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
As for solar energy NASA knows quite well how much charge exists in space,
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690022628_1969022628.pdf
The solar wind is still accelerating out to the orbit of Jupiter traveling at 400 km/s and still accelerating. Your fastest comet (no known subatomic particles do so) accelerates towards the sun at 444 km/s from beyond the orbit of Jupiter and then slows as it moves away from the sun. Now suddenly, you want gravity to accelerate particles away from the sun, which is against all direct observational results of the gravitational force. Face it, you have no explanation for the solar wind because it is an EM caused event, as if electricity only occurs here on earth, but never anywhere else. You are so indoctrinated you ignore more reasonable explanations and instead doggedly stick to theory that is contradicted with each new observation and always surprises the astronomers and theorists and it is back to the drawing board to see how we can use DM to explain it all. Superglue the theory to make it stand another day. Yet every new discovery only strengthens the EU cosmology and we have 100 years of errors to correct. Could take awhile.
Oh by the way, over coronal holes the solar wind gets up to 800km/s, just in case you want to retract your wrong statement above. The general averaged flow of the solar wind is 400 km/s.
Here is your electrical connection you cant seem to grasp:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2000/38/image/a/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/08/joves-glowing-mantle/
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 1:44 pm
As for solar energy NASA knows quite well how much charge exists in space
that charge does not exist is space, but is created on the spacecraft when in sunlight by the same process a solar cell uses and by being hit by the solar wind. In the report you link to NASA also informs us [page 1] that a plasma has an equal amount of positive and negative charges…
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 1:59 pm
The solar wind is still accelerating out to the orbit of Jupiter traveling at 400 km/s and still accelerating.
You forget that Parker predicted the solar wind and its acceleration back in the 1950s. Go back and read the comment by Dennis Wingo.
Let us concentrate on one simple question: the generation of solar energy. This would also get us back closer to the topic of this post. So, show us a calculation of the solar output [in Watt] from EU.
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Here is your electrical connection you cant seem to grasp
and here is explanation how that works http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf given by me at a NASA conference back in 1973.
Leif Svalgaard:
Thank you for the triple alpha reaction and explanation above.
If not here, where is the most appropriate site/discussion group to ask (highly technical) questions about the required fusion and fusion-supernova-fusion-supernova chains for the creation of the other isotopes….. Or at least the 25/50/100 most common ones we see in our solar system today?
(I would obviously assume the level of such a fusion event/binding energy/probability/resonance level discussion would have to be at the physics graduate level or above to be thorough.) .
It appears to me that there simply isn’t enough time between the assumed Big Bang at 13.5 billion years ago to the isolation of the solar system dust cloud at 8 billion years ago for all of the reactions needed by the conventional theory to take place — unless one rewrites the observed “rules” of current stellar life so supernova’s are occurring much more than once per second in a slowly expanding but very compact universe where dust actually only needs to travel a few light minutes between short-lived supernova’s before being absorbed into the next supernova pre-cursor cloud.
If so, we are either in a continuous-creation environment (of “new” particles coming out of the black holes in mid-space continuously from Hawking’s Radiation of entropy/fully-developed heavy particles from the black holes), or the Big Bang was considerably older than assumed now, or the Big Bang cycle of isolated fusion events did not take place.
Until you correct your faulty thinking about field lines existing as physical entities, its useless. Magnetic field lines no more exist than go geographic field lines, electrical path field lines, gravitational field lines. You would never say the gravitational field line, but the gravitational force, nor electric field line but electric field. Then suddenly, because you want to omit the electrical force, the cause of all magnetic fields, you talk only of magnetic field lines, not magnetic fields as exist for every known field.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/080919_cluster.htm
“”Magnetic reconnection” deals with the apparent topology changes of magnetic field lines (a visualization tool denoting the direction and strength of a magnetic field). Astronomers claim that magnetic fields themselves play the dominant role in physical interactions and in the release of associated energetic outbursts of x-rays, etc. However, they appear to forget that the strength of a magnetic field (and thus the topology of its field lines) is directly dependent upon the strength of the electric current generating it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet
“Fields of a magnet
Far away from a magnet, the magnetic field created by that magnet is almost always described (to a good approximation) by a dipole field characterized by its total magnetic moment. This is true regardless of the shape of the magnet, so long as the magnetic moment is non-zero. One characteristic of a dipole field is that the strength of the field falls off inversely with the cube of the distance from the magnet’s center.
