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
Thanks Chris, enjoy your posts and Leifs. Am a bit lysdexic at times, really lack of keyboard motor skills.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “In the rest frame of a plasma there is no electric field and hence no electric current.”
False.
There is no such thing as a “rest frame” for plasma.
Break down plasma to it’s constutuents: Electrons & ions.
Electromagnetism is scale independent: What holds true for one particle holds true for the many and vise versa.
A free electron has a negative charge, no matter what frame — in fact, “frame” is irrelevant. If an electron is free it has a charge — period — it has an electric force.
An ion has a positive charge, no matter what frame. An ion has an electric force.
Any statement that attempts to introduce the concept of “rest frame” in relation to plasma is nothing but meaningless verbal gymnastics. It is not even misleading — it is nonsensical.
And as multiple sources linked in this discussion have shown: Moving charged particles cause a magnetic field. One charged particle, whether a free electron or an ion, if in motion will cause a magnetic field. Yes, a very small magnetic field, but existent, nevertheless.
And, again, this is because electromagnetism is scale independent. What is true for the one is true for the many.
There is a hypothesis that suggests a charged particle’s electric force (every charged particle has an electric force) when in motion causes a “disturbance” or “tension” in an ether field — this disturbance is what Science calls a magnetic field.
And as a prologue every charged particle, whether free electron or ion causes a “disturbance” or “tension” in this ether field expressed as electric force.
The two types of disturbances or tensions in this ether field are transaxial to each other.
That is why electric fields and magnetic fields are always perpendicular to each other.
One force, the electric force is not dependent on motion, the other force, the magnetic force is dependent on motion.
A magnetic field flows around a charged particle in motion following the “right hand rule” (placing your right hand in a “thumbs up gesture” — the charged particle or a current of charged particles flowing up & out of your thumb will cause a magnetic field which “flows” the same direction as your fingers wrapped [counter-clockwise]).
This magnetic field will not change the direction of the charged particle in motion, BUT a seperate and distinct magnetic field can deflect the charged particle.
However, only the electric force, and if in an organized array, an electric field, can cause charged particles to accelerate.
Magnetic fields can’t cause charged particles to accelerate.
James F. Evans says:
October 2, 2010 at 11:59 pm
There is no such thing as a “rest frame” for plasma.
The rest frame is just an observer moving with the plasma. E.g. an observer moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind is in the rest frame of the solar wind plasma.
One charged particle, whether a free electron or an ion, if in motion will cause a magnetic field. Yes, a very small magnetic field, but existent, nevertheless.
Since the magnetic field from the electron and the ion are in opposite directions there will be no net magnetic field.
Magnetic fields can’t cause charged particles to accelerate.
When magnetic fields change [e.g. by reconnection], electric fields are generated which then accelerate the particles.
Magnetic fields cannot “reconnect”
Error in principle, lose 90% of marks.
Silly silly me, I forgot the link
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040830magnetic.htm
“although it [magnetic reconnection] hardly resembles the original theory at all”
That is correct: The original theory first proposed in 1946 to explain coronal mass ejection (CME), at the time all observations & measurements were Earth surface based (pre-space age) and all that could be observed were magnetic fields.
Yes, today, “magnetic reconnection” has attempted to incorporate electric fields and charged particle kinetics (location, direction, velocity & location of charged particle acceleration), but because “magnetic reconnection” supporters are still fixated on magnetic fields, they can’t quantify and understand there own process.
It’s a failed concept and needs to be replaced with the Electric Double Layer, an electromagnetic process, which has been fully quantified for decades.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 2, 2010 at 1:00 pm
“No they generally don’t, because the attract each other so strongly. What would separate them?”
What causes the charges in a plasma to remain separated, thus making the plasma conductive? I’m surprised you would ask, since you are the authority. Perhaps I am in error and the solar wind is not really a plasma?
Electrifying debate, I hope that it does not fall into a blackhole.
