. It is enough that resitivity is small enough not to have any effect on the time/length scales of interest.
James F. Evans (13:13:55) :
How come it doesn’t surprise me that you speak German…
Apart from the disturbing undertone of that remark, most educated persons in Europe speak or understand German [even Einstein did :-)], and French, and even English.
And for rest of your post(s), I think we have disposed of those in a sufficient manner already.
This statement can’t be passed:
Dr. Svalgaard (08:51:01): “Its ‘cousin’, Plasma Universe, is a misunderstanding and misappropriation of Alfven’s ideas, using Alfven’s stature as a cover.”
This has to be elaborated:
Plasma Universe is not a misunderstanding or misappropriation (stealing) of Alven’s ideas, nor did Dr. Anthony Peratt use Alfven’s stature as a cover.”
This is a patently offensive remark and an outright falsehood.
Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html
Dr. Anthony L. Peratt and Hannes Alfven were close colleagues and friends before Alfven passed away in 1995. Alfven mentored Dr. Peratt and the two worked together when Peratt was a Guest Scientist, Alfvén Laboratory of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden (1985).
Dr. Peratt didn’t “misunderstand” or steal Alfven’s ideas.
Hannes Alfven wasn’t like that anyway — he wanted to share his knowledge far and wide.
Please read the May ’88 article and interview that Dr. Anthony L. Peratt wrote for his close friend and mentor, Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner, physics (1908 – 1995):
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/DeanOfPlasma.pdf
Many of Dr. Antony L. Peratt’s scientific papers on Plasma Universe subjects were written well before Alfven passed away in 1995.
Dr. Peratt and Hannes Alfven collaborated closely together on Plasma Universe concepts and the supporting scientific principles gathered from plasma physics experimental work — both Alfven and Peratt were experimentalists, who worked in the laboratory.
There was no misunderstanding or stealing involved in Peratt’s and Alfven’s friendship and professional collaboration.
Your false and outrageous statement is obscene.
It is more a reflection on your own integrity (or lack thereof) than on anybody else’s.
You’ve claimed to be a friend of Alfven’s. I don’t believe that for a second. No friend would make such a patently false and disgusting comment designed to smear Dr. Peratt and to diminish a friend’s scientific contribution.
Dr. Svalgaard, you really have no bounds, do you?
James F. Evans (18:18:53) :
Your false and outrageous statement is obscene.
Coming from you I consider that a compliment.
James F. Evans (18:18:53) :
misappropriation (stealing) of Alfven’s ideas
You may want to brush up on your English. One of the meanings of to misappropriate is ‘to appropriate to a bad or incorrect use’. But your outburst speaks for itself.
Leif,
Your recent Leave of Absence left you sorely missed. Then I see you on a dead thread debating irrelevant points. Let it go. You either enjoy these pointless debates, or are perfectionary obsessive-compulsive. Either way, save your intellect (and sanity) for the majority on this blog who accept your idiosyncracies and anticipate your insight. Please!