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.
i confuse easily.
I thought temperature definition is “the work available to a heat engine rejecting to absolute zero”.
Therefore, temperature would be the the molecules’ kinetic (speed^2) energy [i]plus whatever other kind of energy they happen to have[/i].
I dont know much about the fields around the sun, but a photon or proton escaping the sun is surely experiencing some strong ones.
So when i see a high temperature reported i assume it’s not all just from kinetic energy of motion but largely from things i dont even comprehend.
but i’m a plodder so it’s good that i dont understand, it leaves me open to learn more..
old jim
Dr. Svalgaard presented Evans statement: “Dr. Svalgaard has made a willful & intentional misrepresentation.”
Dr. Svalgaard responded: “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.'”
Dr. Svalgaard, you misrepresent the import of my statement.
The issue I was addressing wasn’t that Dr. Angelopoulos subscribed to “magnetic reconnection” or not, rather, the issue was that there are two opposing schools of thought: The Current Disruption Theory versus the Magnetic Reconnection Theory.
And, unless you are claiming that Dr. Angelopoulos “retracts” his earlier statement that there are two opposing theories, which doesn’t make any sense, then my statement still stands:
Evans: “Dr. Svalgaard has made a willful & intentional misrepresentation”, because there are two opposing schools of thought, as opposed to what Dr. Svalgaard repeatedly claimed:
Dr. Svalgaard stated: “There are not two schools of thought.”
Now regarding Dr. Angelopoulos’ opinion, it’s not surprising that he would validate his previously held belief: “I grew up (in Greece) with the Reconnect Theory…”
All Dr. Angelopoulos has done is reconfirm he is in the “reconnection” camp just like you obviously are. That does not change the fact that there are two opposing views.
As reported in Interspace News: “…there are also opposing viewpoints.” — an in substance summary of Dr. Vassillis Angelopoulos, THEMIS principal investigator at University of California Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory in Berkeley, California.
http://www.interspacenews.com/FeatureArticle/tabid/130/Default.aspx?id=524
I’m no expert, but speaking personally and subjectively, the explanatory power and beauty of the EU model exceeds that of the standard cosmological model. Why? Because it reduces the number of entities required to explain observable phenomena, and has on at least one occasion I can think of made a testable prediction confirmed by observation. This didn’t surprise plasma cosmologists, but it did their more orthodox bretheren.
Do black holes, dark matter/energy, gravitational lensing, etc. actually exist, or are they the projected reifications of ideas that only a mathematically educated minority can truly appreciate? Are they mere modern-day analogues of Ptolemaic epicycles? We shall have to wait and see whether or not it’s someone like Alfven who turns out to be the latter-day Copernicus (with orthodox cosmologists being cast in the role of Church prelates).
One doesn’t need the ability to do difficult mathematics to look at the sky through telescopes and see what could not unplausibly be explained as scaled-up plasma phenomena that can be viewed on the laboratory workbench and in working industrial devices.
“Crank” is a term, applied by a member of a majority which consensually agrees on a specific interpretation of reality, to those who don’t agree. Sometimes the majority turns out to be correct, but sometimes, the so-called cranks do.
Using the term except in the most obvious cases (e.g. flat-earthers) may be more an indicator of deep-seated bigotry and hubris as correctness. Such use casts doubt on the plausibility of the utterer – people who truly know whereof they speak do not tend to stoop to invective.
But what the heck, there’s nothing new in that, as AGW “deniers” already know. I wish to God there was more openness and tolerance for plurality of opinion, but there’s as little these days as ever there was in mediaeval times. The only advance is that we don’t currently burn people at the stake, only going so far as vilification and excommunication.
Michael, I have lived with the stars for a very long time and Believe me, the Universe is electric. As a non scientist I am having great difficulty with the words but I am writing a New definition of realty based upon Co-ordinates, Waves and data density. Not a particle in sight. it really is very simple, has no surprises and certainly no monsters such as black holes, dark energy or dark matter. No Need.
