I should point out that thanks to the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), we can see things that we’ve never seen before. So while this event is unprecedented in the history of science, it is likely “business as usual” for old Sol. h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard. – Anthony
From NASA Science News: On August 1, 2010, an entire hemisphere of the sun erupted. Filaments of magnetism snapped and exploded, shock waves raced across the stellar surface, billion-ton clouds of hot gas billowed into space. Astronomers knew they had witnessed something big.
It was so big, it may have shattered old ideas about solar activity.
“The August 1st event really opened our eyes,” says Karel Schrijver of Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Lab in Palo Alto, CA. “We see that solar storms can be global events, playing out on scales we scarcely imagined before.”
For the past three months, Schrijver has been working with fellow Lockheed-Martin solar physicist Alan Title to understand what happened during the “Great Eruption.” They had plenty of data: The event was recorded in unprecedented detail by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory and twin STEREO spacecraft. With several colleagues present to offer commentary, they outlined their findings at a press conference today at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
Explosions on the sun are not localized or isolated events, they announced. Instead, solar activity is interconnected by magnetism over breathtaking distances. Solar flares, tsunamis, coronal mass ejections–they can go off all at once, hundreds of thousands of miles apart, in a dizzyingly-complex concert of mayhem.
“To predict eruptions we can no longer focus on the magnetic fields of isolated active regions,” says Title, “we have to know the surface magnetic field of practically the entire sun.”
This revelation increases the work load for space weather forecasters, but it also increases the potential accuracy of their forecasts.
“The whole-sun approach could lead to breakthroughs in predicting solar activity,” commented Rodney Viereck of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder, CO. “This in turn would provide improved forecasts to our customers such as electric power grid operators and commercial airlines, who could take action to protect their systems and ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”
In a paper they prepared for the Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR), Schrijver and Title broke down the Great Eruption into more than a dozen significant shock waves, flares, filament eruptions, and CMEs spanning 180 degrees of solar longitude and 28 hours of time. At first it seemed to be a cacophony of disorder until they plotted the events on a map of the sun’s magnetic field.
Title describes the Eureka! moment: “We saw that all the events of substantial coronal activity were connected by a wide-ranging system of separatrices, separators, and quasi-separatrix layers.” A “separatrix” is a magnetic fault zone where small changes in surrounding plasma currents can set off big electromagnetic storms.
Researchers have long suspected this kind of magnetic connection was possible. “The notion of ‘sympathetic’ flares goes back at least three quarters of a century,” they wrote in their JGR paper. Sometimes observers would see flares going off one after another–like popcorn–but it was impossible to prove a link between them. Arguments in favor of cause and effect were statistical and often full of doubt.
“For this kind of work, SDO and STEREO are game-changers,” says Lika Guhathakurta, NASA’s Living with a Star Program Scientist. “Together, the three spacecraft monitor 97% of the sun, allowing researchers to see connections that they could only guess at in the past.”
To wit, barely two-thirds of the August event was visible from Earth, yet all of it could be seen by the SDO-STEREO fleet. Moreover, SDO’s measurements of the sun’s magnetic field revealed direct connections between the various components of the Great Eruption—no statistics required.
Much remains to be done. “We’re still sorting out cause and effect,” says Schrijver. “Was the event one big chain reaction, in which one eruption triggered another–bang, bang, bang–in sequence? Or did everything go off together as a consequence of some greater change in the sun’s global magnetic field?”
Further analysis may yet reveal the underlying trigger; for now, the team is still wrapping their minds around the global character of solar activity. One commentator recalled the old adage of three blind men describing an elephant–one by feeling the trunk, one by holding the tail, and another by sniffing a toenail. Studying the sun one sunspot at a time may be just as limiting.
“Not all eruptions are going to be global,” notes Guhathakurta. “But the global character of solar activity can no longer be ignored.”
As if the sun wasn’t big enough already….
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Dark Matter” violates my sense of the scientific method. The observed effect is “excess gravity as compared to theory, with no corresponding EM signature.”
As such, the name “Dark Matter” is unscientific because it is imprecise. It makes the assumption that the effect is due to matter – which is contradicted by EM. A more exact name for “Dark Matter” is “Excess Gravity”, or perhaps even more precise “Excess Gravity at a Distance”.
The use of precise labels is fundamental to science, to ensure the name reflects what is known, and no more. Otherwise, the name becomes political, a form of advertising/promotion.
As such, the name “Dark Matter” is not scientific. It is based on the assumption that the excess gravity is due to matter, in the absence of any evidence for matter other than the observed excess gravity, and is specifically contradicted by EM.
