Note: See updates below for the ISON ISOFF ISON nature of this comet that has everybody guessing. Picture at right also updated to reflect the new “zombie” status of this comet.
Looks like ISON has disintegrated during its turn around the sun. Given the radiation (estimated temperature 5,000F/2,760C – hot enough to vaporize rock), solar wind, and the tidal-forces (even though smallish, thanks Gavin) associated with its proximity and nearly 800,000 mph speed around the turn about that time, I’m not surprised. Watch the second video below where it goes “poof” (h/t to reader “David”)
NASA’s spaceweather.com reports:
Comet ISON is making its closest approach to the sun, and evidence is mounting that the nucleus of the comet has disintegrated. Watch the head of the comet fade dramatically as it approaches the sun in this SOHO coronagraph movie:
(may take a minute to load)
![sundiver_anim3[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sundiver_anim31.gif)
The movie spans a day and a half period from Nov. 27th (01:41 UT) to 28th (15:22 UT). In the early hours of the 27th, Comet ISON brightens dramatically, saturating the pixels in the digital camera of the SOHO’s coronagraph. By mid-day on the 28th, however, the comet’s head appears to fade. This is a sign that the nucleus has likely fallen apart. That would make ISON a headless comet–more appropriate for Halloween than Thanksgiving.
Researchers working with the Solar Dynamics Observatory report that they are seeing nothing along the track that ISON was expected to follow through the sun’s atmosphere.
==============================================================
UPDATE: Watch it go “poof” here:
============================================================
UPDATE2: NASA JPL Insider Amy Mainzer tweets some last minute hope that ISON may be “undead”
http://twitter.com/AmyMainzer/status/406179229487742976
A zombie comet, how cool is that?
============================================================
UPDATE3: Now it seems back again, but looking entirely different than before. A number of astronomers indicate they don’t know what is left of it, maybe a chunk, maybe a smooshed drawn out nucleus or something else. Image from SOHO’s coronagraph:
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:11 am
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 8:46 am
“Doubtful, as you seem to most often consider yourself the final arbitor of “merit”.
An argument falls on its own demerit.”
AH, but even observational data is subject to good or poor, sampling, gathering, ad hoc changes, statistical analysis and that nasty old “interpretation” and the political correctness lemming instinct. For example, consider the models proclaiming CO2 to be the main causal factor in global warming, or er climate change or whatever they now call it. So, who determines the merit?
John Day says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:35 am
@jim G
>Hard to conceptualize that a body making a hard turn at 800,000 mph feels no force …
That is why I said to think of it as curved space, NOT a force! Read what I said.
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:40 am
So, who determines the merit?
Everybody must determine the merit for himself, based on experience, belief, agenda, etc.
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:11 am
“Willful ignorance, on the other hand, is an abomination.”
=============
What about feigning ignorance ?, in an attempt to pick a commenters mind ?
I read and try to grasp all your comments.
(that was a compliment).
@me
>Imagine Mars’ atmosphere expanded to solar proporitions.
… and then divide that density by 100. That’s the density of the corona (probaby would be called a ‘good vacuum’ on Earth)
u.k.(us) says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:48 am
What about feigning ignorance ?, in an attempt to pick a commenters mind ?
would be OK in my book. To a point, though. The attempt has to be sincere.
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:43 am
Jim G says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:40 am
So, who determines the merit?
“Everybody must determine the merit for himself, based on experience, belief, agenda, etc.”
This scares me, but you have my agreement.
How are you getting on with the idea of a electric double layers in space plasma Leif?
Hannes Alfvén pointed out that: “In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers.
In other words, what with all the different densities, temperatures, motion, ionizations and currents of plasma in different regions of space, debye shields are everywhere in space, shielding off many charge imbalances that would otherwise short out.
It’s the case with comets for sure dude, and everything else.
>Hand-waving and filibustering; you have made not any technical points that will withstand serious cross examination.
All I’m reading is you aren’t knowledgeable enough to debate me. Don’t worry Leif will carry the conventional side of the debate now.
@jim G
>That is why I said to think of it as curved space, NOT a force! Read what I said.
I did.
Somehow you think the notion of ‘curved space’ is necessary to understand gravitional mechanics. It’s not. Newton conceived all of this (including orbiting satellites in free fall) without having any idea of space-time curvature.
Your problem may be that you think of a force as a ‘sensation’. In physics, it’s not. A force is simply defined as a ‘change in motion’. The Latin word for ‘motion’ is ‘momentum’, which Newton defined as mass times velocity (mv). His briliant contribution to science was the realization that changes in motion (i.e. mv) are the causes of forces. In fact, he discovered that the rate of change of motion _is_ the force:
F = d(mv)/dt = ma (for constant mass m)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force
But you will protest “The path of your so-called ‘falling comet’ is _curved_. That’s a change in motion, so there must be a force. Ha!”
