Discovery of Saturn’s auroral heartbeat
An international team of scientists led by Dr Jonathan Nichols of the University of Leicester has discovered that Saturn’s aurora, an ethereal ultraviolet glow which illuminates Saturn’s upper atmosphere near the poles, pulses roughly once per Saturnian day.
The length of a Saturnian day has been under much discussion since it was discovered that the traditional ‘clock’ used to measure the rotation period of Saturn, a gas giant planet with no solid surface for reference, apparently does not keep good time.
Saturn, like all magnetised planets, emits radio waves into space from the polar regions. These radio emissions pulse with a period near to 11 h, and the timing of the pulses was originally, during the Voyager era, thought to represent the rotation of the planet. However, over the years the period of the pulsing of the radio emissions has varied, and since the rotation of a planet cannot be easily sped up or slowed down, the hunt for the source of the varying radio period has become one of the most perplexing puzzles in planetary science.
Now, in a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters (August 6), Nichols et al. use images from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope of Saturn’s auroras obtained between 2005-2009 to show that, not only do the radio emissions pulse, but the auroras beat in tandem with the radio.
Dr Nichols said: “This is an important discovery for two reasons. First, it provides a long-suspected but hitherto missing link between the radio and auroral emissions, and second, it adds a critical tool in diagnosing the cause of Saturn’s irregular heartbeat.”
Auroras, more commonly known as the “northern lights” on Earth, are caused when charged particles in space are funnelled along a planet’s magnetic field into the planet’s upper atmosphere near the poles, whereupon they impact the atmospheric particles and cause them to glow. This happens when a planet’s magnetic field is stressed by, for example, the buffeting from the stream of particles emitted by the Sun, or when moons such as Enceladus or Io expel material into the near-planet space.
Saturn’s radio waves were long suspected to be emitted by the charged particles as they hurtle toward the poles, but no radio-like pulsing had been observed in Saturn’s aurora, an enigmatic disconnect between the two supposedly-related phenomena.
However, Nichols et al. found that by using the clock of the radio pulsing to organise the auroral data, and stacking the results from all the Hubble Saturn auroral images obtained from 2005-2009 on top of each other, the auroral pulsing finally revealed itself.
Dr Nichols added: “This confirms that the auroras and the radio emissions are indeed physically associated, as suspected. This link is important, since it implies that the pulsing of the radio emissions is being imparted by the processes driving Saturn’s aurora, which in turn can be studied by the NASA/ESA spacecraft Cassini, presently in orbit around Saturn. It thus takes us a significant step toward solving the mystery of the variable radio period.”
Ralph says:
August 5, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Everything in the Solar System has a cycle or rhythm.
And lunatics are controlled by the lunar period…
Dr. Svalgaard:
Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
“This article is about the structure in plasma physics. For other uses, see Double layer.”
“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. In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics. Double layers are found in a wide variety of plasmas, from discharge tubes to space plasmas to the Birkeland currents supplying the Earth’s aurora, and are especially common in current-carrying plasmas.”
The foot notes at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry for “double layer (plasma)” are very extensive.
Please review the foot notes.
There are 57 footnotes.
Many cite astrophysical, field, experiments, observations & measurements, from satellite probes.
Continuing from Wikikpedia:
“Other names for a double layer are electrostatic double layer, electric double layer, plasma double layers, electrostatic shock (a type of double layer which is oriented at an oblique angle to the magnetic field in such a way that the perpendicular electric field is much stronger than the parallel electric field),[6] space charge layer.[7] In laser physics, a double layer is sometimes called an ambipolar electric field.[8] Double layers are conceptually related to the concept of a ‘sheath’ (see Debye sheath).
The adopted electrical symbol for a double layer, when represented in an electrical circuit is ────DL────. If there is a net current present, then the DL is oriented with the base of the L in line with direction of current.[9]”
Other names for a double layer are electrostatic double layer, electric double layer, plasma double layers, electrostatic shock (a type of double layer which is oriented at an oblique angle to the magnetic field in such a way that the perpendicular electric field is much stronger than the parallel electric field),[6] space charge layer.[7] In laser physics, a double layer is sometimes called an ambipolar electric field.[8] Double layers are conceptually related to the concept of a ‘sheath’ (see Debye sheath).
