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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That’s because Lief, like most, no longer practice science, but a quasi religion. Science is to question at all times, to look at all possibilities. You may ignore the data as it comes in to uphold your religion, you may ignore all data that does not fit your model, but like every cosmology before they were positive they were correct until they could no longer ignore the data. The EU is rarely surprised, even predicted what IBEX and pioneer has found, current theory predicted nothing and was shocked when voyager sent back its data.
“Charged particles have apparently become bunched along the ribbon near the boundary, says McComas, but how they got there “is still a big mystery. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised.” “I’m blown away completely,” says space physicist Neil Murphy of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “It’s amazing, it’s opened up a new kind of astronomy.”
It hasn’t opened up a new kind of astronomy, just a force in the universe that has been ignored in astronomy in the 100 years since it was discovered. PLASMA
By the way, when the solar wind actually stops, which it does at periods, does this mean the suns gravity is no longer strong enough to cause a De Laval tube? Or is it that it has become so strong they can’t escape? The gravity of mass fluctuates this much yet we are unaware of it?
So nothing in the paper, the article, OR the comments suggest how the convection manifests as an 11 year cycle? Hmm?
Here is a brilliant attempt to improve science literacy in the area we are discussing: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/jim.html
We are told that neutrinos were invented to uphold the conservation of angular momentum. Very nice. So now, a very long time and billions of dollars later, what we are “directly observing” are the fudges to misconstrued angular momenta arriving from the sun.
I am not ten years behind; I am a century behind. I stopped following when they began assigning fractional quantum numbers to particles, apparently to resolve the consternation caused by Stern-Gerlach. But never matter. Let’s forget for a moment which theory is better and take a look at the raw data, which is basically a huge stream of scintillation patterns. In it, if we are lucky, we can find a few that can be spatially resolved to point at the sun (give or take a couple degrees). Furthermore, similar patterns are observed near nuclear reactors. It quacks like a duck, and we immediately connect in our minds our underground detector with a reactor-like process inside the sun’s core. But where is the evidence that the process responsible for these scintillations is housed inside the sun’s core? There are so many things on the path from the sun’s core to to the underground detector. Why not the solar corona? Why not the earth’s atmosphere?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars
None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how.
By the way, when the solar wind actually stops, which it does at periods
The solar wind never stops. Its density may at times be very small, but the speed is never less than about 250 km/s, see e.g. http://www.solen.info/solar/images/swind.png
Gene says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:08 pm
We are told that neutrinos were invented to uphold the conservation of angular momentum.
No, to uphold the law of conservation of energy.
But where is the evidence that the process responsible for these scintillations is housed inside the sun’s core? There are so many things on the path from the sun’s core to to the underground detector. Why not the solar corona? Why not the earth’s atmosphere?
It has to do with the energy of the neutrinos. The corona and the Earth’s atmosphere are not hot enough and do not sustain the processes that give rise to neutrinos of the energy we observe. In the core we know the temperature and the nuclear reaction rates and can from those calculate how many neutrinos we should see, and we do see precisely those. In fact for every solar neutrino there are trillions more neutrinos going through our detectors [and you]. These neutrinos were produced in the Big Bang but have by now too low energy to be detected.
The Ampère Angular Force
In 1826, André-Marie Ampère published a groundbreaking study, summarizing the work of five years of research into the laws of the new science that he had named electrodynamics. The results showed, that in the case of the pairwise interaction of two infinitesimally small elements of direct current electricity within conductors, the force between the elements was not simply dependent on the inverse square of their distance of separation, but also depended on the angles which these infinitesimal, directional elements made with the line connecting their centers, and with each other. (Included among the effects of the angular force was the result that successive elements of current within the same conductor would tend to repel one another—the longitudinal force.)
André-Marie Ampère, “Memoire sur la théorie mathématique des phénomenes électrodynamiques uniquement déduite de l’experience,” in A.M. Ampère, Electrodynamiques, uniquement déduite de l’experience,” (Paris: A. Hermann, 1883). A partial English translation appears in R.A.R. Tricker,5Early Electrodynamics: The First Law of Circulation (New York: Pergamon, 1965) pp. 155-200. ”A review of the Ampère-Gauss-Weber electrodynamics appears in Laurence Hecht, “The Atomic Science Textbooks Don’t Teach,” 21st Century, Fall 1996, pp. 21-43.
