You’d think the science on the Van Allen Radiation belts was long ago considered “settled science”. Nope. And yet, while we discover new things like this, some insist we fully understand all aspects of the workings of Earth’s climate.
Instruments detect never-before-seen phenomenon in Earth’s Magnetosphere
The belts are a pair of donut shaped zones of charged particles that surround Earth and occupy the inner region of our planet’s Magnetosphere.
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., March 1, 2013—U.S. researchers, including a trio from Los Alamos National Laboratory, have witnessed the mysterious appearance of a relatively long-lived zone of high-energy electrons stored between Earth’s Van Allen radiation belts.
The surprising findings, discovered by NASA’s Van Allen Probes (formerly known as the Radiation Belt Storm Probes), were outlined Thursday in Science Express and during a press conference at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. The research was led by Dan Baker of the University of Colorado, Boulder, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics.
“Nature keeps on surprising us by producing long-lived harsh environments in space in regions not previously considered,” said Los Alamos plasma physicist Reiner Friedel of LANL’s Intelligence and Space Research Division. “This finding may impact the planning of future space missions.”
The Van Allen radiation belts — named in honor James Van Allen, who discovered them nearly 50 years ago — are a pair of donut shaped zones of charged particles that surround Earth and occupy the inner region of our planet’s Magnetosphere. The outer belt contains extremely high-energy electrons, while the inner belt is comprised of energetic protons and electrons. The belts have been studied extensively since the dawn of the Space Age, because the high-energy particles in the outer ring can cripple or disrupt spacecraft. Long-term observation of the belts have hinted that the belts can act as efficient and powerful particle accelerators; the recent observations by the Van Allen Probes—a pair of spacecraft launched in August 2012—now seem to confirm this.
Shortly after launch, the spacecraft activated their Relativistic Electron-Proton Telescope (REPT) instruments to measure particles within the belts and their immediate environs. The instrument immediately detected on September 1, 2012, the presence of a stable zone of high-energy electrons residing between the belts. This donut-shaped third ring nestled between the belts existed for nearly a month before being obliterated by a powerful shockwave of particles emanating from center of the solar system.
Such a distinct, long-lasting ring of high-energy electrons had never before been seen by any prior instrument in space or on Earth. The findings suggest that the Van Allen Belts somehow capture and store energetic electrons in a circular path around our home planet, perhaps in much the same way as a cyclotron can capture and store charged particles here on Earth.
“One of the main reasons the Van Allen Probe instruments are seeing these new features are their unprecedented sensitivity and rejection of backgrounds,” Friedel said. “As the mission proceeds, we expect further surprises that will challenge our conventional wisdom on the transport, loss and energization processes in these highly energetic electron radiation regions.”
In addition to Friedel, Los Alamos research team members include Geoffrey D. Reeves and Michael G. Henderson. The research team is also represented by the Goddard Space Flight Center, University of New Hampshire, The Southwest Research Institute, Dartmouth College, the University of California—Los Angeles, University of Iowa, and The Aerospace Corporation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
mods, please delete previous comment, the edit appears to be garbled.
frank says:
March 4, 2013 at 3:25 pm
as goes the universe being full of plasma …
US Navy Labs creates Plasma in the upper Atmosphere
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/2272013-us-navy-labs-create-plasma-rings-using-haarp-hf-radar-frequency/
Thanks Frank saved me having to go and re find it:-)
so I wonder what effect that had on the area up there?
conveniently not mentioned by the ones doing it on taxpayers dollars:-)
if you stop calling them chemtrails and start calling it weather mod or geoengineering, does that make it any better?
thing is they admit to doing it- there are documented admissions
congress etc allowed it way back when and its ongoing
another Bgates project for fun n profit n fame.
and when it goes pearshaped causes more harm than good globally.who? will stand up and take the rap?
ya reckon either of those palyarounds may not be affecting atmospherics?
So we have a magnetosphere created capacitor surrounding Earth, subject to unknow charge-discharge mechanisms and releasing massive amounts of charged particles. Charged particles trigger nuclear decay, producing heat, elemental atoms and charged particles. What if some of these charged particles controlled Earth’s magnetosphere ?
It would be nice to discuss the mystery of the magnetopshere. The Wiki based Marvin Herndon “Nuclear Planet” hypothesis seems unlikely. Per http://news.illinios.edu/news/08/0310core.html we have at the Earth’s core a 900 mile cubic Iron crystal core which is a de facto permanent magnet. This core is known to rotate faster than the crust, making an extra rotation every approximate 400 days. A rotating magnet creates electric fields and electric fields create magnetism. The core axis most likely does not rotate consistantly with the Earth’s axis, explaining the magnetic pole wobble. If there is a differential spin rate, this would cause the varying field strength measurements and possibly, reverse rotation would cause the pole shifts.