What I find interesting is that the scientific community does not recognize this problem. We see the same problem in climatology, first “Global Warming”, then “Climate Change” and now “Climate Disruption”. The use of labels to advance one point of view at the expense of objective science.
The more logical explanation (for Dark Energy), based on the history of science and Occam’s razor, is that the theory of gravity is incomplete. One obvious explanation is that G is time dependent due to an expanding universe. As the universe expands, G becomes weaker.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.4821v2.pdf
correction: I wrote (for Dark Energy), should be (for Dark Matter)
ge0050 says:
December 23, 2010 at 9:16 am
As such, the name “Dark Matter” is unscientific because it is imprecise. It makes the assumption that the effect is due to matter – which is contradicted by EM. A more exact name for “Dark Matter” is “Excess Gravity”, or perhaps even more precise “Excess Gravity at a Distance”.
It is very precise [and even it it weren’t it wouldn’t matter – ‘cosmic rays’ are not rays, etc]. Matter is defined as something that has mass and hence exerts gravity and react to gravity. It is dark because it does not interact with the electromagnetic force [otherwise we would see it]. So very aptly named.
Dayton Miller’s Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look
by James DeMeo, Ph.D
http://www.orgonelab.miller.htm
For interest, the Miller/Einstein saga.
Myrrh says:
January 4, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Dayton Miller’s Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look by James DeMeo, Ph.D
doesn’t pass the smell-test.
Why not?
Myrrh says:
January 5, 2011 at 8:31 am
“doesn’t pass the smell-test.”
Why not?
Just too nonsensical to take seriously. It will be futile to explain to you.
Let me try this:
If I point out one wrong thing [fact, assertion, claim, whatever], would you abandon your belief in it? Probably not.
If I point out 2 wrongs, would you? probably not.
3 wrongs? probably not.
How many wrongs would it take for you to agree that it stinks?
Well, it seemed reasonable to me..
I’ve got no dogs in this race, as I mentioned somewhere, I’ve not that long ago got my head around the big bang theory and have read some on the ideas around. I like to work in concepts, so enjoy thinking about these things. I have to say that what amused me with the big bang theory was that science was repeating a statement from Christianity of creation out of nothing…, even more so when Hawkins announced he thought we were on the brink of understanding the Mind of God..
..and that those dratted black holes began spitting things out.
I like the idea of plasma and the electric picture it gives us, I like the idea of gravity and fusion,. I grew up in a religious system which maintains the tension of creator/created being the same with the only difference that one is uncreated the other not, and this not being Western Christianity Augustinian ideas, that we walked in eternity, not looking to ‘a somewhere’ outside all this. So, nothing that ‘science’ has now thrown up in ideas, such as being part of a bigger universe outside out ken, being one of many universes, creating our universe by observing it, being able to be in two places at once, is at all alien to my way of thinking. I like the idea of ether, as a fluid more rarified entity in which grosser physical matter is also manifest, rather than these being in a vacuum.
On today’s BBC live Stargazing, three day stint, it described M82 galaxy (the Cigar)and the astonishing sight available now through radio telescopes. That showed several supernovae which they said came into being in the last hundreds years, unusual as only one is expected per century per galaxy. The explanation given was that a nearby galaxy M81 was coming closer and “the tidal interaction, the gravitational forces between them, have caused a burst of star formation” (I had it taped! not from my seemingly exponentially fading powers of memory.)
There was also a really fascinating piece yesterday on recording the sound of the planets . Of course the question, ‘how can you tell because there is no sound in a vacuum so what you’re saying must be rubbish?’ The explanation that though we can’t hear them doesn’t mean they not making a noise, and then a walk through the equipment measuring the different sounds. From which, being able to tell the constituents of matter by the sound it makes, a white dwarf is a solid diamond! (I’ve also got this taped, so if anyone wants, etc.)
Maybe this is the Buddhists’ Jewel in the Lotus? Mani meaning diamond.
So, it seemed reasonable to me. The testing as described seemed reasonable, done with care and with great thought and the objections, as described in the piece, seemed churlish, reminding me very much of how AGW scientists act now.
You may well be able to discount this by giving examples which you say disprove it, is this what you’re saying?, but as I found when following one of your links and found that the age of universe by different methods yields different results, which you have said here is a very well known and established fact; there’s nothing really cut and dried yet, it seems to me.
I think, as someone mentioned above, that fusion, gravity etc. explaining everything hasn’t yet been proved, the parts appear to make a cohesive whole but it’s not quite a string from A to B, more a dotted line. It doesn’t explain everything, and replacing this by imagining things to exist because it can’t explain all the inconsistencies is no better than the methods used to explain life the universe and everything as is well known in religious belief systems. I’m convinced the answer is 42.