But the force needed to bend the path is orthogonal to the path vector and exactly equal to the gravitional force, so the net force is zero. So objects in such ‘free fall’ behave as if they’re weightless, which means they will not be able to feel the force causing the curved path.
Will spectrum data be available, summarizing elemental content of the ejecta from the ‘disintegration’ event at close approach? A 3-way comparison of before, during, and after close approach might be interesting!
Unfortunately, having agreed so much with Leif so far on this thread, I’m going to have to raise an issue or three here.
—
1.
But not everyone agrees on merit. That is why there exist things like “consensus” and “minority report”. Consensus isn’t always correct. But on a blog it is usual to try to persuade, and then a consensus comes along with you.
2.
I don’t think I buy that all parts of space have high conductance with all other parts. But then, I probably am a bit ignorant on the subject of plasmas. But why can’t you have a plasma with one connected charge in one place, and another in another place, and then if they meet you get a big surge?
3.
Which is the greater abomination: willful ignorance or willful rudeness? Leif, please, things go a lot better here when we hear more details of your scientific knowledge and less of your bombast. From what I am reading there are still lots of surprising things about comets from which we might learn new theory. Or perhaps I mean new practice, as in unusual combinations of physical effects but still within the so-far known laws of physics.
Regards,
Rich.
meemoe_uk says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:03 am
Hannes Alfvén pointed out that: “In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers.
You conveniently omitted the rest of his comment: “An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized.”
And for good reason. The Debye length in the solar wind and interstellar space is very small, of the order of 10 meter. And you gloss over the “localized space charge regions”. This means that the must be a process that maintains the separation. Furthermore if there is a large potential drop, any charge would be propelled rapidly across the double layer shorting out the imbalance, unless the separation process continues. A space plasma is in general so thin that it is collision-less. Charge separation can happen if the plasma is moved across a magnetic field [as happens in the Earth’s magnetosphere] but since in a space plasma far from stationary magnetic fields [like the Earth’s] the magnetic field is frozen into the plasma [as Alfvén taught us] it does not move across any field and separation does not occur.
All I’m reading is you aren’t knowledgeable enough to debate me
The EU stuff is ‘not even wrong’ and cannot be meaningfully debated, only rejected.
See – owe to Rich says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:18 am
I don’t think I buy that all parts of space have high conductance with all other parts. But then, I probably am a bit ignorant on the subject of plasmas.
yes that is it.
But why can’t you have a plasma with one connected charge in one place, and another in another place, and then if they meet you get a big surge?
You can, and that is exactly the point. After the surge the charge imbalance is gone.
Which is the greater abomination: willful ignorance or willful rudeness?
I call it as I see it. ‘Rude’ or not. Misinformation must be combated, if it hurts the misinformer’s feelings.
From what I am reading there are still lots of surprising things about comets from which we might learn new theory. Or perhaps I mean new practice, as in unusual combinations of physical effects but still within the so-far known laws of physics.
There are indeed many things to learn and we learn all the time. The EU-cult generally ignores what is being learned, as the adherents already ‘know’ all what is going on. Such cult-following in antithetic to science.
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:36 am
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 9:33 am
Glad anyway that you have nothing to say about the substance of my posts.
“There is nothing to say because there is no substance.
If you need a general refutation of EU, this link is a good place to start:http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html”
I have nothing against a site which, on the face of it, combats creationist ideas in astronomy, quite the contrary in fact: one of the reasons why I turned away some years ago from the Big Bang theory was precisely that it is the BB which enshrines the ULTIMATE creationist theory. EU theory, on the other hand has absolutely NOTHING to say about the nature or the time of the origin of the Universe. This is already a huge step forward in scientific thinking: I’m not saying I don’t believe in a possible Initial Creation, but simply that we can obviously know nothing about it, as Big Bangers claim we can.
Apart from that, I don’t need a refutation of EU, because it proceeds from correct scientific method in that it is evidence-based, in the same way that climate skepticism is evidence-based. I went down the same intellectual path in moving from Big Bang to EU theory as I did a year or so later in switching from the warmist camp to the climate-skeptic camp, once I had realized that the same forms of obfuscation were being practiced in both so-called “sciences”. Elegant maths and computer models can do nothing in the face of hard, irrefutable, observational evidence, whatever the field under study.
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:44 am
the BB which enshrines the ULTIMATE creationist theory.
Indeed, we have learned a lot about when and how the universe was created 13.8 billions years ago.
