From the National Science Foundation:
Answer lies in jets of plasma
One of the most enduring mysteries in solar physics is why the Sun’s outer atmosphere, or corona, is millions of degrees hotter than its surface.
Now scientists believe they have discovered a major source of hot gas that replenishes the corona: jets of plasma shooting up from just above the Sun’s surface.
The finding addresses a fundamental question in astrophysics: how energy is moved from the Sun’s interior to create its hot outer atmosphere.
“It’s always been quite a puzzle to figure out why the Sun’s atmosphere is hotter than its surface,” says Scott McIntosh, a solar physicist at the High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., who was involved in the study.
“By identifying that these jets insert heated plasma into the Sun’s outer atmosphere, we can gain a much greater understanding of that region and possibly improve our knowledge of the Sun’s subtle influence on the Earth’s upper atmosphere.”
The research, results of which are published this week in the journal Science, was conducted by scientists from Lockheed Martin’s Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory (LMSAL), NCAR, and the University of Oslo. It was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR’s sponsor.
“These observations are a significant step in understanding observed temperatures in the solar corona,” says Rich Behnke of NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research.
“They provide new insight about the energy output of the Sun and other stars. The results are also a great example of the power of collaboration among university, private industry and government scientists and organizations.”
The research team focused on jets of plasma known as spicules, which are fountains of plasma propelled upward from near the surface of the Sun into the outer atmosphere.
For decades scientists believed spicules could send heat into the corona. However, following observational research in the 1980s, it was found that spicule plasma did not reach coronal temperatures, and so the theory largely fell out of vogue.
“Heating of spicules to millions of degrees has never been directly observed, so their role in coronal heating had been dismissed as unlikely,” says Bart De Pontieu, the lead researcher and a solar physicist at LMSAL.
In 2007, De Pontieu, McIntosh, and their colleagues identified a new class of spicules that moved much faster and were shorter-lived than the traditional spicules.
These “Type II” spicules shoot upward at high speeds, often in excess of 100 kilometers per second, before disappearing.
The rapid disappearance of these jets suggested that the plasma they carried might get very hot, but direct observational evidence of this process was missing.
The researchers used new observations from the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly on NASA’s recently launched Solar Dynamics Observatory and NASA’s Focal Plane Package for the Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) on the Japanese Hinode satellite to test their hypothesis.
“The high spatial and temporal resolution of the newer instruments was crucial in revealing this previously hidden coronal mass supply,” says McIntosh.
“Our observations reveal, for the first time, the one-to-one connection between plasma that is heated to millions of degrees and the spicules that insert this plasma into the corona.”
The findings provide an observational challenge to the existing theories of coronal heating.
During the past few decades, scientists proposed a wide variety of theoretical models, but the lack of detailed observation significantly hampered progress.
“One of our biggest challenges is to understand what drives and heats the material in the spicules,” says De Pontieu.
A key step, according to De Pontieu, will be to better understand the interface region between the Sun’s visible surface, or photosphere, and its corona.
Another NASA mission, the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS), is scheduled for launch in 2012 to provide high-fidelity data on the complex processes and enormous contrasts of density, temperature and magnetic field between the photosphere and corona. Researchers hope this will reveal more about the spicule heating and launch mechanism.
The LMSAL is part of the Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, which designs and develops, tests, manufactures and operates a full spectrum of advanced-technology systems for national security and military, civil government and commercial customers.
-NSF-
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This deals with magnetic reconnection:
Electromagnetic Fields in Space [Published, Peer Reviewed, IEEE paper]
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf
“Proposing that magnetic field lines reconnect is an error based on the false assumption that the lines are real entities in the first place.”
Leif:
Many thanks indeed, will download & read this evening.
Best regards,
Stu
stu says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:12 am
Electromagnetic Fields in Space [Published, Peer Reviewed, IEEE paper]
Sometimes stuff slips through the cracks. The paper I referred to was also Published, Peer Reviewed, American Institute of Physics.
Scott is a well-known crank. e.g. http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html
Here are some pictures of reconnection in action: http://mrx.pppl.gov/
in the laboratory.
stu says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:13 am
Many thanks indeed, will download & read this evening.
It is well worth it.
James F. Evans says:
January 8, 2011 at 8:55 am
Or does Dr. Vassillis Angelopoulos not know what he is talking about?