Uniquely I am writing it live, on line and fully exposed to ridicule but So what.
James F. Evans says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm
As reported in Interspace News: “…there are also opposing viewpoints.”
There were opposing views as to where the disruption takes place. Remember that it is part of the mainstream paradigm as I demonstrated with the link to my talk back in 1973 that there is disruption of the tail current. Dr. A thought he had an observation that the disruption is triggered by an event much closer to and earlier than at the reconnection site. This was what upset his picture of what goes on. Now he has seen that he was mistaken and that the traditional paradigm holds. There are not opposing views as to whether reconnection takes place. That is firmly established [and strengthened] by the THEMIS observations.
Michael Larkin says:
January 8, 2011 at 7:02 pm
I’m no expert, but speaking personally and subjectively, the explanatory power and beauty of the EU model exceeds that of the standard cosmological model.
Two little boys are discussing where babies from from. One holds forth with tales of s e x, DNA, fetus, etc. The other one says, Naw, that is much to complicated, personally and subjectively I think the stork brings them.
Do black holes, dark matter/energy, gravitational lensing, etc. actually exist Gravitational lensing is plain for everybody to see, e.g. here:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080210.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100620.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100207.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090823.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080823.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080728.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070820.html
and MANY more
Gravitational lensing, balderdash. Means nothing, derived from misinterpreted observations. High red shift in front of low red shift. High energy particles emit radiation. We do it all the time here on earth, we use electricity.
Light cannot be a wave, “waves need a medium to propagate through”. Light is a wave, which can be perceived as a particle, depending upon your perspective. I.e its both.
Not only light but radio waves travel through space.
Sorry if you dont like that I see things in simple terms but to me, the universe is simple. Humans (scientists) make it complicated. And amongst many skills, language and typing is not two that I can lay claim to.
The Themis observations confirm double layer explosions not reconnection, You cannot reconnect that which does not exist. I keep tripping over lines of latitude, boy are they a trouble.
Michael Larkin says:
January 8, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Using the term except in the most obvious cases (e.g. flat-earthers)
That the Sun is cold on the inside [we see the cold interior through sunspots] and is powered by electric currents from outer space [that somehow manages to avoid the Earth, thank god] is today just as silly [thus cranky] as the claim that the Earth is flat and the Moon is hollow. So we do have a most obvious case.
Grey Lensman says:
January 8, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Sorry if you dont like that I see things in simple terms but to me, the universe is simple. Humans (scientists) make it complicated.
“Certain authors who have studied the phenomenon of crankery agree that this is the essential defining characteristic of a crank: No argument or evidence can ever be sufficient to make a crank abandon his belief.”
To prove that you are not a crank tell us what would make change your opinion on the things you just enumerated?
Leif, do you not see the irony of your comments. This bog is about freedom of Speech, freedom of ideas and the honest discussion of same. The Globull warming scammers are rightly berated for amongst many things calling those who know they are wrong, deniers or skeptic or worse, so why do you resort to the same approach.
I respect your views and knowledge as a scientist, I strongly disagree with you on them and tell you so but in the hope that you will open your eyes, look at the alternative science put forward ( not by myself, I am expressing my views) and try to understand where they are comi9ng from.
Gravitational lensing, its called refraction. I could be wrong in that but be3cause that is how i understand it does not mean that the alternative theory is wrong, if my understanding of an alternative explanation is wrong, its just that i have expalined it to myself the wrong way. Hope you understand that.
I am not writing a technical paper but just simply quickly and amongst many other things, just jotting down my thoughts, as humans tend to do. (and with rubbish typing
)
Grey Lensman says:
January 8, 2011 at 8:57 pm
This bog is about freedom of Speech, freedom of ideas and the honest discussion of same.
