4096 4096 pixels on the solar photosphere by the Helioseismic and Magnetic
Imager (background image). We cross correlate wave field records of temporal length T at points on opposing quadrants (blue with blue or red with red).
From New York University: Researchers create ‘MRI’ of the sun’s interior motions
A team of scientists has created an “MRI” of the Sun’s interior plasma motions, shedding light on how it transfers heat from its deep interior to its surface. The result, which appears in the journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, upends our understanding of how heat is transported outwards by the Sun and challenges existing explanations of the formation of sunspots and magnetic field generation.
The Sun’s heat, generated by nuclear fusion in its core, is transported to the surface by convection in the outer third. However, our understanding of this process is largely theoretical—the Sun is opaque, so convection cannot be directly observed. As a result, theories largely rest on what we know about fluid flow and then applying them to the Sun, which is primarily composed of hydrogen, helium, and plasma.
Developing a more precise grasp of convection is vital to comprehending a range of phenomena, including the formation of sunspots, which have a lower temperature than the rest of the Sun’s surface, and the Sun’s magnetic field, which is created by its interior plasma motions.
In order to develop their “MRI” of the Sun’s plasma flows, the researchers examined high-resolution images of the Sun’s surface taken by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) onboard NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory. Using a 16-million pixel camera, HMI measures motions on the Sun’s surface caused by convection.
Once the scientists captured the precise movement waves on the Sun’s surface, they were able to calculate its unseen plasma motions. This procedure is not unlike measuring the strength and direction of an ocean’s current by monitoring the time it takes a swimmer to move across the water—currents moving against the swimmer will result in slower times while those going in the same direction will produce faster times, with stronger and weaker currents enhancing or diminishing the impact on the swimmer.
What they found significantly departed from existing theory–specifically, the speed of the Sun’s plasma motions were approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected.
“Our current theoretical understanding of magnetic field generation in the Sun relies on these motions being of a certain magnitude,” explained Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. “These convective motions are currently believed to prop up large-scale circulations in the outer third of the Sun that generate magnetic fields.”
“However, our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,” continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”
The study’s other co-authors were Thomas Duvall, an astrophysicist at NASA, and Katepalli Sreenivasan, University Professor in NYU’s Department of Physics and Courant Institute. Sreenivasan is also Senior Vice Provost for Science and Technology for the Global Network University at NYU and Provost of Polytechnic Institute of NYU.
===========================================================
ANOMALOUSLY WEAK SOLAR CONVECTION
Shravan M. Hanasoge y and Thomas L. Duvall, Jr. z and Katepalli R. Sreenivasan
Convection in the solar interior is thought to comprise structures on a spectrum of scales. This conclusion emerges from phenomenological studies and numerical simulations, though neither covers the proper range of dynamical parameters of solar convection. Here, we analyze observations of the wavefield in the solar photosphere using techniques of time-distance helioseismology to image flows in the solar interior. We downsample and synthesize 900 billion wave-feld observations to produce 3 billion cross-correlations, which we average and fit, measuring 5 million wave travel times. Using these travel times, we deduce the underlying flow systems and study their statistics to bound convective velocity magnitudes in the solar interior, as a function of depth and spherical-harmonic degree l. Within the wavenumber band l < 60, Convective velocities are 20-100 times weaker than current theoretical estimates. This suggests the prevalence of a different paradigm of turbulence from that predicted by existing models, prompting the question: what mechanism transports the heat ux of a solar luminosity outwards? Advection is dominated by Coriolis forces for wavenumbers l< 60, with Rossby numbers smaller than ~10-2 at r/Rθ= 0.96, suggesting that the Sun may be a much faster rotator than previously thought, and that large-scale convection may be quasi-geostrophic. The fact that iso-rotation contours in the Sun are not co-aligned with the axis of rotation suggests the presence of a latitudinal entropy gradient.
paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3173.pdf
Gene says:
July 9, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Leif: The link you posted is broken. There is no file name containing “neutrino” in
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Yet you are also missing half those required, don’t bring things up you know are flawed.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9606180.pdf
You are about 16 years behind the science. Try http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
Why does your thermonuclear fussion theory not predict the corona, or the solar wind?
Neither of those have anything to do with the fusion. There are many explanations of why the corona is hot. In fact, too many. The problem is that have not settled on which one(s). The solar wind was predicted in the 1950s by Gene Parker.
Why are sunspots which allow us to see deeper into the sun cooler?
Because their strong magnetic field interferes with the convection bringing up the heat from the interior. The magnetic field works as a refrigerator. This is all well-known and well-understood.
