From the Southwest Research Institute:
For immediate release
San Antonio — Sept. 29, 2010 — The unusual “knot” in the bright, narrow ribbon of neutral atoms emanating in from the boundary between our solar system and interstellar space appears to have “untied,” according to a paper published online in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Researchers believe the ribbon, first revealed in maps produced by NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) spacecraft, forms in response to interactions between interstellar space and the heliosphere, the protective bubble in which the Earth and other planets reside. Sensitive neutral atom detectors aboard IBEX produce global maps of this region every six months.
Analyses of the first map, released last fall, suggest the ribbon is somehow ordered by the direction of the local interstellar magnetic field outside the heliosphere, influencing the structure of the heliosphere more than researchers had previously believed. The knot feature seen in the northern portion of the ribbon in the first map stood apart from the rest of the ribbon as the brightest feature at higher energies.
While the second map, released publicly with the just-published paper, shows the large-scale structure of the ribbon to be generally stable within the six-month period, changes are also apparent. The polar regions of the ribbon display lower emissions and the knot diminishes by as much as a third and appears to “untie” as it spreads out to both lower and higher latitudes.
“What we’re seeing is the knot pull apart as it spreads across a region of the ribbon,” says Dr. David J. McComas, IBEX principal investigator and an assistant vice president at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. “To this day the science team can’t agree on exactly what causes the knot or the ribbon, but by comparing different sky maps we find the surprising result that the region is changing over relatively short time periods. Now we have to figure out why.”
As the IBEX spacecraft gathers a wealth of new information about the dynamic interactions at the edge of the solar system — the region of space that shields our solar system from the majority of galactic cosmic ray radiation — the IBEX team continues to study numerous theories about the source of the ribbon and its unusual features.
The paper, “The evolving heliosphere: Large-scale stability and time variations observed by the Interstellar Boundary Explorer,” by D.J. McComas, M. Bzowski, P. Frisch, G.B. Crew, M.A. Dayeh, R. DeMajistre, H.O. Funsten, S.A. Fuselier, M. Gruntman, P. Janzen, M.A. Kubiak, G. Livadiotis, E. Mobius, D.B. Reisenfeld, and N.A. Schwadron, was published online Sept. 29 in the American Geophysical Union’s Journal of Geophysical Research.
IBEX is the latest in NASA’s series of low-cost, rapidly developed Small Explorers space missions. Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio leads and developed the mission with a team of national and international partners. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the Explorers Program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.
==============================================
h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard, who offers us a look at the paper here
O.K. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Lets see, Work in-electricity out (generator) or electricity in – work out (motor) except in space. An interesting hypothesis indeed.
Richard, I was referring to the very real effects perceived at sunset due to the purely relative thickening of the atmosphere, which as we know, to all intents and purposes has a uniform thickness around the earth. Thus my thought that this ribbon is purely an artifact of our perspective of the double layer boundary of the Solar System.
Grey Lensman says:
October 1, 2010 at 6:48 am
Lets see, Work in-electricity out (generator) or electricity in – work out (motor) except in space. An interesting hypothesis indeed.
This is because in space the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the particle’s direction of motion, and, therefore, does no work on the particle.
An expanding WAVE slows its motion in certain places, critical points, crests, musical intervals, “gaps”, or “warps”. The time is due, we must stop groping in the dark, knowing that we already know how a wave behaves and how opposite charges create waves, and all the rest, including US, of course!: Have you ever heard of such a thing known as a RADIO?. We already know, from thousand of years, how it works. Why the surprise then?. If Pitagoras were here he would explain it with its Monochord or with the relations of his square triangle inscribed within a circle. Why such a fanatic rejection of simple truths?. Is it perhaps we do not want to see any CANON out there, any feared symbol, which would imply an ETHOS?
Richard Holle says:
October 1, 2010 at 4:32 am
Reply toGrey Lensman
“I tried to say the effect is real, it appears where it does due to the interactions with/between the solar wind carried fields, and the interstellar galactic fields…”
I think your right, Richard, the effect is real. However, by only having one observation point to view this complex 3D boundary layer, it is difficult to see what is really happening. My speculations are that the ‘knot’ is a sign that the bremsstrahlung is being excited by a stronger solar wind, then hitting a denser (more ionised?) pocket of particles in the more neutral interstellar medium. The ‘knot’ is probably an eddy of turbulence in the thin double layer of the bremsstrahlung, which fades as the sun travels out of this denser pocket of the interstellar medium and/or the speed/density of the solar wind declines.
It will be interesting to observe if another knot appears in a different position in the future and to monitor the link between solar wind speed at the edge of the heliosphere and ‘knot’ formation or other features of turbulence.
