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.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:56 pm
And by the way you are only proving my point. An electric universe.
There is an important difference: in a plasma a magnetic field lives ‘forever’. An electric field is instantly shorted out because [as you realized] the plasma is a ‘perfect transmitter of electric current’. So there are no electric fields if you are moving with the plasma [as the plasma itself is]. All this is elementary and known to every plasma physicist on this planet [and beyond if there be any].
Now get back to your task:
“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.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:54 pm
An electric current forms which creates the magnetic field
How do you create an electric current in neutral medium consisting of oppositely electrically charged particles? And more importantly, since a current moves charges from one place where there are too many to another place where there are too few, thus very efficiently equalizing the charges, how do you maintain the current? materializing new charges out of whole cloth?
GOING TO EARTH’S CORE FOR CLIMATE INSIGHTS by JPL/NASA
Steven Mosher says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm
….
Magnetic momentum of charged particles (electrons and protons) is well documented and used in magnetic resonance scanners.
If you are referring to my posts for using the Earth’s magnetic field change as a proxy for global temperature changes I wrote in 2009 about
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
and soon after showing strong correlation between Arctic temperature and average of the magnetic field in the area
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
here is quote from top NASA’ s scientist year or two later :
So what mechanism is driving these correlations? Dickey said scientists aren’t sure yet, but she offered some hypotheses.
Since scientists know air temperature can’t affect movements of Earth’s core or Earth’s length of day to the extent observed, one possibility is the movements of Earth’s core might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
Of a particular note
Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-earth-core-climate-insights.html
I was told only the other day I should be ashamed bysuggesting the same.
Science is not advanced by throwing mud covered boomerangs that consistently miss the target.
And it is the slow lifting of that acceleration with distance that produces the De Laval effect.
Leif, perhaps a little help here…
In the propulsion world these are called gravity losses. As you move out from the center of a gravity well, the attraction of gravity decreases, no one argues with this premise.
Look up the rocket equation and solve for the gravity loss. You will find that the further you get away from the center of the gravity well, the higher the velocity increment for the same input of acceleration.
Leif, as for my question, let me put it another way. If the convective zone starts at a farther distance from the center of the sun than current theory allows for, what does that say about the volume of the radiative zone, which then by definition has to be larger in diameter than what we think of today.
denniswingo says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Leif, as for my question, let me put it another way. If the convective zone starts at a farther distance from the center of the sun than current theory allows for, what does that say about the volume of the radiative zone, which then by definition has to be larger in diameter than what we think of today.
The position of the convective zone is not determined by theory, but by observation of an abrupt change in the sound speed at a certain radius. The observations reported in the paper do not change the well-constrained location of the bottom of the convection zone, but have to do with the absence of large-scale structures within the convection zone.
I found myself pondering the sun, trying to understand how the lightest elements known to us could be gathered together in one place, in such quantity and under such pressure that it could spontaneously fuse and burn for billions of years. Which came first the sun or the black hole?
Dave
in sacramento
[SNIP: Stop the sniveling. Discuss this off-line with Anthony or you’re done here. -REP]
vukcevic says:
July 9, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
I was told only the other day I should be ashamed by suggesting the same.
She mentions it as a possibility [and I would say a very remote one]. You claim it as a discovery that should make other researchers sit up and take notice. That is what you should be ashamed of: the constant self-promotion on the flimsiest grounds. And you didn’t actually suggest the same. You claimed that the sun’s magnetic field changes the core, which in turns changes the climate. Dickey may be thinking of tides instead. you could try to ask her if changes the interplanetary magnetic field induce changes in the core.
Dave Trimble says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:29 pm
I found myself pondering the sun, trying to understand how the lightest elements known to us could be gathered together in one place, in such quantity and under such pressure that it could spontaneously fuse and burn for billions of years. Which came first the sun or the black hole?
There is no black hole in our solar system. And gravity [assisted by shock waves from supernovae] is what pulls interstellar gas together and creates the tremendous pressure and temperatures needed to ignite fusion. The fusion process is actually very gentle. The heat generation is so gentle that it would take several weeks to bring a kettle of water to a boil [assuming the kettle is not vaporized, etc]. No exploding hydrogen bombs at work.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:48 pm
L.S: She mentions it as a possibility [and I would say a very remote one]. You claim it as a discovery that should make other researchers sit up and take notice. That is what you should be ashamed of: the constant self-promotion on the flimsiest grounds.