Poor Leif
The patience of Job I tell ya!
######
Over the years I cannot fathom how leif has put up with the willful ignorance displayed by some. usually, like steven, they are anonymous. others like tallbloke do the right thing and set up their own shop.
vuk? steven? I’ll suggest that you follow tallblokes path. Set up your own blogs and if you have something interesting to say, you’ll get readers.
[SNIP: I tried to send you an e-mail. It bounced back. If you want to continue to comment here you really need to contact Anthony…. and supply a valid e-mail address. -REP
And yet your own papers require these neutrinos to change flavor in route from the Sun, when the qty and type of neutrinos leaving the vicinity of the sun has never been verified. You assume they do this because that is what you need them to do. The problem is that the ones that have been shown to change flavors in the laboratory are the ones you need more of. that is the ones in excess have been shown to change to the ones in short supply, but NEVER the reverse. Twist the data, maybe it will finally fit when you tweak the numbers enough statistically. You may ignore the fact that neutrinos have never been verified to change flavor to the type in short supply, but those in excess add to those missing, so in reality you are missing even more than your theory says should be emitted, as some are changing to the ones you need. Flawed theory = flawed data interpretation.
Steven
“The statement confirms what Ralph Juergens wrote years earlier: “…Photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we disregard what we know about convection. ”
Juergens thought that convection was influenced by the reynolds number. rayleigh, reynolds.. hey they both start with the letter R
S. Mosher:
“The statement confirms what Ralph Juergens wrote years earlier: “…Photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we disregard what we know about convection. ”
Yah, what I am trying to get these people to understand. Thermodynamics REQUIRES heat to migrate from the source to cooler regions, not the reverse as the sun does. To believe the sun is a nuclear furnace requires one to disregard everything known about thermodynamics and about fusion itself.
Let me ask all of you a question then. How do we accelerate sub-atomic particles? If you understand CERN, then you know the only answer available and the only known way. Now ask yourself how does the sun accelerate sub-atomic particles at a velocity that continues to increase out to the orbit of Jupiter (minimum distance to our current knowledge)?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:29 pm
And yet your own papers require these neutrinos to change flavor in route from the Sun, when the qty and type of neutrinos leaving the vicinity of the sun has never been verified. You assume they do this because that is what you need them to do.
Again you are a decade behind the science. Why don’t you read the review paper I directed you to?
The change of flavors is an observed fact, from both using neutrinos produced in nuclear reactors [where WE know what we produce], and from using detectors that are sensitive to all flavors. There is no neutrino ‘problem’. There is a beautiful agreement between theory and direct detection.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Now ask yourself how does the sun accelerate sub-atomic particles at a velocity that continues to increase out to the orbit of Jupiter
Same way as the exhaust velocity is accelerated in a de Laval nozzle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Yah, what I am trying to get these people to understand. Thermodynamics REQUIRES heat to migrate from the source to cooler regions, not the reverse as the sun does. To believe the sun is a nuclear furnace requires one to disregard everything known about thermodynamics and about fusion itself.
Well, it is very hot in the core where fusion takes place and that heat does migrate from the source to cooler regions [such as the surface] so that is in perfect agreement with thermodynamics. Now, how is the corona heated? Perhaps by electric currents from below. What do you think of that idea?
Why so they can tell me that of course its undetectable, unverifiable Dark Matter that somehow allows this neutrino change?
Despite the great success of the solar physics story, the central
solar core below 0.10R, containing about a quarter of the
solar mass, is still not completely understood. Most of the
acoustic modes have been detected but they do not allow us
to properly describe the thermodynamics of this region of
the Sun through the sound speed. Consequently, the central
temperature deduced from the seismic model is obtained by
assuming that the temperature and density profiles follow the
classical equations of stellar evolution. This hypothesis leads
to good agreement between prediction and detected boron
Rep. Prog. Phys. 74 (2011) 086901 S Turck-Chi`eze and S Couvidat
neutrino fluxes but it has been known for 20 years (Giraud-
Heraud et al 1990, Dearborn et al 1990, Kaplan et al 1991)
that these profiles could be modified by the presence of dark
matter.
And the magical dust is brought out for confirming the theory.
Leif: “The EU Nonsense” as you call it actually provides hearty explanations for many more phenomena or the sun than the conventional model to which you hold blind adherence. A little more humility seems called for. Referring to another hypothesis in a derogatory tone, is not a valid means of presenting a scientific argument, and severely undermines your credibility. The fact that you cannot present your observations with reference to the implications of more than one model, also undermines your credibility.