One hypothesis on these mysteries is offered in “No Loophole for Your Soul” and expanded in “Unified Earth Science Theory”, both in archives at Canada Free Press. The big advantate to the Watts Web College is that multi-disciplinary science can offer insights, along with errors, that can promote a useable basis for the emerging Truth. The only consensus that matters is what is eventually emperically proven. But solving “mysteries” requires thinking out of the “known” box. Thanks all !
tallbloke says:
March 5, 2013 at 12:13 am
So let me see if I have this right. We have NASA’s new belt of highly charged electrons, and the long known about ring current, whose energy is mostly carried by protons and positively charged ions. They don’t short out double quick because they are within Earth’s plasmasphere, which consists of ‘double layers’ which maintain charge separation via ‘frozen in’ magnetic fields. But current flows from charge difference when there is a ‘disturbance in the force’ and the ring current is much stronger on the day side of Earth.
Almost every statement here is wrong. You could benefit from my description of how it works here: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf Although 40 years old, my accessible explanation is very close to our modern understanding.
tallbloke says:
March 5, 2013 at 12:30 am
And the blogs have been infiltrated by ‘scientists’ who do the same thing by trying to convince the majority that those with alternative explanations are peddling “wrong ideas, bad science, superstition, ignorance, blatant nonsense, etc.”
Perhaps it is just better to let the blog inmates run the asylum as they are beyond salvation anyway. ‘Alternative explanations’ put forward by science-challenged pseudo-scientists are indeed nonsense.
keith says:
March 5, 2013 at 1:08 am
IS (as far as I am aware) NOT TRUE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
“Definition of a plasma: Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero).”
I believe that Hannes Alfen used his Nobel prize winning speech to retract his earlier statements
He did not. What he did was to warn against misuse of concepts when used too literally, such as in EU. For example, almost everything of interest happens when the MagnetoHydroDynamic approximation [which was Alfven’s contribution to science] breaks down in small regions [the ‘thawing’ of ‘frozen-in’ magnetic fields].
vukcevic says:
March 5, 2013 at 1:31 am
“The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck
I showed back in 1968 that the Sun and the Earth was directly linked by magnetic fields. The proof is called the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect. And geomagnetic storms are not caused by energetic particles from the Sun, but instead by buildup and subsequent release of magnetic energy in the tail of the Earth’s magnetosphere.
Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.
I did the first calculation of that energy back in 1973: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf in the Appendix starting on page 31. And the energy is equivalent to a magnitude 6.6 earthquake [San Francisco 1906 earthquake].
As I said, everything interesting happens when the energy in a stressed magnetic field is released, creating electric currents [induced by rapid changes of the magnetic field]. But the magnetic effects cannot travel upstream in the solar wind, so there are no ‘back links’, from Jupiter to neither the Earth nor the Sun.
safeprayer says:
March 5, 2013 at 1:33 am
Oh, you believe that neutron stars are some new denser type of matter that has NEVER been observed, just hypothesised and modelled. That is not science that is CONJECTURE.
We have observed thousands of neutron stars and almost half of the mass of your body consists of neutrons so neutrons are not a new type of matter that has never been observed.
knik says:
March 5, 2013 at 3:39 am
Do you think that magnetic field is somehow independent of electricity?
Electric currents in nature results from changes in magnetic flux through a conductor. Think about how the electricity that powered your computer was generated [hint: dynamo].
The magnetic field in the solar wind was generated by the electric currents induced in the Sun by neutral, but conducting, plasma moving across the Sun’s own magnetic field. The samer way as electricity is generated in a power plant on Earth by rotating a copper loop in a magnetic field: “At the center of nearly all power stations is a generator, a rotating machine that converts mechanical power into electrical power by creating relative motion between a magnetic field and a conductor.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_station
Seven artificial radiation belts have been made by the explosion of high altitude nuclear bombs (Argus I, Argus II, Argus III, Starfish and 3 USSR Siberia tests from 1958.-1962. The artificial belts result from the release of energetic charged particles, mostly electrons, from the nuclear explosions.
More on Van Allen belts, charged particles nukes and other fascinating stuff of great concern for many youngsters in the 1960s. : http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Starfish.htm
Atmospheric nuclear weapon tests ban was greeted with great relief.
lsvalgaard says:
March 5, 2013 at 7:20 am
…….
NASA:“The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck
Dr. S: “I showed back in 1968 that the Sun and the Earth was directly linked by magnetic fields. The proof is called the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect.”
…….