Why would angular momentum be difficult to describe, the answer has been known for close to 100 years, the electrical principle describes the angular force just fine. Now I have no problems with neutrinos being produced by electrical emissions, after all E=mc^2, but you refuse to believe that mc^2=E is also correct. A nuclear bomb creates a tremendous Electromagnetic Pulse, and electrically charges the atmosphere itself. I am not the one that has problems with avoiding electricity when even the photon is an electromagnetic phenomenon. The stuff of the universe is electrons and protons, all charged particles in their own right. My biggest confusion, that the most basic building blocks of the universe are charged particles, yet you try so hard to deny this very charge that makes things what they are!
Read below when you are ready to begin to understand.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:32 pm
The stuff of the universe is electrons and protons, all charged particles in their own right.
with an admixture of helium and a smattering of heavier stuf.
My biggest confusion, that the most basic building blocks of the universe are charged particles, yet you try so hard to deny this very charge that makes things what they are!
The basic building blocks of you are charged particles, in equal measure so you are electrically neutral as is the rest of the [plasma] universe. In rare cases a change in magnetic field configurations induce electrical currents, which when they short circuit often have explosive results [like all shorts].
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:32 pm
The stuff of the universe is electrons and protons, all charged particles in their own right.
with an admixture of helium and a smattering of heavier stuff.
That is if you restrict yourself to the 4% that are baryons [with matching electrons]. But for every proton there are a billion photons and another billion neutrinos around.
And within 10 years when they tell you gravity is an EM phenomenon discovered 100 years ago I am sure you will still hold to your nuclear furnace theory of the sun too. I actually expect current theory to fade away by then. They are already turning that way with magnetic reconnection theory and one day soon they will catch up. Because the truth of the matter is where you find magnetic fields you must first have an electric field. And since plasma is an almost ideal transmitter of electric currents and 99.99% of the universe is plasma, you might want to touch up on what you actually think you know about electricity and the famous E=mc^2 or was that mc^2=E?
And within 10 years when they tell you gravity is an EM phenomenon discovered 100 years ago I am sure you will still hold to your nuclear furnace theory of the sun too
You are very wrong on both counts. The nuclear fusion in the sun and the stars is an observed fact. Apart for the hydrogen, every atom in your body was created inside a star once by nuclear fusion or other nuclear reactions.
They are already turning that way with magnetic reconnection theory and one day soon they will catch up.
Magnetic reconnection is studied in the laboratory and confirmed in space by spacecraft measurements:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf
Because the truth of the matter is where you find magnetic fields you must first have an electric field.
electric fields are generated in response to electrically neutral conductors moving across a magnetic field.
And since plasma is an almost ideal transmitter of electric currents and 99.99% of the universe is plasma
Only about 4% is plasma and there was a time lasting hundreds of millions of years when there was no plasma in the universe.
you might want to touch up on what you actually think you know about electricity and the famous E=mc^2 or was that mc^2=E?
Electricity and mc^2 = E have nothing to do with each other. BTW, what Einstein actually deduced in 1905 was that ‘the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes by L/c^2’ i.e. m=E/c^2.
The big bang has been shown to be impossible, so those who hold to that failed theory are using the wrong foundation to explain anything to do with the sun. An imprecise and incomplete list of problems with the big bang would be; 1. Missing magnets … monopoles (north or south only). Particle physicists say they should have been created in the high temperatures of the ‘big bang’, and, being stable, should still exist, but none have been found. 2. The problem of flatness, or ‘infinitely fine tuning’. The rate of expansion of the universe is very finely balanced with universal density of matter, such that the universe neither collapses, nor rapidly flys apart. As time goes by, any deviation from ‘flatness’ greatly increases, so it had to be even more finely ‘flat’ at the time of creation. There is no restriction of the initial value of either factor, so this is an impossible co-incidence. 2a. The invention of ‘inflation’. Because flatness is a problem, the story of ‘inflation’ was developed, wherein the universe went through a temporary period of accelerated expansion. This is accepted without evidence, but there is no information on how it started, and how it ended smoothly. 3. Missing antimatter. Big bang conditions must produce an exact amount of antimatter as there is matter. However, only trace amounts of antimatter exist. 4. Missing Pop III stars. Big Bang accounts for only H, He and Li but can’t account for the heavier elements which are assumed to have been produced by stars via nuclear fusion “in the core”, then supernovas would “re-distribute” the heavier elements into space. Second and third generation stars (PopII, PopI) would be ‘contaminated’ with small amts of these heavier elements. If so, then the ‘first’ formed stars would only contain the original 3 elements. Although searched for, only PopI and PopII stars have been found.
