Solving sunspot mysteries

From the New Jersey Institute of Technology  and Big Bear Solar Observatory

 (video follows)

Multi-wavelength observations of sunspots with the 1.6-meter telescope at Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO) in California and aboard NASA’s IRIS spacecraft have produced new and intriguing images of high-speed plasma flows and eruptions extending from the Sun’s surface to the outermost layer of the solar atmosphere, the corona. Operated by New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), BBSO houses the largest ground-based telescope dedicated to solar research.

On June 2, NJIT researchers reported on the acquisition of these images at the 224th meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS), held in Boston, Massachusetts. The high-definition video acquired at BBSO provides unique 3D views of a sunspot, revealing rapidly rotating plasma rolls, powerful shocks, and widespread plasma eruptions driven by solar-energy flux and controlled by intense magnetic fields. These leading-edge observations show that sunspots are far more complex and dynamic than previously believed.

Sunspots, first seen by Galileo more than 400 years ago as dark blemishes on the Sun, are still one of the greatest mysteries of astronomy. It has been known for more than a century that sunspots are compact, concentrated magnetic fields and that they appear dark because the magnetism prevents heat from rising to the surface from the superhot interior. But why these magnetic fields become so concentrated and compacted in structures that remain stable for days and sometimes weeks in a very turbulent environment is a mystery.

Sunspots can be the size of Earth or as big as Jupiter. Typical sunspots are nearly round with a very dark and relatively “cold” umbra (7,000 degrees Fahrenheit compared to the 10,000-degree solar surface) surrounded by a less dark and warmer penumbra. However, there are no external forces on the Sun that could hold these giant magnetic structures together. They appear and are organized by their own induced forces. Understanding the processes of such self-organization in the hot turbulent plasma is of fundamental importance for physics and astrophysics.

Investigating sunspots is much more than a matter of curiosity and the desire to increase the fund of basic scientific knowledge. When sunspots that are close to each other have magnetic fields with opposite polarities, they can produce powerful flares and solar storms. On Earth, this can severely damage communications and power infrastructure. Similar but even more intense magnetic phenomena have been detected on other stars, which may be a factor hindering the development of life elsewhere in our Galaxy.

At the AAS meeting, the NJIT researchers presented video chronicling several hours in the life of an isolated sunspot that did not generate solar flares. But the roiling action revealed was a transformative view of sunspots as static-equilibrium structures maintaining a balance between magnetic force and gas pressure.

The telescope at BBSO that made these unparalleled observations possible was completed in 2009 under the leadership of Philip Goode, NJIT distinguished professor of physics and at the time director of the university’s Center for Solar-Terrestrial Research. The telescope is equipped with adaptive optics that include a deformable mirror to compensate for the atmospheric distortion of images in real time. Images are captured with very fast cameras in 15-second “bursts” of 100 images, and then processed using a speckle reconstruction technique to improve sharpness.

The imaging and data-acquisition systems were developed by the BBSO engineering team led by Wenda Cao, NJIT associate professor of physics and the observatory’s associate director. The data recorded is unique in that it comprises a long, uninterrupted series that allows researchers to look at a sunspot’s life cycle and activity with unprecedented spatial resolution. Previously, only short series or snapshots with such resolution were available.

The sunspot data shared at the AAS meeting was obtained on September 29, 2013. The solar surface, the photosphere, was imaged using a red-light filter in the range of molecular TiO lines, to achieve the best contrast in the sunspot’s umbra. Simultaneously, scanning the hydrogen H-alpha spectral line facilitated imaging at five different wavelengths. The H-alpha data yielded images of plasma flows at various layers in the solar atmosphere, enabling the NJIT researchers to obtain a dynamic 3D view of the sunspot. The BBSO data was compared with UV images of the high and hot atmosphere obtained by NASA’s IRIS satellite for the same region. This joint observing program allows investigation of the origins of solar UV radiation.

The data as presented in the high-definition video shown at the meeting reveals small-scale activity of a generally “quiet” sunspot in unprecedented detail. Remarkably, the organization of small-scale substructures is comparable to that seen at larger scales, indicating the existence of large-scale dynamics which control the formation and stability of sunspots. In particular, the TiO images provide the first detailed view of the darkest regions of sunspots, revealing rapidly rotating convective rolls in the penumbra and similarly rotating relatively bright “umbral dots.” The umbral dots form an evolving pattern clearly linked to the outer penumbra structure. Such evolution provides evidence for large-scale flows that probably play a key role in the self-organization and stability of sunspots.