For ones I concur 100%, and you do have my respect, despite our disagreements. Sibeck obviously is not ‘up to speed’ with developments in the late 1960s, but what to expect from a man who makes a soup out of his languages:
Other Professional Information: Languages: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian. http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/index.cfm?fuseAction=people.jumpBio&iphonebookid=11052
Serbian & Croatian are dialects of the same language, Bosnian is a ‘phantom’ language invented some 10-12 years ago.
And geomagnetic storms are not caused by energetic particles from the Sun, but instead by buildup and subsequent release of magnetic energy in the tail of the Earth’s magnetosphere.
So nothing odd with the same effect powering portion of the Jupiter’s aurora.
http://www.windows2universe.org/jupiter/magnetosphere/jupiter_aurora.html
The Earth would be transversing such a link every 400 days.
lsvalgaard says:
March 5, 2013 at 7:20 am
And geomagnetic storms are not caused by energetic particles from the Sun, but instead by buildup and subsequent release of magnetic energy in the tail of the Earth’s magnetosphere.
some more details here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Aurora.htm
See also NASA animation:
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/262351main_reconnect.mpg
@lsvalgaard
IMO you are acting and talking in an arrogant and condscending manner.
My question to you is this; Did you get !00% on all your exams you ever took?
If not, then you could be wrong. No?
Also; Great post Tiburon. Thanks for that.
Tiburon says:
March 4, 2013 at 6:47 pm ……..
Kudos also to Big D in TX
lsvalgaard says:
March 5, 2013 at 7:20 am
Electric currents in nature results from changes in magnetic flux through a conductor. Think about how the electricity that powered your computer was generated [hint: dynamo].
No, I find it quite problematic. I think it would be much simpler if you astronomers used electric currents instead of magnetic fields.
There is electric field (static electricity) and EM field (dynamic electricity) but no pristine magnetic field or static magnetism.
Using magnetic field lines might be useful sometimes but you definitely overuse it.
The magnetic field in the solar wind was generated by the electric currents induced in the Sun by neutral, but conducting, plasma moving across the Sun’s own magnetic field.
Yes, that may be true as magnetic field is just electric current in action.
This donut-shaped third ring nestled between the belts existed for nearly a month before being obliterated by a powerful shockwave of particles emanating from center of the solar system.
OK, if the sun is not the center of the solar system, then what is and why is it attacking us?
We have missed this one, but meteorite didn’t. Coincidence?
Chelyabinsk meteorite ended in the Chebarkul lake 55N,60E at the edge of the Magnitnaya Mountain, almost pure iron with +2100nT crustal magnetic anomaly.
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004019519900147X-gr3.jpg
@lsvalgaard
Magnetic fields come from somewhere. My number one answer is electric current flow. That has been proven in the lab by experiment time and time again. And the physics doesnt change when you leave earth…
Reconnection is a name for something that is driven by electric currents… If you want to have a reconnection discussion just remember that magnetic field lines are not real. A magnetic field is a continuum so there are no lines to reconnect….
Large Plasma Device In LA. Enjoy these papers and experiments… Once you read through this stuff you realize that electric currents are required!!!
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/gallery.html
Do you know what an inductor is? Plasma filaments have the same properties… Nothing to debunk…
The solar wind is neutral to what degree? It only take an imbalance of 3000 electrons per cubic meter to provide enough energy to power the sun if your using that model..
Sub storms are powered by particle flows… These particle flow generate magnetic fields. There is this idea that the solar wind is generally homogenous…. Not true, it contains double layers, cell filaments and other structures that carry energy…
brant
Safeprayer,
“Oh, you believe that neutron stars are some new denser type of matter that has NEVER been observed, just hypothesised and modelled. That is not science that is CONJECTURE.”
I don’t know much about neutron starts, but I know that white dwarfs were predicted in the 1920s, by a young Indian post grad whilst on a boat from India to the UK. He studied mathematically the problem of a collapsing star and the known physics showed that gravity will overwhelm the electric forces – electric degeneracy pressure – that keeps electrons out of the nucleus of atoms. White dwarfs have been observed in many parts of our galaxy, and indeed, our sun will end it’s days as one.
Nobody can observe white dwarf matter on earth, however, because it would fly apart as soon as removed from the intense gravity of the collapsed star. And I would say, what goes for white dwarfs, will go for neutron stars as well. It’s not rocket science!
“… it quickly becomes tedious to debunk things that are so obviously off the mark.” Matters not the author of this comment. The tedium of correcting those of us not at the same level of enlightenment is the ONLY way to ensure ignorance is held in abeyance. Retreating from the responsibility of educating the ignorant is a sure formula for one’s brilliance to be overwhelmed with the darkness of ignorance. Instead of tired tedium may I recommend you consider the challenge as a golden opportunity.
Andy Wehrle
@lsvalgaard says: The problem with EU is that they have cause and effect backwards.
Ok, here is the point as I see it science works by making observations first, not assumptions. As far as I am aware the observations are the EFFECTS, so the effects come first, then you look for apparent causes, limiting assumptions as much as possible.
So the EU guys have it right. Everything must be based on observations, not models, not conjecture and not assumptions.
So for example, starting with the equations of relativity is doing things backwards, its a mathematical model, and a poor one at that. Working as an engineer I used to have ideas, and the response I got to many of my ideas was “thats a solution looking for a problem, you’re doing things backwards.”
If you only have one option for a cause in your list means you are not doing science. You are pursuing an exercise in creating a self defining circular argument. Which is destined to become a self-delusion, firstly because history tells us that orthodoxy is overturned every few decades, and secondly because those un-initiated into high priesthood of orthodoxy are not allowed to challenge the orthodoxy.
Compare with the big bangers… 98% of the universe is missing according to their models. Models are wrong? No not to them, the theory marches on. So considering they have less than 2% of real stuff to give these theories credibility. If I said I built a bridge that was only 2% there I wouldn’t have much credibility as an engineer. So on paper if you believe in this stuff, that is as much credibility as you have, and you don’t even know it! Hence the need for a bit of humility towards other ideas that actually do explain stuff.
I like science because it explains stuff. When was the last time you heard NASA say, we predicted this, and it happened like we expected it to? I can’t remember the last time. The electric universe hypothesis may not be perfect but it sure does explain a lot of stuff, and predictions are exciting to see being confirmed on an almost daily basis.
@Vince Causey,
lets say for a sake of argument that white dwarfs have not been found.
This makes the model a mere exercise in thought. Have we ever observed the behaviour of white dwarf matter on earth, you say not. So what we have is a pure guess based on an invented form of matter that no one has ever seen before.
Then along comes a point of light on the horizon, which a certain brightness, intensity and radiation signature, and of the many possible explanations for this point of light from what we do know. All of a sudden we have invented a new type of star a new type of matter and indeed an entire new realm of physics. Ever heard of Occam’s Razor?
Same goes for black holes. I could make an x-ray source in my garage, we know how to make x-rays, its not that hard. So when we observe x-ray source form space, why does that suddenly mean “black hole”, where the laws of physics and the limitations of reality are all but forgotten.
Even easier would be to make an oscillator which produces pulses, essentially two capacitors and a wire between them, one charged the other not. There I have a pulsar in my garage with no moving parts. No new matter invented, no stars spinning ridiculously fast.
Observations, MUST go first, otherwise you are setting yourself up for simply living in your equations and models to the bitter end, sound familiar, its what this blog is about debunking AGW!
Andy Wehrle says:
March 5, 2013 at 1:00 pm
“… it quickly becomes tedious to debunk things that are so obviously off the mark.” Matters not the author of this comment. The tedium of correcting those of us not at the same level of enlightenment is the ONLY way to ensure ignorance is held in abeyance. ”
The comment in question comes from Brant Ra. If you think that Leif or anyone else can “correct” you are mistaken. In order to attempt to produce a correction, there has to be something to correct in the first place – a set of inferences based upon some premises; a set of logical postulates.
You can’t correct something which is no more than opinion. If a poster writes that “the sun has a solid iron shell, because that’s the only thing that “fits observations”,” then what is there to correct? You are just running up against entrenched beliefs and babble dressed up as science. Waste of time!
Someone asked me what I thought was at the centre of the galaxy if not a black hole.
Lets start with a simple exercise in perspective. Imagine a boulder in London ~52cm in diameter, and another Cape Town, even twice the size. What would be the gravitational attraction between them? Is it even worth calculating or can we apply some common sense here, it’s not much is it!
This analogue represents our sun and its nearest neighbour approximately to scale. Put it another way, gravity is not very strong at all in the grand scheme of things. Actually applying common sense, it is probably irrelevant.
Allow me to digress, Carl Sagan talked of having baloney detectors, here is one of mine.
Imagine again, a spec of dust in London and another in Cape Town, and a third randomly placed anywhere else. What is the probability of those three being in a perfect straight line. It’s a very small probability. So you now know that whenever any astronomer tells you that he has found three or more objects lining up in space over immense astronomical distances, he has found the proverbial needle, not just in the haystack, but in all haystacks. But in the search for gravitational lensing, (and looking at quasars) these improbable coincidences are popping up all over the place. One I might believe, being a highly improbable event, two you might convince me over a few pints, but more than two, no way. My answer would be to sober up and go back to the drawing board, like really.