Interesting times!
Let’s put in GCR’s terms: when charged particles encounter a magnetic bubble, they will form a ribbon around the bubble following the bubble’s magnetic equator.
Heliosphere’s magnetic equator is defined by composite of the solar wind remanents at the bow-shock boundary. As Sun’s activity oscillates, so the ribbon will reflect convolutions of the heliospheric field.
There is an analogous double ribbon in the ionosphere surrounding the Earth
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/154188main_plasma_bands_lgweb.jpg
It closely follows the geo-magnetic equator as you can see, on a totally unrelated subject
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
images 3,4 & 5.
Tenuc says:
October 1, 2010 at 7:27 am
The ‘knot’ is probably an eddy of turbulence in the thin double layer of the bremsstrahlung, ….
That “knot” is a “quanta”, “mass”,an “interval”, etc.,etc. Let us explain it as Pitagoras would do it, or should we ask, as he did, to bring up a prisoner from the jail, to explain it?
http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field.pdf
Everyone know this. It is now the time for those with infinitely more trained minds to redevelop these principles which come from the history of the human spirit.
So, this Ribbon was the largest ever on record, and its “untying” is to be at the most impressive rate on record too, right?
And, could we also say that for the first time in recorded history we have a Ribbon present ?
Or, for the first time on record, the Ribbon is being “untied” at an unprecedented rate that could be due to Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption?
Lief says
Quote
This is because in space the magnetic force is always perpendicular to the particle’s direction of motion, and, therefore, does no work on the particle.
Unquote
But, the latest study in 3d of solar flares shows that the suns magnetic field does change their direction. Which somewhat falsifies your above statement.
Enneagram
Thank you for that link. It provides me with some very thoughtful ideas.
Grey Lensman says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:31 am
Thanks to you. As you see all what is needed is an up to date “translation” to the language of our times, of what tradition and symbols always taught, that “weltanschauung” found, among others, in the hebrew khabbalah. This, of course, will be resisted, as it entails an “ethos” where negentropy is the way up to higher frequencies and where entropy follows the other way. To reclaim out of a vision of chaos that of an ever prevailing order.
Enneagram
I will throw this past you as I go to bed.
Symmetry is, asymmetry works.
Simply put ‘Work” is the manifestation of a change of direction of energy.
“Now this. Gee, I wonder what human activity could be causing it? No doubt whatever it is, the solution will involve higher taxes and some sort of symbolic sacrifice…”
No doubt the conglomeration of radio frequency devices humans are using combining together and changing the properties of the universe. Global BS.
Hmm, somehow it wouldn’t surprise me if those peeps believes there’s absolutely nothing wrong with indirectly believing that a galaxy takes about 700 million years to form into a recognizable galaxy of todays standard, so to speak.
Hah the universe is a really interesting place, but all them one-big-bang astronomy scientist are the real interestingly funny ones. I mean who else to explain that a visible from earth 92 billion light year width of a universe fit into only a 13,7 billion year range, talk about creative schticking numbers to ones schtick.
The rapid change in the “knot” embedded in the ribbon is the result of a reconfiguration of the location, direction, and velocity of charged particles and their attendant magnetic and electric fields.
This rapid change, the “knot” being “untied”, contradicts an earlier hypothesis that the ribbon is simply a solar wind reflection.
Nothing suggests a reflection of the solar wind would act in this way, thus, the “surprise” expressed by the scientists — surprise is caused when an event does not behave as expected or predicted.
What an unwinding of the knot strongly sugggests is a change in physical forces at the location of the knot controlled by the location, direction and velocity of charged particles in the heliosperic boundary.
Yes, magnetic fields are inherently involved with this process because moving charged particles cause magnetic fields:
“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Further:
A quote from a university lecture on magnetic fields:
“In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).” — Richard Fitzpatrick, Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node77.html
What the heliosphere, the protective bubble in which the Earth and other planets reside and boundary between our solar system and interstellar space, is a boundary between two bodies of plasma with different physical characteristics each emanating its own magnetic field.
So, when two bodies of plasma each with a distinct magnetic field press against each other, the result is electric currents:
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Another way to describe this process is an Electric Double Layer:
“In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics.” — Wikipedia entry for Double Layer (plasma)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
The change in the “knot” embedded in the ribbon strongly suggests a change in flows in charged particles initiated by forces either outside or inside the heliospheric boundary.
A charged particle is one that has coulomb force, also known as an “electric force”, which can be attraction between opposite charged particles or can be repulsion between similarly charged particles.
Interestingly enough a stationary charged particle does not cause a magnetic field.
Magnetic fields are dependent on not just charged particles, but are also dependent on the motion of those charged particles.