And still can’t help yourself misinterpreting what you said and what I said, see quotes below
A reminder:
Vukcevic:
– the sun controls the Earth or
– the sun and the Earth are controlled by another unknown cause. .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/doppler-radar-for-solar-storm-detection/#comment-1025231
L.S. : Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.
L.S.:What you peddle is not science. Not this time, not last time, nor the time before last, etc.
L.S.:None of this even comes close to your ideas.
You should be ashamed of yourself trying to put these good folks in your box. .
etc. etc.
and thousands more of the kind:
Tut, I have said a thousand dreadful things
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.
to paraphrase Shakespeare
Insults I do not mind, since what I do is based on the solid data.
It is sad to see insults relentlessly coming from someone whose past achievements in solar science I greatly respect and admire.
Time to stop throwing mud covered boomerangs that consistently miss the target.
I shall never return in kind.
Anthony’s the one snivelling – I was insulted on line and in the open – this is where it should be discussed and all my exchanges on it have been censored making it appear that I am in the wrong.
I call BS on that. As Anthony likes to say..
Steven Mosher says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm
……….
My posts by some are considered to be too tedious. To some regretfully even worse, ‘nonsense that brakes laws of physics’, but now apparently accepted to be based ‘on the flimsiest grounds’.
I consider that as a great advance.
Self promotion?
Not self, but of an idea that you yourself Steven Mosher called ‘lone voice in wilderness’ (I like that) but as you can see not lone any more, the mighty NASA is turning to it.
It is a ‘micro-attempt’ to the alternative ‘Mega CO2 science’.
Not a professional scientists, but even if I were, still there are no outlets for wider audience opened to people who do a bit of ‘pedestrian but important’ research, so if the WUWT did not exist it should have been invented.
‘Samizdat’ (self publish) eventually brought down mighty Soviet Union Empire, so one day WUWT will be given similar accolade for bringing down phony empire built on the ‘CO2 madness’ that promises nothing more than unemployment in countless millions and return of untold poverty to many in third world countries.
My posts may be tedious, but they are based on the good data.
WUWT has been magnificent conduit for my alternative , my graphs ‘stats counter’ to this date shows 141,297 hits, among them many hundreds from the NASA, important US government departments, dozen or more US universities starting with MIT and many scientific institutions from all around the world.
My thanks to Anthony Watts and the WUWT, the publishing phenomenon of the 21st century, long they may live and flourish.
Nuclear fusion in the sun is just a theory. Dark matter is just a theory. Intelligent life is just a theory – we should sack all the people, hire only lowlifes.
/sarc
Come one people.
Regarding fusion in the sun: There is really strong evidence, as Leif mentioned in passing. We might not have the full picture yet, but fusion is happening.
Regarding dark matter: We know something is there, we know that that something interacts by gravitation with “normal” matter and we know that that something is not normal (“visible” or to be more precise baryonic) matter, but we don’t know (yet) what it actually is – so we call that something “dark matter”, so we can measure its effects and talk about these measurements. It might be some modification of gravity on long scales (which looks doubtful), it might be something we don’t understand yet. But dark matter is there, the measurements show that something is there.
And rainbows. Explain that. You can’t.
SCNR.
Thanks for all the time you take in commenting here, Leif. It’s much appreciated.
What I see above is a bunch of guys who seem to be a bit short of being able to do analysis. You are stubborn about your pet theories and then not being able to examine other data to adjust the theory. We see it in Evolution V Creation, CAGW V normal climate variability, Electric Universe V Gravitational Universe, and numerous other debates.
A theory is only an opinion which is formed from the available data. The theory is a variable, data is a constant. When more data becomes available then the theory will change. You can’t change the data. However one major problem is when data is mixed. Researchers gather data then make the mistake that they are examining data that is related when it may have nothing to do with what they are examining.