He has revised his view, as he well should:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, A00I17, 18 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2010JA015877
Revised timing and onset location of two isolated substorms observed by Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions During Substorms (THEMIS)
J. Liu, V. Angelopoulos,M. Kubyshkina, J. McFadden, K.-H. Glassmeier, C. T. Russell
We report timing analysis on two previously published substorm events captured by the Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions During Substorms (THEMIS) spacecraft. During the 29 January 2008 0713 UT substorm, the solar wind velocity had a strong southward component corresponding to a 6.5° southward tilt of the magnetotail. Viewed in a rotated system, the magnetic field at the most distant probe, P1 (XGSM = −29.5 RE), shows a bipolar magnetic signature interpreted herein as a tailward moving plasmoid; P2 (XGSM = −18.5 RE) also observed magnetic signatures indicating tailward motion at onset. P3 (XGSM = −10.8 RE) and P4 (XGSM = −10.6 RE) captured dipolarization fronts and earthward flows at the same time. After allowing for the more general case of different magnetosonic speeds on the two sides of the reconnection site, timing of the first signatures in space and ground reveals that tail reconnection initiated at ∼18 RE down tail, ∼2 min prior to auroral intensification. Allowing for different magnetosonic speeds on either side of the reconnection site is warranted by the large separation between the inner (10–12 RE) and outer (25–30 RE) probe locations and differing ion temperatures and equatorial magnetic fields expected at those locations. The same technique was applied for the 2 February 2008 0740 UT substorm event during which midtail data from P2 were unavailable. A previous study obtained a reconnection site location of XGSM = −11∼−17 RE assuming the same propagation speed on both sides of the reconnection site. Relaxation of the constant-speed condition results in a reconnection location of ∼22 RE and an inferred reconnection time of ∼3–4 min before the auroral intensification. Our results are consistent with other THEMIS event studies that are unaffected by large solar wind deflections or incomplete probe coverage, suggesting that reconnection triggering of substorm onset is a common occurrence.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:37 am
Scott is a well-known crank.
A reprehensible and disgusting slur. You should be ashamed.
tallbloke says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:03 am
Scott is a well-known crank.
A reprehensible and disgusting slur. You should be ashamed.
Calling a spade a spade. What makes him a crank is not that he is wrong on this or that point [every scientist is wrong now and then], but that he is wrong on every point he makes. Or, perhaps, even worse, ‘not even wrong’.
Video of presentation given by Donald Scott to NASA available here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/mmarchives/090608_gsfcdsp.htm
WARNING BIG DOWNLOAD – 200 Meg!
Discussion and links to slides etc here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=22224&sid=f32798dac61e8c1331b30fe1d56fda26
Worthwhile and meaningful criticism of Scott here:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/03/donald-scott-of-electric-sky-presents.html
Scott is a well-known crank.
This is why he is a crank:
“Crank” is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A “cranky” belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:25 am
term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false
This, of course, also holds for Thornhill, Manuel, Velikovsky, and other assorted member of that category.
Leif Svalgaard is a well known pseudo-scientist, according to the father of plasma physics, Nobel Laureate Prof. Hannes Alfvén:
“Magnetic Merging [reconnection] – 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.”
(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)
REPLY: Well Hector, I’ve met him, and reviewed some of his papers, and I’m pretty sure he falls under the category of “scientist”. You on the other hand, making such claims without having the courage to put your full name to the accusation are a cowardly cad. If you have the courage, put your name to it, otherwise refrain. – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:25 am
Scott is a well-known crank.
This is why he is a crank:
“Crank” is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.
Quoting Wikipedia’s views on how ‘the consensus’ operates by character assassination doesn’t do much for you Leif.
tallbloke says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:42 am
Quoting Wikipedia’s views on how ‘the consensus’ operates by character assassination doesn’t do much for you Leif.
This has nothing to do with ‘character’, just with faulty beliefs.
Wikipedia has a good description of a crank:
“The second book of the philosopher and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1992 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a “checklist”, the Crackpot index, intended to “diagnose” cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.[2]
According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.
Some cranks exhibit a lack of academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering “the truth”, but actively harmful because they believe it “poisons” the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some alleged achievement in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.
Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.