EU theory, on the other hand has absolutely NOTHING to say about the nature or the time of the origin of the Universe.
And by asserting that you throw out the greatest story of all, based on precision observations. Don’t you see that by willfully wearing blinkers you are missing the glorious picture of where and when we came from that we have teased out of the wonderfully precise observations of the past ten years? I guess you do not. Correct me if I am wrong.
On a technical point: there was no plasma in the Universe starting about 380,000 after the BB and for the next several hundred millions years, at which time gravity had caused the first stars to form and by their UV radiation ionize the intergalactic medium. What does that fact do to EU theory?
So back to ISON, any predictions as to what will happen to it. Will not the stuff that melted refreeze and kind of all come back together again. The (ice and rocks) didn’t disappear and should still be loosely connected (as was stated with the tennis balls lightly glued together). Isn’t the material all there in some form?
Whoa, I tend to think of curved space as something more related to a racetrack or one of those gravity well demos at science museums. There the accelerating force come from the track and is propagated throughout the body that’s turning. In free fall all the atoms involved are being accelerated at (nearly) the same amount.
I have no trouble seeing high accelerations in freefall due to strong gravitational fields – heck, the acceleration of gravity at the ISS is still close to 10 m/s/s, the only reason the astronauts are weightless is because they’re accelerating at the same rate – free fall. (I think it was Douglas Adams who said the way to orbit a planet is to through yourself at the ground – and miss.)
J. Philip Peterson says:
November 29, 2013 at 11:08 am
Comets are notoriously unpredictable and this one seems much worse than most. I wouldn’t be surprised it it behaves perfectly predictably for the rest of its trip out.
The comet did shed a lot of material, the “poof” near perihelion was pretty clear. What’s left is somewhere between a small fragment and a lot. Lets give the poor thing a few days to get away from the extreme heating, solar wind, and all that. Then I think people will have a better chance to figure out what’s left and what’s in store.
OK, now that science has been “settled” above :)…..do we still have a comet or what ?
lsvalgaard @ur momisugly November 29, 2013 at 9:36 am
Thanks for that link Professor Leif. I have been skirmishing with a friend who has fallen hook, line and sinker for the codswallop otherwise known as the EU hypothesis. My weapons bay is now fully loaded for a final, decisive battle.
Comets are like people.
Comets come, comets go.
As do opportunities for dispute and disparagement.
Some blow up, others diminish, some are resolved and a few are never ending.
Now what about the poor Cometeers? The comet residents? They must be having a tough go of it.
Let’s not pretend that we are certain there is no life form on the comet. There very well could be and in a form we cannot fathom.
I’ll bet we could even strike up a nasty argument over the intricacies of their existence and their impacts on the universe. After all they are wandering the solar system leaving behind a comet comtrail of unknown composition. Suppose this comet is distributing ions of horrific stuff discharged by the inhabitants like refuse disposal.
Should we not try and stop them?
I am deeply troubled by the possibilities.
Oh I’m sorry, just snip my idiocy.
lsvalgaard says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:55 am
French_Atkins says:
“EU theory, on the other hand has absolutely NOTHING to say about the nature or the time of the origin of the Universe”.
And by asserting that you throw out the greatest story of all, based on precision observations. Don’t you see that by willfully wearing blinkers you are missing the glorious picture of where and when we came from that we have teased out of the wonderfully precise observations of the past ten years? I guess you do not. Correct me if I am wrong.
I don’t think I can “correct” you because I can’t be sure you’re “wrong” since you’re talking poetry and poetry doesn’t aim to address issues requiring the exchange of information….
“On a technical point: there was no plasma in the Universe starting about 380,000 after the BB and for the next several hundred millions years, at which time gravity had caused the first stars to form and by their UV radiation ionize the intergalactic medium. What does that fact do to EU theory?”
I think you’re missing the point… The sort of sterile circular logic you are using, where the only possible answers are necessarily dictated by the presuppositions contained in the question itself is strangely akin to that underlying the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” (I don’t expect an answer, either).
Sorry if you still think that my “ignorance runs deep”…
French_Atkins says:
November 29, 2013 at 11:34 am
Sorry if you still think that my “ignorance runs deep”…
You just demonstrated more of it…
Steve Oregon says:
November 29, 2013 at 11:27 am
===============
Too late now, you said that out loud 🙂
J. Philip Peterson.
Yes, back to ISON and what is going to happen to it? Also what happened to it when the coma got blown away near perihelion, as I asked before? Leif, I appreciate your comments in reply to me above, even if I don’t 100% agree, but now: what is your theory for what happened to that coma? Electrical or not electrical?
I’ll be back in 12 hours to check the answers…
Rich.