Night all
Grey Lensman says:
October 3, 2010 at 3:16 am
Magnetic fields cannot “reconnect”
They do it all the time. Reconnection simply means change their topology. You can do that simply by twirling a toy magnet.
Silly silly me, I forgot the link
It better be forgotten because it is anti-science.
James F. Evans says:
October 3, 2010 at 7:34 am
It’s a failed concept and needs to be replaced with the Electric Double Layer
Recent in situ observations say otherwise:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JA015302.shtml
You don’t get any marks for peddling the EU anti-science. No space physicists today confuse the state of EDL with the process of reconnection.
pochas says:
October 3, 2010 at 7:51 am
What causes the charges in a plasma to remain separated, thus making the plasma conductive?
Conductivity has nothing to do with separation. Conductivity just means that charges can move under an impressed electric field creating a current. The solar wind has nearly infinite conductivity. This is what prohibits lasting electric fields, because any such will immediately lead to the opposite charges finding each other [they attract each other strongly] and short out the separation.
Grey Lensman says:
October 3, 2010 at 10:38 am
Electrifying debate, I hope that it does not fall into a blackhole.
Dumb debate as shown by the basic ignorance about simple physics being displayed by the reconnection deniers.
Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans’ statement: “There is no such thing as a “rest frame” for plasma.”
And, Dr. Svalgaard responed: “The rest frame is just an observer moving with the plasma. E.g. an observer moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind is in the rest frame of the solar wind plasma.”
Only a few considerations demonstrates how silly the above statment is.
Experiment: Multiple observers measuring a specific portion of the plasma streaming radially from the Sun, temporally & spatially, at the same point — the same electrons & ions.
Consider: One observer is located and moving as Dr. Svalgaard has stated in the above hypothetical response. Another observer is located on the Earth, another at L1 (a position between the Sun and the Earth that provides stability for the observing platform, in situ satellite), and in multiple coordinated satellites such as THEMIS which move through and by the body of plasma collecting data in situ.
Even by Dr. Svalgaard’s own terms, of the four proposed platforms, we know, by prior in situ satellite probes (i.e., THEMIS), that the electric force and electric fields of the charged particles in the “event” body of plasma moving out from the Sun can and already has been observed &measured. Coronal mass ejections (CME’s) have been observed & measured in this way by THEMIS and all the above parameters have been detected and measured.
The other three observers would measure those parameters detectable from each platform’s location, respectively.
As well as Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical observation platform.
There are not two realities — there is only one reality — a set of existitent physical conditions, at any given time & place.
If one observer of any of the four obseservers in the experiment observes & measures electric fields and electric currents, within the body of plasma, then that is the reality. Such as the THEMIS experiments already conducted.
It’s silly to claim as Dr. Svalgaard does in his hypothetical in situ satellite probe, that a different reality (from the temporally & spatially identical THEMIS observations) would exist where there’s no electric force effects on the observer, no electric field effects on the observer, and no electric current effects on the observer.
Why?
Because the free electrons & ions constituing the subject of the experiment are experiencing the same set of physical forces and kinetics no matter where the observing platform is situation.
There is one reality for any time & place.
The idea of a “rest frame of a plasma” allowing different physical parameters (depending on the location of the observer) in a specific body of plasma is an imaginary construct which has no basis in experimental reality as demonstrated by the THEMIS in situ satellite probe and other multi-platform arrayed satellite probes.
James F. Evans says:
October 3, 2010 at 11:32 am
If one observer of any of the four obseservers in the experiment observes & measures electric fields and electric currents, within the body of plasma, then that is the reality. Such as the THEMIS experiments already conducted.
It’s silly to claim as Dr. Svalgaard does in his hypothetical in situ satellite probe, that a different reality (from the temporally & spatially identical THEMIS observations) would exist where there’s no electric force effects on the observer, no electric field effects on the observer, and no electric current effects on the observer.
This is how Nature works, see e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
Electromagnetism
“The theory of Special Relativity allows one to transform the magnetic field into a static electric field for an observer moving at the same speed as the charge in the diagram. The amount of current is particular to a reference frame (who is measuring the current or charge velocity).”