The adopted electrical symbol for a double layer, when represented in an electrical circuit is ────DL────. If there is a net current present, then the DL is oriented with the base of the L in line with direction of current.[9]”
** note, numbers are from supporting footnotes in the linked Wikipedia entry.
I invite readers to read & study the Wikipedia entry linked above and below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Mr. Svalgaard believe in “frozen-in magnetic field lines” and “magnetic merging” (reconnection). This is what Nobel Laureate, Prof. Hannes Alfvén, the “father” of plasma physics, had to say about these concepts:
Frozen-In Field Lines – A Pseudo-Pedagogical Concept:
“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.”
Magnetic Merging – A Pseudo-Science:
“The most important criticism of the “merging” mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in I. 3, II. 3, and I1.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.”
Double Layers in Astrophysics
Proceedings of a workshop held at George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Alabama, March 17-19, 1986
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880_1987013880.pdf
James F. Evans says:
August 5, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I invite readers to read & study the Wikipedia entry linked above and below
But none of this is relevant to the issue of reconnection, which requires the two plasma domains to have oppositely direct magnetic fields. The double layer is about when the domains have opposite electric fields.
Say what? says:
August 5, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Prof. Hannes Alfvén, the “father” of plasma physics, had to say about these concepts
Unfortunately for Alfvén, both reconnection and frozen in fields have now been observed directly in space. What Hannes was railing about was the notion that the field was always frozen in. Reconnection is an example of a situation where they are not frozen in on the micro-scale.
Reconnection and frozen-in magnetic field lines have been observed directly in space? Yes of course, just like the numerous “observations” of black holes (underpinned by photoshop and wishful thinking). If your understanding is limited by a narrow theoretical framework you don’t observe what is, but what you belive is. An explanation is then substituted by rationalization to fill in the gaps.
“Astrophysicists have claimed that galactic magnetic fields begin and end on molecular clouds. Most electrical engineers, physicists, and pioneers in the electromagnetic field theory disagree, i.e., magnetic fields have no beginning or end. Many astrophysicists still claim that magnetic fields are “frozen into” electric plasma. The “magnetic merging” (reconnection) mechanism is also falsified by both theoretical and experimental investigations.”
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf
(Yes I’m aware of the fact that this paper is written before THEMIS allegedly “observed” reconnection, but when you stand on one leg when interpreting data, the imbalance makes you reconnect with the ground rather than reality.)
Say what? says:
August 5, 2010 at 8:00 pm
If your understanding is limited by a narrow theoretical framework you don’t observe what is, but what you belive is. An explanation is then substituted by rationalization to fill in the gaps.
I often wonder what prevents people like you from learning about this wonderful Universe we inhabit. Often it is Religion, sometimes it is the yearning for an ‘explanation’ that is simple enough for you to understand [and modern physics and astrophysics can be complex and perhaps have a learning curve that is too steep for you], but at other times it just baffles the mind.
Leif Svalgaard says: August 5, 2010 at 7:01 pm,
“But none of this is relevant to the issue of reconnection…”
Yes, it is relevant to the issue of “reconnection”.
A school of astrophysics wrongly claims the physical event, which has already been quantitatively described as an Electric Double Layer is actually a so-called “magnetic reconnection” event.
This school presists in labelling the Electric Double Layer as a so-called “magnetic reconnection event”, but a Double layer has already been quantitatively described by measuring the electric fields and magnetic fields.
The Electric Double Layer process describes the dynamics where the electrons & ions flow in opposite directions as a result of magnetic & electric field interaction upon the collision of flows of magnetized and (yes, electrified) plasma.
The concept and the term, “magnetic reconnection”, is an antiquated relic of 1940’s, pre-space age, astronomy, when they were searching for ideas to explain aspects of the Sun’ processes (which they didn’t understand).
Science has proceeded a long way from the 1940’s and, today, with satellite probes measuring electric fields & magnetic fields in near space, focussing on processes of the aurora, with high resolution, Science understands & recognizes that Electric Double Layers active in the Earth’s auroral dynamics.