If you assume that gravity is all you have, then you are limited by your assumption, and are bound to invent an infinite/strong source of gravity to make stuff happen in the universe, indeed to make anything happen, you would need very strong gravity sources, which in our every day experience do not exist.
Hold up right there, a point about scientific method here. If you let your assumptions dictate the results you get then you are not doing science, you are not going to learn anything new. All results are a foregone conclusion, dictated by the assumptions, AND you have no way of knowing if the assumptions are wrong, because they are assumed to be right in the model.
So just from what I have said so far, I know that there is no such thing as a black hole at the centre of the galaxy, because I know that black holes were an invention dictated by assumptions to which I do not subscribe. If I change my assumptions, to say that gravity is not the only game in town, then the need to invent black holes goes away, and so there can not possibly be a black hole at the centre of the universe, because with my different assumptions, black holes would never have been conceived of.
It must also be noted that shapes produced by gravity in the universe must essentially be spherical. If you find things that look like lines or helical in shape (which we do, try explaining the red square nebula!), gravity has no way of forming them, without some extremely dubious mind gymnastics.
Electric/Magnetic fields are 10^39 (or greater) more powerful than gravity. Electrical current does not appear to take a straight line path through a plasma. Look at a Plasma globe, the light is arranged in a twisted pair, spiralling around each other, a Birkland current. Spirals are a natural shape in the world of plasma. Years ago some crude charged particle models have been shown to produce galaxy like spiral shapes just due to their own mutual attractions. So therefore I would not expect that it is essential to find anything in particular at the centre of the galaxy.
K.
bones says:
March 4, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Leif, the only time the Demons win is when they can end the discussions. There is strong evidence in favor of the Big Bang.
bones, I encountered the EU only since recently so I had no time to really make myself an evaluation of it. What struck me at the first place was the passion with which it is attacked. I found this attack not normal, somehow visceral, I would say almost pathologic.
What I found interesting was the discussion about dark matter.
There is need of dark matter to explain the movement of stars around the galaxy. And where is that dark matter? It sits around the galaxy in the form of a squashed beach ball, else the movement would not be right:
http://www.newscientist.com/articlevideo/dn18344/60594306001-milky-ways-dark-matter-turned-on-its-side.html
Well yes, one explanation may be that each galaxy is surrounded by a ball of dark matter – who placed it there and why does it stay there? why does it not come into the galaxy when it interacts only through gravity with normal matter? – or it may be that electromagnetic forces explain the movement of the stars.
The EU has the potential to explain away the dark matter and the big bang too. Maybe it is a totally wrong theory, but I would really give it the needed attention to double check it.
And speaking of magnetic fields and ignoring the currents is just the wrong way to make the analysis. I find the major issue with mainstream science at the “frozen in” magnetic fields. Plasma is no superconductor, but if it would be “frozen in” magnetic fields would require “frozen in” currents? Where are those frozen in currents?
On the other side the discussion is hot, not nice and I can understand that WUWT has enough with the climate discussion not to want to adventure themselves in a domain where there is no expertise, but I guess it may be a very interesting discussion field.
The analogy to the climate discussion is there, but in the end people may draw the wrong conclusions. So maybe a good solution is to ban or to redirect any such discussion to a different forum.
yahoo! I’m so pleased to see electric universe theory gradually taking WUWT comments by storm ( an electrical storm ). Its the best thing that could possibly come about by these 2 hubs of modern media and science.
I am a graduate of conventional astronomy, in which electric universe theory is totally ignored. When I finally gave EU theory a fair chance last year, I was immediately ashamed of myself for being so much like leif and dismissing it out of hand for so many years. EU proponents include hundreds of our best electrical engineers and plasma physicists, fully qualified professionals from universities, high tech companies and professional institutions from around the world.
As one commenter has already said, the basic postulate of EU theory is simple – that electrical and magnetic forces play a significant role in the cosmos. I don’t see how that is so self evidently absurd that the most celebrated open science blogs on the net can declare it a taboo subject.
The arguments and lectures EU proponents are 1st class science. Since starting on EU theory, I have been compelled to immerse myself in it, the science it reveals is as wonderful as can be.
The Earth sun and solar solar system are now known to have significant electrical activity and non-simple electric and magnetic features, the van allen belts being one such feature. Is this a taboo for conservatives like leif ? Could there be a couple of other electric or magnetic features left to be discovered in our solar system? Is it a taboo to be ridiculed if our electrical and plasma experts want to use their understanding to hypothesize these undiscovered features, or explain currently known features?