The best evidence that Relativity is a failed thought experiment.
Relativity postulates there are multiple realities.
That is one of several paradoxes which confront supporters of Relativity.
This violates the basic causation principle of Science, since with multiple realities, as Special Relativity & General Relativity postulate, then there are multiple causations for those multiple realities.
(Under that set of a priori assumptions, Science is useless, since nothing is knowable or falsifiable.)
Let’s put a finer edge on the proposed experiment: The THEMIS multiple satellite array in situ probe passes through the same body of plasma collecting data at the same time the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite is “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind” and is also collecting data, two observers collecting data on the same event from two seperate “frames” of reference.
There is only one reality, one set of physical conditions, at the location and time where the two satellite probes intersect even though the THEMIS satellite has a different “reference frame” due to its different vector direction and speed.
Also, the Svalgaard in situ probe, if it is within an electric field as it moves “way from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind” will observe an electric field if equipped with the necessary Langmuir probe.
The magnetic field does not cause the electric force.
Someone might say: “How do you know that?”
Because the electric force is present around a charged particle whether the charged particle is moving or stationary. An electric force exists without the presence of a magnetic field, where charged particles are stationary. To indulge Dr. Svalgaard’s imaginary hypothetical, for the sake of argument, charged particles have electric force even in the “rest frame of reference”. Stationary charged particles are in the “rest frame”.
It’s the cummulative arrayed electric force of charged particles which causes an electric field.
However, it’ also true that magnetic fields interact with the electric force of charged particles to organize those charged particles into a structure which causes electric fields and electric currents.
Again, “rest frame” is a red herring which only serves to obscure and obfiscate.
James F. Evans says:
October 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm
The best evidence that Relativity is a failed thought experiment.
Relativity postulates there are multiple realities.
Now relativity is also ‘failed’. I think you are digging a deeper and deeper hole. But, the dependence on the reference frame actually follows from Maxwell’s equations. So, you must also postulate that they have failed. It was, in fact, Maxwell’s equations that led Einstein to Special Relativity.
This insistence that modern physics has ‘failed’ is the characteristics of a cult of anti-science. I suggest you refrain from any more of this as such is degrading WUWT.
I believe that all the observed cosmological phenonema can be simulated in a plasma lab albeit at several magnitudes less then what is displayed in the heavens. In my mind that gives the ‘electric’ universe crowd an edge over the ‘electric neutral’ universe crowd. Astro physicists who insist on a “gravitational” universe have to revert to playing mathematical gymnastics to come up with an answer and still can’t get it right.
The ‘electric neutral’ believers are suffering from the same sort of thinking as “CO2 Alarmists”. It becomes a belief system when empirical evidence points somewhere else.
I have done a few searches the last few days and there are many sites pushing the electric universe and even some government educational sites which I find amazing. My son is doing a physics degree and even he has joined the electric universe side. Of course that doesn’t make it ‘correct’ but if as I said at the beginning, stars, galaxies etc can be replicated in a lab then surely they must be on the right track.
Steve B says:
October 3, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Astro physicists who insist on a “gravitational” universe
In the end, everything is due to gravity.
The EU people simply do not their physics.
LS said
“In the end, everything is due to gravity.”
And you 100% bet your life on it? <—- I say this thought provokingly (not nasty)
The EU people simply do not their physics.
And you have interviewed all EU people? <—- lighthearted question
Personally if I was in your shoes I would spend a bit of time looking into it. If it is a dead end then fine at least you won't die wondering. I hate wondering.
James F. Evans says:(October 3, 2010 at 3:44 pm)
“The best evidence that Relativity is a failed thought experiment.
Relativity postulates there are multiple realities.”
I am going in way over my head here but what the hell.
We all know the famous thought experiment of two people on a moving train that toss a ball between themselves. What is the reality of the speed of the ball?