In addition, many cranks:
seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, almost always:
exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[3]
In addition, cranky scientific “theories” do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank “theories” in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. Or the crank may present their ideas in such a confused manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming.
These matches quite well D. Scott.
As an exercise use Baez’s crank index and see how Scott scores:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/5312a801e0785e66?hl=en&&pli=1
You can even try it on yourself. Hopefully you’ll qualify less than Scott.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm
These matches quite well D. Scott
If you took the trouble to watch the presentation I linked above, you’d discover that Donald Scott accurately summarises the mainstream astrophysics position, explains the differences between that and the position taken by electrical engineers like him (who actually do real world experimentation with plasma physics, unlike astronomers and astrophysicists such as yourself), and then critiques that mainstream position.
This falsifies your quoted point above about ‘cranks’ not being cognisant of the mainstream consensus position.
He is also a highly qualified expert in his own field of expertise, which is directly relevant to his subject matter.
This falsifies your quoted point above about ‘cranks’ tending to be poorly qualified in the area they hold their ‘cranky’ views on.
I could go on, but since you dismiss Donald Scott without bothering to acquaint yourself with his work, it’s clear that you score more highly on the ‘crank’ index than he does, which means (according to your quoted source) it’s pointless arguing the point with you. Something I have had copious verifying experience of in the past two years trying to discuss the work of other people you dismiss as cranks such as Dayton Miller and Paul Marmet.
Reply to Anthony @ur momisugly January 8, 2011 at 11:35 am
I make no claims or accusations. I am quoting Hannes Alfvén. The characterisation of the person in question follows by implication.
stu says:
“James F. Evans – when I was studying for my El-mech HND, we had it drummed into us that magnetic reconnection was impossible. James Clerk Maxwell’s work on electro-magnetism supports this view. Has magnetic reconnection been empirically observed anywhere to support the theory?”
Yes, stu, I subscribe to that view. So-called “magnetic reconnection” is a failed paradigm. It was a hypothesis developed in the pre-space age to explain CME’s, when only magnetic fields could be observed from ground observatories.
So-called “magnetic reconnection” was developed without regard to electric fields, but that approach became untenable because electric fields were observed & measured, so electric fields had to be incorporated into the theory, as a secondary effect.
stu, the reason why you were taught that “reconnection” is impossible is because “reconnection” denies the process is an electromagnetic process or that it is part of a circuit, rather, “reconnection” allows the process to be viewed as an isolated, localized “island” process; any electromagnetism is strictly a transitory and localized secondary effect, not a fundamental driver of overall astrophyscial processes and objects.
The Current Disruption Theory explicitly is an electromagnetic theory.
Early “reconnection” papers, as previously provided in prior posts by Dr. Svalgaard, make no mention of electric fields. Even recent “reconnection” papers deny the overall process is an electromagnetic process.
The attractiveness of “magnetic reconnection” to astrophysicists is specifically because it does not depend on the presence of a circuit, so leaves unchallenged the idea that stars and galaxies are isolated “islands”, whereas, the Current Disruption Theory (aka Circuit Theory as championed by Hannes Alfven) suggests the possibility that stars and galaxies are connected in circuits, and the Fundamental Force of Electromagnetism is what drives these circuits, not the Fundamental Force of Gravity.
So-called “magnetic reconnection” is supported because “magnetic reconnection” is not a threat to the conventional gravity “only” (read “big bang”) model of the Universe, thus, it can be safely incorporated within the conventional model without falsifying the paradigm. The conventional gravity “only” (read “big bang”) model is the overarching influence in the astronomical community.
Individual scientists are ostricized from the astronomical community if they don’t subscribe to the so-called “big bang” ideology.
Dr. Svalgaard is being intellectually dishonest when he claims there is no opposing viewpoint. It’s one thing to subscribe to a particular school of thought, it’s another thing, entirely, to deny that an opposing view exists.
But give Dr. Svalgaard credit, he knows that the Current Disruption Theory, extended to its full implications, has the potential to directly challenge the “big bang”.
And that simply can NOT be allowed to happen.
Too many applecarts are at stake.
From Interspace News (February 27, 2008):
Dr. Angelopoulos: “I grew up (in Greece) with the Reconnect Theory, however, I am not sure which one will be accurate,” said Agelopoulos. “This is why this project is so important.”