“Gravitational lensing, balderdash.” does not look like ‘honest discussion of same’. Pointing out that someone meets all the requirements of being a ‘crank’ looks like what the ‘freedom of speech’ you are advocating would allow. Now, calling him a crank if he does not meet those requirements is over the top and must be considered an ad-hom attack. Not that you don’t see them on this blog – I count several a day directed at me, here is a particularly high-quality one:
Hector says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:35 am
Leif Svalgaard is a well known pseudo-scientist, according to the father of plasma physics, Nobel Laureate Prof. Hannes Alfvén
Hector, of course, could not know that Hannes was a good friend of mine, that we had lunches together, and discussed these very matters, especially the properties of the Heliospheric Current Sheet.
Leif ate lunch with Hannes Alfvén where “these very matters” were discussed. Let me quote Alfvén on “frozen-in field lines,” strongly supported by Leif as a valid scientific concept:
“I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous “pseudo-pedagogical concept.” By pseudo-pedagogical I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.”
Some people are indeed learning resistant.
http://physics.unr.edu/Forms/myth.pdf
Einstein said: “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitational theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” A. Einstein (1954) in a letter to his friend M. Besso.
#########
This was written at the end of his life. That he had doubts seems to be forgotten in this, it’s not the only example, but as has been said above and elsewhere, one has to really struggle to make his ideas fit in some cases and if, as the EU appears to do, there is a much simpler, more elegant even, explanation that makes sense, I can’t see any reason for ignoring it.
I find it all rather disheartening, as a newbie to thinking about this in any detail, at least with AGW I could work out from the arguments that it made nonsense of basic physics..
Castles in the air I’m quite capable of imagining for myself, but I really would like to know how it works.
Hector says:
January 8, 2011 at 9:56 pm
“I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular.
As with all such concepts the trick is to know when it is useful and when it is not. Space scientists today know when [of course due to Hannes’ admonitions], so does not cause misconceptions. For reconnection, the concept is useful for description of the large-scale structure and how fields are brought together. at the point of reconnection, the concept breaks down and is not useful anymore, so it not used there. In fact, if field lines were frozen in, reconnection could never occur. So people that discount reconnection because they discount frozen-in fields, do not know what they are talking about. Reconnection occurs precisely because the frozen-in condition is not valid at the reconnection point. Every space scientist and astrophysicist knows this.
Lief,
I disagree with you as to the relative beauty of competing theories, but I do not call you a crank. I prefer to think of you as a member of a consensus group who is so utterly convinced of his superiority and correctness of interpretation of data that anyone else must be, a priori, an intellectual pygmy.
Playing games with parables you have constructed does not impress me. I could, were I as contemptuous of you as you are of me, counter with parables of my own, but that would be to engage at the same very low level of dialogue.
I took pains to claim no more than subjective opinion and made no calls to authority from like-minded individuals, expert or no. In the end, even if you belong to a majority that considers itself authoritative, that doesn’t imply that your opinion is any the less subjective; only that it is shared by experts and is being presumed to be objective on that account. To my mind, this is THE greatest problem with science today in quite a number of areas.
I will make you a bet, and I am being perfectly serious about this. I will bet you £250 GBP (currently $388 USD) even money that within the next 10 years, one or more ideas from plasma cosmology currently considered heretical will become incorporated into consensually accepted cosmological model.
This is an amount of money I can comfortably afford to lose, and I am perfectly willing to send it immediately to be held by a mutually-trusted intermediary (Anthony Watts might be ideal if he wouldn’t consider it too inconvenient, but I’m open to suggestions of any other trustworthy and disinterested party) whose judgement on the matter ten years hence (or sooner if it became apparent) would be final.
Should you think the amount too much for your own finances, I’d be happy to reduce it in line with those.
What say you? Parables at dawn, or are you a betting man?
Michael Larkin says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:37 pm
;I disagree with you as to the relative beauty of competing theories, but I do not call you a crank. I prefer to think of you as a member of a consensus group who is so utterly convinced of his superiority and correctness of interpretation of data that anyone else must be, a priori, an intellectual pygmy.