The most prominent features in the Sun’s chromosphere are periodic pulses — shocks generated by sunspots at intervals of about three minutes. The shocks, which travel into the high solar atmosphere with a speed of about 45,000 miles per hour, are observed by the IRIS spacecraft as UV flashes above the sunspot. The sunspot’s umbra is covered by ubiquitous eruptions — plasma jets that may contribute to the shocks detected.

The most significant UV emissions and violent motion are observed above the area where the penumbra intrudes into the umbra, the so-called “light bridge.” It is likely that this effect is related to anomalies in the sunspot’s magnetic topology, and requires further investigation. Some of the most dramatic events are high-speed plasma jets originating from the penumbra, as well as the apparent chromospheric accretion of dense plasma sheets into the sunspot. The origin of the accretion flows is another puzzle.

Looking ahead, the NJIT researchers plan to use quantitative diagnostics to study plasma and magnetic-field properties through analysis of polarized solar light, and to integrate realistic numerical simulations performed on supercomputer systems into their work. Comparable simulations at the NASA Ames Research Center have revealed a magnetic self-organization process that caused a compact “mini-spot” magnetic structure to form through the interaction of vortex tubes below the visible solar surface.

###

Funding for this research has been provided by AFORS, NASA, NSF and NJIT.

For more information, including images and video, visit http://bbso.njit.edu.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DD More
June 4, 2014 8:16 am

The most significant UV emissions and violent motion are observed above the area where the penumbra intrudes into the umbra, the so-called “light bridge.” It is likely that this effect is related to anomalies in the sunspot’s magnetic topology, and requires further investigation. Some of the most dramatic events are high-speed plasma jets originating from the penumbra, as well as the apparent chromospheric accretion of dense plasma sheets into the sunspot. The origin of the accretion flows is another puzzle.
So UV emissions are significant around the spots => more spots, more UV => less spots, less UV.
Why is the origin of the accretion flow a puzzle? Why does not the current model tell them?

Matt
June 4, 2014 8:22 am

Check this amazing flare out, it goes on forever…

Alex E
June 4, 2014 8:22 am

The standard solar model is derived from fundamental physical processes and is amply verified by observations [helioseismology, neutrino flux, etc].

It does not agree with neutrino flux. The flux is half what was predicted. In order to get around that, physicists have assumed that neutrinos change their flavor without testing the flux closer to the sun.

Jim G
June 4, 2014 8:30 am

Anything in this new information that leads you to any new or different thoughts or concepts regarding structure or dynnamics of our Sun?
Jim G

June 4, 2014 8:37 am

Alex E says:
June 4, 2014 at 8:22 am
It does not agree with neutrino flux. The flux is half what was predicted.
Your ‘info’ is outdated. The reason for the discrepancy is that the old detector was no sensitive to all ‘flavors’ of neutrinos. New detectors are and they measured precisely what is predicted.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/solar_neutrino.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/knight_institute/publicationsprizes/discoveries/discoveriesfall1997/10elizabethbarrett.pdf

Jim G
June 4, 2014 8:43 am

lsvalgaard says:
Forgot to address this question to you. Anything in this new information that leads you to any new or different thoughts or concepts regarding structure or dynnamics of our Sun?
Jim G

mpainter
June 4, 2014 9:10 am

Leif says:
“Explaining the data is the gold standard by which any model must be judged”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well put. I never cease to be surprised when I encounter a “scientist” who does not grasp this essential principle. But there are lots of this kind.