In other words, magnetic fields are a function of moving charged particles.
Note the image at the left-hand of the post shows a vortex type structure, charged particles do tend to spiral in a magnetic field.
One less, unknown, known.
Won’t be long till it’s settled. 🙂
Obviously this is entangled particles communicating FTL over long distances. Sounds good to me, anyway, since no one has a better answer/guess.
The “knot” untangles or unwinds into a spiral vortex structure.
This suggests the possibility that the “knot” is actually a plasmoid.
Per Wikipedia entry for plasmoid:
“A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning, magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere, and objects in cometary tails, in the solar wind, in the solar atmosphere, and in the heliospheric current sheet. Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include Field-Reversed Configurations, Spheromaks, and the dense plasma focus.”
“The word plasmoid was coined in 1956 by Winston H. Bostick (1916-1991) to mean a ‘plasma-magnetic entity’:
The plasma is emitted not as an amorphous blob, but in the form of a torus. We shall take the liberty of calling this toroidal structure a plasmoid, a word which means plasma-magnetic entity. The word plasmoid will be employed as a generic term for all plasma-magnetic entities.”
“Bostick wrote:
Plasmoids appear to be plasma cylinders elongated in the direction of the magnetic field. Plasmoids possess a measurable magnetic moment, a measurable translational speed, a transverse electric field, and a measurable size. Plasmoids can interact with each other, seemingly by reflecting off one another. Their orbits can also be made to curve toward one another. Plasmoids can be made to spiral to a stop if projected into a gas at about 10−3 mm Hg pressure. Plasmoids can also be made to smash each other into fragments. There is some scant evidence to support the hypothesis that they undergo fission and possess spin.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid
So, perhaps, this is a plasmoid which was first observed as a “knot” then “untangled” into a vortex spiral, electric current flowing as a sheet in the plane of the spiral.
This could also suggest the plasmoid “relaxed” or electromagnetic tension decreased, further suggesting a decrease in electromagnetic energy introduced into the plasmoid.
James F. Evans says:
October 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Yes, magnetic fields are inherently involved with this process because moving charged particles cause magnetic fields
No, a current may cause a magnetic field. Just moving ‘charged particles’ has no effect if the medium, like all plasmas is electrically neutral, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.
There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits.
There is an deep and fundamental difference, as permanent magnets are due to quantum effects [electron spin]. There is no electrical current running around with an atom.
two bodies of plasma with different physical characteristics each emanating its own magnetic field.
Bodies of plasma do not ’emanate’ magnetic fields.
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.”
So, the magnetic field is needed to produce the current.
“In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics.”
The converse does not hold.
In other words, magnetic fields are a function of moving charged particles.
No, again, you have to separate opposite charges to get a current. The only way to do this in space is with a magnetic field.
I just read this piece about generating electricity from heat by using molecules sandwiched between two plates. The article seems to say that the potential is generated at the quantum level due to the wave-particle duality. If you consider the two bubbles, where the ribbon is being created, as plates there seems to be a possible correspondence.
http://www.ecnmag.com/News/2010/09/Turning-waste-heat-into-power/
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 1, 2010 at 2:51 pm
“No, a current may cause a magnetic field. Just moving ‘charged particles’ has no effect if the medium, like all plasmas is electrically neutral, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.”
Leif,
You need to stop saying that. A conductor such as a copper wire or the solar wind can be electrically “neutral” and still carry an electric current. All that is required for the neutral conductor to carry a current is for the positive and negative charges to move at different velocities as they do in the solar wind. The moving electric field will generate an orthogonal magnetic field. A moving magnetic field will generate a current in a conductor such as the solar wind, all as per Maxwell’s universally accepted equations.
Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans’ statement: “Yes, magnetic fields are inherently involved with this process because moving charged particles cause magnetic fields”
And, Dr. Svalgaard responded: “No, a current may cause a magnetic field. Just moving ‘charged particles’ has no effect if the medium, like all plasmas is electrically neutral, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.”
No, Dr. Svalgaard, you are wrong:
“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
“The moving plasma”, Dr. Peratt is referring to is electrically neutral plasma, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.
And, Richard Fitzpatrick, Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, when he states: “all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents”, is referring to charged particles in motion, flowing as a current, it doesn’t require the charges to be segregated (although, the charges certainly can be segregated).
Making statements contradicted by scientists more qualified than you in the subject matter at hand only diminishes your credibility.
“There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits.” — Richard Fitzpatrick, Professor of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin
Your disagreement is not with me, but with professor Fitzpatrick. Perhaps you need to e-mail your disagreement to him.
Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans’ statement: “In other words, magnetic fields are a function of moving charged particles.”