Let’s say one person tosses the ball to the other at 5 ft/sec. So the speed of the ball between them is 5 ft/per. But wait, if the train is moving at 10 ft/sec in the direction of the ball toss then to a person standing in a field as the train goes by sees the ball’s speed as 15 ft/sec. So what is the true reality of the ball’s speed? But wait, if there was an astronaut in space free from Earth’s rotation he would see the speed of the ball as 15 ft/sec plus or minus the speed of the Earth’s rotation (depending on the direction of the train of course). Have we got the true speed of the ball yet? Nope. If a being was positioned outside the orbit of the Earth he would see the speed of the ball as 15 ft/per plus or minus the Earth’s rotational speed plus or minus the Earth’s orbital speed. Have we got the true speed of the ball yet? Nope. One still has to factor in the speed of the solar system through the Galaxy, the Galaxy’s speed through the Universe and any speed of expansion or contraction of the Universe. How can an object display so many different realities at the same time? Relativity of course.
But whose reality matters the most? The one catching the ball.
Steve B:
Dr. Svalgaard has been committed to the gravity “only” model his entire professional career: “In the end, everything is due to gravity.”
That should provide some insight into his objectivity and his agenda.
At this point, Dr. Svalgaard is engaged in a rearguard action. But a wealth of scientific observations & measurements are constantly frustrating his efforts.
In regards to Dr. Svalgaard’s response: Notice he avoids responding to the specifics of the hypothetical experiment — he can’t. Neither does he challenge that there is only one reality or set of physical conditions for a given time & place. (Snickers would fill the auditorium if Dr. Svalgaard gave a lecture and directly stated there were multiple physical realities for a given time & place.)
Notice Dr. Svalgaard lashes out because I dared challenged the astronomical “philosopher’s stone”, Relativity. Why the angry response and even an implied call for banishment from this website? (“degrading WUWT”) — Apparently, anybody who openly challenges Dr. Svalgaard’s Sacred Cow and last ditch at obfiscation is liable to receive his wrath. Don’t be fooled, it’s a diversionary tactic to distract from the factual merits of the argument presented.
Don’t have an answer to the factual merits of the argument, attack the messenger. (Haven’t we see that tactic used by the AGW scientists?)
Wikipedia entry for Double layer (plasma):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
Are all the above scientists, their work, and scientific publications in the above entry “degrading to WUWT”? (Is that all you got Dr. Svalgaard?)
Wikipedia entry for Plasmoid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid
Is mention of Winston H. Bostick and his ideas “degrading to WUWT”?
Dr. Svalgaard employs this tactic because Relativity is the blank check for the astronomical “priest class”. Can’t explain or defend something — invoke Relativity — and fellow peers and uninitiates cringe and fall mute.
As I stated in my last comment “rest frame” is a red herring. Even for subscribers to Relatvity.
Why?
Because you don’t have to have a hypothetical Svalgaard satellite probe, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”, to observe & measure the “rest frame” of a plasma. A stationary observer of a stationary body of plasma has the same “rest frame” as the Svalgaard satlellite probe, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”.
And, stationary observers of a stationary body of plasma have already observed & measured the electric force of the charged particles, and electric fields, and electric currents.
In other words, Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical observer has already been falsified by empirical experiment — there is no need to give any further serious consideration to his imaginary argument.
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “But, the dependence on the reference frame actually follows from Maxwell’s equations.”
Dr. Svalgaard, unsupported declarations lack credibility — show your work.
Instead, Dr. Svalgaard might try grappling with the specifics of the experiment I presented.
There is nothing modern about so-called “magnetic reconnection” or gravity “only” astronomy.
Tom in Florida:
You present the best argument for Relativity. I have no objection to your line of reasoning as far as it goes. Although, your argument is more about perception and cumulative “frames of reference”.
But does that rational apply to the solar wind as Dr. Svalgaard claims: Such that there is no electric fields or electric currents for the hypothetical Svalgaard observer, even though, at the same time & place THEMIS would be able to detect electric fields and electric currents.
No.