I have an engineering background and I see science as valid when it provides explanatory power. Thus not only does the theory with the most explanatory power win, but also the one with the best laboratory reproductions of phenomena. Right now the EU model has you beat.
Keith
So when did a De Laval nozzle or any chemical reaction ever continue to accelerate particles beyond its compression boundary or initial escape velocity?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:06 pm
“Despite the great success of the solar physics story, the central solar core below 0.10R, containing about a quarter of the solar mass, is still not completely understood.”
Which does not cast doubts on the neutrino results. on the contrary, we can use the well-established neutrino data as a ‘telescope’ to probe the core of the Sun. You are completely missing that the neutrino flavors have been verified using known neutrino fluxes on the Earth. From nuclear reactors where we know precisely what is going on and how many neutrinos we produce. We don’t need the sun for that. Neutrino flavor changing has been established in the laboratory [something you a priori should like].
keith says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:13 pm
I have an engineering background and I see science as valid when it provides explanatory power. Thus not only does the theory with the most explanatory power win, but also the one with the best laboratory reproductions of phenomena. Right now the EU model has you beat.
EU has no predictive power at all [show me some, with calculated numbers]. For several reasons. An important reason is that we cannot in the laboratory reproduce the conditions of emptiness and length-scales that prevail in space. No need for me to be humble and I consequently am not.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:13 pm
So when did a De Laval nozzle or any chemical reaction ever continue to accelerate particles beyond its compression boundary or initial escape velocity?
In a De Laval nozzle the acceleration comes from the slow removal of the constricting boundary. In the solar wind, the corresponding constriction is gravity. As gravity decreases with distance, the constriction is slowly removed all the way out.
To be a troll, or not to be a troll, that is the question.
The answer is 42, with a decent helping of “don’t feed the trolls”.
The real truth is that energy is teleported from the interior of the sun to the surface via quantum entanglement. The high energy of the corona is easily explained by the collapsing of the entanglement field plus the teleported energy. Warp drive will be an extension of this effect applied to objects with mass. No electricity needed.
That is MY theory. 🙂 🙂 🙂 heh…
And yet I have no problem with nuclear fusion going on on the surface of the sun, neutrinos do not hurt my theory. My theory explains the solar winds, yours must violate all known ballistic and chemical and even nuclear knowledge to conform, and the explanations of the solar wind in current stellar theories is sadly lacking. Your model of a star born of fusion never predicted the corona, yet it is an essential part of the EU theory, as are all observable phenomenon of the sun.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/06/04/solar-stagnation-2/
So why is the pioneer spacecraft not accelerating? Why do not comets not accelerate as they move away from the sun? Why does it only happen to one particle, the one particle your theory says should not be accelerating as acceleration in a gravity driven model is always towards the source of gravitation, never away? Have you changed the law of gravitation lately?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:27 pm
And yet I have no problem with nuclear fusion going on on the surface of the sun, neutrinos do not hurt my theory.
After having ‘argued’ that the neutrinos were all fakery, now you have at last conceded that the observations are correct. But I have a problem with fusion going on on the surface: the temperature is much too low to overcome the mutual repulsion of protons.
My theory explains the solar winds, yours must violate all known ballistic and chemical and even nuclear knowledge to conform, and the explanations of the solar wind in current stellar theories is sadly lacking.
The solar wind as predicted by Parker in the 1950s is well explained and does not violate anything. But let’s turn to ;’your theory’. What is the predicted solar wind flux according to that? Numbers please, otherwise you have predicted nothing.
Your model of a star born of fusion never predicted the corona
Fusion has nothing to do with the solar corona. The corona is heated from below by effects from electric currents.
All that needs siad:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/?article=74fgmwne
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:33 pm
acceleration in a gravity driven model is always towards the source of gravitation, never away?
And it is the slow lifting of that acceleration with distance that produces the De Laval effect. There is also another thing that helps: the very high heat conductivity of the corona. As this is well-understood. Now tell us what your ‘theory’ predicts the increase of solar wind speed with distance to be? Numbers please.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:40 pm
All that needs said
Is indeed very telling. The difference between science and EU is that science can put numbers to the predicted and modeled phenomena. I still have to see ANY numbers come out of EU. Perhaps you could provide some?
For some reason, this seems like batting practice for Leif.
Sean Peake says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:02 pm
For some reason, this seems like batting practice for Leif.
It is easy as this is well-trodden ground, that we have been over again and again. It is a bit sad that general science literacy is so low that some WUWT-threads degrades into stuff like this.
Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars