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.
Lars P. says:
March 14, 2013 at 9:38 am
Dear Leif, however I must conclude that you have not read his Nobel prize lecture.
Better yet, Hannes was a friend of mine and we have often discussed these issues.
What he railed against was thre idea that currents could not be produced by neutral plasma moving in magnetic fields.
Where are we now 40+ years later? Leif still tells plasma is homogene, with infinite conductivity and with frozen-in magnetic fields and so on, still blocked in the plasma cosmology of before 40 years ago.
As I said, everything interesting is due to electric currents created by neutral plasma moving across existing magnetic fields. This is the point Alfven was trying to get across.
“You have consistently evaded, ignored, [not known] how to answer. Here is your chance. Carpe diem.”
I have answered this to you several times.
No, you have not. Try again.
so what can I say more?
You can tell how currents are generated and maintained in EU. I have explained that currents result from neutral plasma interacting with a magnetic field, what is your explanation?
“Large-scale magnetic fields in the Universe were generated shortly after the Big Bang [gravity+vorticity] and have been with us ever since as the paper explains.”
and how did gravity and vorticity create magnetic fields?
Read the paper, or if you prefer an experiment in the laboratory: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/galaxy-magnetism-lab-simulation/
lsvalgaard says:
March 14, 2013 at 10:56 am
Better yet, Hannes was a friend of mine and we have often discussed these issues.
That is great and good for you. And now the internet gives more people the opportunity to exchange ideas and discuss, which is one of the best things of these times, am really happy and grateful for that. Thinking I could have been born in the stone ages or just 300 years ago…
What he railed against was thre idea that currents could not be produced by neutral plasma moving in magnetic fields.
Good to know that, and I understand this point.
As I said, everything interesting is due to electric currents created by neutral plasma moving across existing magnetic fields. This is the point Alfven was trying to get across.
Here you sound very much EU. Everything interesting is due to electric currents.
“You have consistently evaded, ignored, [not known] how to answer. Here is your chance. Carpe diem.”…” Try again.”
Leif, I did not make a theory of how currents appear in space, so if you ask me personally to explain how currents can appear in space, I can tell you only through observations in the environment. How do currents appear in our environment? Are these only through existing magnetic field? If I take off my pullover I can see sometime small electric discharges. These do not happen due to any magnetic fields but due to friction where some electrons have been displaced. This can be (tongue in cheek) maybe the way how some lava in the depth of the earth is electrically charged.
Another way of producing currents may be chemical reactions. (Now of course if you jump on me and ask to say which one in the universe is the one that I can name to create the cosmic currents where I cannot answer if there can ever be one. Would think that this is a study for a bit more time)
Furthermore my knowledge is not enough to tell if fusion with the production of the positrons is creating any electrical imbalance. How long is the positrons’ life expectation in the sun? Can it be that the fusion reaction creates an electrical imbalance? My knowledge is much to limited to be able to quantify and answer the question. So I rely on people wiser then me who have studied this and can tell more.
The only point would be, if such is true and fusion creates a positive imbalance, the charge should be possible to measure and the particle flow should be discernable. Furthermore if the stars would be the source of (+) through the fusion process where is the source of (-)? The Hawkings black holes radiation?
So I perfectly understand your objections when discussions about currents are being done without analysing how the currents are being created.
You can tell how currents are generated and maintained in EU. I have explained that currents result from neutral plasma interacting with a magnetic field, what is your explanation?
I understand your objection to the EU sun discharge model as you are missing the electric source that would run the show. As explained above the Electrical Universe in principle only says that electricity plays a larger role in the cosmos that previously thought, what you also say. If the EU sun model has any value I do not know. It seems like they point to some aspects that one cannot yet explain with other theories like the temperature of the corona and the acceleration of the ion there, so possibly there are valuable insights in the theory.
“Large-scale magnetic fields in the Universe were generated shortly after the Big Bang [gravity+vorticity] and have been with us ever since as the paper explains.”
and how did gravity and vorticity create magnetic fields?