Closer to the magnet, the magnetic field becomes more complicated and more dependent on the detailed shape and magnetization of the magnet. Formally, the field can be expressed as a multipole expansion: A dipole field, plus a quadrupole field, plus an octupole field, etc.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
“A magnetic dipole is a closed circulation of electric current. A simple example of this is a single loop of wire with some constant current flowing through it.”
Without flowing electric current you can produce no magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
“Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin. In special relativity, electric and magnetic fields are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic tensor; the split of this tensor into electric and magnetic fields depends on the relative velocity of the observer and charge. In quantum physics, the electromagnetic field is quantized and electromagnetic interactions result from the exchange of photons.”
Your whole physics is based upon electric charges, yet suddenly magnetic field lines are the cause of power outbursts, not the electric current that is the true cause of both the outburst AND the magnetic field. Physics tells you one thing and then you redefine it to suit your theory, even though your own theory says it is the other way around…
@Steven
Your problem is that you don’t read what you’re posting. Do you know what a ‘tensor’ is? Electricity and magnetism are two-sides of the same coin. Here’s what you quoted above:
“In special relativity, electric and magnetic fields are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic tensor; the split of this tensor into electric and magnetic fields depends on the relative velocity of the observer and charge. ”
Also, I can’t believe you spout all this knowledge, but don’t seem to understand even what E=mc² means.
I’m beginning to think you’re just trolling us for fun. (But it’s not working because most of us enjoy reading and learning from Leif’s riposts anyway)
😐
@vukcevic says:
July 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm : Awesome! Thanks Vuk.
As I said before, if you push too hard, some double layers will burst out….
I know exactly what a tensor is, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor
“Significance
This equation represents a unification of Maxwell’s equations. Electrostatics and electrodynamics”
“Magnetostatics and magnetodynamics
The same happens for magnetism. (Gauss’s law for magnetism and Maxwell–Faraday equation)”
“Maxwell’s laws above can be generalised to curved spacetime by simply replacing partial derivatives with covariant derivatives:”
Relativity is but a generalization of the equations derived from the electric force. So learn what your theory really boils down to. ELECTRICAL FORCES!
Thanks Steven and others for bringing some open-mindedness. Leif, I am surprised by several of the things you wrote in your rapid-fire entanglements. And you are telling other people they are 10 years behind.
Something Leif you were not challenged on (there are so many I can’t take the time to tackle all Standard Model shibboleths) is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation you asserted so confidently was living proof of the validity of the Standard Model. Surely it has been 10 years now since it was shown that the distribution of CBR is completely wrong for the Standard Model. It was ‘predicted’ yes, and they ‘found something’ and it is distributed wrongly You left out that last bit. So, is that a valid prediction or are you just leaving in the bits you like and leaving out the inconvenient truths? Good heavens. Steven sounds much more up to date.
And the Neutrinos a converting faster than the tribes of Africa. It is bunk, Leif. We read the papers too, but we are not clinging to any one particular model. Unlax a bit! Crikey. There are only 1/3 of the neutrinos that there should be. That is not 10 years behind, that was just extremely inconvenient 10 years ago and remains so in spite of a fishy experiment extrapolated to an outrageous (desperately needed) conclusio – that in certain convenient cases neutrinos change flavour just enough to support the model but not at other times and under other conditions where the changes are needed not to happen. That hand is indeed faster than the eye I guess.
Observations now suggest that there is only about 1/3 of the necessary/needed fusion taking place to explain the sun’s output. There must be some fusion – detectable from the number of neutrinos of course. There is not enough convection by the conventional explanation to generate the magnetic fields observed which fields you handily needed as a possible explanation for the acceleration of the solar particles and heating of the corona. Well, you are relying on a magnetic field that can’t exist to explain something that does, driven by nuclear reactions so weak only 1/3 of the required neutrinos emerge. The Standard Solar Model is starting to look more than a little Heath-Robinson-esque, no?
And then there is the Lithium problem, the age of the universe, self-accelerating matter that needs no energy to do so, stars older than the universe, that 400,000 miles Voyager is off-course. It is a standard model, but it is still of a low standard. The direct challenge posed by the article above is a robust one.