And, Dr. Svalgaard responded: “No, again, you have to separate opposite charges to get a current. The only way to do this in space is with a magnetic field.”
Apparently, in your rush to disagree, you are failing to comprehend the statement.
Moving charged particles do cause a magnetic field:
Per Wikipedia entry for magnetism:
“Electric currents or more generally, moving electric charges create magnetic fields (see Maxwell’s Equations).”
Highlight: “moving electric charges create magnetic fields”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism
I’m sorry, Dr. Svalgaard, just because you want to disagree with me, doesn’t mean you can change the laws of physics.
(Leif Svalgaard) says:
October 1, 2010 at 2:51 pm
“James F. Evans says”:
October 1, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“”Yes, magnetic fields are inherently involved with this process because moving charged particles cause magnetic fields””
(No, a current may cause a magnetic field. Just moving ‘charged particles’ has no effect if the medium, like all plasmas is electrically neutral, i.e. consists of equal number of charges of opposite sign.)
[my replies, E and H fields, voltage {ions}, and magnetic flux exist as a completely reciprocal arrangement, both exist because the other does, density of ions and speed of movement determines total current, {the measurement of the ion flow} the resistance to the flow produces measurable “voltage potentials” due to assuming the amount of movement that would be if the resistance were removed.]
————————–
“”There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits.””
(There is an deep and fundamental difference, as permanent magnets are due to quantum effects [electron spin]. There is no electrical current running around with an atom.)
[Deflection from stated case of {conventional electric circuits} in conductors, then you infer due to using a different case the original was wrong, but in the case for ions each individual charged particle is the incremental charge, and if moving produces current equal to the total number of charged units moving. The sum value + or – depends on the balance of carriers, but the current still flows, the rates of change results in the frequency produced. If you average the current in an 60 cycles/sec ac circuit for long periods of time is the result = to 0?]
————————–
“two bodies of plasma with different physical characteristics each emanating its own magnetic field.”
(Bodies of plasma do not ‘emanate’ magnetic fields.)
[Attempt to deflect again by semantics, the error in context was James’ choice of the word “emanating” where in your counter point is he should have said “propagating along with” the particle movement, you took the term “emanating” as the normal understanding that means {expanding from} rather than what he meant as “expanding with”. Your negative sounding answer does not negate the conjecture James was trying to make that the magnetic and particle properties of the two plasmas had different compositions, and magnet alignments due to differences of the originating wave fronts.]
————————-
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.”
(So, the magnetic field is needed to produce the current.)
[Context you were discussing is the flow of the different plasmas at a boundary layer, created and maintained by the difference of two or more conflicting magnetic fields each associated with a plasma flow in what maybe a resultant turbulent mixing layer, given that there is not only multiple magnetic fields and multiple ion flows, the real point in question what is the resultant flow of current? Stays separate, combines, and or in what proportion, due to what the real compositions are?]
————————–
“In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics.”
(The converse does not hold.)
[Are you saying that separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics, will not form double layers? What do you think happens then? Mixing, mutual repulsion, or just the random active scattering of neutral ions, some of them back toward the sun, and that is what we are seeing here?]
————————–
“”In other words, magnetic fields are a function of moving charged particles.””
(No, again, you have to separate opposite charges to get a current. The only way to do this in space is with a magnetic field.)
[Each particle has it’s own field, as it passes a point in space the fields respond in kind, resulting in a very high frequency AC with a large volume of current carriers, James was not asking about current, yes magnetic fields are a functional product of moving charged particles by definition, you are still discussing the interactions between plasmas containing particles and magnetic fields of different origins, just because the solar wind is usually close to a balanced positive and negative ion content, does not let you assume that the galactic fields pushes an even balance of both charges.]
[I would bet that the composition of the galactic wind is different, and that difference is the cause of the slightly precept able slow down of the pioneer and voyager space craft.]
After that revolting vidoe sequence, it’s a pleasure to read of some interesting onbservations. I was going to say “science” but this is not science, but rapportage of observations. The science resides in the explication of the observations.
Cool, tho
James F. Evans
strangely enough, as a Spurs fan and student of electricity, I find Leif is correct.
Plasmas ARE neutral. They are composed of ionised particles; for every postivie ion, there is a negative electron, and vice versa. The dynamics of plasmas have been studied theoretically and experimentally, without achieving full comprehension. Yes, the oppositely charged particals move in opposite directions. However, they are neutral as far as is concerned the volume of the plasma, from the exterior.
Now, what happens to a neutral plasma moving through a magnetic field is another matter.
Assuming a spherical horse.
Mr. Evans, yes, but the plasmoid is only a fleeting thing; it is not a stable structure.