This is completely false. Correctness has nothing to do with intelligence, but with knowledge. Ignorance is not a sign of being an intellectual pygmy. My wife is one of the smartest persons I know, yet she knows nothing about what we are discussing here. The consensus group you talk about is large and incorporates more than 99.9% of all working scientists in the field.and they do not [to my knowledge, but I’m willing to let you prove me wrong one this, if you can] consider everyone else intellectual pygmies.
as contemptuous of you as you are of me,
again you are completely wrong about this. I do think that I am very patient and goes to great length to educate everyone, who would listen, about this wonderful universe we have and about the astounding understanding we have achieved [humankind’s greatest achievement, IMHO]. It is a privilege to educate, and educators are not contemptuous of their students.
your opinion is any the less subjective; only that it is shared by experts and is being presumed to be objective on that account.
it is presumed to be the best we can say at this time on the subject. We make no claim it is the ‘truth’ or ‘objective’. It is simply the best of our knowledge at the moment. This knowledge is hard won [centuries of work by thousands of people].
one or more ideas from plasma cosmology currently considered heretical will become incorporated into consensually accepted cosmological model.
This is too vague for a bet as what they say is not always coherent. To make the bet precise you must list the ideas under consideration [e.g. (1) Sun is cold on inside, (2) Solar energy not produced by fusion, (3) reconnection does not exist, (4) etc, etc]. Then we’ll see.
On the solar energy problem this goes for stellar energy as well. And there it is this to consider: when the universe was born it was in a plasma state [at least after the 1st second or so] and was opaque. After 377,000 years, the temperature had fallen to 2967K and electrons and protons combined to form neutral hydrogen [similarly for the other few elements, He, Li, that had formed], and there was no more plasma in the Universe [which then became transparent]. This situation [no plasma] endured for about 420 million years until the first stars formed and by their ultraviolet radiation re-ionized the neutral gas and the universe became a plasma once again [at least the 4% that is baryonic], so there was no plasma universe for 420 million years and nothing to ‘zap’ those stars and make them hot. No electric currents and no charged particles.
You are a funny guy, Leif.
Hector says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:45 pm
You are a funny guy, Leif.
Bordering on ridiculous, say some.
But it would more productive if you stuck to the topic, and e.g. commented on this:
“So people that discount reconnection because they discount frozen-in fields, do not know what they are talking about. Reconnection occurs precisely because the frozen-in condition is not valid at the reconnection point. Every space scientist and astrophysicist knows this.”
Leif
What dont you understand. My opinion is that Gravitational lensing, is balderdash. Its not an attack, its not calling you a crank its a simple statement of my belief.
I think that you are a very astute and clever scientist with a good grasp of the usage of language. no doubt. But it is my firm belief, based upon my amateur studies and practical application, that you and the astronomical theory is wrong. Indeed (no comfort to you) I know its wrong.
There was a quote of Einstein above and what he said was correct, fields/waves are the structure. What we call those fields or waves, is really in my mind, semantics. What they do, how they work, how they interact is however a different kettle of fish
Keep up the good work, but please explore what is being said in kindness and good faith (unlike water melons)
Leif
Quote
After 377,000 years
Unquote
Are you sure about that, was anybody there. is it not 376,000 or maybe 380,000. Love to see how that data, not supposition, but hard observed measured recorded, data was obtained.
Grey Lensman says:
January 9, 2011 at 12:14 am
My opinion is that Gravitational lensing, is balderdash.
As I said “Gravitational lensing, balderdash.” does not look like ‘honest discussion of same’. A statement of your belief is not ‘discussion’, and it is not really a good to call a lot of work by many people ‘balderdash’
but please explore what is being said
Your belief ‘balderdash’ is hard to explore further.