Further, that stuff about electric currents! Crikey again! Heat an iron wire – it gives off electrons. No magnetic field required. As soon as the electrons move (by definition, an electric current) a magnetic field is created. A current is not the consequence, it is the progenitor, after which complex continuances can occur.
When the reality of the fact sinks in that the convection is 2 orders of magnitude too small to generate the magnetic fields observed, perhaps a little more attention will be paid to the Earth and its magnetic oscillations.
Shall we next discuss what an energy momentum tensor is? How in your derivation for black holes you set the energy momentum tensor to 0, which means there is no other mass in the universe but the black hole? And that no solution exists for the fact of two or more masses? Oh, you must have forgot to mention that while you were discussing black holes. Not to mention that you call it Swartzchild’s solution when in fact you use a corrupted version by David Hilbert in its place. Because the original solution forbids any other mass but that of the black hole for the equation to work. So yes, let us discuss tensors.
No, relativity combines them into one force because where you have electricity a magnetic field will form. But a magnetic field will never form without an electrical current present. This is what you are failing to understand, or willfully ignoring. It is not opinion, it is demonstrated laboratory result. The very fact that Maxwell’s equations (equations on the electric force) can be generalized (dumbed down) to fit curved space time should give you some clue. General Relativity is not precise enough to fit Maxwell’s equations. Just as you claim it is not as precise as Special Relativity, and Special Relativity describes space time, which in order to fit, Maxwell’s equations must be generalized or made less precise. Ignore the electrical force if you want, but even Einstein was smart enough to base all his equations on it.
@Steven
> So yes, let us discuss tensors.
Apparently you don’t know what the electro-magnetic tensor is. If you did then you would know that it permits a magnetic force observed in one frame of reference to be observed as an electric force in another depending on the relative motion between the two frames. Thus demolishing your ‘electricity is always on top’ theory.
But that doesn’t really make any difference because it is now clear that you’re a troll, trying to get under everyones’ skin. You’ve succeeded.
I think the discussion is finished.
Steven, regarding refrigerator magnets: Is that a “real” magnetic field, or something else? I don’t understand what the source of electricity is, that apparently creates the magnetic field as you have been describing. Fridge magnets are not plugged into the wall. There is no battery required. They are simply stuck to my refrigerator, without any apparent charging mechanism. What drives the electric currents that causes the magnetic force in that case?
That is because if you understood relativity you would know that one cannot observe the same frame from different vantage points in the same frame of time. Only from first observing the electric frame and then switching to the magnetic frame, after the electric frame has had time to move (its relative motion between the two frames, can you observe the magnetic frame. Please show me where the reverse is true?
Crispin in Waterloo says:
July 10, 2012 at 7:09 pm
With apology to readers who have already seen and absorbed my comments below. But some people will just not learn:
And you are telling other people they are 10 years behind.
and I’ll tell you too.
CBR is completely wrong for the Standard Model.
Again you are many years behind. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with the CBR as seen from the Standard Model. On the contrary, the various bumps and irregularities are well-understood [and predicted too]. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
There are only 1/3 of the neutrinos that there should be.
Again, 10 years behind, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
When the reality of the fact sinks in that the convection is 2 orders of magnitude too small to generate the magnetic fields observed, perhaps a little more attention will be paid to the Earth and its magnetic oscillations.
No, it just means that the dynamo is shallow, rather than deep, which I have supported for some time: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Percolation.pdf or http://www.leif.org/EOS/20111212_NSO-Hathaway.pdf
John Day says:
July 10, 2012 at 5:13 pm
I’m beginning to think you’re just trolling us for fun. (But it’s not working because most of us enjoy reading and learning from Leif’s riposts anyway)
Unfortunately, I don’t think so. Steven simply does not know enough other than what he can cut-n-paste from the EU web pages, and probably deeply believes that nonsense [which indeed is sad, but symptomatic of the generally low level of science literacy found in America today].
What Steven does not understand is that you need a magnetic field to separately charges to create an electric field that can drive a current [which gives rise to the problem where the first magnetic field came from – addressed by the Biermann Battery Effect]. It is also of note that he completely ignores the challenge of calculating even a single number from EU ‘theory’. Likely because EU has never been able to do that, so Steven cannot find something to cut-n-paste.