So, physicists and astronomers are now realizing that the big bang model isn’t a realistic explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004, issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by scientists who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big-bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:
“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”
ian cairns says:
July 9, 2012 at 8:32 pm
The big bang has been shown to be impossible, so those who hold to that failed theory are using the wrong foundation to explain anything to do with the sun
First, the Big Bang is spectacularly verified by the cosmic microwave background and the correct prediction of helium and deuterium content.
Second, the issues with the sun do not depend on the Big Bang.
As to the missing antimatter: it is not missing at all. In the Big Bang almost equal amounts of matter and antimatter were produced. The matter and antimatter annihilated each other generating gamma rays and neutrinos. There is a small difference between the two amounts created: one in a billion more matter was made. So that is why we are still here. All the gamma rays [and neutrinos] are still here. Because of the expansion of space [which we observe directly] the gamma rays have their wavelengths stretched and are now observed as microwaves. On monopoles: it is only necessary that there be one [uno, 1] in all of the Universe, no wonder it has not been found. On pop III stars: they are not observed because they probably no longer exist: http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/rbc/a534/redman.pdf
No, every atom in my body was in a star once because a star is a plasma z-pinch and z-pinches just happen to pull in surrounding plasma and compress it. When a plasma instability, or short as you like to term it, occurs the double layer formed in the plasma can explode and said compressed plasma can be ejected as what we term matter, or in severe electrical stress overload what you term a supernova.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/21/new-ideas-for-new-stars-2/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/28/crumpled-space-and-canceled-time-2/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/06/19/stars-that-will-not-explode/
You say its from compression and heat, I say its from the very thing that all stars are made of, Plasma, and the fact that all laboratory experiments with plasma verify every observable aspect of the filamentary aspect of the universe and the electric currents passing through them with its attendant magnetic fields. By the way, just how does the sun and earth produce a magnetic field from their cores when it is so dang hot in there?
http://www.mceproducts.com/knowledge-base/article/article-dtl.asp?id=23
4%??? Oh that’s right, you do need what 73% Dark Energy and another 23% Dark Matter to make your theory work. So much fairey dust you need to put in just the right places to make that thing work right.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/davesmith_au08/021108_hot_gas.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/davesmith_au08/022708_neverending.htm
You have already discovered this DM and DE a hundred years ago, it is called electrical currents in plasma, which contrary to you does indeed make up 99% of the known universe.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/99.999%25_plasma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:02 pm
No, every atom in my body was in a star once because a star is a plasma z-pinch and z-pinches just happen to pull in surrounding plasma and compress it. When a plasma instability, or short as you like to term it, occurs the double layer formed in the plasma can explode and said compressed plasma can be ejected as what we term matter, or in severe electrical stress overload what you term a supernova.
I think you live in your own private Universe [or perhaps it is Thornhill’s]
By the way, just how does the sun and earth produce a magnetic field from their cores when it is so dang hot in there?
1: the magnetic field is not produced in the solar core, but much further out [where it is still dang-hot].
2: any conductor moving through an existing magnetic field creates an electric current which amplifies the magnetic field. It is called a dynamo.
The hot conditions are required to [for the sun] create the conducting plasma in the first place, and to [for the earth] have a liquid core, so the conductor [iron in this case] can circulate.
Now, let us return to this [which you have ducked and evaded]
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars
None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how.