Myrrh says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Well, it seemed reasonable to me..
Yes, it is seductive because it is so simple, but it is toosimplistic.
found that the age of universe by different methods yields different results, which you have said here is a very well known and established fact; there’s nothing really cut and dried yet, it seems to me.
The ‘age’ is now well-established at 13.7 billion years. cosmology has become a precision science.
that fusion, gravity etc. explaining everything hasn’t yet been proved, the parts appear to make a cohesive whole but it’s not quite a string from A to B, more a dotted line. It doesn’t explain everything
It explains more than any other set of theories and that is what counts.
Leif a question to you if I may.
Is there any evidence that suggests these sorts of eruptions happen more often when the sunspot activity is low?
Leif, I’ve seen from reading many of your posts that you reply from a working knowledge of your subject. However, I really find it difficult to engage with you as I do with anyone else who insists they are right when even a quick search shows there are conflicting views, as I mentioned, even from a page you gave me to read of basic science it said that different dates were given from different methods of measuring the age of the universe. You expect me to believe you because you say it’s true, that the science is settled without actually being able to give any proof, the very reason for my rejecting ‘religion’ as such, I am not looking for faith in science, I’m looking for facts.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast22Feb99_1/
In 1999 those exploring the age of the Universe were saying: “In recent years astronomers have come to realize that the Universe is somewhere between 12 and 18 billion years old.” Which is what the site you linked to was also saying.
Following the Chandra link from the above via view site: http://chandra.harvard.edu/
from which Age of Universe typed into the search box takes us to articles of interesting history and to:
http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_stro/dark_energy/index2.html
which was the latest dated article on that search front page, Oct 2010, and which says:
Age of the Universe
Comparison of the age of the Universe deduced from the expansion rate of the Universe with independent age estimates also provides an important check on amount of dark energy driving the acceleration of the expansion. The ages of the oldest known stars constrain the age of the Universe to be in the range 12-15 billion years, which is again consistent with estimates of the amount of dark matter and dark energy.
I was taught that nature abhors a vacuum.
That was rather a long time ago and I don’t now recall what reasoning was given, if any, but from looking a the world around me I see how life fills all niches. We can create vacuums, but those I’ve used don’t keep my tea hot for very long, and the longer kept the more unpleasant to drink, and I don’t know if mankind has created a perfect one which is cut off entirely from the rest of the universe. I’ll have a look for it.
Myrrh says:
January 7, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Leif, I’ve seen from reading many of your posts that you reply from a working knowledge of your subject. […] You expect me to believe you because you say it’s true, that the science is settled without actually being able to give any proof…
I have more than a working knowledge. I am a professional astronomer: http://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/5053/ . It is my job to know these things. If your doctor tells you that you have diabetes, do you tell him “do you expect me to believe you because you say it’s true”. Recently we have gotten a good grip on the ‘age’ of the universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
What I’ve found: Ether space time and cosmology: new insights into a key physical medium
http://www.sosotech.com/html-science-engineering/ether-space-time-and-cosmology-new-insights-into-a-key-physical-medium.html
“The necessity of ether is not questioned today even by those who pretend to do so but do not hesitate to attribute qualities to the vacuum. Ether theory plays a creative role, even if given different names: (vacuum, fundamental plenum or cosmic substratum).”
Which is the conclusion I reached above from the short discussion here and looking at links as advised.
Myrrh says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:03 pm
What I’ve found: Ether space time and cosmology: new insights into a key physical medium
What you have found is pseudo-science dressed up with words that sound scientific [Casimir effect etc]
Now, the vacuum is not ’empty’. It is seething with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence all the time. The vacuum ‘knows’ [or embodies the knowledge of] the values of physical constants, like the electron charge, etc. So, there are some half-truths in what you found. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy to save me a lot of typing.
Again, nothing on that page claims that is a definite figure, still requiring citation where first mentioned.
It’s vaguely a mean between 12 and 15 billion of the latest Chandra which is about all you can really say about it.
How about this?:
http://ldolphin.org/univ-age.html
Based on these considerations, his conclusion was that the thorium within stars has to be about 10 billion years old or less. Schramm believes the meteorite data is consistent with 15 billion year old globular cluster which contain the very old white dwarfs. ….
And the arguments continue, we still have stars older than the beginning of the Universe.
Hmm, when I was thinking about this re the ages in the Hindu cosmology I thought the Hindus might be talking about the beginning of our solar system as the figures were so close, but, now, I think I’m going to stick with them for the time being. Until I can see something from the research being done, and the science still being explored, a Day and Night of Brahma for timescale will do just fine (8.64 billion).
Thank you for your time.