Another definition from the Plasma Dictionary of a double layer:
“A double layer is an electric charge separation region that forms in a plasma. It consists of two oppositely charged parallel layers, resulting in a voltage drop and electric field across the layer, which accelerates the plasma’s electrons and positive ions in opposite directions, producing an electric current.”
http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/terms.lasso?-MaxRecords=1&-SkipRecords=16&-SortField=Term&-SortOrder=ascending&ABC=D&page=detail
Saturn’s auroral dynamics are likely to operate along the same physical lines.
Electromagnetism…
And, yes, Birkeland currents.
James F. Evans says:
August 5, 2010 at 9:00 pm
“A double layer is an electric charge separation region that forms in a plasma. It consists of two oppositely charged parallel layers”
Such layers do not form spontaneously, but results from potential differences along a field line build up from the electric field resulting from a plasma crossing a magnetic field [E=v x B] as I have explained so many times. And this is how Birkeland currents are formed.
The concept and the term, “magnetic reconnection”, is an antiquated relic of 1940′s
And used almost exclusively in modern description of observations and theory. Reconnection may, in fact, result in voltage drops and double layers forming. Nothing mysterious about that.
For the auroral case, the double layers form close to the Earth, while the reconnection event happen far out in the magnetotail. It is time you learn about the modern view of things.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 5, 2010 at 6:55 am
Ah, thanks Leif…. Now I understand what you meant.
It may be, in the fullness of time, that Cosmology and Climatology fully cross discipline into an integrated field.
Somehow, I think thats still a ways off.
Mean time both fields suffer from entrenched ideas, dominating personalities and personal agenda’s. I congratulate WUWT, for at least having a forum where a discussion, and not a witch hunt can take place.
Such places are vanishingly small, despite the magnitude of the web.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 5, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Big de’Bunk says:
August 5, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I don’t believe in creationism Mr. Svalgaard. Do you?
Particles are created every second. We make positrons in our ‘atom smashers’ all the time. “Production: New research has dramatically increased the quantity of positrons that experimentalists can produce. Physicists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have used a short, ultra-intense laser to irradiate a millimetre-thick gold target and produce more than 100 billion positrons.”
________________________________________________________
Are you saying Leif, that they are “creating matter” from “nothing”?…. Or simply shattering matter in to smaller particles?
Leif says,
“Because there are no electric fields in the rest frame of a highly-conducting plasma, but there are magnetic fields, so the one half is duly missing, but let’s not get started on this [again].”
Uhh, show me a plasma at REST!!
If I interpret your language correctly you are trying to claim some kind of equilibria for a plasma. Not happening. Please show experimental evidence of a plasma at equilibria???
J.Hansford says:
August 5, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Are you saying Leif, that they are “creating matter” from “nothing”?…. Or simply shattering matter in to smaller particles?
They are creating matter from light [“let there be light” 🙂 ]. When an electron and a positron meet they annihilate each other and create a MeV photon. Conversely such a photon can generate the pair of an electron and a positron.
Now, ‘nothing’ is a slippery subject. The vacuum is seething with [virtual] particles that can pop into existence at any time. The whole universe may have been such a quantum fluctuation [BTW the energy content of the Universe is probably zero anyway, so energy is conserved]. But we are now drifting off topic a bit.
kuhnkat says:
August 5, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Uhh, show me a plasma at REST!!
show me anything at rest.
The ‘rest frame’ simply means a frame of reference moving with the plasma, so that the plasma is at rest in that frame. If you are in an airplane flying at 500 mph, you can blow a delicate soap bubble, because in the rest frame of the plane, no forces are acting on bubble [except gravity which is very weak as the bubble hardly weighs anything], so the bubble is not blown to pieces by the high speed of the plane.
Oh thee of no conceptual awareness.
“Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency.” (Wikipedia)
To reconfigure existing matter/energy is something completely different.
Often it is Religion, sometimes it is the yearning for an ‘explanation’ that is simple enough for you to understand
Ultimate laws and truth are by necessity simple, as simple as the calculations made by computers in the background. Of course if we deal with phantoms and disincarnated spirits we can’t figure them out easily: They do not exist.!
All the rest is nothing else the result of our self conceit.
Dr. Svalgaard: “Reconnection may, in fact, result in voltage drops and double layers forming. Nothing mysterious about that.”