But to address one thing that the leifs amongst us gleefully point out – the EU community has picked up a small wing of mystic types that like to believe crazy stuff like the Earth was a moon Saturn up till about 6000BC, and who try to read EU theory into all ancient texts.
Don’t let that put you off EU theory. The mystic stuff is a optional non-vital module if you fancy some crazy mystical stuff besides the clean cut science.
The Electric universe science founded by Birkland and nobel prize winners Alfvén and Langmuir and other early pioneers of the 20th century has been a long time stalled, but the internet has given it a new leash of life in the 21st century. It is going to be one of the jewels of science of the 21st century.
WUWT should stop siding with Svalgaard’s knee jerk rejection of anything EU and give the theory a fair review.
http://www.youtube.com/thunderboltsproject
vukcevic says:
March 5, 2013 at 8:09 am
So nothing odd with the same effect powering portion of the Jupiter’s aurora.
http://www.windows2universe.org/jupiter/magnetosphere/jupiter_aurora.html
Nothing odd about the Jovian aurorae generated by processes in the magnetotail [same process as for the Earth]. The aurorae caused by the moon Io happen because Io is deep inside Jupiter’s magnetosphere sitting on Jovian magnetic field lines. Since the Jovian magnetosphere is not expanding supersonically [as the solar wind] Io can interfere with processes in the Jovian atmosphere, unlike Jupiter which cannot react back on the Sun or the Earth.
The Earth would be transversing such a link every 400 days.
Since there is no link, there would be no traverse.
Alberta Slim says:
March 5, 2013 at 8:48 am
Did you get 100% on all your exams you ever took?
Better: I have played a leading role in modern science’s understanding of the Sun and the Earth’s magnetic field.
Great post Tiburon. Thanks for that.
Junk post.
Tiburon says:
March 4, 2013 at 6:47 pm ……..
No, I find it quite problematic. I think it would be much simpler if you astronomers used electric currents instead of magnetic fields.
There is electric field (static electricity) and EM field (dynamic electricity) but no pristine magnetic field or static magnetism.
Using magnetic field lines might be useful sometimes but you definitely overuse it.
An electric field [as Alfven was at pains to explain] depends on the observer. You can always find an observer where any electric field seen by another observer is zero. Magnetic fields, on the other hand, do not depend on the observer[‘s reference frame].
“The magnetic field in the solar wind was generated by the electric currents induced in the Sun by neutral, but conducting, plasma moving across the Sun’s own magnetic field.”
Yes, that may be true as magnetic field is just electric current in action.
That electric current is generated by moving the neutral plasma inside the sun across an already existing magnetic field.
captainfish says:
March 5, 2013 at 10:59 am
OK, if the sun is not the center of the solar system, then what is and why is it attacking us?
Just a poorly worded press release, dumbned down for consumption by the unwashed masses.
Brant Ra says:
March 5, 2013 at 12:00 pm
3000 electrons per cubic meter to provide enough energy to power the sun if your using that model..
There is so much wrong with your comment that it is impossible to discuss it rationally…
For starters, electrons do not generate energy. Perhaps the most obvious of EU’s failures is the idea that electric currents powers the Sun and not nuclear fusion. Currents from where?
Vince Causey says:
March 5, 2013 at 12:48 pm
may I recommend you consider the challenge as a golden opportunity.
I am trying, am I not? But experience shows that all effort is in eventually in vain. The believers are just too far gone, and lack elementary science knowledge, and more importantly: lack any interest in being educated.
keith says:
March 5, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Everything must be based on observations, not models, not conjecture and not assumptions.
Models are expressions of our knowledge as shown by observations. In a very real sense, our models are just ‘shorthand’ for a vast body of observations.
98% of the universe is missing according to their models.
No, according to observations of the Universe.
When was the last time you heard NASA say, we predicted this, and it happened like we expected it to? I can’t remember the last time.
You mean you don’t know about the last time. Take the current solar cycle 24. It is the lowest in a 100 years as I and colleagues predicted almost a decade ago.
keith says:
March 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Put it another way, gravity is not very strong at all in the grand scheme of things.
Since gravity gets stronger when the distances get smaller, gravity becomes infinitely strong when the distance goes to zero.
The rest of your post is just EU boiler plate, not worth discussing.
Lars P. says:
March 5, 2013 at 3:27 pm
On the other side the discussion is hot, not nice and I can understand that WUWT has enough with the climate discussion not to want to adventure themselves in a domain where there is no expertise, but I guess it may be a very interesting discussion field.
There are lots of other blogs where people can have their thirst for EU slaked.
meemoe_uk says:
March 5, 2013 at 3:43 pm
As one commenter has already said, the basic postulate of EU theory is simple – that electrical and magnetic forces play a significant role in the cosmos.