Myrrh says:
January 7, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Again, nothing on that page claims that is a definite figure, still requiring citation where first mentioned.
I tell you that it is a well-determined figure. The uncertainty [and there is always an uncertainty] is small, of the order of 1 billion year. There will always be some data that are outliers because they are pushing the models a bit too far. But the important fact is that the age is determined to be about 14 billion years. It is really irrelevant if it is 13.0, 13.5, 14.0, 14.5, or 15.0 billion years. People that oppose such a large age do it because they push an age vastly different.
How about this?:
http://ldolphin.org/univ-age.html
junk.
I have forgotten what it was that bothered you.
?! Why junk? It’s merely a look at the different ways of measuring stars and stuff to estimate the age of the Universe, from pukkha research attempts.
I have forgotten what it was that bothered you.
Whether the hubble constant’s measurement of red shift was a viable method of measurement to establish age. I’ll add to what I’ve already posted that this is not proven, that if time is relative to the viewer as in Einstein’s, then all Hubble is measuring is time relative to Hubble..
I picked up somewhere that you had been arguing with some who thought the universe was created some 6,000 years ago ?, I’ve tried to reassure you that I’m not of their particular number and that my interest is in actually exploring the age from our current idea of the beginning of our universe from the ‘big bang’. Re young earth creationists, there are two immediate problems with their ‘biblical inerrancy’ claims: which Bible? and what is it actually saying in the ‘day and night’? The Septuagint has other numbers for the years of generations and calculates this to, don’t recall exact figures off hand, around 7 thousand, and from the Greek and Hebrew the ‘day and night’ are better read aeons, ages – the first three days the creation of time, space, life, the creation of day and night as we know it couldn’t have happened until later in the sequence when the sun was created, etc. Anyway, I also like the similarity with the Hindu in using ‘day and night’ as discrete measurements, and as it stands, I am far more comfortable with the Hindu concepts of this re age of our Universe, that it but one of many, counting in trillions + years in a linear scale of cyclical time, and also see no reason to suppose the concept of this universe as one of many co-existing with our space and time, as ‘mystic’ concepts have it and modern science explorations are touching upon now, does our universe only exist because we observe it, what is our vacuum leaking into?, sort of questions. What I have been fascinated with finding, is that there are still great contradictions with the ideas currently in play, and am getting as annoyed with those claiming their ideas ‘fact’ regardless of these contradictions, as I am with warmists who jettison actual measurements which contradict their science..
..and keep moving the goal posts. Now your ‘it is really irrelvant if the age is ..’ quite at odds with what you said earlier, from which based on what you said your arguments re Einstein and red shift. What is now bothering me, is the fundamentalist blocking out of information contrary to that belief, which makes exploring this subject, my interest, too much of a chore. It seems to me that the last decade has been made very dull by those taking an entrenched position with regard to age, as 13.67, and jettisoning solid work conflicting with fusion and relativity as they see it, and other ways of measuring which shows stars older. That’s my idea of junk science. The repetition of ‘consensus’ often found here, is telling.
I’d just like to add this link, http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/06/could-the-universe-be-far-older-than-we-think-new-findings-point-that-way.html
Which is state of play now, the joy of exploration still alive and well in last decade; and long may it continue.
Myrrh says:
January 8, 2011 at 7:43 am
?! Why junk? It’s merely a look at the different ways of measuring stars and stuff to estimate the age of the Universe, from pukkha research attempts.
It contains this telling statement right up front:
“Evolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, although there is no certainty about any astronomical observations. John Eddy, a famous astronomer, once said that there isn’t much in the way of observational astronomy that proves the universe is old. He said that with “frantic theoretical readjustment” if new evidence showed that astronomers have been wrong, they could live with Bishop Ussher’s date of 4,004 B.C. [1]” setting out the agenda.
That there are some problems with estimates of the early galaxies is more a reflection of uncertainty about galaxy formation and evolution. It typical that these people use the ‘far-older-than-we-think’ argument in support of Bishop Ussher.
Re the Bible: it matters not which version one uses. The Bible has nothing to do with the Universe, its genesis, and age. Just ask any Hindu.
Myrrh says:
January 8, 2011 at 7:43 am
?! Why junk?
Because the link is simply wrong all over the place. E.g. the age of the universe that we have confidence in today does not rely on the Hubble law and redshifts. See, e.g.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
“WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years)”
An excellent lecture series on modern cosmology can be found here:
http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~kdh1/cos/cos01.pdf
especially cos08 and cos09 address your ‘age problem’ [which BTW stems from 1995, modern data has resolved all of that].
Myrrh says:
January 8, 2011 at 7:43 am
?! Why junk?
You might enjoy this http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
Who is Hawkins?