It is the physical processes of Electric Double Layers with their specific organizational structure composed of electric fields & magnetic fields emitted from the electrons & ions, themselves, as these “electrified particles” interact with each other which causes voltage drops and, resulting, particles accelerations.
The fact that a certain school persists in calling this process “magnetic reconnection”, a 1940’s guestimation, when the process has already been quantitatively (mathematically) described & explained in the framework of an Electric Double Layer, goes a long way to demonstrating today’s hide-bound astronomy.
Dr. Svalgaard: “And [“magnetic reconnection” is] used almost exclusively in modern description of observations and theory.”
Science isn’t about how many people may use a term or concept…it is about correctly understanding the physical processes involved in a particlular dynamic.
When one makes a side-by-side comparison & analysis of the peer-reviewed papers purporting to describe “magnetic reconnection” with peer-reviewed papers describing Electric Double Layers, it is clear that both these sets of papers are describing one and the same event or dyanamic: Electric Double Layers.
And, to correctly observe & measure this process (whatever name one may choose to call it), one must observe & measure electric fields & magnetic fields and the flows of electrons & ions.
So-called “magnetic reconnection”, in the past, did not consider or measure electric fields (because the 1940’s concept did not consider electric fields important, as there was “no electricity in space”, didn’t you know). But, now, as a result of empirical observation & measurement, electric fields are being considered and measured.
As the proponents of the Electric Double Layer description & framework advocated all along.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “For the auroral case, the double layers form close to the Earth, while the reconnection event happen far out in the magnetotail. It is time you learn about the modern view of things.”
No, these events “close to the Earth” and “far out in the magnetotail” are one and the same basic process…Electric Double Layer, although, the processes certainly take different morphologies and energy inputs (it is well worth understanding the differences and similarities).
But getting back to Saturn, the point is this: Science will not understand Saturn’s aurora, unless and until, the full spectrum of electromagnetic dynamics are fully explored.
Pretending that electric fields & electric currents are not important and can, thus, be safely ignored will keep astrophysics from reaching a better understanding of the solar system’s physical dynamics.
The worst case scenario for the advancement of Science is that assumptions are so ingrained that no exploration & investigation is carried out by either laboratory experiments or field experiments.
Let’s observe & measure, explore & investigate, all reasonable lines of scientific inquiry instead of resting on assumptions.
Being satisfied (and, indeed, being defensive) about popular assumptions is not how Science advances its understanding.
Rather, Science advances by challenging assumptions (WUWT readers are very familiar with the necessity of challenging assumptions in AGW theories), not by maintaining dogma, no matter how popular at any given moment.
Thinking it deeply, that “reconnection” issue qualifies as XXX science or rather Tantric Yoga 🙂
Space researchers illuminate ‘one of the most perplexing puzzles in planetary science’
..Saturn, like all magnetised planets, emits radio waves into space from the polar regions. These radio emissions pulse with a period near to 11 h, and the timing of the pulses was originally, during the Voyager era, thought to represent the rotation of the planet. However, over the years the period of the pulsing of the radio emissions has varied, and since the rotation of a planet cannot be easily sped up or slowed down, the hunt for the source of the varying radio period has become one of the most perplexing puzzles in planetary science..
Now, in a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters (August 6), Nichols et al. use images from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope of Saturn’s auroras obtained between 2005-2009 to show that, not only do the radio emissions pulse, but the auroras beat in tandem with the radio.
Leif, do you find these findings perplexing?
More on aurorae on Saturn
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/62930/1/nature02986.pdf
An interplanetary shock traced by planetary auroral storms from the Sun to Saturn
..On 7 and 8 December 2000, FUV high-spatial-resolution images of Saturn were taken with the Hubble space telescope, HST (Fig. 1) with an excellent view of the southern polar region. The auroral oval morphology was very different from one day to the next. On 8 December, a narrow oval surrounding the pole at high latitude, and assigned to large-scale currrents at the boundary between open and closed field lines17, resembles the few Saturn aurorae observed
earlier22; this configuration may be considered as a steady-state reference.
By contrast the aurora observed on the previous day is of a kind never observed before: a similar oval is also present, but a very bright feature has transiently developed inside, on polar-cap
open field lines. This suggests that we have witnessed for the first time an auroral storm at Saturn, which may be related to an as-yet-unknown interaction of the solar wind with Saturn’s
magnetosphere.