Dr. Angelopoulos is referring to the Current Disuption Theory versus the Magnetic Reconnection Theory. The two theories are mutually exclusive.
http://www.interspacenews.com/FeatureArticle/tabid/130/Default.aspx?id=524
Dr. Svalgaard has made a willful & intentional misrepresentation.
James F. Evans says:
January 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Dr. Svalgaard has made a willful & intentional misrepresentation.
In the link I gave you, Angelopoulos retracts his earlier statement [says he was wrong] and now says that what they observed was reconnection and that “reconnection triggering of substorm onset is a common occurrence.”
tallbloke says:
January 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm
If you took the trouble to watch the presentation I linked above, you’d discover that Donald Scott accurately summarises the mainstream astrophysics position,
I have seen the video Scott’s stuff.
He does not accurate summarize current knowledge [nor historical papers and positions]. He may have heard of these things, but not KNOW them and does not summarize them accurately. For example he claims that Chapman claimed there could be no plasma in space. Chapman’s 1932 explanation of the initial phase of a magnetic storms as a cloud of plasma impacting the Earth is now the accepted and correct explanation. Scott does not know that the dark matter around galaxies is observed directly [and mapped in detail]] using gravitational lensing. His mention of electric conductivity and density is muddled, and on and on it goes. Just too many things wrong to bother with.
His railing against reconnection is misplaced and he misunderstands MHD and reconnection. The plasma does not have to be a superconductor to exhibit MHD qualities. E.g. the solar plasma in the photosphere has only the conductivity of sea water.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm
He does not accurate summarize current knowledge [nor historical papers and positions]. He may have heard of these things, but not KNOW them and does not summarize them accurately.
As I said, he has many of the characteristics of a crank, and I’ll repeat that and stand by that, regardless of what other aspiring cranks might think.
James F. Evans says:
January 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm
You should reconnect to:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/electric-universe-open-thread/#comment-3754
🙂
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 4:06 pm
he has many of the characteristics of a crank, and I’ll repeat that and stand by that regardless of what other aspiring cranks might think.
I’m busy reading some useful and insightful criticism of Scott by an opponent who doesn’t feel the need to stoop to ad hominem attacks, so I don’t have time to deal with your cranky and inaccurate characterisations of Dr Donald Scott. He’s an erudite and experienced plasma experimentalist.
You are not.
I’ll take his explanation of plasma in the cosmological setting over yours because he includes all aspects of magnetism and electricity in space, and the real tested properties of plasma rather than merely theoretical posturings. I did spot his circularity in electricity generating magnetism which generates electricity though, so I keep my sceptical hat on as always. We still need Miller’s transmissive medium to bridge the gulf.
tallbloke says:
January 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm
I’ll take his explanation of plasma in the cosmological setting over yours
It is not mine. I just agree with what thousands of of space physicist and astrophysicists have discovered by hard work over the last century. An explanation of great beauty and explanatory power. You can disagree with a detail here and there [and there are loose ends], but to disagree with all of it is what makes you a crank. Such characterization is not an ad-hom attack on anybody. You cannot attack someone just because he is ignorant. One can try to educate him. Some people are learning resistant, but the loss is theirs, not mine.
All the experiments Dr. Svalgaard refers to and the images presented within those experiments are actually Electric Double Layers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
The Princeton experiments and Yamada papers hold the following to be the a priori assumption:
“In plasma physics, it is well known that magnetic field lines are “frozen-in” to an infinitely conductive plasma…”
The statement is false.
Magnetic field lines are not “frozen in” to bodies of plasma (magnetic field lines are human constructs) and plasma is not infinitely conductive, thus, there is resistivity, and, so, can support electric fields.
Neither, is it an “excellent” approximation, as claimed by the Yamada paper.
Rather, it is a misleading, a priori assumption, used to avoid acknowledging or discussing at length what IS the overall controlling physical dynamic: The Fundamental Force of Electromagnetism.
S0-called “magnetic reconnection” is a pseudo-scientific fraud.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm
to disagree with all of it is what makes you a crank.
Yeah, whatever.
James F. Evans said
January 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm
S0-called “magnetic reconnection” is a pseudo-scientific fraud.
So, now you accuse Dr. Vassillis Angelopoulos of fraud. You linked to him before with great enthusiasm.