Here is your chance to be brilliant, go for it.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:02 pm
No, every atom in my body was in a star once because a star is a plasma z-pinch
This could be quite entertaining were it not for the sad fact that people like you exist [let’s call them population IV people]. Humanity’s greatest feat is modern science and the modern understanding of the Universe. You are willfully putting yourself outside of that magnificent achievement.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:22 pm
plasma, which contrary to you does indeed make up 99% of the known universe.
What a delightful little word ‘known’ universe. What is meant is 99% of the baryons in the visible universe, quite another matter. In your last link it says: “In the universe, plasma is the most common state of matter for ordinary matter”. now, clicking on ‘ordinary matter’ gets us to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonic_matter#Baryonic_matter so plasma makes up [according to you] 99% of baryonic matter, which in turn makes up 4.4% of the mass-energy in the Universe. A fraction very well-determined by modern precision-cosmology.
Leif, it’s been a great learning experience reading your explanations. Hats of to you and thanks for the free classes.
There are several magnificant discoveries that were made based on astute calculations that “it” should be there, we just have to find it. For example, several discoveries that added to the chemical table of elements were first theorized to be in existance before they were actually “observed”. There is no magic behind extrapolating that something exists based on the trail it leaves behind. That’s just good science.
Where scientists (card carrying and arm-chair varieties) get into trouble is when they use too many fudge factors in their zeal to prove their theory.
We are still waiting with bated breath:
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars
None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how.
Here is your chance to be brilliant, go for it.
I would say that if you don’t or can’t, the discussion is brought to a deserved end.
How many papers do you need? The cite is full of published papers, textbook references and actual experiments.
“Lief: 1: the magnetic field is not produced in the solar core, but much further out [where it is still dang-hot].”
So the sun produces magnetic fields unlike every other known magnet? Even the surface of the sun is too hot for any magnet to form without continuous regeneration. And please explain to me what creates this magnetic field, because we both know magnetic fields only form from electric currents. And please since you want numbers show me this paper where it is deduced that the magnetic field forms outside the sun or earth?????????
“2: any conductor moving through an existing magnetic field creates an electric current which amplifies the magnetic field. It is called a dynamo.”
And this magnetic field is formed how? Do we need to paste the explanation of how magnetic fields are formed? An electric current forms which creates the magnetic field which then confines the electrical fild into filaments or Birkeland Currents. Without an electric current first forming you have no magnetic field.
2: any conductor moving through an existing magnetic field creates an electric current which amplifies the magnetic field. It is called a dynamo.”
And by the way you are only proving my point. An electric universe.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:54 pm
So the sun produces magnetic fields unlike every other known magnet? Even the surface of the sun is too hot for any magnet to form without continuous regeneration.
The sun is not a magnet in your sense of ‘known magnet’. You apparently only know about magnets that a sitting on your refrigerator door. Those do indeed loose the magnetism if heating above 730 degrees, but that is because the heat randomize the individual little ‘domains’ Now, you may know about an electromagnet where the magnetic field is generated by a current through a coiled wire. That type of magnet works no matter how hot the wire is. The sun is like that.
And please explain to me what creates this magnetic field, because we both know magnetic fields only form from electric currents.
Not quite correct as we saw with the Biermann battery effect, but apart from that creation of the very first magnetic fields, magnetic fields are generated by currents that in turn are generated by moving conductors [e.g. plasma or liquid iron in case of the earth] through a magnetic field. No magnetic field, no current
And please since you want numbers show me this paper where it is deduced that the magnetic field forms outside the sun or earth?????????
Indeed the ????s are needed. First because you were requested to produce numbers [should be easy as EU explains everything], second we are talking about magnetic fields generated inside the sun and the earth. Perhaps you are thinking of the magnetic field in the solar wind? That is another story.
“2: any conductor moving through an existing magnetic field creates an electric current which amplifies the magnetic field. It is called a dynamo.”
And this magnetic field is formed how?
The magnetic field was there already to begin with all the way back to almost the beginning of time, except for the very first magnetic fields, that were likely formed [as I have explained] by the Biermann battery effect [see link somewhere upthread]. Here it is important to know that from when the Universe was 377,000 years old there was no plasma in space until several hundred million years later when the gas was ionized by UV light from the first stars.