At that time, the Sun, the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn were nearly aligned (Fig. 2). Hence, any interplanetary shock would successively encounter the three planets along its radial propagation outward, even if its angular extent were small..
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/62930/1/nature02986.pdf
James F. Evans says:
August 6, 2010 at 10:18 am
Rather, Science advances by challenging assumptions (WUWT readers are very familiar with the necessity of challenging assumptions in AGW theories), not by maintaining dogma, no matter how popular at any given moment.
I don’t think you have learned anything [still being stuck in concepts 50-100 years old], and you have proven your inability to learn, so one must just leave you to chew the dust of your choosing.
Carla says:
August 6, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Leif, do you find these findings perplexing?
No, this is just the usual NASA hype. Everything is baffling, unprecedented, perplexing, etc.
The auroral oval morphology was very different from one day to the next.
and so it is also on the Earth.
James F. Evans says:
August 6, 2010 at 10:18 am
Pretending that electric fields & electric currents are not important and can, thus, be safely ignored will keep astrophysics from reaching a better understanding of the solar system’s physical dynamics.
I think you not only have a learning disability, but also a reading disability. How many times have I not said that everything interesting that happens are due to electric currents. These currents are generated by moving conductors [the plasma] across the almighty magnetic fields, e.g. by gravity [in the end, gravity is the force that determines everything]. The energy in the currents comes from the kinetic energy of the moving plasma, same way that the energy in the ordinary household current comes from the kinetic energy of falling water or turning turbines.
Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans’ comment, August 6, 2010 at 10:18 am:
“Rather, Science advances by challenging assumptions (WUWT readers are very familiar with the necessity of challenging assumptions in AGW theories), not by maintaining dogma, no matter how popular at any given moment.”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “I don’t think you have learned anything [still being stuck in concepts 50-100 years old], and you have proven your inability to learn, so one must just leave you to chew the dust of your choosing.”
My comment is a simple truism of Science.
But Dr. Svalgaard responds to this “truism” by making a personal comment…readers of WUWT recognize that when an interlocutor resorts to personal comments…it’s a signal that the interlocutor has run out of substantive arguments (the interlocutor is attempting to cause bias & prejudice).
And, I’m not the only commenter to receive personal comments from Dr. Svalgaard:
Dr. Svalgaard presented peterhodges comment, August 5, 2010 at 10:03 am:
“yup. plasma cosmology is so much more convincing than the sorry state of ‘modern’ physics.”
And. Dr. Svalgaard responded: “yup, just like it is much more convincing that the Earth is flat and that the whole universe rotates about the Earth once a day and that maggots are created spontaneously from nothing in rotten meat.”
That kind of response reflects more on Dr. Svalgaard than on peterhodges.
But Dr. Svalgaard’s responses fall into a consistent pattern for him.
Everybody who disagrees with him is to be marginalized, apparently including NASA.
Dr. Svalgaard, what specific “concepts 50-100 years old” are you refering to?
You mean like so-called “magnetic reconnection”, a concept you subscribe to, which is from the 1940’s before the space age and literally was nothing more than speculation? Which NASA publically states is not understood: “Something very interesting and fundamental is going on [at the alleged location of a “magnetic reconnection” event] 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.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/31aug_mms/
That NASA admits they don’t understand how “magnetic reconnection” works is, perhaps, because they are applying a faulty and inadequate concept. I suggest NASA would advance in understanding by applying the Electric Double Layer framework & description.
It would seem Dr. Svalgaard is the one stuck on outdated concepts over 60 years old.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “How many times have I not said that everything interesting that happens are due to electric currents.”
Yes, but seemingly, Dr. Svalgaard wants to have it both ways. When push comes to shove, Dr. Svalgaard does acknowledge “electricity is present in space”, but notice the tenor and color of his responses: Dr. Svalgaard is much more focussed on minimizing the effects of electricity in space and marginalizing anybody that disagrees with his opinion, all this reflects the school of thought Dr. Svalgaard represents, as Dr. Svalgaard stated: “in the end, gravity is the force that determines everything”.
This is the gravity “only” school.