Just as the ball is moving through the air in your example, the electrons & ions have an electric force and location, and electric currents, and, yes, magnetic fields.
Your line of reasoning is partly about perception (perception is not necessarily the same as reality) and cumulative motion — at the local level of perception on the train, the ball is still going 5ft. per sec.
Tom in Florida, so, if one was to compare your exercise to Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical observer exercise, instead of adding speed by bouncing out “frames of reference” as you do, Dr. Svalgaard is doing the opposite and freezing the ball in mid-flight (no electric field, no electric currents).
Is that what really happens — is the ball ever frozen in place in the air?
Is the electric force ever frozen and not in effect?
As long as the electrons & ions are arrayed in the required structure, is the resulting electric field “frozen” and not in effect?
Because that is exactly what one must subscribe to, if one buys Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical.
The electric force of the electrons & ions is never “fozen” in mid-air, Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical is false.
But while we’re here, why does Dr. Svalgaard even bring up his hypothetical?
Because his agenda is to minimize electromagnetism in astrophysics.
James F. Evans says:
October 4, 2010 at 9:08 am
But while we’re here, why does Dr. Svalgaard even bring up his hypothetical?
You must know by know that every working scientists agree with this. The reference frames etc and even magnetic reconnection are not in doubt, but generally accepted mainstream physics. These are not ‘my hypotheses’. I wish they were, but unfortunately all this has been known for decades or even a century+.
Dr. Svalgaard, I agree “frames of reference” as Tom in Florida presents them have been known for over a century. But your specific hypothetical is not analogous to Tom’s example.
James F. Evans says:
October 4, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Dr. Svalgaard, I agree “frames of reference” as Tom in Florida presents them have been known for over a century. But your specific hypothetical is not analogous to Tom’s example.
It doesn’t have to be. It follows from Maxwell’s equations that to talk about an electric field without specifying which reference frame is meaningless. People moving with respect to each other will measure a different electric field. In particular, if you are moving with the solar wind, the electric field is zero.
Leif Svalgaard says:
October 4, 2010 at 7:47 pm
“In particular, if you are moving with the solar wind, the electric field is zero.”
Can’t be. The electrons and protons are moving at vastly different speeds. If you’re traveling with the protons, the electrons create the field. If your frame is the electrons, the protons make the field. Only if the wind were to be composed of neutral atoms would there be no electric field, and then the wind would not interact with magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard, to explore the validity of your hypothetical, here are three direct questions for you to answer:
(The THEMIS arrayed multiple satellite probe capable of detecting electric fields & electric currents:)
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/spacecraft/index.html
If THEMIS, moving in a different vector (direction) and speed, detects electric fields & electric currents as its flight path intersects, at the same time & location, the flight path of the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite observer, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”, are those real electric fields & currents?
And, if so, would the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite observer, at the same time & location as THEMIS made its observations, detect no electric fields & electric currents?
And, assuming for the sake of argument, that the Svalgaard hypothetical satellite did not detect electric fields & electric currents, as you assert, which set of observations & measurements, one set from THEMIS detecting electric fields & electric currents, and one set from the Svalgaard hypothetical not detecting electric fields & electric currents, would be the true reflection of the physical conditions at that time & location within the body of plasma moving away from the Sun?
(I say, “sake of argument”, because as explained in a prior comment the hypothetical Svalgaard satellite probe, “moving away from the Sun with the same speed as the solar wind”, to observe & measure the “rest frame” of a plasma has the same “rest frame” as a stationary observer of a stationary body of plasma, i.e., in plasma labortory experiments — where obviously electric fields & electric currents have been detected.
The “rest frame” is simply the frame of reference where the observer and “event” maintain equal physical relationships (stationary or moving) with each other over the course of the observation and measurement: The satellite travelling with the body of plasma or the scientist standing in front of his chamber of plasma — each is in the “rest frame” of the respective set of free electrons & ions.)
Please, Dr. Svalgaard, don’t get distracted by the comments in parenthesis, answer the three direct questions previously put forward.