June 4, 2014 9:12 am

The surface of the sun has 27X the gravity as on Earth and a highly ionic liquid is more akin to melted glass than an type of roiling ocean, so I’m not surprised a falling flare doesn’t create a big splash like it would on our small planet ocean.
In climate model skepticism we’re whistleblowers helping expose bias and fraud, but claiming other fields are just as corrupted is not a winning strategy for doing that since it makes us come off as mere mavericks rather than serious critiques.
I’m delighted Leif has stated such a strong opinion here, as the notorious iron sun maverick himself who was properly banned here is now the regular early bird each day on Steve Goddard’s blog, lamentably.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

norah4you
June 4, 2014 12:20 pm

comment to NikfromNYC 9.12
You missed the points – there are hugh differences in quality of papers presented by Leif and those by all so could scholars who study carbon chemistry no matter if in Columbia/Harvard or elsewhere:
Two things Leif acknowledge are that good skills in Theories of Science is needed as well as trying to find ALL factors that’s needed for a model to be sound to use.
The CO2 papers, studies and so on presented the last 30 years all lack almost all of the factors involved in the complexity to build a sound computer model for a thesis to be possible to hold water. As most all figures and premisses needing to be true at the same time for each part of the “proof” of a Thesis be presented and possible to duplicate in order to reach same result.
Leif might be right or wrong in his papers and statements. That’s not the point. The point is that he contrary to CO-2 alarmist acknowledge what’s needed for a scholar to be true to science he or she study – you can’t correct figures nor can you use circle proofs nor is you adviced to use Fallacies in your argumentation. That’s the problem every CO2-alarmist paper, study etc have had. thus the models doesn¨t hold water.

Luther Bl't
June 4, 2014 12:54 pm

lsvalgaard says:
June 3, 2014 at 8:29 pm
The current emphasis is …
———
A slip of the fingers – you didn’t of course mean ‘electric currents’ did you 🙂

June 4, 2014 1:54 pm

norah4you: For me “the issue” is signal versus noise in a culture war, and this thread is mostly the type of noise that helps activists successfully stereotype skeptics as being dilettantes unworthy of even being heard. The nature of the sun, a lot like the nature of protein folding or the structure of nanotubes is basic everyday hard science done by people very much divorced from the climate debate, except that is on the skeptical side where now every attention grubbing crackpot smart enough to spot the climate scam have jumped on board.

Alex E
June 4, 2014 5:05 pm

Your ‘info’ is outdated. The reason for the discrepancy is that the old detector was no sensitive to all ‘flavors’ of neutrinos. New detectors are and they measured precisely what is predicted.

no I’m aware of that data. Here is my point. Physicists have latched on to the idea that the missing neutrinos have changed into mu and tau flavors, but they have done so without verifying the neutrino flux anywhere else in the solar system. They assume the sun doesn’t produce mu and tau neutrinos, do not test this hypothesis, then claim the mu & tau neutrinos they detect are the source the discrepancy. If the electron neutrinos can oscillate into the other varieties, the other varieties can oscillate into electron neutrinos. The sun could be making mu and tau neutrinos which are oscillating into electron neutrinos.
They have fundamentally skipped a step. If oscillation is now a given fact, it must be proven that the sun does not produce mu & tau flavored neutrinos.

Pamela Gray
June 4, 2014 7:15 pm

Alex, your post and this hot drought is making me thirsty for Hawaiian frozen drinks. If they haven’t named a drink “Mu” or “Tau”, they should.

June 4, 2014 7:18 pm

Alex E says:
June 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Physicists have latched on to the idea that the missing neutrinos have changed into mu and tau flavors, but they have done so without verifying the neutrino flux anywhere else in the solar system…. it must be proven that the sun does not produce mu & tau flavored neutrinos
The nuclear reactions in the sun [which we can replicate in the laboratory] only produce electron neutrinos, so no assumptions here. We can also produce electron neutrinos in nuclear reactors on the Earth and shoot them to the detectors hundreds of kilometers away and directly observe now the neutrinos change flavor. Everything checks out as it should and there is no mystery, but instead an impressive confirmation of the standard solar model. Which other one(s) of the proposed alternative models produces neutrinos that fits the observations?

June 4, 2014 7:47 pm

Alex E says:
June 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Physicists have latched on to the idea that the missing neutrinos have changed into mu and tau flavors, but they have done so without verifying the neutrino flux anywhere else in the solar system
To educate yourself you should study http://www.leif.org/EOS/Neutrinos-Dummies.pdf and
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf [for a more recent paper].

June 5, 2014 4:37 am

Here is how a beam of neutrinos is made, shot right through concrete and beyond, with no way to steer them except by steering the original beam of protons:
http://youtu.be/U_xWDWKq1CM