Other Fundamental Forces including Electromagnetism are to be marginalized.
Nevermind that the electric attraction force between free electrons and ions is literally billions of times stronger that the force of gravity.
An example of Dr. Svalgaard’s, “yes, there is electricity in space, but it doesn’t do much”, attitude:
Dr. Svalgaard’s reliance on the “frame of reference” argument. Contrary to what Dr. Svalgaard promotes, there is always electric attractive force present in plasma between free electrons and ions (an electric field between free electrons and ions), no matter what frame of reference one takes to observe the plasma.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “The ‘rest frame’ simply means a frame of reference moving with the plasma, so that the plasma is at rest in that frame. If you are in an airplane flying at 500 mph, you can blow a delicate soap bubble, because in the rest frame of the plane, no forces are acting on bubble [except gravity which is very weak as the bubble hardly weighs anything], so the bubble is not blown to pieces by the high speed of the plane.”
This analogy is false: While it’s true, “no forces are acting on the bubble”, in contrast, in a plasma, the electric attraction between free electrons & ions is always in operation.
Just as Dr. Svalgaard stated earlier in this thread: “The matching electrons can’t move far away from the protons because the electrical attraction between the two opposite charges is so enormous.” (Actually, depending on the energy present in the plasma, there may not be much “matching” between free electrons and ions.)
The Coulomb attaction between free electrons and ions in a given body of plasma is always present. Actually, it is magnetisim that can be absent because if a body of plasma is stationary there will be no organized magnetic field. Plasma in motion has a magnetic field, stationary plasma has no magnetic field.
In that respect, the force of magnetism and force of electric attraction are always present in tandem, that is why it is referred to as the Fundamental Force of Electromagnetism, not the fundamental force of magnetism or the electric fundamental force.
The issue is not that flowing magnetized plasma, consisting of “electrified particles” has kinetic energy, the plasma undoubtedly does have kinetic energy, rather, the issue is how this kinetic energy is generated.
It is an undeniable scientific fact:
Electric fields cause particle acceleration in a plasma environment.
Electric Double Layers cause particle acceleration.
This “acceleration” is manifested as kinetic energy.
But let’s come back to the central theme in my series of comments:
“When one makes a side-by-side comparison & analysis of the peer-reviewed papers purporting to describe “magnetic reconnection” with peer-reviewed papers describing Electric Double Layers, it is clear that both these sets of papers are describing one and the same event or dyanamic: Electric Double Layers.”
Dr. Svalgaard would have readers focus on my knowledge or lack, thereof, but it’s not my personal opinion about the applicability of Electric Double Layers in space environments that counts, but, rather, a whole body of scientific knowledge independent of me or my alleged lack of knowledge.
In Dr. Svalgaard’s scheme of things, scientists, supporting the Electric Double Layer framework and its applicability to space plasma, seemingly, are only to be marginalized.
Wikipedia entry for (Plasma) Double layer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
I invite WUWT readers to review & study the Wikipedia link above and consider the evidence presented (notice an image of Saturn’s aurora is at the right-hand side of the Wikipedia webpage) .
Temperatures on Saturn are normally −185 °C, temperatures on the North pole vortex often reach as high as −122 °C, changes in this temperature should change the rotation rate of the votex and hence the radio pulse frequency. The storm episodes that occur on Saturn roughly every 30yrs, might also have an impact on polar rotation speed (next node around 2020).
James F. Evans says:
August 7, 2010 at 11:18 am
In Dr. Svalgaard’s scheme of things, scientists, supporting the Electric Double Layer framework and its applicability to space plasma, seemingly, are only to be marginalized.
There aren’t any to marginalize. Note, that you have stated this so vaguely that it is devoid of meaning. There are no active scientists today who doubt that electric currents are formed by dynamo action on an existing magnetic field. There are no active scientists today who doubt that magnetic reconnection is a universal process that generates in the end the electric currents that are the cause of almost anything interesting.
James F. Evans says:
August 7, 2010 at 11:18 am
In Dr. Svalgaard’s scheme of things…
Just like ID is a front for religion, EU and Double Layers are just a front for the notion that the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion, but by electric currents from the Galaxy. So, what is your stance on this? Nuclear fusion exclusively? right?