They do, and scientists do not dispute that. In fact use that to great effect. The whole issue is EU’s reversal of cause and effect. The electric currents that are the cause of everything interesting are transient and generated by changing magnetic fields.
“””You’d think the science on the Van Allen Radiation belts was long ago considered “settled science”. Nope. And yet, while we discover new things like this, some insist we fully understand all aspects of the workings of Earth’s climate.”””
Lots of new things Anthony, being discovered by our taxpayer satellites. I agree we don’t have all the variables for Earth’s climate system.
PBS NOVA recently aired a presentation using extensive satellite footage, depicting some of Earth’s regional systems in action. It was called “Earth from Space.” The footage of the Antarctic system was phenom..
My little copy and paste here is basically telling us what Dr. S., has been weaving all through this topic for us. Thx Dr. S.
The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target
07.18.12
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html
Our day-to-day lives exist in what physicists would call an electrically neutral environment. Desks, books, chairs and bodies don’t generally carry electricity and they don’t stick to magnets. But life on Earth is substantially different from, well, almost everywhere else. Beyond Earth’s protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma.
Two giant donuts of this plasma surround Earth, trapped within a region known as the Van Allen Radiation Belts. The belts lie close to Earth, sandwiched between satellites in geostationary orbit above and satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) are generally below the belts. A new NASA mission called the Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP), due to launch in August 2012, will improve our understanding of what makes plasma move in and out of these electrified belts wrapped around our planet. .
..The inner radiation belt stays largely stable, but the number of particles in the outer one can swell 100 times or more, easily encompassing a horde of communications satellites and research instruments orbiting Earth. Figuring out what drives these changes in the belts, requires understanding what drives the plasma.
Pasmas seethe with complex movement. They generally flow along a skeletal structure made of invisible magnetic field lines, while simultaneously creating more magnetic fields as they move. Teasing out the rules that govern such a foreign environment – one that can only be studied from afar – lies at the heart of understanding a range of events that make up space weather, from giant explosions on the sun to potentially damaging high energy particles in near-Earth environs.
To distinguish between a host of theories developed over the years on plasma movement in those near-Earth environs, RBSP scientists have designed a suite of instruments to answer three broad questions. Where do the extra energy and particles come from? Where do they disappear to, and what sends them on their way? How do these changes affect the rest of Earth’s magnetic environment, the magnetosphere? In addition to its broad range of instruments, the RBSP mission will make use of two spacecraft in order to better map out the full spatial dimensions of a particular event and how it changes over time.
Scientists want to understand not only the origins of electrified particles – possibly from the solar wind constantly streaming off the sun; possibly from an area of Earth’s own outer atmosphere, the ionosphere – but also what mechanisms gives the particles their extreme speed and energy.
“We know examples where a storm of incoming particles from the sun can cause the two belts to swell so much that they merge and appear to form a single belt,” says Shri Kanekal, RBSP’s deputy project scientist at Goddard. “Then there are other examples where a large storm from the sun didn’t affect the belts at all, and even cases where the belts shrank. Since the effects can be so different, there is a joke within the community that ‘If you’ve seen one storm . . . You’ve seen one storm.’ We need to figure out what causes the differences.”
There are two broad theories on how the particles get energy: from radial transport or in situ. In radial transport, particles move perpendicular to the magnetic fields within the belts from areas of low magnetic strength far from Earth to areas of high magnetic strength nearer Earth. The laws of physics dictate that particle energies correlate to the strength of the magnetic field, increasing as they move towards Earth. The in situ theory posits that electromagnetic waves buffet the particles — much like regular pushes on a swing — successively raising their speed (and energy). .
European Space Agency (ESA) has some satellites that may be of interest to the climate system.
CLUSTER
Cluster observes a ‘porous’ magnetopause
24 Oct 2012
A new study based on data from ESA’s Cluster mission shows that it is easier for the solar wind to penetrate Earth’s magnetosphere than had previously been thought.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=50977
Details of solar particles penetrating the Earth’s environment revealed
3October2006
During such events, magnetic channels created by the merging of the Sun and the Earth’s magnetic fields allow solar particles to break through the Earth’s magnetic shield and penetrate the Earth’s environment. Physicists call the occurrence of these magnetic channels Flux Transfer Events. Each magnetic channel appears like a curve shaped tube that can be anything from 5000 to 25000 kilometres in diameter. One end of the magnetic flux tube is connected to Earth while the other end is connected to the solar wind..