Just to give an example of analysis. Take a look at the artists representations of the Sauropods. All these beasts look fairly similar even though they are a different size. When I look at these pictures what comes to my mind is, “Why can’t most of these beasts actually be the same species”. We need to think about this. How many years did it take for a Sauropod to grow from leaving the egg to old age? Why can’t most of these things be the same species at a different age. Baby, teenager, mature and old age. Not all of the fossils found could be old age dinos, surely. My analysis would be that most of those Sauropods are the same species. However that is just a pet theory and would be quite willing to change it.
Proper analysis is really not that difficult. It means not stubbornly holding on to some theory but evolving it as new information comes to hand and that info could come from somebody you don’t particularly like.
Gary Plyler says:
July 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I was going to gripe about that, but figured it would get lost in the noise.
For a velocity V, “100 times slower” means V – 100V = -99V. “Obviously” that wasn’t the intent, but colloquially, “X times faster” negates “X times slower”. No wonder people have trouble with algebra word problems….
One place that I have never, ever seen this sort of misleading comment is in retail stores. I’ll see signs like “Clearance: 80% off” but never “Clearance: 5X lower” or “4X lower”, i.e. going from 20% back to 100% is 4X more (they mean 5X the amount, but say 4X the amount).
Hang on to your wallet.
Actually, the plot is thickening on the existence of dark matter. It being the Solar Standard Model’s ‘fudge factor’ to account for the expansion of the Universe and the speed of outlying stars of Galaxies which the SSM cannot do without this fudge factor is waning. The hunt for Dark Matter is starting to yield results. Dr. Dobler presents at KITP this free ‘black board’ lecture on the state of the art of the hunt for Dark Matter. The Quicktime one works best for me. Dismissing dark matter with an arm wave is no longer legitimate.
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/friends/dobler/
Myrrh says:
July 10, 2012 at 1:28 am
> Anthony’s the one snivelling – I was insulted on line and in the open .
I missed it, I’ll go back and check. Don’t take it personally – from my point of view, some anonymous coward was insulted. There are some valid reasons to be an anonymous coward, but it seems to me that one benefit is that only your persona, not you, gets insulted.
Of course, if you don’t like how Anthony runs his blog, you can just go start your own.
vukcevic says:
July 10, 2012 at 12:33 am
Insults I do not mind, since what I do is based on the solid data.
It is sad to see insults relentlessly coming from someone whose past achievements in solar science I greatly respect and admire.
Regardless of solid data and your admiration, you have to realise that you open yourself up for criticism by relentless pursuit of ideas that are not tenable or of the ‘not even wrong’ kind. You may find it insulting to be called out on that, but that does not change the fact that they are not science, are not pursued according to any resemblance of the scientific method, and are diminishing this forum.
Ric Werme says:
July 10, 2012 at 5:52 am
For a velocity V, “100 times slower” means V – 100V = -99V.
Obviously it means that V/100 is a 100 times slower than V.
@Vukcevic: Solar science is fine but more investigation of our own planet is needed too.
It seems to me that “sprites” and “elves” are the earthly version of such a plasma “convection”:
http://www.google.com.pe/search?q=sprites+elves&hl=es&biw=1270&bih=590&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Dyn8T8PINofd6wHqm83qBg&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QsAQ
More on 100X faster.
Perhaps the thing to ask math-challenged folks who use the form is “What’s the difference between 2X faster and 200% faster?” If they insist that 200% faster is twice as fast, then ask “What does 20% faster mean?”
Heck, ask people who aren’t math-challenged….
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 10, 2012 at 6:08 am
> Ric Werme says:
> July 10, 2012 at 5:52 am
>> For a velocity V, “100 times slower” means V – 100V = -99V.
> Obviously it means that V/100 is a 100 times slower than V.
“Obviously.” It’s just the pedant in me that balks at seeing “times” meaning “division”. “99% slower” works for this pedant and it sounds better than “one hundredth the velocity” or “0.99 times slower” which would just confuse everyone.
If it were only 2X slower, I could call it Orwellian doublespeak. 🙂
“Thanks for all the time you take in commenting here, Leif. It’s much appreciated.”
I heartily second this statement. Your comments are the main reason I read the solar posts.