Read the paper, or if you prefer an experiment in the laboratory: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/galaxy-magnetism-lab-simulation/
“In galaxy formation models, a gravitational nucleus is formed out of cold dark matter. Ordinary matter in the form of gas collects around the nucleus and, as it collapses, it heats up. ”
Interesting, but if it formed innitially a nucleus, why on earth is now DM in the form of a squashed ball around the galaxis?
http://www.newscientist.com/articlevideo/dn18344/60594306001-milky-ways-dark-matter-turned-on-its-side.html
but I digress…
” The ionizing effect of the shocks strips atoms of their electrons; the accelerating charged particles then produce magnetic fields. This process is known as the Biermann battery.”
Well actually saying that a shockwave stripped the atoms of electrons and the movement of the atoms=charged particles as currents created the magnetic fields.
Therefore first was the current, then the magnetic field 🙂 .(reminds me of the egg and chicken question)
Well if this process worked for a galaxy why would it not work at the birth of a new star, creating new magnetic fields?
Lars P. says:
March 15, 2013 at 4:34 pm
“As I said, everything interesting is due to electric currents created by neutral plasma moving across existing magnetic fields. This is the point Alfven was trying to get across.”
Here you sound very much EU.
Only the first part. Where you [and EU people] go wrong is to believe that mainstream science thinks otherwise. We do not. What we insist on is that there be forces that drive the currents. And EU does not provide any, they take the currents as given, forgetting that a current has its own destruction built in: moving charges from an excess to a deficit, equalizing the charges in the process.
These do not happen due to any magnetic fields but due to friction where some electrons have been displaced.
But these are not currents in any real sense as they disappear quickly. A current has to be maintained or driven by an emf and that is where EU is wrong. They do not have an emf. Real science has: neutral plasma moves [e.g. by temperature differences or gravity] across existing magnetic fields generating electric fields and currents. Batteries [chemical] run down and must be recharged to work again, i.e. a current [generated elsewhere] must be applied.
How long is the positrons’ life expectation in the sun?
zero. There aren’t any.
As explained above the Electrical Universe in principle only says that electricity plays a larger role in the cosmos that previously thought
Again, no. EU says a lot more: that currents are made by magic. Apart from all the nonsense about powering the stars, etc.
Well if this process worked for a galaxy why would it not work at the birth of a new star, creating new magnetic fields?
Because those processes do not operate anymore and also because the field generated is trillions of times smaller than magnetic fields found today needed for generation of currents. Magnetic fields today are generated by amplification [by turbulence, shock waves, induction, etc] of existing older fields all the way back to those very first [extremely weak] fields.
lsvalgaard says:
March 15, 2013 at 6:55 pm
How long is the positrons’ life expectation in the sun?
zero. There aren’t any.
Thanks Leif for the answer.
Hm, I thought that a way how to display the conversion process is:
4p=>4He + 2e(+) + 2ey
where that would be 2 positrons and 2 electron neutrinos. The positrons would then combine with electrons when these become available, however this would create a deficit of electrons inside the sun, therefore the annihilation process must be happening at the surface – interesting consequences could such reaction have.
Are the positrons destroyed earlier, or is anything wrong in what I put above?
Lars P. says:
March 16, 2013 at 12:04 am
The positrons would then combine with electrons when these become available, however this would create a deficit of electrons inside the sun, therefore the annihilation process must be happening at the surface
The positrons cannot make it to the surface as they immediately combine with electrons. Perhaps the easiest way to think about the process is by noting that charge neutrality must be observed [this is where EU fails]. If you remove two positive charges you must also remove two negative ones. Imagine you start with 1000 protons and 1000 electrons. Four protons [four positive charges] combine to form one helium nucleus [two positive charges] plus two positrons [two positive charges], so you still have 1000 positive charges. The two positrons immediately annihilate two electrons removing two positive and two negative charges, so overall you have 996 protons [with 996 positive charges] and one helium [with two positive charges, which added to the 996 yields 998] and 998 electrons, so the charge accounting still balances.
Leif, you are right with the charges and I was wrong, however the fact that I was wrong in this point does not mean the “EU” is wrong. This is not a “EU theory”, was just a thought of mine which was not thought to the end
“EU does not provide any, they take the currents as given, forgetting that a current has its own destruction built in: moving charges from an excess to a deficit, equalizing the charges in the process.”
What to my understanding “the EU guys” are doing, is looking to space and trying to figure out which phenomenon is of electric origin. This may be cumbersome if one wants first a reason for the current and then accept it is of electric origin. But this does not mean they are always wrong. May be right in cases. There is still certainly need to prove the assumptions.