BTW with reference to Einstein, he predicted gravitational lensing. Here is an image showing he was correct in his prediction http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070311.html . Not exactly balderdash.
James F. Evans says:
January 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Many thanks for clarifying that for me. 🙂
Best,
Stu
Grey Lensman says:
January 9, 2011 at 12:22 am
Are you sure about that, was anybody there.
Because it takes light time to get here, when we see a supernova go off in a galaxy that is a million light years away, we see what really happened a million years ago. Was anybody there? Yes we were, we are looking at it right now.
Same thing with the light from when the universe was only 377,000 years old. Before that age, the plasma was opaque and we nothing of the light. At a certain time the electrons and the protons combined into a neutral hydrogen atom. At a temperature higher that 2967K [this we measure in our laboratory] the atoms move so violently around that the electron is stripped of the atom, below that temperature the electron stays put. When this happens the matter suddenly becomes transparent and the photons from that precise time streams unhindered to us and we observe them directly [the 2.722K cosmic background radiation] so we were there to see them, because we are looking at the photons that came from there, right now. They are redshifted 2967/2.722 = 1090 times so show up as microwaves, which we directly observe. Here is how it is done: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/dr3/pub_papers/fiveyear/basic_results/wmap5basic.pdf . The time when this happened was 376,971 years {+/-3165 yrs} after the Big Bang. [see table 7 of the link on page 45].
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:23 pm
It is simply the best of our knowledge at the moment. This knowledge is hard won [centuries of work by thousands of people].
The myth of a steady centuries long knowledge building process inevitably arriving at an objective consensus view is put out by the consensus in order to squash competing ideas which threaten its stability and hegemony.
At this point, the paying public would be better served by a deliberate policy decision to fund research into alternative hypotheses which can then cross fertilise through the comparison of results and interaction of ideas. They would merge somewhere further down the line, with the useless concepts from both paradigms falling by the wayside.
Example: Pulsars.
As Scott says, the insistence of the mainstream on the reality of 20 mile diameter balls of Neutronium spinning at twice the speed of a dentists drill is ludicrous. The E.U. concept of a relaxing oscillator makes far more sense, and doesn’t require improbable mechanics, and can be demonstrated in the lab here on Earth too. It also fits with observation better than gravity only theory.
The argument about magnetic reconnection and current disruption is idiotic. They are just two ways of describing the same phenomena. Electromagnetism is a fundamental force. The electro and the magnetism parts are just two aspects of the same force.
Leif claims primacy for the magnetic, Scott clams primacy for the electric. They are both wrong. The underlying field which supports both is the etheric field, which was empirically measured by Dayton Miller in 1926, and written out of physics by inept wielders of occams razor, including Einstein, and an inept hatchet wielder, Robert Shankland.
Miller’s result was confirmed by Yuri Galaev in 2003 using modern equipment which can’t have suffered the experimental error Millers experiment was wrongly accused of.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/confirmation-of-transmissive-medium-pervading-space/
The sooner consensus cosmologists wake up to the fact they can’t explain the universe adequately with gravity and magnetism only, the better.
The acceleration of particles away from the Sun’s surface being a case in point, just to bring us back on topic.
Leif said
Quote
A statement of your belief is not ‘discussion’, and it is not really a good to call a lot of work by many people ‘balderdash’
Unquote
I agree but what else to do. Your claim that it stifles debate however, is not valid. She should be asking yourself, “why does he think that”. I have found, being a bad teacher, that asking people to seek their own answers, is in the long term more effective. Its me, Its not the scientific thinking.
Tallbloke has some interesting comments. Ether, yes a possibility, a name for an unknown field. Can i suggest fractals, solitons and platonic solids stimulated by harmonic frequencies. Light frequency is a harmonic, 47 octaves up if I recall correctly. Some very interesting work done in this field. Dare I mention Dan Winter.
How did the Polynesian navigators find their way around with such accuracy. Those people I can understand but its not “science’