ESA’s Cluster sees ‘squashed’ magnetosphere
31 October 2003
ESA’s quartet of Cluster spacecraft joined in the flurry of interest in this week’s extreme solar activity, and saw Earth’s magnetosphere halved in size
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cluster/ESA_s_Cluster_sees_squashed_magnetosphere
Cluster finds magnetic reconnection within giant swirls of plasma
06 Dec 2006
On 20 October 2006, a team of European and American scientists revealed the presence of magnetic reconnection within giant swirls of plasma of ~40 000 km size on the flank of the magnetosphere. These giant swirls were identified to be the result of the Kelvin-Helmholtz or ‘wind over water’ instability and were shown to facilitate the transport of solar wind material into the magnetosphere. This result improves our knowledge on how, where and under which conditions the solar wind manages to penetrate the Earth’s magnetic shield, thanks to data collected by the four satellites composing the ESA/NASA Cluster mission..
..For the first time, the presence of magnetic reconnection was identified within such vortices. Numerical simulations in 2 dimensions (2-D), conducted by Nykyri and colleagues, were able to reproduce the Cluster observations in great detail and in particular, to show the presence of magnetic reconnection (Image 2 and Animation 2). Published 20 October 2006 in Annales Geophysicae, this study reinforces the importance of this mechanism to enable solar wind material to penetrate the Earth’s magnetopause..
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=40420
Vuks are you out there?
posit What would happen to phase if the Interstellar Magnetic field changes sign every 100 or so years? Would a solar cycle get out of phase? Go into decline like it was interupted? I think the Interstellar Magnetic Field still has some cards on the table of solar cycle variability questions.
And we see from the Van Allen Belts that lots of stuff gets trapped around these wee little earthly magnetic fields..if only we were able to see the larger scale..
1phobosgrunt says:
March 5, 2013 at 6:14 pm
What would happen to phase if the Interstellar Magnetic field changes sign every 100 or so years? Would a solar cycle get out of phase?
No, as magnetic changes cannot travel upstream in the solar wind to reach the Sun.
Yes, I know, have heard it somewhere before. lol
But doesn’t the rate of reconnection change, when the solar N. pole is negative, like the Earth’s negative N. pole.
If the local Interstellar Magnetic Field is coherent, there may be cyclic like energy coming down those spiral inner arms, from the mother ship at galaxy’s central. Elongated Parker spirals slowly rotating..they must be huge, surrounded by some turbulence.
Brant Ra says:
March 4, 2013 at 10:28 pm
After studying the sun for, I don’t know, 8 years I was forced to come up with an alternate theory as to how the sun operates because I could not find any mainstream theory that worked. They claim they do but they fall apart under scrutiny.
…But that’s how science is really done. By the little guys…..
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4592
Here are some of claims that ‘little guy’ makes:
#1- An aether powered iron sun is necessary to explain the activity that we see on the solar surface.
#82- The hollow iron shell accounts for solar density measurements, although it requires a slightly different model of gravity.
Brant says the Sun’s iron shell is probably 1/3 of its radius, which would be about 144,000 miles thick.
#117- To stabilize an iron shell, you would need a new theory of gravity, that takes into account experimental evidence, as well as accounting for the shell. Its not as radical as you would think; and gravity may be a surface effect!
#661- A sphere the size of the sun has the ability to focus a lot of energy in the center, if it were to act like an antenna.
A glass sphere focuses light in its center. Would the Sun focus energy in its center in the same way?
If it were a spherical antenna, it would receive “aether” (insert “some universal energy”) and act like a transformer and turn the aether into electrons, which then flow in the Sun’s iron shell to produce the current, driving the effects we see on the Sun.
#4306- So think of the sun as a geometric antenna receiving aether and the energy is coming out as electrons.
Its just like a regular antenna converts “photons” to electric current.
#4232- So if the sun was a hollow iron sphere acting like a spherical aether, (zero point energy, pick a name) antenna, there is enough energy [from the aether to produce the Sun’s radiation].
#659- Huge current runs through the Suns iron shell to power the flares and CME’s.
#4366- I believe that there are currents that flow in the shell around the Sun’s equator in a solenoidal configuration, that are driven by the [aether to] electricity conversion process.
#4100- The Sun has a solid surface with high temperature SPOTS on the surface, so average temperature reading at a distance is going to be a combination of the cold surface and the hot spots.
#199- It acts like a transformer in that it transforms the background energy [aether] of the universe into “electricity” that manifests at the surface as electrical discharges.
#450- [Near a solar coronal loop footprint] the surrounding surface is solid iron.
#23- The Sun’s solid iron surface has areas of positive and negative electrical charge (potential).
#23- Because of the potential difference between these areas a current arises, the strength depending on the activity beneath the surface (later post) which translates to electron flow.
#23- The functional mechanism for the Sun’s energy transfer is the flow of iron.
This is the madness EU traps you in.