It is ,of course, impossible to teach him [and similarly off-the-rail people] anything, to wit this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations_in_curved_spacetime
“In physics, Maxwell’s equations in curved spacetime govern the dynamics of the electromagnetic field in curved spacetime (where the metric may not be the Minkowski metric) or where one uses an arbitrary (not necessarily Cartesian) coordinate system. These equations can be viewed as a generalization of the vacuum Maxwell’s equations which are normally formulated in the local coordinates of flat spacetime. But because general relativity dictates that the presence of electromagnetic fields (or energy/matter in general) induce curvature in spacetime,[1] Maxwell’s equations in flat spacetime should be viewed as a convenient approximation.
When working in the presence of bulk matter, it is preferable to distinguish between free and bound electric charges. Without that distinction, the vacuum Maxwell’s equations are called the “microscopic” Maxwell’s equations. When the distinction is made, they are called the macroscopic Maxwell’s equations.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the four dimensional form of electromagnetism in flat space-time and basic mathematics of curved spacetime.
The electromagnetic field also admits a coordinate-independent geometric description, and Maxwell’s equations expressed in terms of these geometric objects are the same in any spacetime, curved or not. Also, the same modifications are made to the equations of flat Minkowski space when using local coordinates that are not Cartesian. For example, the equations in this article can be used to write Maxwell’s equations in spherical coordinates. For these reasons, it may be useful to think of Maxwell’s equations in Minkowski space as a special case, rather than Maxwell’s equations in curved spacetimes as a generalization.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariant_formulation_of_classical_electromagnetism
“Lorentz force
Main article: Lorentz force
Fields are detected by their effect on the motion of matter. Electromagnetic fields affect the motion of particles through the Lorentz force. Using the Lorentz force, Newton’s law of motion for the particle can be written in relativistic form using the field strength tensor”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
“In physics, particularly electromagnetism, the Lorentz force is the force on a point charge due to electromagnetic fields.
The first derivation of the Lorentz force is commonly attributed to Oliver Heaviside in 1889,[1] although other historians suggest an earlier origin in an 1865 paper by James Clerk Maxwell.[2] Lorentz derived it a few years after Heaviside.”
“One charged particle
The force F acting on a particle of electric charge q with instantaneous velocity v, due to an external electric field E and magnetic field B, is given by:”
All the laws of physics boils down to the electric charge. Open your eyes please so that science can advance.
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 8:49 pm
All the laws of physics boils down to the electric charge. Open your eyes please so that science can advance.
A misconception worthy of Vuk. There are other forces, not involving electric force: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak force, …
REPLY: I agree, the farce is strong with this one. Steven should take a 48 hour time out to learn some basics of the physical forces – Anthony
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 8:27 pm
That is because if you understood relativity you would know that one cannot observe the same frame from different vantage points in the same frame of time….
As my good friend, the late Hannes Alfven was at pains to point out: “talking about an electric field without specifying a reference frame is meaningless. If there is an electric field in one frame, you can always find another frame where that field vanishes”. Magnetic fields on the other hand are the same in all frames [to first order]. A good example is the solar wind: there is no electric field in the frame of the moving plasma, but seen by the stationary Earth the solar wind has an electric field given by the cross-product of its velocity and its magnetic field. The magnetic field in the solar wind is, however, the same in both frames and does not vanish.
A misconception worthy of Vuk.
Misconception of an apparent ‘misconception’. Earth’s magnetic field is by far too week to do anything by itself, it is a perceptible rumble of the geo-tectonic engine, but it is an excellent proxy with lots of data. It is the engine that moves things not its noise.
Wow I never thought I would see WUWT squash a debate in favor of settled science and consensus. Dark Matter is GIGO to make a theory work, there are quite a few of us who think so. Big bang is a relatively new theory which cannot be proven without the fudge factor like “the gamma rays have their wavelengths stretched and are now observed as microwaves…. Well wouldn’t that disprove the constant of the speed of light ultimately?? and no one ever explains how that black hole, supposed to be sucking everything in, creates and releases gamma rays from solid matter, much like a recycle plant.
Shame on you Anthony. I suppose if Lief says the world is flat we should just believe whatever he says huh? Settled science is the death of real science. How many times have we all heard the consensus about what is, only to find out ooops we were wrong when actual observations were made. Every time we send out a long range space craft bits of “accepted theory” fall. It is a sad day when WUWT won’t host an honest debate.
REPLY: Be as upset as you wish, but the discussion has gone off topic and I want to get back to the convection issue. – Anthony